PFBC Class A Wild Trout Waters

[FishTales]

Anyone up for weighing in on a discussion about making all Class A Wild Trout Waters catch and release, artificial lures only? I would hope that this would certainly peak the interest of this group. At todays’s PFBC Board of Commissioners quarterly meeting, this exact proposal was offered as a motion by the Commissioner Hussar and seconded by Commissioner Charlesworth. After some intense discussion, the Board tabled the motion by a vote of 7 to 3. Commissioner Brock was the only other Commissioner in favor of the motion to not table. Considering that PFBC staff have found that very minimal harvest occurs on PA’s Wild trout streams, you would think this would be a no brainer. Nope. Not only does the Board lack the courage to move this forward, there wasn’t one clear comment in defense about why not.

I only wish that I had a Board that was wild trout centric to take action on a proposal to protect wild trout when I was Director. Although wild trout populations are controlled by Mother Nature (primarily floods and droughts) adding a No Harvest regulation will certainly protect some trout. Especially the trophy wild trout that do get harvested.

So it’s time for wild trout advocates to speak out and let the other Commissioners know your opinion. Procedurally you can write to the PFBC HQ at address at fishandboat.com and ask that your comments be supplied to all Commissioners. You may want to ask for a written reply to your questions.

It’s time to stand up for wild trout or forever hold your peace.

Tight Lines,

FT

 

[CRB]

I think catch and release no harvest on wild trout is a good idea. Look at what has happened on spring creek.
I would like to see more and no more stocking!

 

[Mike]

The no-brainer is that when there is minimal harvest there is no need for additional fishing-related regulations. If biologists find an individual stream population that exhibits a harvest problem, deal with it appropriately, but don’t over-regulate a statewide population that does not need it. Continue to follow the science. The commissioners got it right so far.

There is much more harvest pressure on other species in Pennsylvania and the impacts are greater, especially panfish, but if you want to take an important and effective step to enhance wild trout by reducing harvest, focus on eliminating stocking over Class B wild Brook Trout populations for starters.

 

[rrt]

1. Mike is pretty much on target with his response.

2. Idealistically, I'd vote yes -- but when this was proposed for a local stream many years ago, landowners wanted to know if their kids could fish with bait on their own properties if the rule was enacted. End of discussion. So, I think you need to watch what you are wishing for -- a rule like this could lose public access to various sections of streams.

3. For CRB -- Yes, look what happened on Spring Creek. As has been discussed on here often, the average size of the trout has dramatically decreased, probably because the excessive fishing pressure has resulted in the fish being handled so often that they die early as a result.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

I think a key part of this discussion should include a debate on c&r artificial lures only or c&r all tackle. Given the increase in documented Class A waters across the state this could potentially exclude a fairly large group of anglers from a growing number of stream miles across the state. When considering that many Class A sections are also on private property this proposed regulation could lead to additional postings.

While I primarily do practice catch and release and have probably only kept wild trout on single digit occurrences in my entire life, it is nice to have the option to harvest a trout while on a back pack camping trip or in the event you poorly hook a fish, even with your best intentions to not allow a fish to swallow your offerings. A popular large brown trout angler who fishes with spinners recently posted a long story on Facebook about a large wild brown he recently harvested due to hooking it in the gills and the fish losing a lot of blood during the fight. Regardless of our best intentions and efforts we are still hooking fish with a metal object and yanking them from their homes for sport. There is potential to cause harm, and if you can't accept that, perhaps fishing isn't the sport for you. In the event of a scenario where a fish is mortally injured in the catching process I see no issue with allowing an angler to keep said fish for consumption.

Perhaps instead of total c&r we could have a limit of 1 fish daily on Class A streams.

Another issue brought into focus by the proposed regulation is the stream section management approach. Many streams have multiple sections, some may even have multiple Class A sections separated by non Class A sections. These sections are often not posted as such and it can be difficult to keep up to date on stream classifications as PFBC is adding additional Class A stream sections each quarterly meeting and lists are not updated online immediately. Even so, online resources are not easily accessible in remote areas without cell reception. There have been days, especially when targeting brown trout after a rain event that I have fished 5+ streams in a single morning or evening. Without clear signage or up to date electronic info, it could be easy to fish a Class A unknowingly.

Another point of discussion: harvest of browns and/ or stocked fish in Class A sections. Many wild trout enthusiasts, including myself and others on this board have kept stocked trout when encountered in wild trout streams, I have heard others promote the idea of harvesting brown trout in brook trout streams. Stocked trout swim, and end up in places all over where they shouldn't be. This regulation would prevent selective harvest in those scenarios.

I fully support limiting harvest on these streams, but I am concerned about landowner issues and losing the ability to selectively harvest a fish in the event a fish is poorly hooked or otherwise injured when caught.

I apologize for presenting many scattered thoughts, but I am enjoying a cold beverage and this complex topic has lead to wandering thoughts on how this regulation could impact wild trout and other anglers alike. I have still to be convinced that angler harvest has a significant impact on our wild trout populations on a population scale. I get the intention, but perhaps we could first focus on known issues such as where we stock trout and stop stocking over significant brook trout populations.

 

[FishTales]

Spoken like a true former PFBC biologist Mike. You and I were usually on the same page but not in this case. This is not unnecessary regulation, it long overdue regulation. Take a look around the country and observe what other states are doing to protect their wild trout. Maryland recently extended protection to some of their wild trout streams through no harvest regulations. Why are Pennsylvania waters always “different”? Montana quit stocking WT streams with catchable trout decades ago.

IMHO the findings of the PFBC study of minimal harvest of wild trout may be more the result of small sample size of the universe of WT streams rather than actual limited harvest. Can you imagine the effort that would be necessary to do a study that would accurately measure (with appropriate CIs) harvest on ALL WT streams? A couple of average anglers can wipe out the legal brook trout in a small headwater stream in one day. Maybe biologists should follow the intention of physicians “Primum non nocere” before they make decisions.

FT

 

[FishTales]

Here’s a post from LinkedIn showing how Ontario is protecting smallmouth and largemouth bass in Zone 20. If you pose with a photo of a fish you are breaking the law. Now compare this regulation to the one we are discussing for wild trout. ????

 

[ryansheehan]

Mike I'm going to play devil's advocate here. A bait fisherman keeping his limit on a smaller class A stream a few days a week could do tremendous damage to a population of trout in a couple months. By the time the fish population was damaged it would be too late to deal with it appropriately. Secondly, how would the pfbc be made aware of these issues on every stream, doesn't seem possible.

That being said, I don't know where I stand on this one. I see both sides of the coin, especially when you bring up spring creek where I think a slot limit would help things out quite a bit(not to sidetrack). I have a tremendous amount of respect for both of you and this is a very interesting discussion from two guys with way more knowledge than me.

 

[Mike]

John,
Such a regulation would not be based on science. MD has a different circumstance, specifically a very much more limited wild trout resource. That’s a function of biogeography. Pa takes the same or similar position that MD takes on Brook Trout when biogeography or habitat limits the abundance of a species in Pa that is common in MD. Hickory shad are a good example. ...common in MD and not overly regulated, designated as an endangered species here.

Montana stopping stocking over wild trout is quite different than if they had applied a C&R reg statewide, which they didn’t. They manage specific waters with special regs when and where they are necessary, which is what I have said should be the practice here.

As for the Pa statewide wild trout angler use and harvest study, 200 stream sections was certainly a large enough sample size, especially since larger, more popular size waters were somewhat over-represented in comparison to a purely random sample. Despite this, harvest was low. While in theory a few anglers could clean out the legal Brook Trout in a stream in a few days, such a low density of trout would not likely attract the anglers needed to do that and there is no evidence that it occurs, especially given the low harvest in the larger sample of predominantly smaller streams that were in the statewide study. The revised plan suggests that the wild trout angler use and harvest study should be repeated. If done, I don’t think it should be repeated unless it builds upon results from the previous study. Otherwise, I doubt we would learn anything new.

As for protecting larger trout from harvest, that can be done with a maximum length limit if found to be necessary in a given water where overharvest is occurring.

Mike

 

[FishTales]

Mike,
When I came out of grad school I thought I was going to change the world with science. That didn’t last long. I fought coal miners, oil and gas developers and any other industries who were taking advantage of PA waters and fish for corporate profit. I worked to strengthen PA water pollution laws to protect fish. One of the things I quickly learned and kept Remington myself of throughout my career is that science doesn’t rule the world. This is a public policy decision which is driven by the wants and will of the anglers. Remember the definition of fisheries includes fish and people.

BTW I’d like to see the CIs of that study since 200 stream sections randomly sampled couldn’t accurately estimate the angler use and harvest of all WT streams let alone describe the variability. I know several anglers who brag about harvesting several limits of brook trout every year from various streams that I know can’t sustain that level of harvest. One angler used to work for the agency.
Good night. The debate will continue but glad to see it is now in a public forum.

 

[timmyt2]

They are doing the VERY opposite it seems:

https://www.post-gazette.com/life/outdoors/2021/04/12/trout-fishing-pennsylvania-fish-boat-commission-wild-stocked/stories/202104090160

 

[wgmiller]

I'm of the opinion that the state's best waters (Class A, EV, etc.) should be protected from fish harvest and allowed to their own devices. And that does include stocking over wild fish populations, particularly in Class A waters. As pointed out above, there are ramifications to this, particularly with landowners. In my short time seeking out and fishing Class A waters (at least in my part of the state), I've discovered that many of them are on posted land anyway. So access in those instances would be by "permission only". Obviously brookie streams on SGLs and other open areas are a different story.

Stock the heck out of marginal and poor quality waters and manage them for the attraction they are - a several week springtime attraction for most.

 

[Zak]

100% CnR guy here.......There is no sense in adding regulations to a situation that doesn't warrant it. I fish class A wild trout streams almost exclusively and rarely ever see a fish on a creel. In fact I rarely ever see another fisherman at all. Of course I'm fishing out of the way lesser known locations but that's what most class A wild trout streams are. Adding regulations to them is pointless and in fact a little harvest is beneficial to all of these streams. There is no reason why a class A wild trout stream can't support a percentage of harvest on an annual basis without skipping a beat. The theory that people talk about where a guy comes and cleans out a stream just isn't realistic. I've never even heard of a bona fide situation like that although people like to give those scare tactic stories every now and again as possible rational. Let's add laws to prevent a situation that is almost never gonna happen....... It's an example that doesn't actually exist. Class A wild trout streams have substantial populations of fish that can easily support harvest on an annual basis while maintaining excellent quality of fishing experience. There is no need to over regulate these areas. Just leave well enough alone. We have enough laws and regulations. Adding C&R to class As will only make some people feel good about themselves. That will be the extent of the benefit.

 

[BradFromPotter]

Zak wrote:
100% CnR guy here.......There is no sense in adding regulations to a situation that doesn't warrant it. I fish class A wild trout streams almost exclusively and rarely ever see a fish on a creel. In fact I rarely ever see another fisherman at all. Of course I'm fishing out of the way lesser known locations but that's what most class A wild trout streams are. Adding regulations to them is pointless and in fact a little harvest is beneficial to all of these streams. There is no reason why a class A wild trout stream can't support a percentage of harvest on an annual basis without skipping a beat. The theory that people talk about where a guy comes and cleans out a stream just isn't realistic. I've never even heard of a bona fide situation like that although people like to give those scare tactic stories every now and again as possible rational. Let's add laws to prevent a situation that is almost never gonna happen....... It's an example that doesn't actually exist. Class A wild trout streams have substantial populations of fish that can easily support harvest on an annual basis while maintaining excellent quality of fishing experience. There is no need to over regulate these areas. Just leave well enough alone. We have enough laws and regulations. Adding C&R to class As will only make some people feel good about themselves. That will be the extent of the benefit.

Agree.

 

[jifigz]

I'm actually against this and totally with Mike. Where I live (Mifflin County) the wild trout abound and basically no one keeps them. What I will say and have said before, however, is that I don't think I should be stopped from keeping one. Why? Because I like eating fish from time to time, wild trout tastes better than a stockie by far, and it's okay for me to eat fish straight from the ocean that's clearly being overfished but not take a wild brown once or twice a year. Makes no sense.

I would like to see an end to a lot of stocking. There is not a single stream in Mifflin County that needs stocked. Wild browns and brookies are literally everywhere. I was on one of my favorite small, local stream yesterday that IS stocked. I saw no other anglers, I didn't turn up any stockies, but I turned up lots of wild browns. And it isn't a Class A stream (but I bet it is, it just wasn't designated for some reason, probably so it wasn't another exception where the state kept stocking over a Class A.) Oh well, I can't complain too much, I've got it pretty good. But seriously, stop stocking over good populations of wild fish!!!!

 

[salmonoid]

While I would not support the creation of a brand-new regulation to cover no-harvest on Class A streams, applying an existing C&R designation to them would be a good thing. It would, at least on paper, prevent the guy from coming in and creeling his five fish a day (and if you don't think that doesn't happen periodically, think again). Poachers will still exist - no regulation will help that. It wouldn't prevent an angler who wanted to creel a wild fish from doing so on a non-Class A stream and there are plenty of Class-B or lower (or Class-A by biomass but overlooked, intentionally or otherwise, by survey data), where you could harvest all the wild trout you legally can. As a forum of members who are probably mostly C&R to begin with, you cannot extend your fish keeping mentality to the bulk of the angling public. Everyone posting and saying that they don't keep fish - you are not necessarily the majority of anglers.

I fished two Class A streams last week (well technically three, as the headwaters of the one STW I fished is also Class A and the next section down would be if not suppressed by the extreme amount of stocked fish dumped in). The first Class A was all brookies and I read one of the watershed analyses yesterday. One of the primary concerns of the landowners at the public comment meeting was potential overharvest. I note that because so often, when the concept of applying regulations to water is brought up, the counter point is that landowners will post their land. This group of landowners wasn't interested in people not fishing, but they were interested in preserving the resource (which is very refreshing). The second stream was a limestoner that flows into a much larger stream. It's clearly a coldwater refuge as the main stream warms up. I found at least a mile of open water from the mouth upstream, but there were boot tracks throughout. And I did see an angler fishing while I was walking out. It was not a remote stream and is close enough to areas of population that some protection would not be a bad thing.

 

[LetortAngler]

I admire the fact that you’d want C&R on all Class A waters, I’d be in full support. However, even amongst fly fishermen this proposal will be met with some distaste by some for various reasons, one likely reason is that it would protect “invasive” species like the brown. I know a few people in the “native only” crowd that enjoy harvesting and killing as many wild rainbows and browns as they legally can as they think it helps Brook trout populations . Other fly anglers enjoy harvesting only large wild trout as they think they are the river “monsters” while others simply enjoy harvesting a couple wild trout when camping, etc. Instead of making the all Class A stream C&R, I personally would like to see C&R just at the headwaters of every Class A where most of the spawning occurs, and where most Brook trout pops are found, just as a start. Either way, I’d support any and all forms of C&R on our wild trout species native or not.

 

[silverfox]

I can't commend Eric Hussar enough for what he did. Charlie was right too that this can just keeps getting kicked down the road and it needs to be seriously addressed. I agree with what Don said too about involving other orgs/NGO's and GA's. The bottom line is that I'm elated to see the commissioners stand up and propose something that staff is either unwilling or uninterested in doing.

That said, as a native fish fan, I can't say that I fully support a statewide C&RALO for ALL Class A's. I'm no brown trout fan, and I don't think we need to be enhancing their population any more than we already are. They're doing more than fine as it stands.

I do think there's some merit to the idea that harvest regs (ideally species-specific) could be implemented to get around that. However, given how reluctant PFBC is to even mention brook trout, I don't hold out much hope that anything would actually happen there.

In all of these issues though, I'd really like to see actual angler sentiment surveys. This is something MD pulled off and has the stats to back it up. Over 90% approval for statewide brook trout C&R regs backed by survey results.

I don't know how many times I've heard things like "oh, the public would never go for it" or "if we did that constituents would be burning down the legislator's homes". Really? Prove it. Where's the sentiment survey that backs those statements up? In this digital age, the idea that you can't query your customer base on something like this is absurd. If you can't figure it out, maybe ask MD DNR how they did it.

PFBC seems content on relying on a skewed streamside survey from two decades ago and a poorly designed and executed "wild brook trout enhancement project" to justify inaction.

 

[moon1284]

Definitely in favor of c&r alo for class As. It's a no brainer. Bait and wild trout do not mix. Harvest of wild trout in PA really doesn't make sense either. PA has a good thing going, protect the resource.

Take a look at Atlantic Salmon numbers in the maritimes and wild steelhead numbers in Washington state. The runs are a shell of what they were formerly and it's unlikely they will ever rebound. I don't think anyone wants that to happen to wild trout in PA.

In NB the last regs I am aware of say you can only c&r 4 salmon in a day. In Washington there are only a handful of rivers you can fish for native steelhead and when you do catch one you can't take it out of the water.

 

[Dave_W]

Great debate. . .