Are you serious????you've never heard that? Thats what the people in Erie call the Picksbergers that come up here (mup ear) to fish.
see you learn sumthin new every day.
should we have new regs for nat repo and wild streams
- Thread starter SNPbound
- Start date
Are you serious????you've never heard that? Thats what the people in Erie call the Picksbergers that come up here (mup ear) to fish.
see you learn sumthin new every day.
tomgamber
Well-known member
grobe33 wrote:
It shouldn't be just streams with wild fish. The Game Commision does not handle it's tailwaters in this state properly. The trophy trout regs on the Middle Yough allow too many anglers to keep fish. A good friend of mine watched 2 bait dunkers kill 8 14 inch rainbows with ease on Saturday. They need to evalutate what streams have serious potential to be world class fisheries. The Yough has little, if any, reproduction but could become exeptional if the right regulations applied and the right stocking occured.
I caught this fish on Sunday night...imagine how many more would get into this range if it was only managed properly?
www.grobe33.blogspot.com
Imagine how many more there could be if you didn't hold them out of the water long enough to fill a blog with 6 pics of the same fish...
jdaddy
Active member
See how quickly the argument starts to web out? It starts with Class A, wild repo streams and evolves into a suggestion that a tailwater that reportedly has zero reproduction should be protected. Just because it is a tailwater? In that case every marginal stocked stream in PA should fit the bill.
As a side note, no 100% dependent stocked fishery will ever be world class.
As a side note, no 100% dependent stocked fishery will ever be world class.
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,238
And yet you claim to be from Clarion County. Then again, if you are from south of I-80, mupear might apply.
I think a relative of mine from Clarion County coined the term decades ago but I can't prove that. And I don't think he ever went steelhead fishing. Eriens just adopted the term. It is one word derived from "Yinzer" dialect.
Mupear (I'm up here) for the weekend.
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,238
My views on Regs on streams with natural reproduction.
I wouldn't have a problem with lesser regs on unstocked wild streams. Hell, we have it already. If it is not on the Approved Trout Waters list, it is not open for harvest in the extended season. But I would not agree with a C&R as a blanket regulation. It just goes against all tradition, and there really is no biological reason for it for the vast majority of streams. Have there been any stream entirely fished out since the creel limit was lowered to 5? How about since it was lowered to 8?
Sure harvest can cause short term damage to the population of larger trout, but in the vast majority of cases a little harvest doesn't hurt.
Yep, I have also seen cropped populations, but as you get further from the road accesses and bigger holes, you find more legal size fish.
Have I harvested any wild trout in recent years? No.
Do I want to push that on everyone else as a legal requirement? No.
I grew up being able to catch and eat the occasional native brook trout dinner (or breakfast). Why would I want to see that opportunity taken away from future generations unless it was necessary for the population? Feeding ones self is where fishing has it's roots. I don't shive a git about manufactured arguments for selfish reasons based on assumptions and anecdotal information. Show me the numbers.
Instead of lowering the creel limit on unstocked streams, why not raise the creel limit on the "approved" trout waters. It's just a thought. It certainly would please the freezer fillers and attract them to the much desired Dorito trout.
I wouldn't have a problem with lesser regs on unstocked wild streams. Hell, we have it already. If it is not on the Approved Trout Waters list, it is not open for harvest in the extended season. But I would not agree with a C&R as a blanket regulation. It just goes against all tradition, and there really is no biological reason for it for the vast majority of streams. Have there been any stream entirely fished out since the creel limit was lowered to 5? How about since it was lowered to 8?
Sure harvest can cause short term damage to the population of larger trout, but in the vast majority of cases a little harvest doesn't hurt.
Yep, I have also seen cropped populations, but as you get further from the road accesses and bigger holes, you find more legal size fish.
Have I harvested any wild trout in recent years? No.
Do I want to push that on everyone else as a legal requirement? No.
I grew up being able to catch and eat the occasional native brook trout dinner (or breakfast). Why would I want to see that opportunity taken away from future generations unless it was necessary for the population? Feeding ones self is where fishing has it's roots. I don't shive a git about manufactured arguments for selfish reasons based on assumptions and anecdotal information. Show me the numbers.
Instead of lowering the creel limit on unstocked streams, why not raise the creel limit on the "approved" trout waters. It's just a thought. It certainly would please the freezer fillers and attract them to the much desired Dorito trout.
pcray1231
Well-known member
I've seen those too, but I've seen MORE streams were the opposite is true, a LACK of harvest leads to smaller fish. Especially brookie streams. Now, I'm a numbers guy and I kinda like streams loaded with little fish. But if size is your argument, so many of those streams are overpopulated. Harvest or not, most fish are dying of natural causes, and typically not older than 3 or 4 years old. In an overpopulated infertile stream, those fish are struggling to reach 7". It's not harvest that's preventing legal sized fish, it's a short lifespan combined with a slow growth rate thanks to infertility and overpopulation. Cut the population a little, and you'll see the average size INCREASE.
This works on larger, more fertile waters too. I may not be old enough to have first hand experience, but there are many who say that Spring Creek has a similar story. Back in the day, there were lesser numbers of wild fish, but they ran bigger. With the no-kill regulations, the population exploded but the size went down.
I do know that most places that have truly large wild fish do not have very high population densities.
Fully agree with FD. Show me the numbers. Yes, there are streams that deserve more protection than they have. But don't start making more restrictive blanket regulations where they're not needed.
tennjed
Member
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2008
- Messages
- 165
I'm not sure if it's been mentioned or not, but as of 07/01/2011 PA Trout Unlimited sent a letter to the Executive Director and Commissioners of the PAFBC requesting consideration of creating "Blue Ribbon" waters in PA. This request is still being discussed and is titled "Blue Ribbon Stream program". Further implementation of Catch & Release regs are a key point in the request.
Just an FYI
Just an FYI
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,350
What would anyone guess is the proportion of anglers who "hope" for a limit of 5 trout and those that actually achieve it, on any given day, any given stream? I would favor an increase of size to 8 inches and a decrease in harvest to 3, just as a way of making a public declaration of greater value in wild trout. But this said, I would not kid myself that it would make any appreciable difference in the recreational value of the stream in question. I have the same doubts regarding higher length regulations or even lower creeling allowances. Just another perspective, I guess.
wildtrout2
Well-known member
This couldn't be more spot on! Sorry for going off direction. loltomgamber wrote:
grobe33 wrote:
It shouldn't be just streams with wild fish. The Game Commision does not handle it's tailwaters in this state properly. The trophy trout regs on the Middle Yough allow too many anglers to keep fish. A good friend of mine watched 2 bait dunkers kill 8 14 inch rainbows with ease on Saturday. They need to evalutate what streams have serious potential to be world class fisheries. The Yough has little, if any, reproduction but could become exeptional if the right regulations applied and the right stocking occured.
I caught this fish on Sunday night...imagine how many more would get into this range if it was only managed properly?
www.grobe33.blogspot.com
Imagine how many more there could be if you didn't hold them out of the water long enough to fill a blog with 6 pics of the same fish...
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,386
Surely the fish was a goner after the third photo!!!!! After all you, guys were there there with a stop watch timing the whole thing.
You guys are a trip. Quit fishing if you can't handle someone landing a spectacular fish and taking several photos.
Kev
Chaz
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 8,458
Pcray, I don't think it's harvesting of big fish that leads to "overpopulation" and small fish. I think based on some things I've read that it's incidental mortality of big fish, because as they are cautch more often they are more suseptable to incidental mortality.
What limits populations of fish is habitat mostly, followed by pollution and impairment of the streams, followed by harvest, way down the line.
I've fished over 250 wild trout streams and have rarely seen another angler, except when I'm fishing with someone.
We should go fishing sometime.
The guys that belong to my camp all fish stocked water and some also fish the wild streams, they all keep a limit when they have the desire, but they also throw a lot of fish back. Oh and they all fish to some extent with bait and are very conscious of the resource. And some are TU Members like I am.
What limits populations of fish is habitat mostly, followed by pollution and impairment of the streams, followed by harvest, way down the line.
I've fished over 250 wild trout streams and have rarely seen another angler, except when I'm fishing with someone.
We should go fishing sometime.
The guys that belong to my camp all fish stocked water and some also fish the wild streams, they all keep a limit when they have the desire, but they also throw a lot of fish back. Oh and they all fish to some extent with bait and are very conscious of the resource. And some are TU Members like I am.
Good points on both sides for C&R vs. harvest on wild trout waters. I think PATU has it right by creating "Blue Ribbon" waters and making them C&R. I would like to see more details about it though.
pcray1231
Well-known member
Chaz, agree that habitat, pollution, etc. is usually the limiting factor on trout pops, rarely harvest.
But it's those with lower populations that typically have the larger fish. So, if your sole goal is bigger fish, go to a stream that has marginal habitat, is somewhat impaired, or whatever. The streams that are "perfect" overpopulate and thus hold only small trout.
And my point was that on those overpopulated streams, some level of harvest would likely improve the size of the fish, not the other way around.
Yeah, we should fish sometime. I'm just hopin I can fish sometime!
But it's those with lower populations that typically have the larger fish. So, if your sole goal is bigger fish, go to a stream that has marginal habitat, is somewhat impaired, or whatever. The streams that are "perfect" overpopulate and thus hold only small trout.
And my point was that on those overpopulated streams, some level of harvest would likely improve the size of the fish, not the other way around.
Yeah, we should fish sometime. I'm just hopin I can fish sometime!
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,238
No disrespect meant to you, but I get a kick out of how that is usually worded.
We (or they) do not create blue ribbon waters. We (or they) only designate certain waters as blue ribbon, change the regulations, and then proceed to ruin it with artificial stream improvements and ugly signs.
Nothing worse than fishing a man made fishery, polluted with signs.
IMHO of course.
Well, there are worse things, but none that actually involve fishing.;-)
LongWader
Member
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Messages
- 259
Thanks for the chuckle Afishindo. I needed it this morning.
I think you are both right Chaz and Pcray. Too many trout in small freestone streams leads to a lot of stunted small fish and a lack of proper habitat downstream means that there is no place for larger brook trout to winter over in and they need those larger holes and water to survive the Winter. Several recent studies by various universities found that they major reason that we no longer have many large brook trout on the east coast is due to habitat degredation in downstream wintering areas and competition from non-native species like brown trout and smallmouth bass in those wintering areas.
I think you are both right Chaz and Pcray. Too many trout in small freestone streams leads to a lot of stunted small fish and a lack of proper habitat downstream means that there is no place for larger brook trout to winter over in and they need those larger holes and water to survive the Winter. Several recent studies by various universities found that they major reason that we no longer have many large brook trout on the east coast is due to habitat degredation in downstream wintering areas and competition from non-native species like brown trout and smallmouth bass in those wintering areas.
