McSneek
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 12, 2011
- Messages
- 2,297
Despite your butchering of the English language I agree with you...I think.
Despite your butchering of the English language I agree with you...I think.
DaveKile
Administrator
Staff member
My letter mailed. Again I encourage you to get involved and make your voice heard.
NickR
Member
- Joined
- May 4, 2012
- Messages
- 701
I didn't have time to follow this thread closely but would like to offer some personal experience and opinion. If it was about the "KIDS" PFBC would do whatever it could to keep fish in the stream longer. I can just picture kids on their summer vacations riding their bikes to the local DHALO streams only to find them nearly completely cleaned out of fish. I am sure today as when I was a young kid these streams are picked pretty clean by the time kids go on summer vacation. This was my experience as a kid on many local southeastern, PA trout streams. Lost interest in those streams really quickly especially when I obtained a drivers license. I don't personally fish them at all at this point. No wonder license sales are dropping off and a decreasing number of kids find fishing interesting these days.
foxtrapper1972
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Messages
- 2,455
Reading NickR's post made me recall my own boys. All three of my sons started flyfishing on the DHALO section of the Tulpehocken.
Learning the skills took patience and more than one broken rod. I am pleased that they all finally "got it". Had the bait fishing option beem available they would likely have put the fly rods down and gone back to what they already knew; bait fishing. I remember one time in particular. It was later in the summer, well past the time we could have kept fish. The older boys were around 12 and 13 and caught some nice ones on ants and beetles and released them without giving it a second thought. That's when I knew they had really become flyfishermen.
Learning the skills took patience and more than one broken rod. I am pleased that they all finally "got it". Had the bait fishing option beem available they would likely have put the fly rods down and gone back to what they already knew; bait fishing. I remember one time in particular. It was later in the summer, well past the time we could have kept fish. The older boys were around 12 and 13 and caught some nice ones on ants and beetles and released them without giving it a second thought. That's when I knew they had really become flyfishermen.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
One aspect of allowing bait fishing on DHALO streams which will be particularly frustrating, is the loss of open water for “artificials” anglers.
It’s no secret that many in the Power Bait crowd park their a$$es in one spot all day. While that isn’t a big deal on many ATW’s, many of the DHALO streams have nice wadeable sections. How many of you have ever fished an ATW during the early season and spent half the day getting out and walking around the bank anglers with their lines across the stream?
It gets old fast...
Moreover, that doesn’t even take into consideration a stream where getting out of the water can be a challenge because of high banks or other problems. It is one of biggest reasons I don’t bother with ATW’s until after Memorial Day.
It is also no surprise that most “artificials” anglers move up and down stream so that spot you want will eventually become available or you can even share it. However, walking over a line with a blob of bait sitting on the bottom of a nice hole isn’t going to work. It never has and never will and the loser will be the guy fishing lures or flies, every time unless you want to get into a fistfight every time you fish.
It’s not that I mind sharing the resource, but in more than a few ATW creeks, it is almost impossible in the beginning of the season to wade around bank anglers and it’s impossible to fish from the bank with a fly rod at many places on the same creek where there doesn’t happen to be someone drowning worms. We will essentially be LOSING access to places we are fishing now. Think about it…
I often fish the DHALO section of the McMichael’s Creek in the early season when the Little Black Stoneflies are coming off. I can’t even imagine that stream section being worth going to with the added pressure of dad, mom & the kids hogging the best holes all day. Not to mention the additional pressure from out of state and the weekend warriors. Unfortunately, a lot of the best "holes" on that section of the McMichael's are PERFECT for bait fishing from the bank.
The same goes for Mud Run with its limited access and the Tobyhanna. I doubt I will bother going to any of the DHALO's any more if this happens. Luckily I have lots of other choices but that’s not the case for all and I’m sure there are lots of lure or fly fishermen who love those sections and being able to move around.
Bottom line, the DHALO waters will become just another ATW that the lure & fly anglers will avoid because they are more crowded on the assumption that there are more fish available. IMHO the Fish Commission needs to come up with another idea or Special Regulation Section and leave the DHALO’s alone!!
It’s no secret that many in the Power Bait crowd park their a$$es in one spot all day. While that isn’t a big deal on many ATW’s, many of the DHALO streams have nice wadeable sections. How many of you have ever fished an ATW during the early season and spent half the day getting out and walking around the bank anglers with their lines across the stream?
It gets old fast...
Moreover, that doesn’t even take into consideration a stream where getting out of the water can be a challenge because of high banks or other problems. It is one of biggest reasons I don’t bother with ATW’s until after Memorial Day.
It is also no surprise that most “artificials” anglers move up and down stream so that spot you want will eventually become available or you can even share it. However, walking over a line with a blob of bait sitting on the bottom of a nice hole isn’t going to work. It never has and never will and the loser will be the guy fishing lures or flies, every time unless you want to get into a fistfight every time you fish.
It’s not that I mind sharing the resource, but in more than a few ATW creeks, it is almost impossible in the beginning of the season to wade around bank anglers and it’s impossible to fish from the bank with a fly rod at many places on the same creek where there doesn’t happen to be someone drowning worms. We will essentially be LOSING access to places we are fishing now. Think about it…
I often fish the DHALO section of the McMichael’s Creek in the early season when the Little Black Stoneflies are coming off. I can’t even imagine that stream section being worth going to with the added pressure of dad, mom & the kids hogging the best holes all day. Not to mention the additional pressure from out of state and the weekend warriors. Unfortunately, a lot of the best "holes" on that section of the McMichael's are PERFECT for bait fishing from the bank.
The same goes for Mud Run with its limited access and the Tobyhanna. I doubt I will bother going to any of the DHALO's any more if this happens. Luckily I have lots of other choices but that’s not the case for all and I’m sure there are lots of lure or fly fishermen who love those sections and being able to move around.
Bottom line, the DHALO waters will become just another ATW that the lure & fly anglers will avoid because they are more crowded on the assumption that there are more fish available. IMHO the Fish Commission needs to come up with another idea or Special Regulation Section and leave the DHALO’s alone!!
M
Mike
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 5,560
McSneek,
I would not have a problem at all with less fish, although a present objective of the program is to maintain high catch rates. I think that high catch rates could be maintained with less fish. In fact, one stream has shown me that repeatedly, as its classification calls for a lower stocking rate per acre.
Based on past experiences with other situations involving reduced allocations, closet stockie anglers would come out of the woodwork complaining about this before any cuts were even made and yet if it were just thrust upon them without an announcement they would most likely never even notice. I would expect that the identities of some of the opponents might surprise you and some would probably be anglers who typically profess to be wild trout anglers. My challenge to you would be to open the debate in another thread and then sit back and judge for yourself.
I would not have a problem at all with less fish, although a present objective of the program is to maintain high catch rates. I think that high catch rates could be maintained with less fish. In fact, one stream has shown me that repeatedly, as its classification calls for a lower stocking rate per acre.
Based on past experiences with other situations involving reduced allocations, closet stockie anglers would come out of the woodwork complaining about this before any cuts were even made and yet if it were just thrust upon them without an announcement they would most likely never even notice. I would expect that the identities of some of the opponents might surprise you and some would probably be anglers who typically profess to be wild trout anglers. My challenge to you would be to open the debate in another thread and then sit back and judge for yourself.
salvelinusfontinalis
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,284
DaveKile
Administrator
Staff member
Sal,
Thanks for sharing this. Also in the comments John Arway shared some thoughts at the end of the article.
"The reality is that there is recent evidence to show that mortality rates of trout caught with bait is around 5%. " - JA
and
"I admit that there is more work to be done in evaluating this concept and we welcome public comment on it before we make a staff recommendation to the Board in the fall." - JA
Which seems to suggest final ruling is not until the fall?
Thanks for sharing this. Also in the comments John Arway shared some thoughts at the end of the article.
"The reality is that there is recent evidence to show that mortality rates of trout caught with bait is around 5%. " - JA
and
"I admit that there is more work to be done in evaluating this concept and we welcome public comment on it before we make a staff recommendation to the Board in the fall." - JA
Which seems to suggest final ruling is not until the fall?
E
Eccles
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2008
- Messages
- 121
Good grief.
From Dave Wolf's article salvelinusfontinalis links to ....
"...mortality of fish caught using natural baits ranged from 32 to 64 percent (Schisler and Bergersen 1996; Stringer 1967; Shetter and Allison 1955)."
Similarly John Arway's comment that Dkile refers to ...
"The reality is that there is recent evidence to show that mortality rates of trout caught with bait is around 5%.
... are both disingenuous cherry picking of a literature in which many studies show a whole range of mortality rates on trout by both bait and fly fishermen.
The actual "reality" is that mortality when fishing bait is affected by some of the things fly fishers worry about (e.g. high water temperatures) but is mainly affected by how the bait is fished.
Look at Europe which has decades of catch and release fishing with bait and you'll find that mortality rates are very low. The tackle and bite detection used is very sensitive giving early warning of a taking fish whether the bait is actively fished or not - and anglers pay attention to their gear to try and ensure deep hooking doesn't occur.
In the US a similar culture doesn't exist. Bait fishing is generally for meat, tackle is incredibly crude and hooking techniques don't matter if the fish will soon be dead anyway. But promote active fishing styles for bait anglers and the C&R mortality rates will be similar to fly fishing.
Throwing the kind of cherry picked stats around simply shows how ill served we are by people who should be presenting considered points of view to inform us. Mortality from bait fishing in a C&R context is likely to be higher than fly fishing (or lure fishing) but not because bait fishing is inherently worse. It's simply because the bait fishing culture has a different background that doesn't promote C&R friendly techniques.
From Dave Wolf's article salvelinusfontinalis links to ....
"...mortality of fish caught using natural baits ranged from 32 to 64 percent (Schisler and Bergersen 1996; Stringer 1967; Shetter and Allison 1955)."
Similarly John Arway's comment that Dkile refers to ...
"The reality is that there is recent evidence to show that mortality rates of trout caught with bait is around 5%.
... are both disingenuous cherry picking of a literature in which many studies show a whole range of mortality rates on trout by both bait and fly fishermen.
The actual "reality" is that mortality when fishing bait is affected by some of the things fly fishers worry about (e.g. high water temperatures) but is mainly affected by how the bait is fished.
Look at Europe which has decades of catch and release fishing with bait and you'll find that mortality rates are very low. The tackle and bite detection used is very sensitive giving early warning of a taking fish whether the bait is actively fished or not - and anglers pay attention to their gear to try and ensure deep hooking doesn't occur.
In the US a similar culture doesn't exist. Bait fishing is generally for meat, tackle is incredibly crude and hooking techniques don't matter if the fish will soon be dead anyway. But promote active fishing styles for bait anglers and the C&R mortality rates will be similar to fly fishing.
Throwing the kind of cherry picked stats around simply shows how ill served we are by people who should be presenting considered points of view to inform us. Mortality from bait fishing in a C&R context is likely to be higher than fly fishing (or lure fishing) but not because bait fishing is inherently worse. It's simply because the bait fishing culture has a different background that doesn't promote C&R friendly techniques.
JackM
Moderator
Staff member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,324
Right! The reason that I support some set-aside for non-bait fishing anglers is not because the technique is inherently more lethal, but because the type of angler is less lethal. Is that your point?
M
Mike
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 5,560
Eccles is correct regarding the studies. Going back to the late 1970's the range of bait fishing related mortalities for trout in the scientific literature was 40-70 percent and this is what anglers who saw these statistics in magazines and heard them in my presentations tended to cling to. In more recent times, especially in the past decade at least two scientific studies of mortality associated with bait fishing for trout have been published in the scientific literature. The studies specified " tight lining," or maintaining close contact with the terminal tackle and setting the hook as soon as a strike is felt. Delayed mortalities have been less than 10 percent and one was, as stated above, less than 5 percent as I recall. Add to that the results of the recent Bald Eagle Ck study and the more generalized results of the older Spring Ck population study, which showed little or no negative pop effects from all tackle C&R.
What these recent studies show is that if bait anglers are motivated to fish C&R, delayed mortality rates are low enough to have no discernible impact at the population level, meaning fishing will still continue to be good for all anglers. How can this be? Two reasons: inefficiency of fishing rods to detect subtle population changes; compensatory mortality or compensatory survival depending upon how you wish to view it.
There is no doubt that I could have been taught to fish this way for trout as a child. I eventually did so on my own when I decided that I wanted to be more selective in the stocked trout that I was keeping as my creel approached the 8 fish limit. As you can imagine though, given my profession now, I was a highly motivated child angler.
What these recent studies show is that if bait anglers are motivated to fish C&R, delayed mortality rates are low enough to have no discernible impact at the population level, meaning fishing will still continue to be good for all anglers. How can this be? Two reasons: inefficiency of fishing rods to detect subtle population changes; compensatory mortality or compensatory survival depending upon how you wish to view it.
There is no doubt that I could have been taught to fish this way for trout as a child. I eventually did so on my own when I decided that I wanted to be more selective in the stocked trout that I was keeping as my creel approached the 8 fish limit. As you can imagine though, given my profession now, I was a highly motivated child angler.
Maurice
Administrator
Staff member
And what is the plan for educating the children who fish bait year round on the DHALO to these low mortality techniques?
And...when the children are deep hooking and killing trout outside of the creel season, what will the penalty be? A ticket, a good tongue lashing? A coupon to the next tight lining and mortality reduction class?
Or perhaps a recommendation that if they can't seem to get with it they should go fish their bait in waters open to general regulation where according to your own observations the majority of the trout are not harvested anyway and left to die in warmer summer waters.
Afterall its been a argument of yours for years against special regulation areas.
M
Mike
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 5,560
Most of these kids are likely to be taken to a DH area by a mentor. Presumably the mentor will understand C&R fishing and be using flies or lures. In my personal view, since I have not heard any agency discussion of this, it will be up to the mentor to teach proper techniques.
Just to clarify, I never said that the majority of the trout are not harvested (ultimately). I said that plenty of trout remain...enough to provide good fishing. And I guess I'll have to add " in many waters." While I used to see a 10 percent C&R rate on intensively fished urban park waters, such as the Wissahickon in Phila cir. 1990, I now see C&R rates of 70 percent cir 2004 on similar streams, such as Allentown/Whitehall's Jordan Ck.
The main point is that on general stocked trout waters C&R fishing has greatly increased and plenty of fish remain in many to provide good fishing without the need for special regs. Plus, those with mid-May or later inseason stockings often receive limited angling pressure by a relatively low number of anglers, much to our dismay. Good for the avid angler, bad for the program as a whole, and frustrating that some anglers complain about crowded DH areas when they could have equally good fishing on open waters.
So, you (the message board) say that we should educate more anglers to fish for wild trout. Heck, getting any anglers to break old habits is a challenge. It is hard enough getting stocked trout special reg anglers to move to the less crowded stocked trout waters like those that I have described, although some fly anglers have caught on at the Jordan and the lower Tully.
Just to clarify, I never said that the majority of the trout are not harvested (ultimately). I said that plenty of trout remain...enough to provide good fishing. And I guess I'll have to add " in many waters." While I used to see a 10 percent C&R rate on intensively fished urban park waters, such as the Wissahickon in Phila cir. 1990, I now see C&R rates of 70 percent cir 2004 on similar streams, such as Allentown/Whitehall's Jordan Ck.
The main point is that on general stocked trout waters C&R fishing has greatly increased and plenty of fish remain in many to provide good fishing without the need for special regs. Plus, those with mid-May or later inseason stockings often receive limited angling pressure by a relatively low number of anglers, much to our dismay. Good for the avid angler, bad for the program as a whole, and frustrating that some anglers complain about crowded DH areas when they could have equally good fishing on open waters.
So, you (the message board) say that we should educate more anglers to fish for wild trout. Heck, getting any anglers to break old habits is a challenge. It is hard enough getting stocked trout special reg anglers to move to the less crowded stocked trout waters like those that I have described, although some fly anglers have caught on at the Jordan and the lower Tully.
E
Eccles
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2008
- Messages
- 121
I think the bottom line is simply that bait fishing will kill more trout because bait anglers haven't been brought up in a C&R culture.
But that doesn't mean there would be a significant impact. You'd also have to have a look at whether a few bait anglers with slightly higher mortality rate on a trout stream is going to affect the trout population. Which depends not only on the mortality rate but also on angler numbers, CPUE, techniques etc etc.
And while I see your point about set-aside for non-bait fishing I personally don't support it at all. Fly fishing has always been regarded as 'better' by some, a bit 'holier than thou', and set aside for fly anglers and lure fisherman at the expense of the bait crowd simply perpetuates that view - whatever the original motivation for the set-a side was. I think much better to improve techniques and tackle (as fly fishing has done over the years) in other sections of the sport if C&R becomes more of a feature, rather than excluding them for being 'bad' at some particular aspect of it.
DaveKile
Administrator
Staff member
Please take time to not only engage in the conversation here and read this thread, but reach out to the PFBC about the proposed rule-making.
We may not agree about a lot of things on this site, but 89% of us agree this is not what we want. You should mail a written letter to the Director of the PFBC here:
Mr. John Arway
Executive Director
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
P.O. Box 67000
Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000
Please let him know your views on the proposed rule changes regarding the DHALO streams.
You help fund the PFBC with when you purchase a fishing license and have a right to make your voice heard.
We may not agree about a lot of things on this site, but 89% of us agree this is not what we want. You should mail a written letter to the Director of the PFBC here:
Mr. John Arway
Executive Director
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission
P.O. Box 67000
Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000
Please let him know your views on the proposed rule changes regarding the DHALO streams.
You help fund the PFBC with when you purchase a fishing license and have a right to make your voice heard.
foxtrapper1972
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Messages
- 2,455
SENT today
Why mess with a good thing? I'm sure if they change the regs and screw things up they won't go back and reverse the decision.
I would honestly pay twice what I pay now for my license if there were more places like the special regs on the Tulpehocken. And for what it's worth that area fishes well year round and a surprising number of fish hold over.
Why mess with a good thing? I'm sure if they change the regs and screw things up they won't go back and reverse the decision.
I would honestly pay twice what I pay now for my license if there were more places like the special regs on the Tulpehocken. And for what it's worth that area fishes well year round and a surprising number of fish hold over.
DaveKile
Administrator
Staff member
Dave Wolfe also had a earlier article on the topic.
"Increasing "passion and enthusiasm" for the sport has always been the goal of both the PFBC and the Pa. Game Commission. It's too bad they have decided to gut their most popular program in an effort to do so." - Dave Wolfe
Good read, need to check it out.
"Increasing "passion and enthusiasm" for the sport has always been the goal of both the PFBC and the Pa. Game Commission. It's too bad they have decided to gut their most popular program in an effort to do so." - Dave Wolfe
Good read, need to check it out.
Chaz
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 8,451
I've never heard anyone else put it the way Dave Wolfe said it, " you can't love what you don't see." Excellent.
K
KenU
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 209
There are so many factors affecting growth rate and ultimate size of brookies that it is almost impossible to separate out angling mortality as a factor. But I'm sure it is. Unlike natural mortality, anglers take the biggest and best of the species. I fish a couple of moderately fertile freestones with mixed brown and brook trout populations. The browns average (at best) about an inch larger than the brookies, but produce an occasional brown as large as 17 inches. So please explain to me why the browns are occasionally reaching such large size? These streams are not stocked, both are being subjected to modest angling pressure and are managed under 'general' regulations
It has been suggested by the late Dr. Ed Cooper and other fish biologists that this is, at least in part, because browns are much harder to catch than brookies and simply live longer, on average.
Additionally, we have been harvesting the larger brookies at a very high rate for well over one hundred years now. Recent studies have shown that when larger individuals are selectively removed from a population, survival of shorter-lived individuals that mature earlier in life at small size is favored. No point in being able to live longer if you're likely to be killed and eaten as soon as you reach 7 inches!
In addition, brookies have been driven into smaller less fertile headwater streams by pollution and land disturbances. This also favors early sexual maturity, short life spans and therefore smaller size. Couple this with the fact that those streams still capable of growing larger brookies have been pretty much taken over by brown trout and we begin to understand why a 12-inch brookie is now considered to be a trophy.
Stocking, which encourages angling pressure and harvesting, has got to be a major factor. Streams that regularly produce 8 to 11-inch brookies are typically not stocked, far from the road, and have good habitat and water quality. Remoteness protects them. I would like to see all brook trout streams protected in some way that gives the fish time to mature and grow, and a half decent chance to compete with brown trout. They are far more than just coldwater panfish.
That's my take for whatever it's worth.
It has been suggested by the late Dr. Ed Cooper and other fish biologists that this is, at least in part, because browns are much harder to catch than brookies and simply live longer, on average.
Additionally, we have been harvesting the larger brookies at a very high rate for well over one hundred years now. Recent studies have shown that when larger individuals are selectively removed from a population, survival of shorter-lived individuals that mature earlier in life at small size is favored. No point in being able to live longer if you're likely to be killed and eaten as soon as you reach 7 inches!
In addition, brookies have been driven into smaller less fertile headwater streams by pollution and land disturbances. This also favors early sexual maturity, short life spans and therefore smaller size. Couple this with the fact that those streams still capable of growing larger brookies have been pretty much taken over by brown trout and we begin to understand why a 12-inch brookie is now considered to be a trophy.
Stocking, which encourages angling pressure and harvesting, has got to be a major factor. Streams that regularly produce 8 to 11-inch brookies are typically not stocked, far from the road, and have good habitat and water quality. Remoteness protects them. I would like to see all brook trout streams protected in some way that gives the fish time to mature and grow, and a half decent chance to compete with brown trout. They are far more than just coldwater panfish.
That's my take for whatever it's worth.
