should we have new regs for nat repo and wild streams

[Swattie87]

One more thought...most of our wild trout streams in PA are small freestoners. These are the types of streams I do most of my trout fishing on and am most familiar with. Most of the streams I fish are predominantly Brookies, but some are Brook/Brown mixes, and a few are all, or mostly Browns. Regardless of the species though, the "nice" fish in the stream are generally in the 7-9" range. Sure, you occasionally get a few bigger ones, especially in streams with Browns, but the 7-9" range is responsible for a significant part of the natural reproduction that takes place in these kinds of streams. That's why IMO it's important to protect this size range of fish with a larger minimum creel size.

 

[jabink84]

Before I got into fly fishing all I fished was a live minnow threaded with a treble hook. caught and released thousands of trout along with my father and little brother. We rarely lost trout. It isnt the treble hook that you need to worry about, its the inexperienced anglers that accompany it. If people knew how to handle fish you would have a lower fish mortality. Fly fisherman typically are more versed in the skills in fishing. That is it. There are plenty of bait fisherman out there that are just as versed. I dont see how one could be upset about a spinner on the ground. Its the litter and the dead fish in the water that make me upset. (both of those come from anglers that dont have the understanding that others do. Just my $.02

 

[pcray1231]

preach on!

 

[Swattie87]

With bait fishing and treble hooks it all depends on how it's fished. I'd agree a skilled C&R angler actively fishing the line could still fish with trebles and practice C&R pretty successfully probably.

The "cast and sit and wait on a lawn chair" guy not so much though...too much opportunity for the fish to take the bait deeper. Granted these guys tend to not catch as many fish as the skilled active line bait guys...FWIW anyway.

 

[Squaretail]

Before I got into fly fishing all I fished was a live minnow threaded with a treble hook. caught and released thousands of trout along with my father and little brother. We rarely lost trout. It isnt the treble hook that you need to worry about, its the inexperienced anglers that accompany it.

I came from the same camp. It was, and still is the most productive bait/method I ever fished.
My family used to catch the trout and transfer our trout in a nylon mesh bag to a spring fed pond we built on our property. Our no. 1 goal was to keep the trout alive and the trebles made enough of a dtfference that we switched to double, and then single barbless hooks. Hooking the gills was almost always the culprit for fish we would later find dead in the pond. We never dead drifted, always jig/retrieve.
No one will ever get me to believe trebles dont kill more fish.

 

[FarmerDave]

henrydavid wrote:
"

Do we really need "Studies" to assume that trebles cause more damage than single hooks?

You can assume anything that you want, but I'm not so sure it is a correct assumption in all situations. I'm not saying it isn't, just not sure. It is usually proclaimed by people who haven't fished with hardware often.

Sure there are two extra points on a treble, but smaller trout are not as likely to be hooked deep on a treble hook than they are with a single hook. Then there is the fact that hardware fishing is tight line further reducing the chances of deep hooking. Damage cause by trebles is usually limited to the mouth area which is likely to heel. What you don't want is undersized trebles IMO. You do have more hookups, but it's the worst of both worlds.


How you fish you flies or hardware also enters into this. If you are casting down stream a lot, it increases your chances of a hooking one deep.

Changing the subject slightly, I'd argue (successfully) that tandem fly rigs result in more foul hooked fish as compared to using single flies. the first time I ever tried a tandem rig, I foul hooked a wild brown. Should we outlaw tandem rigs? It is as valid of an argument as outlawing trebles.

If we are so worried about hurting the occasional fish, then we shouldn't be fishing.

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear Board,

I still do more than bit of spinfishing. One of the biggest problems with commercially available spinners used for trout is that the hooks on them are far too small.

Roostertails are among the worst offenders, but most spinners in trout sizes like 0, 1, and 2 have hooks that even a 6 or 7 inch fish can completely surround with their mouth when they take the lure.

Upsizing your hooks makes it alot less likely that you will bring in a fish with it's mouth clamped shut by all three barbs of the hook. Those instances are where fish are more likely to be seriuosly injured when caught, and they can easily be remedied by exchanging the size 10 or 12 treble hook for a size 6 or 8.

Regards,

Tim Murphy 🙂

 

[FarmerDave]

PennKev wrote:

pcray1231 wrote:
But, to the OP, so you were doing worse than you thought you would, saw a rooster tail, and assumed the fish were gone due to the rooster tail guy? That's quite a conclusion to jump to. I s'pose it's possible, but certainly not the most likely scenario. Maybe the fish moved? Maybe they just weren't hitting while you were there? Maybe the guy with the rooster tail was only a half hour ahead of you and had em spooked (just like a FF ahead of you would)?

But that would mean the lack of success wasn't someone elses fault! LOL.

For the win. :lol:

 

[Swattie87]

+1 on the hook size on spinners Tim. I've also found that upsizing the hook size creates more drag on the spinner, which in turn allows you to retrieve it on a slower retrieve, especially when bringing the spinner back dowstream with the current.

 

[SNPbound]

Wow a simple question results in argument. Sorry if u missundersstood the question pcray. Not sure what warranted the semi personal attack of me blaming others for not catching fish. I just said the fish didn't seem to be there like they used to. Maybe I'm not in the elite ranks as u are in assessing stream quality and the affects of fishing pressure on streams. Please forgive me lol

 

[MattBoyer]

SNPbound wrote:

Wow a simple question results in argument

Just frustrating to see a resource being depleted by people who do not care.

Sounds more like a broad condemnation of an entire group of fishermen than a simple question. Most of the people who have responded got some paint on their faces as a result of your broad brush and spoke out. Welcome to the internet....Carry on.

Boyer

 

[FarmerDave]

SNPbound wrote:
Wow a simple question results in argument. Sorry if u missundersstood the question pcray. Not sure what warranted the semi personal attack of me blaming others for not catching fish. I just said the fish didn't seem to be there like they used to. Maybe I'm not in the elite ranks as u are in assessing stream quality and the affects of fishing pressure on streams. Please forgive me lol

You are forgiven. :-D

I am fairly certain the "blaming others" comment was a joke. I thought it was funny.

If I offended you by laughing or by my other comments, then I apologize. I didn't notice the low post count and normally I am less abrasive until people get their count up to at least 15. ;-)

P.S. What Matt said was pretty much my take on the original question as well.

 

[jabink84]

I agree with Matt. You didnt jsut ask a question. You went on what you called a rant. When you do this on a forum you will get more than just an answer.

I feel the regulations that swattie stated should be what the commission adopts. This would make 99.9 percent of wild brookies catch and release. Leave the limit at 5 though. If it aint broke dont fix it. The 7 inch minimum needs addressed for sure.

 

[pcray1231]

Well, the blaming others comment wasn't me, it was a joke by someone following up on my post. And I meant nothing personal, did not mean my response as an attack. I do apologize, as you are new to the board, and may not know some of the history here.

It's just, as was said, that the original post painted overly broad a stroke and implied all kinds of issues based on seeing a rooster tail. Overly broad strokes are common on this board. They usually get responses, because not responding is the same as agreeing. And personally, I think the "us against them" mentality is counter productive. We have our stereotypes of bait/spin guys, and they have their stereotypes of us. Reinforcing those stereotypes is not a good thing.

Both sides have their idiots and their enlightened. Ultimately, the enlightened flyfishing crowd has the same goals as the enlightened bait/spin fishing crowd. We should strive to welcome those types to our board and strive to join forces on conservation efforts. That is all.

 

[PennKev]

For the record, I was only partially joking.

 

[DGC]

Fishidiot wrote:

This is likely to be a long thread. Enjoy folks.

That was great ;-)

Troutbert wrote:

The state-wide bag limit of 5 trout per day is unreasonably high, considering the numbers of trout (both wild and stocked) compared with the number of anglers. Two trout per day would be more reasonable.

That seems about right to me and is how MD does it.

Most stocked streams can take the 5 fish limit because they get stocked. Wild streams not so much. The logic of this is so overwhelming the public will see the point and most of them will go along. Studies and survey results arguing against this conclusion are not valuable because of the uniqueness of pressure and harvest on a stream-by-stream basis. That includes on a time basis at the same stream in different years.

While I can only guess what brown trout fishery is being discussed, I might add that it is hardly unusual for a small, wild brown trout stream to be stingy in catch rates even though in times past, it seemed to surrender good catches. If you fish the stream a lot you might want to just rest it.

 

[Cornholio]

The Fish Commission is concerned with funding and we as a group are a minority compared to the "Bait Slingers" who circulate more revenue into the system. Imagine the out cry from every "pabst blue ribbon drinkin', mullet havin', keep everything you catch redneck in the state. I wish they would create stricter regulations, but i am not counting on it.

 

[pcray1231]

We have our stereotypes of bait/spin guys, and they have their stereotypes of us. Reinforcing those stereotypes is not a good thing.

Imagine the out cry from every "pabst blue ribbon drinkin', mullet havin', keep everything you catch redneck in the state.

I give up!!!!

But seriously, what's wrong with PBR? Not my favorite but it'll work in a pinch. I've never had a true mullet, but have known a few righteous dudes with mulletude that I'd be happy to fish with anyday. I grew up a redneck and still have a pretty good hillbilly slant on things, and I'm proud of it. And I don't associate rednecks with harvest. If anything, quite the opposite, true rednecks fish a LOT, and don't have the need to keep fish all the time. Nope, if I'm gonna paint broad strokes, I'd say that's more the yuppies and the suburban types who dress up and play redneck once or twice a year. To the northwestern PA folks, you call them "mup'ears".

 

[Cornholio]

You must not get my sarcastic sense of humor, anyhow what the hell is a "mup' ear"??? I am from northwest PA and i have never heard of that term.

 

[Chaz]

I stick by my remarks that most Wild streams can be lumped into 2 catagories, C & R, and 2 fish a day, to do it right you have to consider each stream as unique.
Most Limestone streams in the state don't have special regs, in fact most don't even have wild trout because they are destroyed from all types of impairments.