Put-n-take vs C&R

[KenU]

Here are two days I fished last year. Both were small freestones managed under General Regs.

May 2, 2018: Fished a Class A mixed brook/brown trout stream that parallels the road throughout its length and is fished quite a bit because of its proximity to the road. It has not been stocked in many years. I fished about 4 hrs; caught 7 trout.
Caught & released 3ea sublegal brookies, and an 8 and 9 –inch brookie and an 8 and 8.5-inch brown.
Not bad for an accessible trout stream! This was a typical day. I have had better and worse days there.

Oct. 1, 2018: Fished the remote headwaters of a small freestone taken off stocking list in the mid-80s. It only holds brookies. Requires a hike down a gated road and 1 mile steep hill. Fished about 5 hours and then hiked back up hill to truck. This stream gets fished, but only occasionally. I have caught a few hook-damaged trout at the bottom of the hill near a bridge crossing. I fished about 5 hrs
Caught and released 20 brookies: 10 were sublegal, 3ea 7 inches, 2ea 8 inches, 2ea 9 inches and 3ea 10 inches. Larger fish were probably concentrated in the upstream reach because they were staging for spawning.

I have lots of other similar data for mountain freestones. This is what we could have if we just stopped stocking mountain streams, which are mostly brook trout waters. We already know what great fisheries the limestoners are.

My conclusion: The single most significant thing the PFBC could do to provide this kind of fishing in small-to-medium sized freestones would be to quit stocking them.

 

[bigjohn58]

I never understood the small stream stockings. The stocked fish are all fished out practically within a day or two. The meat hunters really flock to those small stream stockings. I always feel bad for any legal sized brookie in those streams because you darn well know if someone catches one its going on the stringer. I don't understand how it can be fun to get a bucket of fish, dump them in the hole the size of your bathtub, then run and get your fishing gear to catch them. Thats the mentality though of a lot of PA sportsmen and the side of things that need to change but never will.

 

[CRB]

MKern wrote:
2 fish should be the limit, even for stocked fish. Catch what you can eat in a short amount of time. If you want to feed the family, then they should fish too (and buy a license).

Now this is a good idea and brings more money into the PAFBC..

 

[troutbert]

CRB wrote:

MKern wrote:
2 fish should be the limit, even for stocked fish. Catch what you can eat in a short amount of time. If you want to feed the family, then they should fish too (and buy a license).

Now this is a good idea and brings more money into the PAFBC..

I agree with a 2 trout general limit.

In old English literature two trout was known as "the gentleman's brace."

Here's something to think about:

What is the ratio of legal-sized trout (stocked and wild) in the entire state of Pennsylvania to the number of people who fish for trout?

 

[PALongbow]

I kind of like the slot limit sizing that western streams use. People can take fish but they are either generally small in size or one trophy trout that is usually over 20 inches. I also like the two trout limit that was mentioned above but the entitled won't stop there.

Ron

 

[KenU]

According to my data, a two trout /day creel limit with a 7’ minimum size limit would mean that a little over half of the legal size trout caught would have to be released. I would like to see the size limit removed like Maryland has done. This gets rid of the goal the current creel and size limits tend to create. Just about anybody can catch two brookies in the average brook trout stream. That would take away the incentive to keep catching and releasing nearly legal fish, many of which will die if the angler is using bait or mishandling them during release. If anything, I would like to see some sort of maximum size on brook trout, say 9 inches. These guys are the “best of the best” with whatever it takes to get that big in small. infertile freestone streams. Bigger trout also lay more and larger and more viable eggs. We need to preserve those brookies that mature later in life and therefore grow faster and reach larger size. That’s how nature does it. They can’t reproduce in the freezer or frying pan. When a horse wins the Triple Crown it’s put out to stud, not made into dog food. Let Mother Nature sort them out. She’s been at this survival thing for some million years and has it pretty well worked out. All we need to do is keep the streams clean and cold.

 

[krayfish2]

Did Mike just up and bail on this thread or am I imagining things?

 

[lycoflyfisher]

He is retired now... Maybe he is off enjoying a holiday weekend away without having to worry about work on Monday!

 

[krayfish2]

That is very possible. It's also very possible that when others don't agree with his view on things, disappears. While "because Penn state's says so" is it good enough answer for some of you, not for me. He still will not deviate from the pfbc script even in retirement

 

[silverfox]

krayfish2 wrote:
That is very possible. It's also very possible that when others don't agree with his view on things, disappears. While "because Penn state's says so" is it good enough answer for some of you, not for me. He still will not deviate from the pfbc script even in retirement

I think it's also possible that it's simply indefensible and there are other factors at play. The "stop stocking class A" argument is pretty solid and I haven't read, heard or seen one good example of why that shouldn't be done. I suspect the "stock em big and more of em" crowd is in the ear of "the powers that be" more than the wild trout folks and the PAFBC's hands are tied. The needs of the many... yada yada yada.

I actually just spoke with my legislator about this today. I recommend anyone and everyone else reading this who feels the same way does the same.

 

[FarmerDave]

KenU wrote:
According to my data, a two trout /day creel limit with a 7’ minimum size limit would mean that a little over half of the legal size trout caught would have to be released. I would like to see the size limit removed like Maryland has done. This gets rid of the goal the current creel and size limits tend to create. Just about anybody can catch two brookies in the average brook trout stream. That would take away the incentive to keep catching and releasing nearly legal fish, many of which will die if the angler is using bait or mishandling them during release. If anything, I would like to see some sort of maximum size on brook trout, say 9 inches. These guys are the “best of the best” with whatever it takes to get that big in small. infertile freestone streams. Bigger trout also lay more and larger and more viable eggs. We need to preserve those brookies that mature later in life and therefore grow faster and reach larger size. That’s how nature does it. They can’t reproduce in the freezer or frying pan. When a horse wins the Triple Crown it’s put out to stud, not made into dog food. Let Mother Nature sort them out. She’s been at this survival thing for some million years and has it pretty well worked out. All we need to do is keep the streams clean and cold.

As I side note, I lived in Eastern Connecticut from 83 to 85, and was surprised to see no minimum size limit on trout. They just had a creel limit of 5. At the time I thought that was strange, but them I figured out the mentality was that if it wasn't stocked, it didn't have trout. Why do you need a minimum size limit on rubber trout? It does actually make some sense to me to get rid of minimum size limit.

While living up there, I made it a mission to find native brookies. I would drive around and start fishing anything that looked like it should have trout. Although most of them did have trout, nearly everything was stocked. So I sought out smaller and smaller streams. One Easter weekend I stopped at a very small stream and proceeded to catch only stocked brookies. It was almost frustrating.

Not only that, many of the small lakes and ponds were stocked with trout. I went fishing down the road from one of the places I lived expecting to catch panfish. I did, but also caught trout.

The first golden rainbow I ever caught was fishing a small lake, drifting night crawlers for panfish from a boat.

By studying topo maps, I did manage to eventually find one tiny stream a mile or so from one of the places I lived that had wild brook and brown. Very tiny stream, and it flowed into brackish water. Apparently the Conn. fish commission didn't know about that one. ;-)

Hopefully this mentality has changed over the years.

I lived right on a trout stream for one year, which even had a fish ladder about a mile upstream for sea run browns. But it didn't seem to be maintained. I'd go clear the brush out of it from time to time. Lost a set of car keys once while living there. Had no idea where I lost them. So I retraced my steps and spotted the key chain shining at the bottom of the fish ladder.

It seems that PF&BC still has the mentality in some parts of the state, that if it is more than a few feet wide, isn't class A, and has road access, then it needs to be stocked.

As always, I'm 100% with you on this topic, Ken. More of these small freestones should be removed from the stocking list.