Protection vs. Conservation

[Mike]

I keep seeing references to the term "protection" on this board, but never the use of the term " conservation." We now have a thread that refers to wild vs stocked trout and the term "protection" appears in the lead commentary. Then, just recently, we had individuals saying wild brook trout needed more protection. It would be interesting to learn what is being meant by "protection" on this board and why the term "conservation, " the most common definition of which is "the wise use of natural resources," is apparently not part of the board's vocabulary. Are wild trout, for instance, only to be protected and not utilized?

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

Mike, I will just say that your prescence and efforts on this board are appreciated. Again, as I have said before, of the states that I have been to I think the PFGC does a good job of juggling the various varied interests of the public and is one of the more progressive fisheries departments in the eastern U.S when it comes to coldwater fisheries.

I share your view that a conservation ethic only has to do with keeping a resource sustainable. Everything else is a matter of what type of fishing you want. Some people want wild trout. Some want native brook trout. Some want to fish to eat. Some want a big fish. Some want a prestine wilderness environment to fish in. Some want an exclusive fly-fishing area. PA does an excellent of providing a diversity of fishing experiences.

As I have stated before, fishing is not a conservation effort. If something is so fragile that it requires a bunch of restrictive regs, maybe it shouldn't be fished at all, and we should look at the root cause of the struggling fishery.....which is probably not sport fishing in 99% of cases. That would be a conservation effort.

I think the biggest purpose of regulations is to ensure that everyone continues to have a quality fishing experience throughout the season.

In your position you can't keep everyone happy, you can only strive to keep people equally happy or unhappy.

 

[Maurice]

Mike wrote:
I keep seeing references to the term "protection" on this board, but never the use of the term " conservation." We now have a thread that refers to wild vs stocked trout and the term "protection" appears in the lead commentary. Then, just recently, we had individuals saying wild brook trout needed more protection. It would be interesting to learn what is being meant by "protection" on this board and why the term "conservation, " the most common definition of which is "the wise use of natural resources," is apparently not part of the board's vocabulary. Are wild trout, for instance, only to be protected and not utilized?

CORRECT...at LEAST above 7"...We are harvesting sardines. Well not we...but some...more than you may think.

Allow us to conserve the ones large enough to spawn more than once and we will begin to find common ground.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

So there's one vote for big wild fish to catch and release. Thats my favorite type of angling experience, too.

 

[Mike]

Maurice,

I'm still looking for your definition of "protection" and maybe even its implications. Furthermore, what is it that prevents you from saying conservation....the use aspect? By the way, to quote an internationally known fisheries researcher and past president of the American Fisheries Society....the number of young trout produced is seldom limited by the abundance of adults.

Mike

 

[tomgamber]

Here's another definition of conservation...

Conservation is the management of resources such as water (or fish) so as to eliminate waste or maximize efficiency of use. A related and complementary concept is sustainability. Activities are sustainable if they can be maintained over time without depleting the natural resource base.

Perhaps we should be using sustainability..."without depleting the NATURAL RESOURCE BASE". As I see it, and this is just my opinion, only a wild stream born fish qualify as a natural resource base. Stocking over wild fish is like intentionally polluting water just so we can then clean it up and return it to where it came from. That doesn't sound very efficient. Probably pretty expensive too. So why spend money, putting farmed fish where there already exists a sustainable resource.

Here's another definition...Wise

wise 1 Pronunciation (wz)

1. Having the ability to discern or judge what is true, right, or lasting

Stocked trout don't last...they aren't true...for the benefit of the majority of fishermen it is probably right to stock them. But doing it over wild populations is inefficient, unwise, and unsustainable. Where wild fish are...if protected (and I use that term on purpose) they can be self sustaining. Do we not "protect" bass populations by not allowing fishermen to cast directly into their spawning beds?

You can call it whatever fits the political need. conserve , protect, wise use (there's an entire movement for that one so be careful) sustainability...but sometimes one needs to do the right thing and not the popular thing.

 

[Maurice]

Mike wrote:
Maurice,

I'm still looking for your definition of "protection" and maybe even its implications. Furthermore, what is it that prevents you from saying conservation....the use aspect? By the way, to quote an internationally known fisheries researcher and past president of the American Fisheries Society....the number of young trout produced is seldom limited by the abundance of adults.

Mike

I agree...We have lots of young trout. But who wants to catch them? I know, by not killing the larger ones they will all be small, right?

I am not affraid of using the word conservation, I am not even affraid of using the word harvest. It is just that when you harvest, the fish are gone...so why not allow a more enjoyable angling experience for more anglers by allowing the fish an inch or two over the current length limit in the stream a little longer?

Even if it is only a few trout in some circumstances based on carrying capacity.

I feel we manage wild trout as if they were stocked trout. To be harvested. Especially at such a small size.

Maurice

 

[troutbert]

Conservation, in the context of fisheries management, means bringing trout populations that are currently way below their potential up to, or near the potential of the stream. On every stream where wild trout occur. Is this a goal of the PFBC? What are the goals of the PFBC regarding wild trout populations?

Conservation also means maintaining and restoring the landscape that supports healthy trout streams, particularly the floodplains and stream corridors. That means spending money to buy the land so that it can be managed for natural vegetation into the future. What percentage of the PFBC's total budget is allocated for this?

 

[Maurice]

Mike wrote:
Maurice,

I'm still looking for your definition of "protection" and maybe even its implications. Furthermore, what is it that prevents you from saying conservation....the use aspect? By the way, to quote an internationally known fisheries researcher and past president of the American Fisheries Society....the number of young trout produced is seldom limited by the abundance of adults.

I guess I didn't answer your question.

My definition of protection as it related to wild trout fisheries is to restrict harvest up to 9". It is really not that much to ask.

I don't think the use or mis-use of these words is at all the point. rather than disect semantics, lets take a step back from the microscope and think about results of these studies.

It has been studied and found by you guys that some streams respond favorably to reduced harvest. Some stay the same and some responded poorly. By "homoginizing" or averaging the resulting regulation (in this case keeping it the same), we are limiting the potential of the favorable streams.

That would be similar to holding back the smartest students to learn with the average and below average ones. I know, bad analogy. But my point is, we don't need to allow harvest of wild trout from 7-9" to improve our fisheries. So is it really, "wise use". or Conservation?

If we don't NEED to harvest them, then we must "want" to harvest them. And that makes it a social reason. Because Joe Nibletts buys more licences than we do. But wait, The people who fish for wild trout that harvest are a smaller demographic, I am sure, than those who fish C&R. So the perspective reverts back to "why not let them harvest ...they cannot make a significant impact"

What I am telling you is it does make an impact...on the streams that have the potential ot produce larger brookies. Even if only for the few months during the regular season.

What the Conservation minded anglers gets to fish for are what the harvesting angler leaves behind. We become the "dumpster divers" of the angling community because of the minimum size limit developed to protect the fish commission because they stock 7" fish. As long as we are fishing behind a harvester...and hour, a day, a week, a month, we have no chance of catching what they creeled.

Maurice

 

[FarmerDave]

Mike, I don't see the big deal. First of all, not many of us were English Majors. We might not always type elequently. I'm almost always guilty of that. I've been away from the site and haven't seen the recent discussion, so I will only address the use of these two words.

Here is my opinion about the use of these two words in this context.

Protection is part of Conservation. Protection from all harms would be an extreme form of conservation, but it isn't what most of us mean by protection. In other words, conservation is the term I would use on a macro level. For example, we need to conserve the trout fishery. Protection to me is more of a macro term. ... Most of us want to conserve the trout fishery by protecting certain parts of it. Therefore, I personally think "protection" is often the better word in these discussions. I couldn't care less about protecting (or conserving) stocked trout. They will make more. However, I am all for conserving wild populations by protecting them from polution (including stocked trout) and better protecting them from harvest at certain times of the year.

"better protecting" ... This brings up another point. You also have to look at the intent of the word "protection". Does one mean absoute protection from everything? In my opinion, that is a very narrow definition of the word. There are degrees of protection, but usually the word degree is left out in normal conservation conversations.

Protection ... Wear a coat to protect you from the cold. You may still get cold, so this is not absolute protection. Protection none the less. How about body armor for soldiers. It is not absolute protection, none the less it is protection. I was going to use condoms as an example too, but decided not to. :-D

all that said, I don't really care which word is used.

 

[Mike]

Troutbert,

How would your definition of conservation as it pertains to wild trout differ from your definition of protection?

 

[Wulff-Man]

Mike, the word that is used really doesn’t matter, unless you’re into semantics. What matters is what is meant by the person using the word. And I know that is what you are actually asking. There are a lot of different opinions here, so there’s no one answer. It’s something that we often debate. Do we want there to be NO harvest on wild trout streams? Do we want there to be a reduction in the creel limit? Do we want there to be an increase in the size limit? It’s always up for debate. I think the only thing that we could say that there is a consensus on is that we want more protection/conservation of wild trout. Since most of us are C&R fishermen, I think we would prefer no harvest on wild trout streams for our own increased enjoyment of the fishery, but we understand that there are others who have an interest in harvesting, so maybe being more ”conservative” in the harvest allowances would at least be an acceptable improvement. Then there is the complicating factor that every trout stream is different as far as how it responds to harvest restrictions. Do we address different streams differently? Or do we keep the rules simple? Sounds like the same questions that the PFBC faces. We just wish that there was more focus on the interests of those who like to fish for good numbers of larger wild trout. And maybe more focus on promoting the benefits and possibilities of PA’s wild trout resource to the public. And everyone here supports maximum conservation of the natural resources that support the existence of wild trout.

 

[FarmerDave]

Well said Wulff-Man

Here is an idea I have posted a few times in the past that usually gets shot at quite a bit.

I would also be for reducing the creel limit on wild trout streams, however, my intent is simply to get the freezer fillers off of those streams. don't get me wrong, I'm not apposed to someone harvesting a few. I'm only apposed to the freezer fillers. We need to make the wild streams less attractive to the freezer fillers. The best way is to open the fish hatcheries to fishing. Set aside a pond or two or part of the property and stock those as they get depleted. No need for white trucks or the fuel they burn. OK, it aint gonna happen, but it would work. The next best way I know is to make the "approved" trout waters (meaning the ones visited by the great white fleet) more attractive to the freezer fillers than the wild streams. We could do that by reducing creel limits on all streams not on the "approved" list. But I concede that would make people like TAP and all the freezer fillers very angry and might reduce the number of licenses sold. Personally, I think that is a good thing because the ones lost would not be the ones interested in conserving the resource, but I understand that the PaF&BC would'nt want that (less money). The compromise would be to raise the creel limit (back to 8 or whatever), but only on the "approved" waters. Keep the non-approved waters at current regulations. This would greatly please TAP and the rest of the freezer fillers. It would also be very simple. They already have a list for "approved" trout waters, and they already have a different set of rules for those streams from Labor Day to opening day. Why not have different rules for the whole year. How much more simple can you get??? I'm serious!

 

[troutbert]

Mike wrote:
Troutbert,

How would your definition of conservation as it pertains to wild trout differ from your definition of protection?

It just seems like semantics to me. If someone proposes burying the entire length of Fishing Creek in a pipe, and you head them off, is that protection or conservation? Who cares what's it called, as long it gets done?

If a brook trout stream currently is getting severely cropped because it's getting stocked and that's attracting a lot of harvest-oriented anglers who are hitting those brookies hard and removing everything 6.5 inches and bigger, then remedying the situation might be labelled: protection, conservation, environmentalsim, restoration, stewardship, good fisheries management, pragmatism, common sense...

It doesn't matter what you call it, as long as it gets done.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

well said everyone!
Mike i have a question for you. from an angler aspect, what is the point of "conservation" if it recieves no "protection"?

 

[Wulff-Man]

FarmerDave wrote:
The compromise would be to raise the creel limit (back to 8 or whatever), but only on the "approved" waters. Keep the non-approved waters at current regulations. This would greatly please TAP and the rest of the freezer fillers. It would also be very simple.

With a caveat that all streams that support a "good" population of wild trout no longer be stocked! That would also leave more fish to be stocked in the streams where they need to be stocked. It might also mean that after the supporters of stocking the local wild trout stream stop crying they might realize that their local stream has some pretty good fishing, and fishing for wild trout is a lot of fun. Either that, or they will just have to drive to the closest put-and-take. (Would this be difficult for those in "God's country"? I really don't know if it would mean that there would be no put-and-take streams nearby. But wouldn't that be ironic, that people in the best trout country in the state, or the northeast US for that matter, would be deprived because they don't stock close to home.)

 

[Mike]

Maurice,

I see I should have been more clear. There are apparently numerous brook trout streams, particularly in the Alleghenies, where the end of natural life occurs at lengths less than 9 inches and apparently enough where this occurs at lengths of 7 inches or less such that when the size limit went from 6 to 7 inches the fisheries manager had strong concerns. A 9 inch limit would be a no-kill on many streams. Yes, I know that that is what some people want.

As for me, as an angler or as a biologist, I don't begrudge harvesting anglers their 8 wild brook trout harvested per mile on average in Pa. That harvest rate is certainly not limiting my success or the population.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

at the same time.... why is it the end of all life if a person cant harvest a trout that isnt even big enough to make a sandwich?

 

[FarmerDave]

Wulff-Man wrote:
With a caveat that all streams that support a "good" population of wild trout no longer be stocked! ...

Absolutely!!!

 

[FarmerDave]

Mike wrote:
Maurice,

I see I should have been more clear. There are apparently numerous brook trout streams, particularly in the Alleghenies, where the end of natural life occurs at lengths less than 9 inches and apparently enough where this occurs at lengths of 7 inches or less such that when the size limit went from 6 to 7 inches the fisheries manager had strong concerns. A 9 inch limit would be a no-kill on many streams. Yes, I know that that is what some people want.

Hmmm. must have been the same WCO who showed a friend of mine how to break the spine of a 5.75 inch trout to grow it to 6+ when the size limit was still only 6". True story. the moral is, these guys are not all knowing, and are certainly human. Humans make mistakes. Your guy's strong concerns were based on his opinion. Most of my fishing was in those infertile streams that are now called class C and D that supposedly wouldn't support many fish over 6 inches. Of course back then we didn't know they were considered poor streams. Back then, we used to harvest legal fish, and we would catch 10 to 20 5.5 inch trout for every 6+. Funny thing was, when they raised the size to 7 inches, we caught lots of 6.5 inch trout for every 7 inch.

I still catch plenty of legal trout in streams that i can step across even though the legal size is longer, only I don't harvest any (by choice).