PFBC Biologist Report, SW PA

[salvelinusfontinalis]

http://www.outdoorrecreationdata.com/Stats/PA_wildtrout_05.pdf

By combining catch rate and fishing pressure estimates, the total numbers of trout caught, released and harvested were computed. An estimated total of 343,240 trout were caught from all streams. The total catch estimate included streams where harvest was allowed and where catch-and-release regulations applied. The estimated total catch was composed of 69% brook trout (236,461 trout), 25% brown trout (86,115 trout) and 6% rainbow trout (20,664 trout). An estimated total of 318,347 trout were released. By species, an estimated 217,165 brook trout, 82,958 brown trout and 18,224 rainbow trout were released. Approximately 93% of trout caught were subsequently released on large streams. The release rate was similar on small streams, 92%. An estimated total of 24,894 trout were harvested from all documented wild trout streams. The harvest estimate was composed of 19,297 brook trout, 3,157 brown trout and 2,440 rainbow trout (Table 5).

Thought it was already established that harvest has little effect

And again in the same 2004 survey

Based on the results from this survey, anglers released the majority of the brook trout caught on both large and small streams. Harvest rates for brook trout were low and ranged from 0.03/hr on large streams to 0.16/hr on small streams. Based on these harvest rates, one brook trout was harvested for every 33.3 hours fished on a large stream and one brook trout was harvested for every 6.25 hours fished on a small stream.

IMO 10 years of a wasted study

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

On a broad basis, the study suggests that special regulations will have little or no impact on most wild trout populations in Pennsylvania. However, it may be appropriate to use special regulations on an individual water basis where much higher rates than the average statewide rates of angler use and exploitation could exist.

Oh yeah forgot the clincher

 

[sarce]

How do you know that angler harvest actually WAS eliminated? Just because that was the new regulation, does not mean it was followed.

With that said, I agree that other factors are much more important than harvest to brook trout populations in freestone streams.

 

[Mike]

Thus, one of the reasons for "controls". If you are a student or have access to Pattee Library, then you can review the paper, as I have provided the reference above. A control is the absence of the treatment effect.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Just download the rubbish here

http://www.coopunits.org/Pennsylvania/People/Tyler_Wagner/Publications/

 

[Fishidiot]

Speaking as one of the many readers of this forum who would like to see a reduction of angler harvest on wild trout, I too am a bit skeptical that the WBE regulations really can shine conclusive light on C&R and small stream ST population dynamics.

Nevertheless, I think experiments such as this are generally a good thing and similar efforts should be expanded. Panfish Enhancement regs on some bodies of water, for example, have proven beneficial to population dynamics. Of course, comparing small mountain stream STs to lakes with panfish is certainly apples to oranges....but at least efforts are underway to study such dynamics. The outcomes may not always reflect what we would predict (or wish), but they are beneficial. Further special reg studies would provide a bigger sample and perhaps allow for firmer conclusions.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I will say the efforts to survey waters should be applauded. The findings in the op report are phenomenal. Which reminds me to report a Brookie stream in Lebanon county I found last week.

 

[troutbert]

Camp Run was placed under the Brookie Enhancement regs in 2005, as noted in the report.

What the report does not mention is that Camp Run was put under special regs, all tackle selective harvest, in 1999. These regs had a 9 inch minimum size for brookies.

Whether that made any difference or not I don't know. But it should have been mentioned. Most readers would assume that the comparison was made between general regs and the Brookie Enhancement regs.

That was the case with most (all?) of the other Brookie Enhancement regs streams. But not in the case of Camp Run.

 

[Mike]

What it all boils down to now is a case of likes vs needs. Some might like to see a reduced creel limit for example, but it is not needed for the statewide program and for the vast majority of the streams in the state to maintain the quality of their brook trout fisheries and populations. You can't get much lower than a zero creel limit. Sure there may be an exception that exists somewhere and when it is found perhaps the respective AFM will see a need for special regs in that specific case, but the 2004 statewide angler use and harvest study of wild trout streams and now this completed peer reviewed scientific study of the impact of the ST regs both indicate that from a statewide perspective angler use and harvest are low on the freestone wild ST streams that are not also stocked. The C&R regs are overly and unnecessarily restrictive and a 5 fish creel limit, 7 inch size limit are fine; they have the same population impact as the C&R reg as seen in the comparison with the control waters, which were under statewide regs.

 

[troutbert]

Brookie streams are definitely effected by harvest. Anyone who has fished a lot of them knows that. The larger brookies are cropped off on the streams that are "getting hit." And there are still many larger brookies in the places that aren't getting hammered.

The question is really whether or not any management changes can protect the ones that are currently cropped hard, so that their populations improve to resemble the ones that are not currently hit hard.

If it's true that the C&R regs had no effect, it means that people are still cropping the fish off, i.e. they are poaching, or there is an increase in angler mortality from repeated C&R of fish.

It's not just a matter of randomness of populations bouncing up and down from flood and drought vs good water years.

Because of the differences you see in brookie populations between places that are getting hit hard vs those that are not. This is not so much a biomass thing, but of the presence of larger fish, i.e. brookies 8 inches and larger.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

What's ridiculous is the entire "statewide" term being thrown around.
Harvest on Brookie streams changes year to year and stream to stream but let's blanket term things again and again. Dwight you got it right and I've seen it.

Even more ridiculous is the 2004 angler survey of low usage and harvest to compare "statewide" regulations. I can accept the fact usage and harvest can be low on unstocked watersheds year to year or some years. I can tell you that is not so on wild trout streams that are also stocked. This "study" essentially proved that c&r regs are just about as good as no harvest, because of low angler usage and catch and release. Well no duh! It took this long to figure that out? Of course not, this study had another purpose.

Here's a study
I dare the PFBC to try:

The 2004 study indicated that anglers spent 19-24 hours per mile fishing small streams. So let's pick 10 streams, 5 under current wbtep and 5 under general regs. Let's make the similar in length. I will spend 20 hours on each mile and harvest my limit of legal size wild brook trout. If I get it in the first hour, I get to come back another day until I have fished 20 hours on each mile. Then let's survey all streams and see what the population make up is.
What do you think the results would be. According to their study it should be the same. Except...

Their study was deceiving to say the least.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

So basically they are saying c&r is overly restrictive and unnecessary because the populations in all streams in the study are similar. Yet c&r is happening in both streams. On one hand they are saying general regs don't hurt(harvest). And the other hand is saying anglers catch and release. So how do we know harvest has no affect?

Sweet Jesus comparing apples to apples (c&r) to say oranges are good (harvest).

 

[sarce]

You could make it more interesting- you have to harvest on the WBTEP streams without getting caught. If you are caught, then you cannot fish the remaining ones. See if the law really would be able to enforce the stated regs.

I should probably clarify I'm not advocating breaking the law, just playing along with Sal's hypothetical experiment. My point is that on a small, "unknown" freestone brookie stream, regs would have zero effect on someone wanting to keep however many trout of whatever size they want, because enforcement in these places is almost nonexistent.

 

[Mike]

Dwight,
Review the paper(or review it again if you already did so once) to see that it addresses your concern, at least to some extent. It did not deal with biomass; it dealt with the abundance of adult and large fish. Also, it accommodated the access concern by looking at the response of streams that were close to roads and those without road access. The regs did not make a difference on streams that were close to roads.


Additionally, it is not a case where poaching must be a factor.
Natural mortality is high in Pa free stoners. I can not stress enough how much anglers in general, regardless of species, coldwater or warmwater, so greatly overlook this very important factor in fish population dynamics.

 

[greenghost]

CAMP RUN ASSESSMENT FROM PERSONAL EXPERIENCE: I used to fish Camp Run before it was "advertised" as a wild brook stream often. This was back in the 80s and 90s. The fishing in terms of numbers caught was always consistent, though the average size of the fish seemed to fluctuate year to year. I could always rely on the stream for fun catching "sparklies" -- as my daughter used to call brookies back when she fished with me.

After WBTE was established, I noticed a decline in the numbers and quality of trout I caught. It wasn't simply my judgment either it was real. In fact, I haven't gone there in the last couple of years. It simply depresses me. And though others say it is still not fished that much, I disagree. There a have been a few times I have seen other anglers (plural) on this tiny stream. Granted this spouting assessment has been based on personal and anecdotal experience.... UNTIL NOW.

After looking at the table, it is confirmed. Overall, biomass and legal trout have dropped steadily since 2005, when WBTE was established on Camp Run. Coincidence? I highly doubt it. Not sure why it's happening but it is.

 

[pcray1231]

The way I see it is this:

The PFBC study is fine, but the PFBC way of thinking about streams treats anglers as groups and taking overall averages of amount of harvest. If you do that, the harvest on small streams is small enough that it's effect gets vastly overwhelmed by natural variations. But us anglers are recounting individual circumstances that we remember.

Small streams are not like big streams, and the differences between the "average" and the specific are much more pronounced. You can't assume a stream corresponds to the statewide average situation. Because the exceptions to the average have a much greater impact on a smaller % of the studied water.

1 angler is enough to put some serious harm on the population of larger fish in a single stream, in only 1 or 2 outings. Look at this study. Camp Run has 6 or 7 legal brook trout per kilometer. ONE fisherman, on ONE day, could very easily cut this number in half. If he set up a tent and did the same the next day, he might cut it in half again. And it is not at all unreasonable to think that a decent fisherman is capable of catching half the dominant fish in a stream in a day.

The majority of streams lack this one fisherman. Hence the PFBC isn't wrong that overall, angler harvest is not a major issue on small streams. Lets say that angler took 5 fish total. That's 5/7, or 71% of the legal trout in that stream. But in a set of 20 nearby streams, he only fished one, and nobody kept a single fish in any of the others. So taken as a whole, well, this 1 guy only harvested 5/140 fish, or 3.5%. Taken as an average 3.5% gets lost in natural swings. Looked at from on high, only 1/20 streams had any effect at all.

But if you fish later in that season on the stream the 1 guy fished, you notice less big fish. You see tire tracks. Maybe a campfire. Perhaps even some brookie remains. And you correctly conclude that harvest put a hurting on it, and go and complain to the PFBC that this stream now needs special regs.

When you deal with small streams.

1. Angler harvest does not affect overall large brookie populations in small streams.
2. Angler harvest absolutely does decimate the large brookie population in small streams.

ARE SIMULTANEOUSLY CORRECT.

I don't have the answer from a reg standpoint. Merely showing how two seemingly different conclusions between the PFBC and anglers aren't really at odds with one another.

 

[shortrod2]

pcray1231 wrote:
I don't have the answer from a reg standpoint. Merely showing how two seemingly different conclusions between the PFBC and anglers aren't really at odds with one another.

I don't have the answer either. For the record my experience mirrors that of greenghost, including the depression.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

sarce wrote:
You could make it more interesting- you have to harvest on the WBTEP streams without getting caught. If you are caught, then you cannot fish the remaining ones. See if the law really would be able to enforce the stated regs.

I should probably clarify I'm not advocating breaking the law, just playing along with Sal's hypothetical experiment. My point is that on a small, "unknown" freestone brookie stream, regs would have zero effect on someone wanting to keep however many trout of whatever size they want, because enforcement in these places is almost nonexistent.

The amount of remote stream miles on these streams, I woudl bet he got through all 5 streams.

 

[k-bob]

abstract of study:

North American Journal of Fisheries Management
Volume 34, Issue 1, 2014

Evaluation of Catch-and-Release Regulations on Brook Trout in Pennsylvania Streams

Jason Detara, David Kristinea, Tyler Wagnerb & Tom Greenea

"In 2004, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission implemented catch-and-release (CR) regulations on headwater stream systems to determine if eliminating angler harvest would result in an increase in the number of adult (?100 mm) or large (?175 mm) Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis. Under the CR regulations, angling was permitted on a year-round basis, no Brook Trout could be harvested at any time, and there were no tackle restrictions. A before-after–control-impact design was used to evaluate the experimental regulations. Brook Trout populations were monitored in 16 treatment (CR regulations) and 7 control streams (statewide regulations) using backpack electrofishing gear periodically for up to 15 years (from 1990 to 2003 or 2004) before the implementation of the CR regulations and over a 7–8-year period (from 2004 or 2005 to 2011) after implementation. We used Poisson mixed models to evaluate whether electrofishing catch per effort (CPE; catch/100 m2) of adult (?100 mm) or large (?175 mm) Brook Trout increased in treatment streams as a result of implementing CR regulations. Brook Trout CPE varied among sites and among years, and there was no significant effect (increase or decrease) of CR regulations on the CPE of adult or large Brook Trout. Results of our evaluation suggest that CR regulations were not effective at improving the CPE of adult or large Brook Trout in Pennsylvania streams. Low angler use, high voluntary catch and release, and slow growth rates in infertile headwater streams are likely the primary reasons for the lack of response."

 

[DaveS]

My observations are the same as greenghost and Shortrod2. Camp Run is someplace I used to fish