Put-n-take vs C&R

[silverfox]

After fishing Sunday on a Class A stream and seeing the trash and destruction along the banks I went and looked at our state map and it's streams and it just doesn't make any sense.

No wonder the state is strapped for cash. The entire state is one big put-n-take operation. We have a large inventory of streams that support natural reproduction, yet very few C&R regs. At best, the C&R regs are small sections of streams. The few large sections of streams are C&R all tackle, which doesn't make a lot of sense to me. I fished the Little J on Saturday and saw several piles of corn on the bank along with all the trash that has washed downstream and collected along the banks. Saw several bait fishermen. I've got to think the kill rate using bait there is pretty high.

With all of the water in this state, why can't we have more C&RALO water? Why is it so flip-flopped? A few tiny pieces of C&R and everything else is slob heaven. I saw a group of guys on the Class A Sunday sitting in lawn chairs with trash everywhere. Bait containers in the water, paper towels all over the banks and they stomped the banks to mud.

Does anyone else have a problem with this?:

Natural Reproduction:

Stocked:

Special Regs:

Shouldn't this be the other way around? The PAFBC is strapped for cash and part of that is the immense expense of the stocking program. Maybe protect the naturally occurring fish and concentrate the stocking on fewer/marginal streams?

I don't think the PAFBC grasps the damage done in the first few weeks in April. Both to the fish populations and the environment. I know of people who will catch their limit, go home, then go back out and limit out again.

For fun; I saw approximately 30 vehicles along the road for about 2 miles. Maybe 2 to 4 people per vehicle = 90 people. If each limits out once, that's 450 fish/2 miles = 225 fish per mile. I know that on an average wild trout stream (like the one I'm talking about) there is approximately 220 legal sized trout per mile. https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Fisheries/TroutPlan/Documents/WildTroutStreamAnglerUseCatchEconomicContribution.pdf

That's in 1 day. If that stream couldn't support natural reproduction, it would be one thing. But it's a class A in it's upper reaches and it does support a healthy population of wild trout. A lot of them went home on stringers. This state is a mess.

I know this has been beaten to death. This is just a rant. I had to get it off my chest. This state needs to do more to protect/support wild trout.

 

[afishinado]

A lot of good points ^

Looking at it from strictly a business perspective, no business (that plans to stay in business) would market heavily and spend the lions share of their budget on a segment (stocked trout) that is so costly and breaking budget. The logical thing is to promote more conservation of trout by creating and promoting C&R areas. C&R with ALO regs in all Class A's would be a good start.

 

[Smike]

"This state needs to do more to protect/support wild trout."

This X 100000000

The data in PA is staggering and telling us to change our ways. Generational turnover is going to make it happen eventually, but I'd like to see it a bit faster...

 

[Mike]

Special regs in unstocked wild trout streams are "tools of the trade" applied in today's times to achieve specific biological objectives. Specifically, they are applied when obvious cropping or over-harvest of a trout population has been identified; they are not applied just because anglers want them in a wild trout fishery.

In the one scientific paper that I read which went so far as to identify the amount of angling mortality that needed to occur for special regs to have a beneficial effect on year to year trout abundance, the fishing mortality rate needed to be 50 percent. Otherwise, you are looking at the berry patch effect on no effect. In the case of the berry patch, you pick a bunch of berries and next year there are just as many at the patch again. In the case of no effect, you are dealing with nature's balance, specifically compensatory survival and mortality. In general, for each fish that is removed another has a better chance to survive. That even happens in certain habitat types, which is why certain "pocket pools" or holes always seem to support a larger fish than the norm, despite harvest. The dynamic is that as fish grow they seek appropriate habitats for their size or are booted out of their previous lies by more dominant fish and need to seek new habitat or become more vulnerable to predation or energy loss.

Bear in mind that trout population mortality is comprised of angling mortality plus natural mortality and there is a compensatory balance maintained between the two unless there is a very high harvest rate (high angling mortality in the 50 % neighborhood mentioned above). Average annual mortality rates across ages ( from age 2 or 3 onward)in freestoners and limestoners in Pa run around 60-65 % as presented at the statewide Trout Simmit in the early 2000's.

Given the low harvest rates seen in the statewide wild trout stream angler use and harvest study of conducted in 200 randomly chosen wild trout stream sections, angler impact was very low because harvest was very low. Special regs would have no impact on a grand scale, as a result. What would be needed would be to identify specific streams or stream sections where harvest was in fact modifying population size or size structure in the long run. They would be hard to find and, in fact, I have requested that members of this forum identify such streams on multiple occasions and only one person was able to provide one stream name.

My bet is that most of the special regs could be removed from wild trout streams in Pa (with some exceptions where harvest could still be problematic) because of the popularity of voluntary C&R fishing and there would be no measurable impact or long term impact from harvest. There might even be some benefit to those anglers who like to catch larger fish, since high densities of small to moderate size fish are possibly providing excessive competition for potentially larger fish in some cases, particularly in limestoners with high trout densities but not many larger fish despite the habitat. Many of those special reg areas were established in a different era ( different predominant angler behavior) and I think you would find that at least some were established for social or political reasons rather than biological reasons. It was a different era for that as well. So you see, I am never going to rule out the use of special regs in wild trout management, but they need to be applied as management techniques in the rare Pa cases where they are actually necessary and most likely to produce the desired biological (abundance or size structure) result.

 

[DaveS]

To OP;
I can’t really argue your points about conservation. BUT any regulation that limits access to a certain segment of the angling public is an us vs. them battle and there are WAY more all tackle anglers.
And it’s a battle you will lose.

I’ve been fishing the little j a long time. It’s not the relatively few bait guys that are a threat to that fishery. I have personally seen fly fishers play fish WAY too long, (I guess so their buddy saw he caught one ?) and litter, and park where they should not.

The path to what you want isn’t separating anglers, it’s educating them.
IMHO

 

[FarmerDave]

You do make some good point, but...

I never was a big fan of special regs. Oh, they make sense in some places, but in most places, they simply are not needed.

These days, everybody relies on lists, and what they can find on the innerwebs to decide where to fish.

Back in the day, we got out and explored. PF&BC only posted in the news papers where they were stocking trout. Consequently those streams got hit the hardest and they got trashed, especially first weekend of the season. A lot of people would camp out along their favorite put and take and leave their trash behind. It would magically be gone a year later. :roll:

I'd fish the native streams because I'd rarely see anyone on them, and almost no trash. More often than not, I would just fish for panfish that weekend to avoid drawing attention to the native streams.

Then the innerwebs came along, and as an effort to inform/identify more fishing opportunities, PF&BC started publishing lists of Class A streams. Guess what. The Class As started getting hit harder. Class A were few and far between in my part of the state (NWPA), so this was significant. Oh yea, so did the "special regs" waters.

A lot of people fixate on special regs areas as well as Class A.

To this day, drive by any of them in NWPA on a nice day when the water was decent, and there were cars in the parking lots. I have a relative who lives on a class A. People even park in his driveway even though there is a parking lot at the end of the road.

Up to this point, I was mostly OK with that because most of the streams I fished were not class A. Not even close. It was a minor hit.

Then they created wilderness stream designation. That ruined a couple more streams for me. Well, at least parts of them.

Later, PF&BC started publishing lists and maps showing ever stream (that they knew of) that had natural reproduction. Initially I was not pleased. Never was a fan of spoon feeding fishing locations. But because there are so many class B, C, and D, there was very little change. I also still knew of a couple not on the lists (at the time).

Yea yea, I know these were not the only reasons for publishing lists, and info is used for stream protection which is good. Yadda yadda. I figure I have to take the bad with the good.

One thing it seems to have done is pressure on put and take streams seems to have greatly reduced. I can go out opening day, catch a couple stocked trout for a meal, and see very few other anglers. But some of the larger Put-n-Take still get trashed.

Would I like to see more "special regs?" NOPE! It needs to make sense from a management standpoint.

Special regs only increases fishing pressure, both legal and illegal.

And at some point, the more special regs we have, the less special each one becomes.

We do need more protection for wild trout though. You want to see less people on those? Take the "Approved Trout Waters" and increase the creel limit. Anything else, keep it the same, or reduce the creel limit (but not to zero). Although I practice C&R on wild trout, I'm not a fan of C&R as a general rule.

Slobs who want to fill the freezer will go to ATWs because they can keep more fish.

I have always been a supporter of stocking less streams. If it can support a decent wild population, then leave it alone. I don't care if it is B or C. In some areas that is the best they can get. I wouldn't be upset if they stopped stocking all streams and just stock lakes. Also, open some waters on hatchery properties to fishing and charge admission. Budget, trash, and enforcement problem solved. But nobody takes that serious.

In the mean time, those of us not carrying a trash bag when we fish (many of us already do), should start doing so, and take out more than you took in. Every little bit helps.

That is my rant of the month.

 

[krayfish2]

Mike,
Will you ever take a position where stocking genetic misfits isn't the answer? Just curious.

Why can't almost every stream that supports a healthy natural reproduction be removed from stocking list, be made artificial lures only and apply a reduced creel limit of 2 fish? They can remain open from March 1 to October 30....and then be closed over the winter for spawn / hatch out? Why not select a handful of streams around the state and see how it goes for 12 months? You could even make a designated section of each as strictly C&R.

Getting people dependant on mush bellies is like the gubment getting people relying on public assistance. Neither are good. I understand that the PFBC has to keep the public wanting more stockies as it's great job security for them. By stopping stocking over healthy wild populations, there's more fish to stick in the marginal waters for the freezer fillers.

All of the braggers and guys that want to limit out multiple times in the first day can congregate in marginal water. They can get more fish stocked, bigger fish stocked and it's easier to oversee the circus / pass out any necessary fines.

Everyone wins..... including wild fish.

 

[silverfox]

Mike wrote:
Special regs in unstocked wild trout streams are "tools of the trade" applied in today's times to achieve specific biological objectives. Specifically, they are applied when obvious cropping or over-harvest of a trout population has been identified; they are not applied just because anglers want them in a wild trout fishery.

In the one scientific paper that I read which went so far as to identify the amount of angling mortality that needed to occur for special regs to have a beneficial effect on year to year trout abundance, the fishing mortality rate needed to be 50 percent. Otherwise, you are looking at the berry patch effect on no effect. In the case of the berry patch, you pick a bunch of berries and next year there are just as many at the patch again. In the case of no effect, you are dealing with nature's balance, specifically compensatory survival and mortality. In general, for each fish that is removed another has a better chance to survive. That even happens in certain habitat types, which is why certain "pocket pools" or holes always seem to support a larger fish than the norm, despite harvest. The dynamic is that as fish grow they seek appropriate habitats for their size or are booted out of their previous lies by more dominant fish and need to seek new habitat or become more vulnerable to predation or energy loss.

Bear in mind that trout population mortality is comprised of angling mortality plus natural mortality and there is a compensatory balance maintained between the two unless there is a very high harvest rate (high angling mortality in the 50 % neighborhood mentioned above). Average annual mortality rates across ages ( from age 2 or 3 onward)in freestoners and limestoners in Pa run around 60-65 % as presented at the statewide Trout Simmit in the early 2000's.

Given the low harvest rates seen in the statewide wild trout stream angler use and harvest study of conducted in 200 randomly chosen wild trout stream sections, angler impact was very low because harvest was very low. Special regs would have no impact on a grand scale, as a result. What would be needed would be to identify specific streams or stream sections where harvest was in fact modifying population size or size structure in the long run. They would be hard to find and, in fact, I have requested that members of this forum identify such streams on multiple occasions and only one person was able to provide one stream name.

My bet is that most of the special regs could be removed from wild trout streams in Pa (with some exceptions where harvest could still be problematic) because of the popularity of voluntary C&R fishing and there would be no measurable impact or long term impact from harvest. There might even be some benefit to those anglers who like to catch larger fish, since high densities of small to moderate size fish are possibly providing excessive competition for potentially larger fish in some cases, particularly in limestoners with high trout densities but not many larger fish despite the habitat. Many of those special reg areas were established in a different era ( different predominant angler behavior) and I think you would find that at least some were established for social or political reasons rather than biological reasons. It was a different era for that as well. So you see, I am never going to rule out the use of special regs in wild trout management, but they need to be applied in the rare Pa cases where they are actually necessary and most likely to produce the desired biological (abundance or size structure) result.

I understand the dynamics of "culling the herd" and how harvest can actually play a beneficial role in supporting an ecosystem.

All I know is that I can tell you at least 4 streams near me with 100% certainty that are negatively impacted by both stocking and harvest.

I don't know what the answer is. I just know that these streams seem capable of holding better fish than they do. I catch better fish on unnamed/remote blue lines. I can't reconcile that. If angler harvest and stocking have no effect, how on earth do these little trickles consistently produce more and better fish?

I know it's only anecdotal, but I personally see a HUGE difference between stocked/no reg streams and wild/low pressure/not stocked streams. Almost as if the stocking draws the crowds and they decimate the population or something. I guess the studies dispute that though.

 

[Mike]

By the way, thanks for posting the statewide wild trout streams map. It is the first time that I had seen the up-to-date version, which I was able to identify by seeing Muddy Creek, York County, main stem appear.

As for the number of stocked trout streams, check the densities shown in SW Pa and SE Pa vs the rest of the state. I am not certain that the ceoncern ("the entire state being one big put and take operation") is a necessarily a statewide phenomenon, but I will grant that such depends upon individual perspective.

No, the studies do not necessarily dispute what you said about stocking over wild trout and the resultant angling pressure impacts; it depends on the stream and the species. Impacts on wild brown trout streams are a crap shoot...about 50:50. Impacts are much greater on wild brook trout streams due to ST much higher vulnerability to capture and willingness to hit well in colder water temps.

In my long commentary above about special regs, however, I was speaking only about unstocked wild trout stream sections.

 

[silverfox]

krayfish2 wrote:

Why can't almost every stream that supports a healthy natural reproduction be removed from stocking list, be made artificial lures only and apply a reduced creel limit of 2 fish? They can remain open from March 1 to October 30....and then be closed over the winter for spawn / hatch out? Why not select a handful of streams around the state and see how it goes for 12 months? You could even make a designated section of each as strictly C&R.

It's a simple question for me; why stock the stream if it supports healthy natural reproduction? Seriously, what is the benefit to the ecosystem of stocking genetically inferior fish?

The answer is that it has nothing to do with helping the environment/ecosystem, and everything to do with selling licenses. This is what sickens me.

 

[KenU]

I know what Mike is saying but it doesn’t address the effects no- kill or minimum size regulations have on average and ultimate size of the population. The metric the Commission uses to set regulations is biomass. That is a good way to determine the potential of a stream to produce biomass of trout and other aquatic life, but doesn’t address average or ultimate size of the fish. I got into a discussion with Bob Bachman some years ago about minimum size limits. His reply: “Why would you want to kill the larger fish? Don’t you want them to get any bigger?!” I thought for a few minutes then realized what he was saying: Studies have shown that predation of larger sized fish reduces age at sexual maturity and average size of the population. I have never seen a study showing this effect on PA’s brook or brown trout, but see no reason it wouldn’t apply to trout. If a farmer wants to breed larger cows, he breeds the bigger ones and sends the smaller ones to market.

I have been fishing almost exclusively unstocked mountain freestones for some 23 years now. All trout caught were quickly measured to the nearest ¼ -inch, and then released. My data show that if the limit was lowered from 5 to 2, and I creeled the legal limit each time I could have, the potential kill would have been reduced by just a little over hall. No-kill saves them all.

 

[krayfish2]

Mike,
Thank you once again for for ignoring my post. With that said, I look forward to seeing your response to silverfox's post.

Stay blessed,
Andy

 

[HopBack]

With all of the water in this state, why can't we have more C&RALO water? Why is it so flip-flopped?

That's and easy one. If you were to make most streams in PA C&RALO, you would be excluding the largest group of fisherman in PA.

Think of it this way:

As a fly fisherman, I can fish any steam in the state that I choose.

Bait fisherman can only fish in non regulated areas.

The PFBC is not going to limit the opportunities for the largest group of license holders in the state.



I avoid regulated water anyway, it just draws more attention to one area vs another.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

It seems to me at this point in our history we should be looking for balance. Selfishly, I want all capable streams to be wild trout only. And I want remediation of any factors that limit wild trout reproduction and sustainability. My desires are not realistic.

I think the best point made on this thread related to economic viability (or lack thereof). Here are some things to consider:

1. I feel the continuing push to stock as many and as large of trout as possible in as many places as possible is outdated. I would bet there are more bass and panfish anglers that trout anglers.

2. The stocked trout anglers are a 1-3 week a year phenomenon. That does NOT mean they stop fishing the rest of the Spring and Summer. They just switch to bass and panfish.

3. There is a significant economic impact related to opening day of trout that is not directly related to license sales (ie, tackle, food lodging, etc.). These things should not be ignored.

4. It makes not practical sense to skew the PAFBC budget so strongly towards stocking trout if there is a related reduction in law enforcement due to lack of funds. This is not about special regs waters. The negative experience of planning a weekend around opening day only to find the stream nearly devoid of stocked trout is self-defeating.


To my mind, the real ongoing problem is a reduction in youth engagement. The mid-long term goals of the PAFBC should be strongly focused on youth engagement in fishing. Here are some ideas to move in that direction:Reduce the stocking costs and use the cost savings to increase enforcement; Raise the license fees and use those funds to significantly increase youth environmental education, mentorship, and engagement. The later is an investment in both the future of angling in PA and in environmental awareness.

If we stop relying solely upon stocked fish and were more dependent upon natural reproduction of all fish, we would have more skin in the game to further clean up our state.

 

[MKern]

krayfish is spot on. Simple and effective and probably the most beneficial to the resource.

 

[silverfox]

I was just thinking about an analogy (maybe a poor one?). In PA, the state turkey biologist sets the season in order to ensure the flock survives/grows. They don't really care about hunter success. If they did, they would set the season date a month earlier as it would be a lot easier to call in a gobbler.

They are tasked with enhancing the resource, not ensuring hunter success. If the PA game commission took the same approach as the PAFBC does with trout, they would establish hatcheries, stock birds and setup the hunting season so that it's a lot easier to kill birds.

Wonder why they don't do that? It generates revenue after all. They could generate a lot more hunter revenue by creating a put n take turkey season. Ironically, they've run into similar trouble with pheasant stocking.

I can't believe in 2019 we're still doing things this way. Creating an artificial experience to generate money to support creating the artificial experience.

 

[HopBack]

I can't believe in 2019 we're still doing things this way. Creating an artificial experience to generate money to support creating the artificial experience.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, were on the same side, but you do realize that this is the minority opinion. The Majority of license holders who fish for trout want more and bigger trout stocked, not less. Most anglers don't even know wild trout exist. Fine by me!

 

[springer1]

I can't believe in 2019 we're still doing things this way. Creating an artificial experience to generate money to support creating the artificial experience

+1

 

[silverfox]

HopBack wrote:

I can't believe in 2019 we're still doing things this way. Creating an artificial experience to generate money to support creating the artificial experience.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, were on the same side, but you do realize that this is the minority opinion. The Majority of license holders who fish for trout want more and bigger trout stocked, not less. Most anglers don't even know wild trout exist. Fine by me!

Oh I hear ya and I understand 100%. The problem is, at this point, the PAFBC has created the illusion that trout fishing in pa = what people encounter on opening day. It would be like turkey hunters demanding that there be 10 longbeards per square mile in the state. It isn't reality unless it's artificially created to be like that.

The hard truth is that this state can't support the fishery that we've artificially created. A lot of the struggles that the PAFBC is encountering has to do with that fact. It has since inception.

A license fee increase to help produce more trout will work for a while, but at some point, the money it will cost to support this illusion will be more than the public demand for licenses can bear. Keep in mind that the cost of producing trout is only going to escalate. Power, labor, equipment, building materials etc. etc. etc. are only going to increase. At some point, the cost per fish will be so high that it wont be feasible to support this level of stocking anymore.

Why continue down this path when the damn things naturally reproduce? Focus all the resources on protecting and enhancing their environment and let them make more. Just like any other natural resource, you have to limit their harvest to what the natural population can bear. It's the same reason you can't kill 5 gobblers in spring turkey season or 12 bucks per year.

 

[troutbert]

Was this one of the stocked Class A stream sections?

For what it's worth, my number one problem with trout management in PA is the widespread stocking of hatchery trout over native brook trout. This is very widely done, both both the PFBC and the cooperative nurseries.

If stocking over native brook trout was ended, it would result in significant increases in their populations.