Put-n-take vs C&R

[Mike]

Fly-Swatter,
The PFBC went to experts who know a thing or two about business, PSU's Smeal College of Business. Read on....

https://www.fishandboat.com/AboutUs/Documents/PSU-BusinessAnalysis.pdf

 

[Fly-Swatter]

Mike: That is encouraging!

There are so many great recommendations in this analysis. I strongly recommend all who are vocal here to read it and get informed!

I am tempted to cherry pick bits from it, but that would not do the depth of the analysis justice.

For example:

PAFBC leadership should ask where the agency is going to be in the future. Examples of
questions to ask include:
* Will you be primarily fish farmers?
* Should the agency be involved in resource protection?
* Will primary sources of revenue remain license fees?


More revenue and better management solve many problems. Get the fingers of the legislature out of the PAFBC!

 

[FarmerDave]

KenU wrote:
We have the most and some of the best wild and native trout fishing east of the Mississippi. And one doesn’t need a plane ticket to get there. Forget the stream classification system. We have a lot of Class B, C, and even D trout waters that can provide a great day of wild trout fishing – providing they are not being stocked. I know, because I fish them and so do some of the others who post here. Just put back what you catch. We don’t need to eat the baseballs to enjoy the game.

Well, you are wrong, Ken. All these people fixated on just class A should continue their fixation. The trout in Class B, C, and D are not worth fishing for.

wink wink.

Seriously though. One of my favorite native streams to fish was a recovering stream. I think it is listed as class C. It might have even been class D back then. I was even involved in a couple stream projects to improve habitat. I should have realized that the intent was to eventually stock it. One day i fished it at lunch. Caught a healthy 10 inch native. Went back after work when I had more time to fish it again in the same area. Caught a half dozen or so stocked brook trout in the same general area. Later I found out they secretly stocked 50 brook trout to see how they would do. Made me wish I had kept them all.

The following year they stocked the crap out of it. I understand it made cents (not a typo) to stock this stream because if flows through a state park, but it still sucked for me.

It seems that every stream greater than 10 feet wide in NWPA is stocked, except for a couple class A that might be wider than that (but not by much).

If the geology in an area can't support class A, why not leave a few Bs and Cs alone. Why use policy and numbers based on limestone streams in central PA to determine what is stocked in areas like NW and SW PA? It's a big freakin state.

OK, that was second rant.

 

[silverfox]

Fly-Swatter wrote:
Mike: That is encouraging!

There are so many great recommendations in this analysis. I strongly recommend all who are vocal here to read it and get informed!

I am tempted to cherry pick bits from it, but that would not do the depth of the analysis justice.

For example:

PAFBC leadership should ask where the agency is going to be in the future. Examples of
questions to ask include:
* Will you be primarily fish farmers?
* Should the agency be involved in resource protection?
* Will primary sources of revenue remain license fees?


More revenue and better management solve many problems. Get the fingers of the legislature out of the PAFBC!

It also makes very clear that reduction in trout production and stocking is necessary. If they stop stocking over naturally reproducing trout, they would reduce expenses while simultaneously carrying out their mission statement/helping wild trout.

Seems like a no brainer to me.

One interesting thing I gleaned from this is that the commission believes that 100% of the trout stocked are taken. Usually it seems like they tow the line of "harvest is low". Except here where they seem to admit that people kill everything they put in the water.

 

[bigjohn58]

salvelinus wrote:
Do you think it would still receive the same pressure if it was not stocked? i know two streams that the PFBC stopped stocking due to good wild populations and I never see anybody on them anymore.

Will it receive the same pressure? No...but will it still get pressured? Sure would since it runs right through the middle of a town. If it was out in the middle of nowhere away from most people that would be different. Parts of the stream that are not stocked outside of the town go in streaks with trout populations. Seems like someone will go through and literally ruin chunks of the stream for a few years. A few hundred yard stretch outside of town that isn't stocked had over 150 trout kept (mostly all in that section) by one person a few years ago. Took me 2 years before finally catching a trout in that stretch thanks to over harvesting. I heard someone else did the same to another stretch this past winter.

 

[PennKev]

Beyond ending stocking on more of or wild trout waters, I think a lot of the changes proposed here have more to do with emotion than actual management of our wild trout streams.

I'm not a huge fan of special regs for the sake of special regs. I think that they should only be implemented when an threat to the quality of a fishery is identified and a regs change will mitigate the threat. I also do not think special regs should necessarily be pre-emptive. Aside from stocking, nothing ads fishing pressure like slapping special regs on a stretch of water. Finally, special regs should be simplistic and be the most direct way to achieve a fisheries management goal.

In general, I am for cutting stocking over wild trout streams. I am for a reduced daily limit on unstocked streams, preferably no more than 3 a day. I am also for a general regs slot limit where trout over 14" cannot be kept on unstocked streams. Other than these three changes I am cautious about advocating special regs. IMO, the general regs for unstocked streams should be able to provide enough protection in most situations.

Even after all I've wrote here, and with my suggested changes in mind, I am not so sure that there is a real problem with our general trout regulations. I think the real change starts with cutting back on stocking and changing the culture of trout fishing in PA. I think there is undue anxiety about the fishing pressure wild trout would see after a cut back and that is where the desire for restrictive regs comes from, not an actual fisheries management need.

 

[krayfish2]

Sal wrote
Do you think it would still receive the same pressure if it was not stocked? i know two streams that the PFBC stopped stocking due to good wild populations and I never see anybody on them anymore.

Is one of those streams Spring Crk? LoL

 

[troutbert]

Most of the PFBC biologist/managers would like to shift more of the hatchery trout stocking away from native brookie & wild brown streams to other waters.

And they have made some progress in doing so. But why don't they move in that direction more quickly?

Because they have not been getting enough political support for this.

The people who want their local streams stocked, regardless of whether they support native brookies and wild browns talk to the PFBC, their PFBC Commissioner, and their state legislators.

The wild trout advocates talk to the Internet.

You can decide for yourself which is more effective.

 

[Acristickid]

2 of my favorite creeks have been poisoned and closed to harvest.

Spring Creek poisoned

Lil J poisoned

Maybe your favorite stream is poisonous??

 

[afishinado]

acristickid wrote:
2 of my favorite creeks have been poisoned and closed to harvest.

Spring Creek poisoned

Lil J poisoned

Maybe your favorite stream is poisonous??

Add Valley Creek to that list^

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:
Most of the PFBC biologist/managers would like to shift more of the hatchery trout stocking away from native brookie & wild brown streams to other waters.

And they have made some progress in doing so. But why don't they move in that direction more quickly?

Because they have not been getting enough political support for this.

The people who want their local streams stocked, regardless of whether they support native brookies and wild browns talk to the PFBC, their PFBC Commissioner, and their state legislators.

The wild trout advocates talk to the Internet.

You can decide for yourself which is more effective.

^ Agreed.

To demonstrate the point, just go back to last year.

Penns Creek is one of the greatest trout streams in PA.

Think about all the flak the FBC took about adding 3 miles + of C&R fishing to a great wild trout stream.

Plus they even added stream miles of stocking to compensate.

The "locals" and fishing clubs that stock were and are up in arms.

Change does not come easy in PA.

 

[FarmerDave]

PennKev wrote:
Beyond ending stocking on more of or wild trout waters, I think a lot of the changes proposed here have more to do with emotion than actual management of our wild trout streams.

I'm not a huge fan of special regs for the sake of special regs. I think that they should only be implemented when an threat to the quality of a fishery is identified and a regs change will mitigate the threat. I also do not think special regs should necessarily be pre-emptive. Aside from stocking, nothing ads fishing pressure like slapping special regs on a stretch of water. Finally, special regs should be simplistic and be the most direct way to achieve a fisheries management goal.

In general, I am for cutting stocking over wild trout streams. I am for a reduced daily limit on unstocked streams, preferably no more than 3 a day. I am also for a general regs slot limit where trout over 14" cannot be kept on unstocked streams. Other than these three changes I am cautious about advocating special regs. IMO, the general regs for unstocked streams should be able to provide enough protection in most situations.

Even after all I've wrote here, and with my suggested changes in mind, I am not so sure that there is a real problem with our general trout regulations. I think the real change starts with cutting back on stocking and changing the culture of trout fishing in PA. I think there is undue anxiety about the fishing pressure wild trout would see after a cut back and that is where the desire for restrictive regs comes from, not an actual fisheries management need.

Well put Kev. I couldn't agree more with most of it, and would be the same way with all of it with a couple tweaks. But that's the engineer in me. It's what we do.;-) I do agree with every concept that you stated.

The biggest tweak is the 14 inch upper limit. This would probably be great for wild browns, and maybe even Rainbows (exception being steelhead), but would have no protective effect on brook trout. Upper limit for brook trout would probably have to be set at about 9 or 10 inches IMO.

There in-lies a problem. PF&BC thinks the average PA angler can't tell the difference.

 

[bigjohn58]

krayfish2 wrote:

Sal wrote
Do you think it would still receive the same pressure if it was not stocked? i know two streams that the PFBC stopped stocking due to good wild populations and I never see anybody on them anymore.

Is one of those streams Spring Crk? LoL

No its not Spring Creek...just that one spot at the bridge in Bellefonte gets stocked. I still think they should make that a kids/vets section from bridge to bridge there in town.

 

[silverfox]

PennKev wrote:
Beyond ending stocking on more of or wild trout waters, I think a lot of the changes proposed here have more to do with emotion than actual management of our wild trout streams.

I'm not a huge fan of special regs for the sake of special regs. I think that they should only be implemented when an threat to the quality of a fishery is identified and a regs change will mitigate the threat. I also do not think special regs should necessarily be pre-emptive. Aside from stocking, nothing ads fishing pressure like slapping special regs on a stretch of water. Finally, special regs should be simplistic and be the most direct way to achieve a fisheries management goal.

In general, I am for cutting stocking over wild trout streams. I am for a reduced daily limit on unstocked streams, preferably no more than 3 a day. I am also for a general regs slot limit where trout over 14" cannot be kept on unstocked streams. Other than these three changes I am cautious about advocating special regs. IMO, the general regs for unstocked streams should be able to provide enough protection in most situations.

Even after all I've wrote here, and with my suggested changes in mind, I am not so sure that there is a real problem with our general trout regulations. I think the real change starts with cutting back on stocking and changing the culture of trout fishing in PA. I think there is undue anxiety about the fishing pressure wild trout would see after a cut back and that is where the desire for restrictive regs comes from, not an actual fisheries management need.

I agree that special regs are 2nd only to stocking in terms of drawing attention to a stream. Especially when there are so few of them.

I suspect there is far more harvest going on than the commission either A) realizes, or B) cares to admit. The study that was done on wild trout stream harvest rates was on 200 unstocked streams, carried out over a short period of time by creel clerks who questioned people creekside. That data was then extrapolated and applied to the entire state. I have zero confidence in the accuracy of that study.

That study also didn't look at the issue of stocking class a streams/sections or the impact of stocking/harvest on wild trout numbers in those types of streams. So I'm not sure that the information they're using to guide the management policies is sound.

Some of these streams/sections are fairly short/small. It doesn't take very long for a handful of guys keeping their limit for a few weeks to wipe out a population in 1 mile of stream. During the spring season, there is no regulation in place to protect the fish in those sections. That doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, harvest regs are used where needed on a specific basis when there is an identifiable problem. So where are the surveys of impact on these streams? Who is actually monitoring whether or not there is or isn't a harvest problem on any specific stream?

 

[PennKev]

silverfox wrote:
I suspect there is far more harvest going on than the commission either A) realizes, or B) cares to admit. The study that was done on wild trout stream harvest rates was on 200 unstocked streams, carried out over a short period of time by creel clerks who questioned people creekside. That data was then extrapolated and applied to the entire state. I have zero confidence in the accuracy of that study.

That's kind of a moving-the-goal-post stance at best. 200 hundred streams is a pretty big sample IMO. If that's not enough, at want point are creel surveys indicative of actuality? 500 streams? 1000 streams? All of them? I do, however, think you make a good point in differentiating harvest on unstocked streams vs. harvest on streams in which trout are stocked over wild fish. Of course on the stocked streams you are getting many more anglers seeking to keep fish and they are not selective about whether the fish they keep are wild or stocked. Thus, incidental harvest of wild fish on stocked streams is likely much higher than intentional harvest of wild fish on unstocked streams. It's not a sample size problem with the survey, it's an apples and oranges situation. If we stopped stocking any given wild trout stream, I am confident that in a short period of time, the harvest rate for that stream would fall in line with the results for the other 200 unstocked streams in the survey.

Yes, harvest regs are used where needed on a specific basis when there is an identifiable problem. So where are the surveys of impact on these streams? Who is actually monitoring whether or not there is or isn't a harvest problem on any specific stream?

I think that the angling public needs to be vocal about concerns for particular streams, and the PAFBC needs to be responsive to those concerns. Angler use also needs to be monitored in some fashion. It's not hard to tell where people are fishing, particularly with social media. Start by evaluating those heavily pressured areas. Additionally, once implemented, the effects of special regs should be re-evaulated with some regularity. Are they achieving their goals? Did they help/hurt? Was there any effect at all?

I also should ad that I have yet to find a creek where the following is true: It is not a Class A, not special regs, or not stocked yet sees obvious, relatively heavy heavy fishing pressure for trout despite not having any of those characteristics.

 

[PennKev]

FarmerDave wrote:

The biggest tweak is the 14 inch upper limit. This would probably be great for wild browns, and maybe even Rainbows (exception being steelhead), but would have no protective effect on brook trout. Upper limit for brook trout would probably have to be set at about 9 or 10 inches IMO.

I'll concede that a slot limit would need to be applied differently to bookies. I'd even say that it could be omitted entirely as the slot limit would have almost no effect since brookies over even 10" are rare, let alone a creek that has a strong number of them. However, if the choice is to have a upper slot limit of 9" or so as a general regulation, or to apply special regs to the handful of streams were large brookies do frequently occur, I would choose the slot limit general regs. My reasoning being that special regs on a select few streams would "out" those streams and be counter productive in preserving the fishery.

 

[MKern]

Who cares what the local idiot at a trout camp thinks???!!!!

Sometimes the smarter (maybe better intentioned would be a better term) people need to put their foot down and do what's right.

 

[bigjohn58]

silverfox wrote:

PennKev wrote:
Beyond ending stocking on more of or wild trout waters, I think a lot of the changes proposed here have more to do with emotion than actual management of our wild trout streams.

I'm not a huge fan of special regs for the sake of special regs. I think that they should only be implemented when an threat to the quality of a fishery is identified and a regs change will mitigate the threat. I also do not think special regs should necessarily be pre-emptive. Aside from stocking, nothing ads fishing pressure like slapping special regs on a stretch of water. Finally, special regs should be simplistic and be the most direct way to achieve a fisheries management goal.

In general, I am for cutting stocking over wild trout streams. I am for a reduced daily limit on unstocked streams, preferably no more than 3 a day. I am also for a general regs slot limit where trout over 14" cannot be kept on unstocked streams. Other than these three changes I am cautious about advocating special regs. IMO, the general regs for unstocked streams should be able to provide enough protection in most situations.

Even after all I've wrote here, and with my suggested changes in mind, I am not so sure that there is a real problem with our general trout regulations. I think the real change starts with cutting back on stocking and changing the culture of trout fishing in PA. I think there is undue anxiety about the fishing pressure wild trout would see after a cut back and that is where the desire for restrictive regs comes from, not an actual fisheries management need.

I agree that special regs are 2nd only to stocking in terms of drawing attention to a stream. Especially when there are so few of them.

I suspect there is far more harvest going on than the commission either A) realizes, or B) cares to admit. The study that was done on wild trout stream harvest rates was on 200 unstocked streams, carried out over a short period of time by creel clerks who questioned people creekside. That data was then extrapolated and applied to the entire state. I have zero confidence in the accuracy of that study.

That study also didn't look at the issue of stocking class a streams/sections or the impact of stocking/harvest on wild trout numbers in those types of streams. So I'm not sure that the information they're using to guide the management policies is sound.

Some of these streams/sections are fairly short/small. It doesn't take very long for a handful of guys keeping their limit for a few weeks to wipe out a population in 1 mile of stream. During the spring season, there is no regulation in place to protect the fish in those sections. That doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, harvest regs are used where needed on a specific basis when there is an identifiable problem. So where are the surveys of impact on these streams? Who is actually monitoring whether or not there is or isn't a harvest problem on any specific stream?

Special regs are a joke if there is no one to enforce them. If all Class A streams had the regs changed then it should not attract more people to these streams.

As far as anglers harvesting fish I feel the majority catch and release. Some catch and harvest just a few year. Some go and harvest their limit of fish daily or weekly. Then there are the few who harvest everything and ignore the rules. The class A stream that I fish that is stocked in a portion is now catch and release from Labor Day until the end of February when it is closed for stocking til the opener. I heard a story about one angler who disliked the rule and decided to keep everything he caught this winter. Said he didn't have money for food so he didn't care about the regulations (Glad I wasn't there because he wouldn't have enough money to be fixing his vehicle that he drives to the stream after that). Seems like we have a few uneducated anglers who have ZERO care about rules, regulations, or the future of a fishery. Those are the people that really need to be eliminated that commonly ruin fisheries in my area. This is also why harvesting studies by anyone (PA Game Commission also) is a complete joke completely made up number. Personally I feel the fish commission does a poor job of educating anglers.

Streams that are not stocked and hold wild trout should definitely have the limits reduced. Stocked streams and people keeping their 5 stocked trout is fine. Stocked streams with wild trout should have areas that educate anglers on what wild trout look like and the benefits of having them in the stream. Encourage anglers to harvest stocked trout and release the wild ones. Its sad where I mostly trout fish the majority of the anglers who catch a wild brown think its a brook trout and have no ability to distinguish between the 2. Like I said most of PA's anglers are very uneducated.

 

[afishinado]

If anyone is interested, I linked a study from Wisconsin that monitored special regulations in all types of trout streams > large and small as well as having populations of brook trout or brown trout. The data was tracked for several decades to come to their conclusions.

There is a lot of very interesting info in the report. It is a long and difficult read, but answers many of the questions posed here.

Here is the link: http://dnr.wi.gov/topic/fishing/documents/trout/troutregevalu.pdf

Here is a very brief summary of their conclusion from the Special Reg study:

Streams with catch and release and slot length limits had higher densities of large brown trout (>/=10 in, >/=12 in, >/=15 in) than streams with low or high minimum length limits

As I posted in my earlier post, bigger fish are the first to be cropped out of the population in harvest streams. The study findings are no surprise > more fish and bigger fish are found in C&R streams.

Brook Trout
Do brook trout densities differ in streams with different special regulations and if so, which special regulations were associated with higher densities?

• Small streams with special regulations had higher densities than the other standard regulation categories.
• Streams with a high MLL and low daily bag limit had higher densities of brook trout >/=9 inches than streams with slot limits or low MLL and high daily bag limits.

Brown Trout
Are brown trout >/=7 inches more abundant in streams with regulation category 2(7 inch MLL and 5 daily bag limit) than in streams with other regulations?

• All – No (5 was higher than 2)
• Small – No
• Medium – No (3 and 5 were higher than 2)
• Large – No

Above ^ brown trout 7" or more are less abundant in all sized streams with regulations of 7" or greater harvest with a 5 fish limit.

 

[FarmerDave]

PennKev wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:

The biggest tweak is the 14 inch upper limit. This would probably be great for wild browns, and maybe even Rainbows (exception being steelhead), but would have no protective effect on brook trout. Upper limit for brook trout would probably have to be set at about 9 or 10 inches IMO.

I'll concede that a slot limit would need to be applied differently to bookies. I'd even say that it could be omitted entirely as the slot limit would have almost no effect since brookies over even 10" are rare, let alone a creek that has a strong number of them. However, if the choice is to have a upper slot limit of 9" or so as a general regulation, or to apply special regs to the handful of streams were large brookies do frequently occur, I would choose the slot limit general regs. My reasoning being that special regs on a select few streams would "out" those streams and be counter productive in preserving the fishery.

I understand, and that is why I said I agreed completely with the concepts that you stated (And I did mean all of them). It was a great post. I agree with this one too. 9-10 inch were just examples.

I probably shouldn't have even posted that because it is kind of a tangent. But the only reason I did was many of these discussions seem to concentrate on wild browns or migrate in that direction. Sorry.