Possible new regs..

[silverfox]

Mike wrote:
Silverfox: For the record and to get everyone on the same page, is it correct for me to assume that the following is the regulation that was being discussed when Mr Nihart referenced wild brown trout?.... Only stocked trout waters and all waters downstream of stocked trout waters are open to harvest during this period with the exception of Class A wild trout streams where harvest is prohibited during the extended season.

If my assumption is correct, the regulation is consistent with the regulation that prohibits harvest from unstocked wild trout streams from the closing date in early Sept until opening day in spring. That special instruction in my opening paragraph above is needed only because all other stocked trout stream sections and sections downstream from stocked trout sections ARE open to harvest of any trout that are captured (3 trout creel limit). Class A’s are an exception. Additionally, it happens that by program design all recognized, stocked Class A’s support predominantly brown trout populations.

Kuhn and Nihart are correct. Creel survey work on 200 wild trout sections statewide showed that harvest was low. As a representative subsample of the state’s wild trout streams, the creel survey clearly demonstrated that there is no need for more conservative statewide regulations for wild trout.

At the Wild Trout Summit I made the presentation on wild trout management, including special regs and responses of wild trout populations to stocking cessation in Pa wild trout streams. In the presentation I clearly stated that the best way to improve wild brook trout populations in Pa was not through special regs, meaning regs that differed from the present statewide regs, but through cessation of stocking over these populations. Some on this Board were there to hear that. What was inherent in my comment was some pragmatism however, specifically that the populations of ST were already or would in the future, post-stocking, be large enough to provide attractive fisheries. I wasn’t speaking about stopping stocking over populations with three wild ST per 300 meters for example, but I also wasn’t thinking about stocking cessation only over Class A ST populations.

Recall that I have retired, but I believe that these past studies and data reviews still have substantial value today.

Mike, the current regulation for the extended season is: (stocked trout waters and all waters downstream of stocked trout waters) 3 per day combined species min 7". At the 2 hour mark in the call, one of the commissioners asked for clarification. Mr. Nihart explained that currently, sections downstream of stocked trout waters allow harvest in the extended season. The change would mean that no harvest would be permitted in those downstream sections. Unless he misspoke? It's available to review on facebook and I'm sure they'll post it to youtube in case you want to relisten to what Mr. Nihart said.

As an angler and brook trout fan, I have to echo what commissioner Charlesworth said. Even if harvest regulations result in the protection of a small number of fish (7%), why wouldn't the commission actively want to protect that 7% of fish? To me, it's depressing because there is a seeming strong argument against using any kind of regulations for brook trout. That just doesn't make any sense. If it were implemented correctly, nobody is going to be disenfranchised here. It seems like the current approach is to wait until it's a 5 alarm fire like MD and then deal with it.

I understand the argument about habitat and warming waters. I agree, that's the number one threat. Again, as one of the commissioners mentioned, the planet is warming, fish will continue to lose habitat. Water quality will continue to decline (have you seen the Chesapeake Bay results?) In the face of that, why would the commission not want to actively try to protect the species in any way possible? What is the harm in an angling reg for brook trout?

Frankly, it's pretty telling that they mentioned the statewide regs in MD. Surprising they didn't mention NJ as well. It must be hard watching the states around you doing something that you're unwilling to do.

I understand you're not with Fish & Boat. I'm glad you take the time to comment on these topics though. I personally don't have much trust in creel surveys. Either in person or voluntarily. There's an obvious bias in the results of those surveys. They also only capture small portions of the state and ignore potential problems. There's no way for PFBC to understand what's happening on all waters in this state. What happened at one point in time on one stream somewhere in the state may not be representative of the entire state.

I apologize. I personally took this as a major blow today. I'm a bit depressed about it. No hard feelings?

 

[Mike]

No worries, Silverfox.

By the way, as I did above, here I cut and pasted the reg from p 20 of the 2021 Summary Booklet of Fishing Regs. It reads as follows:

Only stocked trout waters and all waters downstream of stocked trout waters are open to harvest during this period with the exception of Class A wild trout streams where harvest is prohibited during the extended season.

Earlier, I said 3 fish creel limit in the extended season, but was an oversight to not include the 7” length limit. I knew someone would catch me on that.

 

[silverfox]

To simplify what was proposed today;

Current Reg:
The extended trout season is in effect from the day after Labor Day until the last day of February of the following year on stocked trout waters and all waters downstream of stocked trout waters. A creel limit of three trout per day and a minimum size limit of 7 inches apply during this season, except Class A wild trout streams where the creel limit is 0 and areas with special regulations.

Proposed Reg:

The extended trout season is in effect from the day after Labor Day until the last day of February of the following year on stocked trout waters [d]and all waters downstream of stocked trout waters[/d]. A creel limit of three trout per day and a minimum size limit of 7 inches apply during this season, except Class A wild trout streams where the creel limit is 0 and areas with special regulations.

Again, it's the double standard that concerns me. There's clearly creel survey data on wild trout streams that is being used to argue against protecting brook trout. Is there creel survey data on the water below STW's that suggests C&R is required there? What's driving this proposed change? Protecting non-native species? So harvest regs work, but they don't work. Strange.

 

[silverfox]

I'm not sure everyone understands the gravity of what's suggested here. One of the commissioners picked up on a major issue with this. For this to work, they'll need to clearly publish the boundaries of where they actually stock. Gps boundary coords etc. for every stocked trout water. That's going to be a mess.

One other thing that non-trout anglers might not be happy about is that the change also means that those waters downstream of STW cannot be fished from March 1 to Opening Day. As a musky angler who fishes one of these sections, that's a problem.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Silverfox, the section limits for stocking have been listed on the stocking schedule on the website for quite some time. It will not be coordinates of each stocking stop it will be stream A is stocking from x Bridge to y Bridge.

For your second point, technically right now you can not fish the downstream portions of a stocked trout water from March 1 to opening day. I believe it was implied today that providing the stocking section end points may allow for angling downstream of stocked trout sections during the traditional closed period.

 

[silverfox]

lycoflyfisher wrote:
Silverfox, the section limits for stocking have been listed on the stocking schedule on the website for quite some time. It will not be coordinates of each stocking stop it will be stream A is stocking from x Bridge to y Bridge.

For your second point, technically right now you can not fish the downstream portions of a stocked trout water from March 1 to opening day. I believe it was implied today that providing the stocking section endpoints may allow for angling downstream of stocked trout sections during the traditional closed period.

That's almost correct. Streams listed in the region STW list with boundaries are currently handled that way. i.e. (SR 0234 Bridge downstream to SR 3001). Waters that don't have boundaries listed are to the mouth. Nihart mentioned changing the documentation to focus on where the trout are actually stocked. He used an example of a stream where they only really stock a few miles of stream and then there's 88 miles of stream that are currently listed as STW even though they don't actually stock there.

Last point and I've got to walk away from this. I know harvest likely isn't a huge issue in remote mountain 1st order streams. Would harvest regs for brookies result in some population boom? Probably not.

What it does do, however, is send a message to the angling public that the species is more important. I have a friend in NJ who lives in the brook trout conservation zone. He's a VERY casual angler and didn't know the difference between a brook trout and a rainbow trout before NJ instituted the regs. Now he knows to immediately release brook trout because they're more important. It makes people think. That has value by itself.

 

[troutbert]

silverfox wrote:

troutbert wrote:
In PA, the practice of not stocking Class A streams dates back to about 1980.

Is that being dismantled? Is it going to be done away with?

They didn't talk about cessation of stocking Class A's. They talked about exemptions to allow stocking Class A sections. Because the kids want stockers apparently.

That's what I mean. Adding more exemptions to allow stocking Class A sections is a piece by piece dismantling of the policy that was put in place around 1980, of not stocking Class A streams.

 

[SlowMutants]

The moment they created an exemption to NOT stocking streams that classify as Class A it was inevitable more exemptions would be added. Pandora's box was opened. Kids derby's ok. I get that. But to allow stocking because private individuals stocked these before they became class A?

If your going to continue to stock Class A sections, and have already muddied the regulations in these sections why not make these sections Class A stocked with catch and release for brown trout? Lets be honest, stocking a Class A section says catch and keep trout HERE whether its rainbow or brown trout.

On a positive note, I welcome the proposed change to code 65.26. Some PA streams do not get warmer the farther they travel from their source due to limestone spring influence. Upper sections may be warm and stocked. Limestone springs enter and create a section below which is class A. Then below the Class A section for whatever reason they are then classified as non-stocked non-class A sections.

Where the Class A ends is often arbitrary. In reality the Class A extends down into this unclassified water. Maybe it eventually turns Class B etc. With increased angler participation/social media I've seen more harvest from these sections.

In addition as noted in the described example, the non-stocked, non Class A section is closed effective March 1 to opening day which makes no sense.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

For brook trout and brook trout fisherman, these reg changes and that brown trout petition is a disgrace.
Lots of people signing the petition that supposedly care about our native fish, so good luck.
I personally wont support either.
Smh.

 

[silverfox]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
For brook trout and brook trout fisherman, these reg changes and that brown trout petition is a disgrace.
Lots of people signing the petition that supposedly care about our native fish, so good luck.
I personally wont support either.
Smh.

Maybe I'm being over-dramatic, but it's born from an innate love of the fish. I'm 42 and I've been fly fishing incessantly for over over 30 years.

Reflecting on this, it's not about the fishing for me. It's about holding one of these fish for a few seconds. If I was told I couldn't fish anymore I'd be out taking photos of them with underwater cameras. I don't care about angling. I care about the fish. I don't fish to prove anything. I fish to get closer to the fish. I'm a fish nerd and I'll welcome any criticism for that.

Having thought about this since yesterday afternoon, all I can say is that I have absolutely no respect for the staff at fish & boat. I gained some respect for the commissioners but lost what little I had left in the agency.

Frankly, they should be embarrassed to have "resource first" in their mission. It's not about the resource. It's about anglers and what anglers want. To argue against doing anything other cutting down trees and dragging them in the stream is appalling. To refute what neighboring states are doing and paint them as the ones who don't know what they're doing is repugnant. To ignore the calls of conservationists to stop stocking over wild trout and then put forth a plan for a way to expand it is reprehensible.

To see protections for invasive species put before our native state fish without the same level of scientific scrutiny is absolutely offensive. Hearing staff arguing that regulations only have a small effect so there's no point doing it when you've got commissioners who seem to be on board is insane.

I've reached out to F&B over the years and mostly been ignored. I'm sure they don't like my message and are simply unwilling to engage in anything other than grand praise. The way their meetings and outreach are configured ensures that any input from the public or other organizations is sure to only reinforce their own directives. They put out information in a strict format without any real feedback from the public unless it reinforces their agenda. That is a stark contrast from the folks in other state fish & game agencies like MD and WV who recently held roundtable discussions with the public to develop their new trout plan.

None of this is news, but hearing the attitude on the call yesterday was the final straw for me. Hearing the people who are charged with protecting, preserving, and enhancing the resources arguing against protections with the commissioners was eye-opening.

Socially, brook trout are our state fish and arguably the most beautiful fish that swims in our waters. Biologically they're the canary in the coal mine for water quality and they're one of only two salmonoids native to PA. Economically they're extremely valuable and hold great potential for increased revenue especially as their numbers decrease and they become rarer. To kick the can and argue that doing anything other than dropping trees until it's as dire as MD is just absolutely mind-boggling.

I apologize to those who are here to talk about fishing specifically for my venting. There are few places where these kinds of discussions occur and I just can't talk to my wife about this stuff. And yes, I'm going fishing tomorrow. It won't be in PA though.

 

[afishinado]

Article about slot limit for Penns >

https://www.post-gazette.com/life/outdoors/2021/01/07/trout-fishing-penns-creek-pennsylvania-slot-limits/stories/202101070060?fbclid=IwAR23OiM9xtPynym00IYLM2mhdfvLKodoVkPgVhbmb0nqXGxw4uIcpjB6QWg

 

[larkmark]

Most people who fish that section will release everything. I doubt this will have any impact.

 

[silverfox]

"In Centre County, an interesting experiment in aquatic wildlife management may influence the way Pennsylvania controls its growing population of native and naturalized trout."

Glad they were able to get "native" trout in there at least once. Though there's absolutely nothing about this that benefits native trout.

I hate the word naturalized. There is already a word for a species that causes ecological harm when it's introduced. Invasive.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

When you click afish's link, look at the article below about all tackle experimental regs for a good laugh.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

“[It] is appropriate for this section of stream for several reasons,” he said. “By designating this section as a Keystone Select Stocked Trout Water with a higher concentration of trophy-size fish, we are providing an opportunity to anglers that was previously unavailable in this part of the state. Secondly, by allowing fishing with all tackle in this high-use location, we’ll be able to study and evaluate the survival of fish that were released after being caught by baited hooks versus lures on similar waters statewide.”

“There’s a wealth of literature showing that fish caught on bait have a higher mortality after release,” said fisheries biologist Kris Kuhn in an interview prior to the meeting. 

Lmfao.
Reinventing wheels.

 

[larkmark]

How many fish commissioners does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

 

[silverfox]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:

“[It] is appropriate for this section of stream for several reasons,” he said. “By designating this section as a Keystone Select Stocked Trout Water with a higher concentration of trophy-size fish, we are providing an opportunity to anglers that was previously unavailable in this part of the state. Secondly, by allowing fishing with all tackle in this high-use location, we’ll be able to study and evaluate the survival of fish that were released after being caught by baited hooks versus lures on similar waters statewide.”

“There’s a wealth of literature showing that fish caught on bait have a higher mortality after release,” said fisheries biologist Kris Kuhn in an interview prior to the meeting. 

Lmfao.
Reinventing wheels.

They're trying really hard to come up with excuses to justify questionable directions.

In the fisheries and hatcheries committee meeting the other day Mr. Nihart talked about how Eastern Maryland has lost almost 50% of it's brook trout population, then went on to say that PA doesn't have that problem.

As if the Mason Dixon line is a real thing and the pressures and effects that have caused the decline in brook trout populations magically disappear once you drive across the border.

He even showed a map from EBTJV that showed populations at high risk and it included large portions of PA. One of the commissioners noticed and called him out on it.

Again, listening to someone who should be concerned with protecting our state fish arguing with really shaky logic on why they shouldn't is more than concerning.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Just an FYI the EBTJV map you speak of to my knowledge does not take into consideration actual fisheries data atleast in Pennsylvania. It is a model taking into consideration landuse, land cover, elevation, weather models etc. If I remember correctly from looking into it during college it is heavily weighted on climate change models. I do not know this, but perhaps PFBC believes their fisheries data shows stronger brook trout strongholds than predicted by certain models? Think about how many streams have been added to the Class A list in the last decade...

There are numerous streams that were inhabitable a couple decades ago due to AMD and to some extent acid precipitation that have developed brook trout populations as water quality improved.

IMO the taking care of habitat through improving aquatic connectivity, riparian buffer enhancement/ protection, floodplain connection and water quality protections will have a greater benefit than special regulations. Stocking over wild fish is another issue that is obvious. However, based on the recent management plan, I am interested in seeing how not stocking brook trout and the development of stocking permits plays out.

 

[troutbert]

lycoflyfisher wrote:

Think about how many streams have been added to the Class A list in the last decade....

The great majority of those are streams that were surveyed for the first time.

Which is not an indication that trout populations have increased.

It's a result of increased surveying.

 

[Mike]

I have reported here a number of times about trout populations that have expanded in a downstream or upstream direction based on comparisons with previous surveys. Not only that but in response to queries I have with greatest frequently described the reason as being cooler water temps due to improved shade resulting from added growth over time or new types of riparian vegetation, such as shrubs and trees instead of grasses. Additionally, some of these populations have gone from no trout or few trout in these reaches to Class A, all while climate change has been occurring in this, already the warmest part of the state. I have been seeing wild trout population growth and expansion, not population declines and contraction in the warmest region and most anthropogenically impacted part of the state. That should give the modelers pause.