PFBC Class A Wild Trout Waters

[sarce]

I'm not necessarily opposed to such a reg but I wonder how it would possibly get enforced with the large number of class A's in some parts of the state. Salmonoid also brought up a good point about the class B's. If harvest is made illegal on class As, would those people who harvest just go to class B's, which are even less able to support harvest?

I'm inclined to think behavior of anglers would not change much unless enforcement is strong, and I don't see how that's feasible when the officers already have to watch all the stocked streams.

 

[silverfox]

sarce wrote:
I'm not necessarily opposed to such a reg but I wonder how it would possibly get enforced with the large number of class A's in some parts of the state. Salmonoid also brought up a good point about the class B's. If harvest is made illegal on class As, would those people who harvest just go to class B's, which are even less able to support harvest?

I'm inclined to think behavior of anglers would not change much unless enforcement is strong, and I don't see how that's feasible when the officers already have to watch all the stocked streams.

I've said before that I think these regs carry more weight in the message they send than they likely do for any actual management/biomass goals. It sends a message that the fish and the waters are important. Or more important than other fish and waters.

I agree on the Class B (and lower) issue. That's one reason I really wish regs could be done at the species level. To me, there's a sentiment of abandonment on these lower biomass streams. If it ain't Class A, it ain't worth worrying about. Stock over them, don't give them any protections, and just let them go.

 

[Zak]

Now it's artificial lure's only catch and release?? How about we close the season down after June 1st also LOL.

 

[troutbert]

Class A waters are only about 10% of the trout stream mileage.

If the goal is to protect wild trout populations, the solution will need to be more inclusive, more wide-spread.

 

[troutbert]

The first priority for fisheries management in PA should be ending stocking over native brook trout.

Maybe that's changing the topic a little bit.

But, do first things first.

 

[LetortAngler]

I actually would support closing certain streams during prime spawning times from Oct 30th to Jan 15th at their headwaters. Big S, Tort, upper Spring, mainly our larger high quality limestones to give the few larger fish a chance to move in uninterrupted during the spawn.

 

[moon1284]

Zak wrote:
Now it's artificial lure's only catch and release?? How about we close the season down after June 1st also LOL.

No but October through February would be a good idea.

 

[Zak]

We've had that discussion here many times and there isn't a shred of scientific evidence to support a regulation like closing streams during the spawn. More rules to make us feel good but not actually accomplish anything real. That's where Im coming from in all this. Why make rules that exclude certain fishing options yet amount to zero fishery impact. We need less of that, not more.

 

[keirns4]

Just fished a small Class A recently (not going to post pictures, directions, name of stream like others do) and found 3 dead wild browns (under 8 inches) all gut hooked with the hook and worm hanging out of their mouths, all laying dead in the stream within 20 yards of each other. Also received a picture from the landowner of same stream last year of 3 dead wild browns, all over 14 inches laying dead on the bank. I'm sorry, don't tell me a stream can't be damaged by fishing bait. These streams need to be protected, the white truck isn't showing up to replenish these fish.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

I'm just glad Mike Kaufmann posts on here. He's the voice of reason.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

keirns4 wrote:
Just fished a small Class A recently (not going to post pictures, directions, name of stream like others do) and found 3 dead wild browns (under 8 inches) all gut hooked with the hook and worm hanging out of their mouths, all laying dead in the stream within 20 yards of each other. Also received a picture from the landowner of same stream last year of 3 dead wild browns, all over 14 inches laying dead on the bank. I'm sorry, don't tell me a stream can't be damaged by fishing bait. These streams need to be protected, the white truck isn't showing up to replenish these fish.

How can trout be gut-hooked when you can see the hook hanging out of their mouths?

 

[PennKev]

FishTales wrote:
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.

it is a no-brainer. Low harvest + no need for further restrictive regulation.

adding a No Harvest regulation will certainly protect some trout. Especially the trophy wild trout that do get harvested.

Closing fishing for the entire year on Class A wild trout waters would protect them also. What's the stopping point on fishing restrictions for wild trout?

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

And lets start by the helping the wild populations in streams that aren't our "best of the best." Start identifying streams that may actually benefit from a stop to harvest and then we can have a real discussion.

Any restrictive regulations should focus on solving a problem. I do not see how this C&R proposal would solve a problem unless you consider ANY AND ALL harvest of wild trout or bait fishing to be inherently bad and problematic.

 

[Oregon_OwlII]

If the streams are Class A under current harvest regulations, why is there need for more regulation. And if the scenario of a bait fisherman doing serious damage to a stream, then why don't we see more streams dropping out of Class A due to over-harvest. I think these catch and release sentiments are in the right place, but if you truly want to protect and enhance, perhaps the better initiative is to get more landowners on board with stream stewardship. There are still many streams where silt, erosion, and warming compromise or eliminate entire trout populations.

 

[silverfox]

Oregon_OwlII wrote:
If the streams are Class A under current harvest regulations, why is there need for more regulation.

Class A carries no angling regulations other than that they become C&R in the extended season. So they're open for harvest during the time of year when most people are out harvesting fish

Oregon_OwlII wrote:
And if the scenario of a bait fisherman doing serious damage to a stream, then why don't we see more streams dropping out of Class A due to over-harvest.

Part of the problem here is the PFBC isn't actively monitoring populations to know whether this is happening or not. There are too many miles of water to survey on an ongoing basis. Not all Class A's are created equal. A small Class A in south-central PA isn't the same as a small class A in the middle of Hammersley.

As a side note, I just saw a photo on Facebook the other day of a guy standing over a frying pan full of about a dozen wild native brook trout. What impact did that one harvest have on the population? How often does a harvest like that happen? Can that specific stream handle multiple harvests like that? Based on the fish size in that photo, it will take about 4 years to replace those fish. Was it in a high-use area? Should there be more C&R within state parks where there is easy access to Class A's? Especially brook trout Class A's?

Oregon_OwlII wrote:
I think these catch and release sentiments are in the right place, but if you truly want to protect and enhance, perhaps the better initiative is to get more landowners on board with stream stewardship. There are still many streams where silt, erosion, and warming compromise or eliminate entire trout populations.

There's so much that should be done. We should be focusing on moving Class B's and lower up the ladder. Identify what is causing the lower biomass and work to correct it. We shouldn't be stocking over any populations of wild native brook trout. What is the impact of harvesting a few fish on a robust high-density class A vs harvesting a few fish on a struggling class C?

Again, there needs to be better data on what's happening on these streams. I'm sorry, but questioning 200 odd anglers over a few weeks from July to Sept a few decades ago and then suggesting that it's representative of the entire state is nonesense. The AFM's are stretched too thin. Add more of them and make it their mission to better understand the waters in their district and what's happening from a fish count standpoint.

All of this boils down to more money is needed for actual trout management vs hatchery fish rearing and stocking.

 

[jifigz]

Comparing wild trout harvest and impact to the ovefishing of the atlantic salmon populations or th pacific steelhead population is an absurd comparison. Blaming bait fishermen for so much damage on wild trout is also absurd. Yes, bait fishing can be harmful but so can EVERY type of fishing. Bait fishing is often the first type of fishing people learn to do. Everyone makes mistakes as a beginner, but we also need to all he beginners before we can be fanatics that care about conserving wild trout.

I can't speak for other parts of the state, but the majority of Class A's where I live see very little pressure and very little harvest. Most of the streams are small and most people think the trout are small. This doesn't provide much draw to common anglers.

What happens to my favorite stream, Kish? State that rainbows can be harvested but no wild browns? I mean, it's a sizable stream and the main focus of trout angling in my county. The browns are doing fine despite being stocked over and regular harvest regulations. But, what happens in these scenarios of class a sections being stocked??

 

[wildtrout2]

Maybe state wide?

 

[Baron]

Is there a scenario, perhaps in more urban areas where wild trout exist, where stocking actually helps to insulate and protect the wild trout? I'm thinking how, for the first few weeks, you see people fishing that you'll not see for another year. They're removing the stockies and going home. From the looks of their gear and their habits they don't appear to be the type that could deliberately catch wild trout, no offense intended.
Here in the Valley we have streams like Bushkill, Saucon and Martins that all support wild trout and are also heavily stocked. It makes me wonder.

 

[silverfox]

wildtrout2 wrote:
Maybe state wide?

Ideally. Yes!

Meanwhile in Maryland...

 

[jifigz]

Baron wrote:
Is there a scenario, perhaps in more urban areas where wild trout exist, where stocking actually helps to insulate and protect the wild trout? I'm thinking how, for the first few weeks, you see people fishing that you'll not see for another year. They're removing the stockies and going home. From the looks of their gear and their habits they don't appear to be the type that could deliberately catch wild trout, no offense intended.
Here in the Valley we have streams like Bushkill, Saucon and Martins that all support wild trout and are also heavily stocked. It makes me wonder.

Wild trout are not that much inherently harder to catch (if at all) and judging someone's appearance on whether they can catch them is kind of funny. I could take hip waders, a small spinning rod, and some worms, soft plastics, and spinners and hammer wild trout.

What I think you would find is, if the stream wasn't stocked, you wouldn't see lots of fisherman out there fishing the stream. So no, I don't think stocking helps buffer the wild trout..sure, it helps buffer the harvest of wild trout since there are so many stockies to take, but it bolsters fishing on that stream in a huge way.

 

[silverfox]

Last point on this and I'll settle down a bit.

Just a thought experiment. What happens in 50 years when/if brook trout are federally listed? Pa would then list them at the state level. If you curry favor to a species that has been scientifically proven to be injurious to a species that is now listed, there's no way to unscramble that egg.

I know a lot of people like wild brown trout. The question is, if you protect them, how does that work out down the road if the native species gets listed for federal/state protections? See AZ, CO etc. for what they're dealing with now with cutthroat. Just because we have a somewhat robust population of brook trout today doesn't mean that it will be that way forever. Especially if we increase the number of nonnative fish competing with them.

Blanchet, S., G. Grenouillet, O. Beauchard, P. A. Tedesco, F. Leprieur, H. H. Dürr, F. Busson, T. Oberdorff, and S. Brosse. 2010. Non-native species disrupt the worldwide patterns of freshwater fish body size: implications for Bergmanns rule. Ecology Letters 13:421-431.

Carlson, S. M., A. P. Hendry, and B. H. Letcher. 2007. Growth rate differences between resident native brook trout and non-native brown trout. Journal of Fish Biology 71:1430-1447.

DeWald, L., M. A. Wilzbach. 1992. Interactions between native brook trout and hatchery brown trout: effects of habitat use, feeding, and growth. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 121:287-296.

Fausch, K. D., and R. J. White. 1981. Competition between brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) and brown trout (Salmo trutta) for positions in a Michigan stream. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 38:1220-1227.

Halverson, M. A. 2008. Stocking trends: a quantitative review of governmental fish stocking in the United States, 1931 to 2004. Fisheries 33:69-75.

Hitt, N., E. Snook, and D. Massie. 2017. Brook trout use of thermal refugia and foraging habitat influenced by brown trout. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences 74:406-418.

McKenna, J. E., M. T. Slattery, and K. M. Clifford. 2013. Broad-scale patterns of brook trout responses to introduced brown trout in New York. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 33:1221-1235.

Tebo, L. B., and W. W. Hassler. 1963. Food of brook, brown, and rainbow trout from streams in Western North Carolina. Journal of the Elisha Mitchell Scientific Society 79:44-53.

Wagner, T., J. T. Deweber, J. Detar, and J. Sweka. 2013. Landscape?scale evaluation of asymmetric interactions between brown trout and brook trout using two?species occupancy models. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 142:353-361.

Waters, T. F. 1983. Replacement of brook trout by brown trout over 15 years in a Minnesota stream: production and abundance. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 112:137-146.

and on and on and on and on...