Question regarding Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Program

[Eccles]

pcray1231 wrote: I'm incredibly confused by this. The biologist argument isn't that harvest CAN'T have an affect. It's that it currently doesn't.


i.e. the status quo on unstocked small freestoners which carry primarily wild brook trout is that harvest is low enough that, combined with short life spans and slow growth, any damage is statistically insignificant.

How does recruiting people and telling them to fish it and keep their catch then prove anything? You'd be creating a theoretical situation, but one that does NOT represent that status quo. i.e. you're trying to create a straw man.

Yes I suppose it may be what you call a 'strawman' but actually thinking about what your control groups and treatment groups might look like is an important part of any study. What they have in this study is a control group that is almost indistinguishable from the treatment group. That is fine I suppose. It gets the job done, satisfied peer review and is otherwise a competent study. But, as k-bob's literature trawl shows (and the study authors should know if they've been duly diligent), we already know that these kind of populations don't respond to C&R. So I've always been a bit disappointed by this study's lack of ambition.

Now it might be academic or creating strawmen (though it would also be a bit of decent field experimentation) but one thing I might like to know is whether these kinds of populations are affected if anglers who make up the current (low) level of fishing pressure actually harvest their fish according to the Statewide regs limits. A test of the regs themselves. If there is no impact with harvest PFBC can pat themselves on the back. But if there is it may put a little flag up for notice should the situation (access, angler numbers/attitudes etc) change. Of course that might not affect the status quo now (though it might affect policy) but good studies are not simply about reporting the present but about assessing the past and peering into the future. You get the answer about what is happening in the status quo and you take advantage of the situation to find out more.

JackM wrote: I have to agree with PCRays rebuke. It is a significant fallacy in many wild trout enthusiasts thinking that they surmise that every license holder will visit any given stream and harvest their daily limit on a daily basis.

The rebuke may have been appropriate if I was guilty of that significant fallacy.

 

[Chaz]

I would suggest that to take the study further, PFBC in conjunction with the State Council and National should go to all the streams and pick long sections, do a population survey, do some structure work to improve habitat, and see what happens. Since USGS and NOAA are both interested in brook trout populations, we should get flow data and weather data on these streams and see what happens after say five years.
We are after all interested in the same thing, keeping the brookie streams we have and knowing how to do that is the best way. Oh and leave the current regulations in place.

 

[troutbert]

The fisheries management change that would most benefit brookie populations, quickly and inexpensively, would be ending stocking over brook trout populations, including not just PFBC stocking, but also coop hatchery stocking.

The PFBC has decades of data that if analyzed could show the negative effects of running a put-and-take program over brookies. They would not have to collect new data;l they already have boatloads.

It would just require someone going through the data, doing the analysis, and writing up the study. Why hasn't that sort of study never been done and published? Preferably in a major fisheries journal?

They could get someone at the universities to analyze the data; they wouldn't even have to do it themselves.

 

[PennKev]

KenU wrote:
...Recent studies have shown that when larger individuals are selectively removed from a population, survival of shorter-lived individuals that mature earlier in life at small size is favored. No point in being able to live longer if you're likely to be killed and eaten as soon as you reach 7 inches!

I think the argument could be made that we are eliminating all the legal size brookies... ... a century ago. I just don't see harvest playing a large role in the generally small average size of brookies across the state in 2015. I would wager that harvest rates have dropped dramatically since some time in the mid 20th century to a point where it cannot be considered a consistent limiting factor for all brook trout streams, if it ever was in the first place.
There may still be very specific streams where harvest has a notable influence on maximum size, but we are seeing small fish as the norm across all streams. Yes some streams do give up better fish than others, but the same is true of brown trout streams also and there is no indication that harvest is the determining factor in which streams produce larger fish.

My point here is that harvest has not been a factor for a long enough period of time that we should have seen recovery in the size of brook trout in general across the state. Therefore, harvest is not likely the problem.

In addition, brookies have been driven into smaller less fertile headwater streams by pollution and land disturbances. This also favors early sexual maturity, short life spans and therefore smaller size. Couple this with the fact that those streams still capable of growing larger brookies have been pretty much taken over by brown trout and we begin to understand why a 12-inch brookie is now considered to be a trophy.

I think this is the determining factor. Habitat
We no longer have many larger, fertile waterways that can support brookies. Even the ones we have left have been largely altered so that introduced browns and bows have displaced brookies. Where brookies are still hanging on in these habitats, we see larger fish.

Stocking, which encourages angling pressure and harvesting, has got to be a major factor. Streams that regularly produce 8 to 11-inch brookies are typically not stocked, far from the road, and have good habitat and water quality. Remoteness protects them. I would like to see all brook trout streams protected in some way that gives the fish time to mature and grow and a half decent chance to compete with brown trout. They are far more than just coldwater panfish.

Again, see my above comments about harvest and habitat. I think the number of larger brookies is affected mostly by habitat, and aside from truly exceptional places like big Spring, I think that a 12" brookie is fairly uncommon to catch. If you catch a 12" wild brookie in a day you are doing well, 2 or more is exceptional. I just don't think the habitat is there to produce larger wild brookies at the same rate that that we produce similar sized browns. Our waterways have been altered to the point where browns are simply a better fit for them and can reside in a larger and more diverse variety of habitats found in this state. And for that matter, I think a lot of it has to do with water temps. I think our water temps are no longer consistently cool enough to allow brookies to take advantage of more fertile waterways the way browns do.

I think the biggest factors in the demise of large brookies have been farming, logging, and more recently suburban development. Through these activities we have dramatically altered the environment. These have lead directly to warmer water temps, increased siltation, and widening of stream channels. These changes have skewed the habitat in favor of brown trout or wiped out trout populations altogether. I think we are seeing some recovery from the large scale logging, but our forest are still dramatically different from what they previously were. Farming practices have improved also but farms aren't going away anytime soon and I believe they will always be a limiting factor for our trout fisheries, specifically our larger waterways. Development probably has the least affect on brookies, but only because brook trout have often already been eliminated from the streams that are in danger. It is, however, still a danger to our trout streams in general.

In conclusion, I highly doubt that the PAFBC can do anything to regulate their way to larger brookies and I think their ability to improve habitat is very limited also. Likewise, TU and other organizations face the same limitations. We simply cannot turn back the clock. We can improve the way we use the land so that we minimize impact, but we cannot go back to what we once had.

 

[troutbert]

Eccles wrote:

Yes I suppose it may be what you call a 'strawman'

I don't think your idea was a strawman.

This is a strawman:

"It is a significant fallacy in many wild trout enthusiasts thinking that they surmise that every license holder will visit any given stream and harvest their daily limit on a daily basis."

 

[JackM]

No, troutbert that would be hyperbole.

 

[DGC]

The best brook char streams I fish are stocked. Population and size. Others don't come close, stocked or not. The key factors are forage and habitat. I swear, if you guys ever overcome this fetish then just maybe PA TU will actually work on something worthwhile. How about challenging posted stretches of known excellent streams that are probably navigable? Now there is something worth fighting over.

It's not that stocking and attendant pressure/harvest is irrelevant. It is relevant. An excellent way to get a Class B that is stocked over the hump to Class A would be to reduce stocking, whether by numbers or season or both. The biologists know this and do exactly that. But the armchair experts treat all stocking as the same because the word is the same. Biologists actually know how to reduce stocking levels and timing and species to tune the results.

I know, you will say I don't understand. It is you who don't, because you have allowed a flawed application of a theory to become religion. Bachman, for all the good he has done, has frankly been proven to be flat out wrong on this too many times, evidenced by the wild brown class A streams despite the "auto-damage" of stocking over them that has occurred for many years. How much evidence to YOU need before you get it?

I am sure there are streams that could stand to see less stocking and where the wild population would do better. But please stop this blanket approach. The data is in and it is not as you say.

Enjoy!

 

[troutbert]

DGC wrote:
The best brook char streams I fish are stocked. Population and size.

Can you tell us more about this?

 

[pcray1231]

No, troutbert that would be hyperbole.

I approve this message. lol.

I don't think your idea was a strawman.

Depends how you take it. He further explained it which made more sense. In essence, this is the question the PFBC put out to answer.

Q: Is harvest TYPICALLY having a negative impact on the size of brookies in headwater freestoners?
A: No, at least not to a statistically significant level as measured by a fairly extensive study.

Eccles advocated recruiting fishermen to fish these streams, with instructions to harvest all they could. If that is still aimed at answering the above question, then absolutely, it's building a straw man, because you are taking harvest to it's unrealistic extreme. However, it would be an appropriate study to answer an entirely different question, such as:

Q: At what point would harvest begin to have a negative impact on the size of brookies in headwater freestoners? In the worst case extreme, is it at all possible that this could occur under current regulations?

i.e. a yes answer to the 2nd question would not indicate that a statewide reg change is needed. But it would indicate that, on occasion, individual streams may need or someday need more restrictive regulations. If, for instance, one of them started seeing extra angling pressure and/or well above average harvest, then more restrictive special regs should be considered for that stream only.

 

[Fishidiot]

DGC wrote:
The best brook char streams I fish are stocked.

DGC,
While I share your general view that stocking has been over-vilified and over-focused on by various groups. . . my experience on the above statement is complicated.

I do indeed get many large wild STs from ATWs (at least down here in the SC part of the state where I do most of my fishing). One stream in particular that is heavily stocked and fished by traditional anglers tends to produce good sized wild STs for me. Overall, however, my best small stream ST fishing - especially for numbers but also size - tends to come from Class A and non-stocked waters. Just my experience - not scientific.

 

[troutbert]

pcray1231 wrote:

No, troutbert that would be hyperbole.

I approve this message. lol.

I don't think your idea was a strawman.

Depends how you take it. He further explained it which made more sense. In essence, this is the question the PFBC put out to answer.

Q: Is harvest TYPICALLY having a negative impact on the size of brookies in headwater freestoners?
A: No, at least not to a statistically significant level as measured by a fairly extensive study.

Eccles advocated recruiting fishermen to fish these streams, with instructions to harvest all they could. If that is still aimed at answering the above question, then absolutely, it's building a straw man, because you are taking harvest to it's unrealistic extreme. However, it would be an appropriate study to answer an entirely different question, such as:

Q: At what point would harvest begin to have a negative impact on the size of brookies in headwater freestoners? In the worst case extreme, is it at all possible that this could occur under current regulations?

i.e. a yes answer to the 2nd question would not indicate that a statewide reg change is needed. But it would indicate that, on occasion, individual streams may need or someday need more restrictive regulations. If, for instance, one of them started seeing extra angling pressure and/or well above average harvest, then more restrictive special regs should be considered for that stream only.

You are explaining why you think his logic is faulty. It may be faulty.

But the term strawman does not refer to faulty logic. It refers to a deliberate distortion and exaggeration of the other person's position, then attacking that position AS IF it was their actual position.

For an example, see Jack's post.

 

[tomitrout]

So, I have a question about what ya'll are discussing here, and what exactly was the purpose of the WBTE Regs.


Were they attempting to study the effects of practicing C&R, or were they looking at the potential effects of C&R Regulations. In my mind, those are two seperate issues...

 

[JackM]

tb, eccl suggested that a better study would involve actually producing an over harvest to see the results. Fair enough it would be interesting to see that done, hopefully not too widespread. All I did was suggest that such a modification would only feed the inappropriate belief that harvest restriction are needed because of the false belief that such kind of over harvest actually occurs. And I used hyperbole to do that. The two logical fallacies are not mutually exclusive, so you can call it strawman if you want. Either way my point is the same: over harvest even under statewide regs does not occur to any extent believed by the enthusiasts.

 

[Chaz]

troutbert wrote:
The fisheries management change that would most benefit brookie populations, quickly and inexpensively, would be ending stocking over brook trout populations, including not just PFBC stocking, but also coop hatchery stocking.

The PFBC has decades of data that if analyzed could show the negative effects of running a put-and-take program over brookies. They would not have to collect new data;l they already have boatloads.

It would just require someone going through the data, doing the analysis, and writing up the study. Why hasn't that sort of study never been done and published? Preferably in a major fisheries journal?

They could get someone at the universities to analyze the data; they wouldn't even have to do it themselves.

PFBC at the trout summit admitted this is the best way to improve brook trout populations.
I would add that removing browns from brook trout streams would also do the trick.

 

[Chaz]

tomitrout wrote:
So, I have a question about what ya'll are discussing here, and what exactly was the purpose of the WBTE Regs.


Were they attempting to study the effects of practicing C&R, or were they looking at the potential effects of C&R Regulations. In my mind, those are two seperate issues...

The regs were put in Place to satisfy a social request from members of the angling community..

 

[k-bob]

on the thread's subject, wbte: there was some skepticism about whether brookies in PA headwaters streams - the streams that got wbte regs - really have short lives... (short lives reduce the impact of c&R on fish sizes...)

TB: "All of those brookies from 8 inches and up are surely older than 3 years."

Behnke's chapter on the brook trout in his excellent Trout and Salmon of North America: "In dense, small stream populations, few live beyond three years."

 

[Chaz]

What this demonstrates to me is the need to find heritage brookie populations and preserve them.

 

[KenU]

Pennsylvania needs a comprehensive brook trout management program. We do have a good plan, but as far as I can tell it is languishing in a file somewhere. Maryland has a very active brook trout management plan and is developing a really fantastic brook trout fishery in spite of the state's very limited region with brook trout populations. It is available at

http://dnr2.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/MD_Brook_Trout_management_plan.pdf

This is what we should be doing, but our legislators and a majority of the PFBC commissioners see trout fishing as a business enterprise. One commissioner has literally said this twice at PFBC meetings. This pretty much implies that the number of licenses sold is their measure of success.

 

[pcray1231]

But the term strawman does not refer to faulty logic.

Umm, that's exactly what it refers to. That's why it's called a logical fallacy.

My interpretation of his initial post was that he was saying the Fish Commission was saying that harvest COULD NOT affect the size of brookie populations. He then proceeded to tear that down, in saying that the study does not prove their assertion.

But that's a misrepresentation of the Fish Commission's position that it TYPICALLY DOES NOT.

A straw man is mis-representing your opponents point of view, then attacking it. So yes, my interpretation of his statement makes it a strawman. Though my interpretation was that he was attacking the fish commission point of view. In hindsight, he did not intend that, but rather was interested in attacking a new question, one in which nobody had expressed any point of view on.

Your statement wasn't really hyperbole, either, which is exaggerating your opponents position for purposes of mockery. For instance "the PFBC believes the only good fish is a stringered fish". Probably Stagger Lee's favorite tactic.

Your statement would actually be called "appeal to extremes", which is taking a reasonable argument (many anglers harvest fish when allowed) to the logical extreme (all anglers always harvest the maximum number of fish allowed at the maximum frequency allowed), and then using that to come to a bad conclusion of what would result (great population demise). You are bordering on reductio ad absurdum as well, which, for example (1 angler, @ 5 fish per day, and 365 days in a year, could harvest 1825 fish from a single hole if he wanted. Now tell me THAT wouldn't hurt the population!)

 

[troutbert]

pcray1231 wrote:

But the term strawman does not refer to faulty logic.

Your statement wasn't really hyperbole, either, which is exaggerating your opponents position for purposes of mockery. For instance "the PFBC believes the only good fish is a stringered fish". Probably Stagger Lee's favorite tactic.

Your statement would actually be called "appeal to extremes", which is taking a reasonable argument (many anglers harvest fish when allowed) to the logical extreme (all anglers always harvest the maximum number of fish allowed at the maximum frequency allowed), and then using that to come to a bad conclusion of what would result (great population demise). You are bordering on reductio ad absurdum as well, which, for example (1 angler, @ 5 fish per day, and 365 days in a year, could harvest 1825 fish from a single hole if he wanted. Now tell me THAT wouldn't hurt the population!)

Are you referring to my statements, or Jack's?