PFBC Studies

[Stone_Fly]

PFBC will take opposing views to presnt what they say is science when it suits its purpose. For instance when making a presentationa few years ago we heard how C & R regs, notably in brookie streams increased the populations significantly. Then a couple of years later they put C & R regs on 1 section of Kettle Call it Brook Trout Enhancement and then say they don't think it will make a difference. Even going as far as saying if they don't see more angler use because of the regs then it's a failure. Regs are n't meant to be used to increase angler use, they are meant to improve fisheries. Nearly every place there are special regs waters in PA the fishing is significantly better and especially wild trout fishing..

 

[NJAngler]

One thing to consider is this: SR streams get far more attention than streams not protected. The trout numbers may be high but what difference will it make when you have do deal with crowds every weekend? On smaller streams, it only takes one other angler to spoil a day for you. I'd rather take my chances with no regs and have a stream to myself than place a bullseye on it and risk having someone else be there everytime I go there. Heck, even if you had SR on a small remote stream, who's going to enforce the rules? There probably isn't a CO for 30 miles! If someone wants to poach they can do it rather easily and no amount of rules will deter them. I've fished in Pa for 19 years and have only seen 1 WCO in my life. Heck even I used worms years ago in C&R streams because I knew I wouldn't get caught. Didn't help much since those trout were wary but you get the point. Maybe if you threatened heavy fines - >$500 - you would make poachers think twice.

NJ Angler

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

as stated earlier brook trout enhancement programs are new and untested. it takes a brook trout about 4-5 years to grow to 10 inches. the study isnt really as important for length of fish as opposed to number of fish. personally i think that the brook trout enhancement program is a step in the right direction!

 

[bigjohn58]

Hey Stone_Fly check out the post titled Improved Regs = Crowded Streams? I talk and a few others comment on special regulations there. I do not favor special regulations too often anymore...I used to think they were what ever streams needs but after exploring more and more streams its not the answer for most places. Special regulations tend to cause worse problems in certain areas then good. I'm not saying this about every area but in a lot of areas I notice this.

 

[Maurice]

Here is another way to look at them (Special Regulations).

For me special regulations are what got me interested in fly fishing. First from spin fihsing, I saw areas where you couldn't kill the fish and thought...wow, increased fishing opportunities. THen started tinkering with a fly rod and noticed I could fish even more areas year round. This was a great deal I thought. And still do. Many of these areas would be open to general regs or posted w/o special regs. At least with the special regs the catch & kill crowd is kept from frying up the wild trout in an area stocked SR area.

Should the area not be stocked....maybe, but raise enough hell and take away the special regs and then the wildies get havested. Or the land gets posted cuz of the new customers. I think SR are a synergistic, non-agressive but also temporsry easement plan. They also serve as a great way to introduce folks to C&R.

The numbers of S&R areas represent under 10% of the stocked trout waters in PA and even less if you bring in the BTEP and all of the wild trout streams. Overall it is a good thing to have them, from a fly fishermens perspective and should be viewed as such. But they are management tools and what should be managed are the trout populations and whats best for wild trout where possible. (on public land where the state can throw around its weight in the name of conservation and whats best for wild trout). Wher private land is in play, we can expect to make consessions in the name of gratitude toward the water open to public fishing.

Also, Special Regulations for wild trout do not mean we have to have signs and drop the stream into a catagory. Hopefully if the PF&BC cans the BTEP. (BTW, I like the idea that we have one...just needs to be put where it can enhance the populations rather than protect mostly the little fish) they move toward a lesser harvest of wild trout than stocked ones. For instance wild trout streams (unstocked) have a creel limit of (2) fish over 7" rather than (5)

Just some kindling to get the fire going this winter.

:-D

 

[MiroSlovnik]

I don't understand why the PFBC even wastes it's funds on any studies of this nature, as it has already been proven that Jack M. can arrive at a definitive answer without any such lavish expenditures... And those monies could go to purchasing and preserving more public waters for us all to fish.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Miro

 

[troutbert]

Suppose all wild trout streams in the state were catch-and-release. Would that still be special regulations? Or would that be general regulations? And would all those thousands of miles of waters be crowded?

 

[troutbert]

Question for Stone Fly.

Re: "For instance when making a presentation a few years ago we heard how C & R regs, notably in brookie streams increased the populations significantly."

What stream or streams did they say that C&R regs increased brook trout populations significantly?

 

[SlumpBuster]

First of all Special Regulations are good and serve a purpose. They are there to protect populations that would not be able to survive without the special regulation. You guys need to stop thinking just in a way that they are bad because they attract fisherman or don't produce what you want. As a fisheries biologist in training I understand not only the importance of special regs but also the need for them to help these populations. If you guys would research a little of fisheries managment I think you would better understand why they do these studies and why they ae good.

 

[RLeeP]

>>First of all Special Regulations are good and serve a purpose. They are there to protect populations that would not be able to survive without the special regulation. You guys need to stop thinking just in a way that they are bad because they attract fisherman or don't produce what you want. As a fisheries biologist in training I understand not only the importance of special regs but also the need for them to help these populations. >>

What the heck, I'm feeling a little contentious this morning...

I think it a little overbroad to flatly assert that special regs are "good", although as a contributory factor in an overall management strategy, they certainly can be good. But not always. My guess is that more often then we may believe, the actual effect of special regs on a wild trout fishery is neutral. Not always, of course. But often, I'd wager. My view is that any single management technique (with the exception perhaps of habitat improvement whether in-stream or in the riparian zone) is only of limited utility in something as prone to natural dynamic change as wild trout population. The assumption that currently specially regulated trout fisheries depend upon these regs for their "survival" doesn't ring right with me, even if the use of the word "survival" was more hyperbole than literal. My view is that many of these fisheries would not only survive without special regs, some would actually flourish or at least continue in the endless boom and bust cycle pretty much oblivious to the impact of special regs or the absence of same.

This tacit modest devaluation of the imprtance of special regs, again IMO, opens the floor to consideration of other factors in the overall management of a fishery. Among these considerations would be the potential for SR's to cause crowding and like, non-biological concerns.

If it were written in stone through our observation and experience that special regs *always* improve a wild trout fishery, then concerns like angler crowding should always be secondary. But I don't believe any such thing is written in stone.

Just my take..

 

[Chaz]

Actually Stone_Fly they didn't say that, what they said was that the effect of C & R resulted in no significant increase in populations, on the other hand they did say that halting stocking over wild populations does has the greater effect on wild trout populations then regulations. Having said that, I think everyone missed the point that Stone_Fly was attemping to make and that was how PFBC makes their data fit pre-conceived conclusions. In other words, they will say one thing and then say the opposite according to their needs at the time, at least it seems that way.

I don't think special regs in PA do anything except draw crowds to the streams they are on, at least the way the regs are applied in PA. It remains to be seen though what will happen on the Special Brook Trout waters. I'll bet though that Kettle will showsome icrease because of the size of the drainage, and the others because of the small areas covered won't.

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear Chaz,

I think you are pretty much on the mark regarding special regulation streams. As I see them they are nothing more than a giant "FISH HERE" sign. On streams that have historically had a "Fish For Fun" stretch they have little to no effect on fishing pressure on the scetion in question.

However, when they are applied to a new stream they are nothing more than a magnet for fishermen. In many places they are a detriment to the stream. Poachers come there because they are PO'ed that they lost a stretch of "stockie" water and harvest like there is no tomorrow until or unless they get caught. I've seen this happen on many streams.

I suppose it's only fair to admit that I fish a number of special regulation streams in my area. I have to because most of the waters around Harrisburg are marginal trout streams at best.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

 

[troutbert]

RE:

“I don't think special regs in PA do anything except draw crowds to the streams they are on...”

and

“I think you are pretty much on the mark regarding special regulation streams. As I see them they are nothing more than a giant "FISH HERE" sign.”


Supposing Spring Creek was changed from C&R to state-wide regulations, 5 fish per day. What do you think would happen to its trout population? I’d really be interested to know what people think. Would the population stay the same, go up, or go down( and if so how much)?

 

[Chaz]

Well,
I believe PFBC said the biggest impact of special regs was on big limestone streams, when regs were placed on them the populations double tripled or quadrupled. That says it all, the harvest of 5 fish a day would knock the populations in the big limestone streams down to next to nothing within a year.
As for the question that troutbert proposed earlier, I think if the regs on wild trout streams were changed to C & R or 2 fish a day you'd see a big difference in the populations in those streams and also that would make them state wide regs, not special regs as opposed to five fish a day.
To make an earlier point I made clearer, the way the special regs are applied in PA they don't have as large an impact as they could because the sections are too short, there are too few streams that have them, and they get very crowded putting undue preassure on the population.
Imagine if you will the Little Lehigh being C & R from the Upper Delayed Harvest area to the mouth of Cedar Creek how good that water would be. Or Monocacy Creek from Rt. 22 down to the mouth, or the Bush Kill from Tatamy to the mouth.

 

[MKern]

I agree with most of you guys about the giant "Fish Here" signs. I have even fish places like that on occasion -- Grays Run, and Slate Run. However, I am more apt to look at a topo map and find my own gem. Besides, I like bagging to my friends about my fish and not giving them directions to these streams.

Just playing devil's advocate here...
Spring Creek is C&R on the entire stream. Yes it recieves a ton of fishing pressure and I have always seen other people, but is it's fish population suffering?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

 

[JackM]

I have always thought that complaining about a crowded stream means you are part of the crowd-- go somewhere else and be part of the solution.

 

[Stevie-B]

Wow! What a topic! This has become the discussion that I thought one of my previous posts would turn into (Improved regs = crowded streams). IMO I believe that each stream has its own unique set of problems/requirements. Sometimes the SR's help an otherwise overharvested stream and with others it draws attention to a stream that can not handle the increased angler pressure. I don't have the anwers but maybe the PFBC could create a program where a stream steward could report on the effectiveness of SR. This steward could be a volunteer who fishes the stream on a regular basis.

Just my 2 cents. (I can't afford the inflation to 3.)

Steve

 

[troutbert]

If all wild trout streams had no harvest or low harvest regulations than they wouldn't be "special" regs anymore, they would be the general regs on wild trout streams.

This would give you the best of both worlds. High trout populations, because the amount of harvest definitely does influence trout populations. And less crowding because you wouldn't have the concentration into particular areas, because all the wild trout streams would have limited harvest regs.

Fisheries managers should always go with the option that results in high trout populations, rather than the options that cause lower trout populations.

When there are more trout, our fishing opportunities expand. When there are less trout, our fishing opportunities are reduced.

It always surprises me to hear flyfishers argueing for management that reduces trout populations.

 

[JackM]

troutbert wrote:

It always surprises me to hear flyfishers argueing for management that reduces trout populations.

Believe it or not, some fly anglers like to harvest trout and others, like me, while we don't harvest, feel that others who do should be able to do so within limits. I think 2-3 trout a day is more reasonable than 5.

 

[dryflyguy]

Steve-B:

I too was a little surprised the way your other post - improved regs = crowded streams- turned into a discussion about being checked by WCO's.
Anyway, I'd just like to say that I'm not against SG's areas
It would be a real shame if spring creek, and many others like it, were opened to any kind of harvesting.
It certainly is a lot better to protect the fish, even if it means crowded conditions and fish that can be pretty difficult to catch.
However, as stated in other post, most of my favorite areas are on open water, and I sure wouldn't like to see attention drawn to them. They are fine just the way they are.