PFBC SEEKS PUBLIC COMMENT ON NEW STRATEGIC PLAN FOR TROUT FISHERIES MANAGEMENT

[silverfox]

Well, here's your chance to make your voice(s) heard.

https://www.media.pa.gov/Pages/fish-and-Boat-Commission-Details.aspx?newsid=324

Draft plan: (I haven't had a chance to read it entirely yet, but I'm working on it).

https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Fisheries/TroutPlan/Documents/TroutPlan2020.pdf

public comment portal: https://pfbc.pa.gov/forms/TroutPlan2020.htm

 

[Dave_W]

Thanks for the heads-up on this!

 

[SlowMutants]

Lots of interesting stuff in there. Couple of issues that caught my eye.

1. Change in trophy trout regulations - proposed 18 inch minimum instead of 14.
2. Phasing out stocking of brook trout where wild brook trout occur. Instead stock only rainbows and browns in these streams.
3. Publish a list of class B and C streams.

 

[PennKev]

Wow, some interesting (in a good way) stuff in there.

- Recognizing the need for fishing easements on high use trout streams.
- Rethinking the trophy trout regs.
- Questioning the effects of intense C&R.
- Slot limits
- Expanding DHALO

Just to name a few along with a lot of focus on evaluation of trout streams. Lots to digest in there. Even if only a few changes are realized based on this plan, that will be a solid step in the right direction.

 

[silverfox]

I think there is a lot of good changes proposed in the draft management plan. I'm glad to see wild trout seem to be the primary focus in the plan.

• Issue 6: I'm glad they're finally going to require a stocking permit. I hope it's implemented correctly. It should be simple. If you show up to a commercial hatchery to buy live trout, you must provide a current, valid permit.

• Issue 8: I'm really curious what exactly; "preferentially manage for wild Brook Trout" means. I also find it somewhat amusing that BS is referenced as a model. I'm not entirely sure what's been done there is a success for wild brook trout. At any rate, I would hope it means that they may consider species specific C&R like Maryland has proposed on certain streams.

• Issue 18: While I would benefit from the addition of Class B & C biomass data, I actually wish they wouldn't publish that information. We spoon feed too much in this state when it comes to wild trout. I like the adventure of discovery and not knowing exactly what I'll find.

• Issue 31: This is the biggest one. While I'd prefer they didn't stock over ANY wild brook trout populations, I guess it's a step in the right direction. My biggest concern here is that they mention stocking brown trout instead of brook trout where wild brook trout occur. Why stock anything that has a chance of disrupting or displacing wild brook trout?

Stock triploids and/or the coveted golden rainbows if you HAVE to stock something over a wild brook trout population. At least then you know the stocked fish wont have a long term impact on the wild fish. This still doesn't address the increased angling pressure and incidental mortality of wild brook trout where stocking occurs though.

This will also finally stop the stupid (is this wild or stocked) questions of brook trout on social media. If they're not stocking brook trout, then all brook trout are wild.

I'm generally happy to see all of the other proposed changes. I just hope most of them actually happen.

 

[Swattie87]

Overall, good stuff. Not going to complain when they're getting most things right here. Not perfect, but if this pans out and is where we are come 2025, this is a huge win for wild Trout.

It's crazy there are THAT many unassessed waters still out there. When I read the proposed wild Trout stream additions in the quarterly meeting exhibits, most of them already are UNT's. Or UNT's to UNT's. We have A LOT of Trout water in this state, albeit most if being fairly small streams.

PFBC - If you're looking for a list of "high potential" small streams that are currently surveyed below Class A (for whatever reason) but probably are Class A, I have a laundry list of suspects. If I read correctly I think the target is to identify 500 of these such streams for update to Class A status.

 

[Dave_W]

The comment deadline is 24 June.

 

[Bamboozle]

Issue 15 is interesting, at least to me:

"Issue 15: The sub lethal effects (e.g., reduced growth rates, physical deformities, and reduced population size structure) of repeated catch and release of wild trout on Pennsylvania’s high use wild trout fisheries are not fully understood.

Strategy: • Between 2020 and 2024, staff will review scientific literature, PFBC data, consult with fisheries managers in other states, and conduct a study if needed to determine if the use of barbed and/or multiple point hooks may have the ability to negatively impact the size structure of Pennsylvania’s high use wild trout fisheries."

For years, the Limestone Springs designation which was on the Letort, Falling Springs and Big Springs, and later the Heritage Trout designation which added the Little Lehigh and a few other places prohibited barbed hooks, (none permitted multiple point hooks).

Then we were told studies indicated insignificant differences in mortality, etc didn't warrant the prohibition so it went away as did the Heritage designation.

Now we are told that the effects "are not fully understood."

It seems to me there is a lot of backtracking going on in this plan which begs the question, was the old data flawed or did other "political" factors influence the decisions before?

And why will this plan be any different?

As far as I'm concerned, I'd like to see the un-assessed streams issue prioritized through grants, student & other group involvement and maybe even another funding program or "permit."

To me it is one of the most important issues after securing access.

 

[troutbert]

"Issue 15: The sub lethal effects (e.g., reduced growth rates, physical deformities, and reduced population size structure) of repeated catch and release of wild trout on Pennsylvania’s high use wild trout fisheries are not fully understood.

Strategy: • Between 2020 and 2024, staff will review scientific literature, PFBC data, consult with fisheries managers in other states, and conduct a study if needed to determine if the use of barbed and/or multiple point hooks may have the ability to negatively impact the size structure of Pennsylvania’s high use wild trout fisheries."

They should review the "literature" of Paflyfish.com's posts on this topic. Or, maybe they have been!

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Likely have been Dwight.
I heard a fisheries biologist try to use conversations here as scientific data points at a meeting once.

 

[Fredrick]

I like what they are proposing , but are they going to have enough boots on the ground to pull it off . Especilally the funds any word on the license increase ?

 

[Dave_W]

Bump...

Comments on this plan close on Wednesday.

If you have not already done so, I recommend commenting in favor of this plan as there is much good in it. The original post at the top of the thread contains the link to the PFBC comment page.

 

[maxima12]

One step forward, 2 steps back. Do you really think it will work! The plan needs to start in the schools, grade schools. Fishing, Nature, fly tying, outdoors. Schools lack ability for a simple education, Most likely not political correct.

Good policy, good reasons, good reports, good ideas, good nature and good riddence.

You must go back to the first step. Fishing! All will follow. The normal could care less. The radical. "EAT IT UP".

Fishing is for all, not the few, with the buying dollars! Let's face it, fishing has floated "DOWN THE STREAM". just like the leaves of Autumn.

I guess if I was involved, I would call my plan, "Cornerstone Involvement". Keystone Forward. Very weak plan for today's world! No problem since we are all getting weaker!

Maxima12

 

[silverfox]

maxima12 wrote:
One step forward, 2 steps back. Do you really think it will work! The plan needs to start in the schools, grade schools. Fishing, Nature, fly tying, outdoors. Schools lack ability for a simple education, Most likely not political correct.

Good policy, good reasons, good reports, good ideas, good nature and good riddence.

You must go back to the first step. Fishing! All will follow. The normal could care less. The radical. "EAT IT UP".

Fishing is for all, not the few, with the buying dollars! Let's face it, fishing has floated "DOWN THE STREAM". just like the leaves of Autumn.

I guess if I was involved, I would call my plan, "Cornerstone Involvement". Keystone Forward. Very weak plan for today's world! No problem since we are all getting weaker!

Maxima12

I know a lot of folks have a disdain for social media and "what it's done to fishing", but I've noticed something interesting about social media.

You know who uses social media more than any other demographic? Kids. My oldest daughter is 15 and almost all of her male friends have developed an interest in fishing lately, almost entirely due to social media. Locally, a lot of these kids have started to view fishing as "cool".

My daughter, who I've tried to get interested in fishing throughout her life, is now interested in fishing due to social media. Several of her friends have wanted to go fishing with me, and i've gone w/ with a few of them. These young guys are really enthusiastic about it.

So I'm not so sure the future of fishing is quite so bad off from an interest standpoint.

Also, it's not like fish & boat hasn't been trying to get youth involved. From trout in the classroom to the numerous youth targeted events, mentored youth fishing day and fish for free days. There's only so much you can do. Lead a horse to water and all that.

The biggest push on F&B needs to be wild trout, and especially native "trout" in my opinion.

 

[Mike]

Bamboozle,
Per your comment above, among my extensive comments on the plan I reiterated that with respect to fly fishing, a meta analysis of the scientific literature on the subject revealed a 1% difference between delayed mortality associated with barbed vs barbless hooks. It was statistically significant, but not biologically significant. The authors concluded that barbed vs barbless for fly fishing was a personal decision.

I don’t recall studies on barbed vs barbless when treble hook lures were used. I do recall studies on treble vs single hooks on lures ( single hooks caused more “Deep hooking” damage that would be considered fatal). I did mention in my comments, however, that if treble hooks are investigated, hook size should be a variable.

I have found repeatedly that treble hook spinners and spoons produced an undesirable (to me) number of situations when 6-8 inch wild trout get all three hooks in their small mouths and that it is very difficult to remove them without a good tool. Even then, it may cause some damage. When I switch the hooks to size 10 or larger it doesn’t seem to happen. I have also broken a hook point and curve off when I didn’t have a larger hook. The then double hook was easy to remove from small fish. You may recall that the MD study on C&R of ST raised a question about treble hooks and ST. I suspect that this may be why, although that authors didn’t explain their concern further. I don’t know if my observations are significant. It would be worthwhile studying.

You may have noticed that I jump all over comments regarding special regs in trout fisheries. That’s because it was one of my specialities when I was in Pa’s Coldwater Unit and I then remained well-read in the scientific literature on the topic throughout the rest of my career. They are largely, but not entirely, unnecessary in Pa wild trout fisheries and this has been the case since at least the late 1970’s. Even in bass fisheries they are largely or completely unnecessary because of the now prevalent C&R fishing in comparison to what occurred from the 1970’s through the 1990’s. I rarely implemented a special reg for wild trout, but was very deeply involved in designing or creating the Big Bass regulations, the initial special reg for Crappie, the increased size limits for stripers and striper hybrids, and the increased size limit for chain pickerel. I also pressed for more specialized regs for Bluegill than those that were settled upon in the Panfish Enhancement Program. I say all of this to show that if I thought special regs were necessary for more trout populations, I would have implemented them or pressed for changes. I was committed to providing good fisheries, but absolutely opposed to over-regulation that was unlikely to show any biological benefit at the population level.

 

[Bamboozle]

Mike:

I was referring to barbless hooks on flies only, specifically on the former Limestone Springs & Heritage Trout Special Regulation areas.

In regards to treble hooks, a 1000 years ago when I was a kid and exclusively fished for trout with spinning gear, I read in a magazine (no Internet then) that my "snag" rate would reduce significantly if I made my treble hooked spinners into single hook spinners.

So looking for any advantage I could find, I promptly either replaced all of trebles with singles or in the case of dressed spinners or that Mepps spinner I loved with the red plastic sleeve on the hook shank, I cut off two of the hook points, (I didn't tie flies or know about buying split rings back then).

The article was right and I guess as a secondary result, I ended up with the added advantage of inadvertently killing less trout although I didn't exactly catch that many back then...