Size change?

[TheAppalachianAngler]

Should the minimum size for trout in Pennsylvania be raised? A study is underway

The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission is investigating whether to increase the minimum size of trout anglers can keep. Here's why.

www.goerie.com

First I'm hearing of this.
Iam personally all for raising the minimum size.

 

[a23fish]

I'd like to see at least a 10" minimum, preferably 11". My wife says not to keep anything under 14" and I tell her I'll have to fish longer. She has no problem with that. Me either. I keep very few trout.

 

[KeviR]

Is there something published by PFBC about what the "investigation" into increasing the minimum size limit entails? I would think that if you increase the minimum size, then the hatcheries will have to increase the minimum size of stocked fish. I expect there is a tradeoff between the number and size of hatchery fish that can be produced for a given amount of money. In other words, unless the hatchery budget expands, a larger minimum would (I would expect) result in fewer fish being stocked. And if the decision about minimum size is tied to the cost of hatchery operations, how absurd is that?
There is also probably a practical limit to how big you can grow a fish in the time between when they are hatched and when you stock them. ( I know almost nothing about fish husbandry, but I assume most ST and BT are 15-16 months old at stocking.) If you have to hold your stocked fish for an entire extra year because they can't be grown to the minimum size in the allotted time, I would think the extra costs would be dramatically higher.

 

[Jay_H]

After reading the article I get the impression this is to help wild trout (which I’m in favor of), since most stocked trout by PFBC are over 10” (per the article). My question is are there that many people harvesting 7” wild trout? I’m a C&R guy but I find it hard to believe that most people would keep a 7” fish. Maybe I’m just foolin myself though….

 

[McSneek]

I swear the minimum size used to be 8”. If almost all stocked trout are 10” - 11” then raise the minimum size. It does make sense that doing so would protect wild trout.

 

[McSneek]

At 7” I have to take my limit of gemmies just to get a decent meal.

 

[troutbert]

After reading the article I get the impression this is to help wild trout (which I’m in favor of), since most stocked trout by PFBC are over 10” (per the article). My question is are there that many people harvesting 7” wild trout? I’m a C&R guy but I find it hard to believe that most people would keep a 7” fish. Maybe I’m just foolin myself though….

Yes. People commonly harvest 7 inch brook trout. Their populations are often sharply cropped off at the legal size limit. Especially where stocking is done over brook trout.

 

[Zipper]

Should not be any harvest in a stream that has wild trout.

 

[troutbert]

I swear the minimum size used to be 8”.

No. It was 6 inches back in the day, then they made it 7 inches. I don't remember what year that was done. But the reason given was to allow more brook trout to spawn.

I think raising the limit to 9 inches would result in more brook trout spawning.

Just my humble opinion, but I think brook trout reach adulthood at 8 inches, while 7 inch brook trout are "adolescents.."

There is a big difference between 7 inch brook trout and 8 inch brook trout. Their body conformation changes. 8 inch brook trout grow higher and wider. The increase in length from 7 inches to 8 inches is not that great, but from what I've seen they add a lot of volume and weight.

So it makes sense that these larger, heavier 8 inch trout would produce substantially more eggs than the 7 inch brook trout.

 

[wildtrout2]

No. It was 6 inches back in the day, then they made it 7 inches.

Right. And the creel limit was 8, then changed to 5 trout, which was a great move as well.

 

[Troutmeister]

Yes they should raise the minimum size. Even a 9" minimum would help wild fish. Ten inches would be even better and would prevent most ST harvest.

 

[wildtrout2]

Yes they should raise the minimum size. Even a 9" minimum would help wild fish. Ten inches would be even better and would prevent most ST harvest.

And C&R only on natives would be the ideal answer.

 

[TheAppalachianAngler]

No. It was 6 inches back in the day, then they made it 7 inches. I don't remember what year that was done. But the reason given was to allow more brook trout to spawn.

I think raising the limit to 9 inches would result in more brook trout spawning.

Just my humble opinion, but I think brook trout reach adulthood at 8 inches, while 7 inch brook trout are "adolescents.."

There is a big difference between 7 inch brook trout and 8 inch brook trout. Their body conformation changes. 8 inch brook trout grow higher and wider. The increase in length from 7 inches to 8 inches is not that great, but from what I've seen they add a lot of volume and weight.

So it makes sense that these larger, heavier 8 inch trout would produce substantially more eggs than the 7 inch brook trout.

I get confused. So this protects them and makes more 7" fish? But making them C&R has no affect on population size structure?
Weird messaging.

 

[CRB]

👍 👍
Sounds good that a study will commence with the voices of anglers a part of it.

 

[Fish Sticks]

View attachment 1641231758
I get confused. So this protects them and makes more 7" fish? But making them C&R has no affect on population size structure?
Weird messaging.

yea tour right weird and not accurate. Maryland DNR actually studies their brook trout and has a brook trout biologist.

“
USR Zero Creel Limit Area restricts anglers to catch-and-release (for brook trout) using artificial lures only. These regulations were adopted
because prior research suggested this would
reduce total brook trout mortality yet still allow
year-round recreational angling opportunity. In conjunction with the regulation change, DNR implemented a long-term monitoring program to compare across tributary populations and years as well as gauge the possible effects of fishing pressure.
The Brook Trout Program has been rigorously
monitoring (annually) and conducting research on
the USR brook trout population over the past
decade and have learned many things that are
guiding management here and elsewhere.
Numerous scientific papers have been published
from these efforts”



“
A very dry autumn followed by a very wet spring results in almost no successful reproduction because the low flows in the fall limit availability and quality of spawning sites, while high flows in spring tend to scour and displace the eggs or very young fish. One year of poor

reproduction can be seen in lower numbers of adults 1 - 3 years later, and back-to-back years (or more) of poor reproduction can reduce the adult population to less than half of what we are used to seeing. This highlights the fisheries management value of protecting the older and larger fish in the population. Larger brook trout produce more and healthier eggs and choose the best spawning sites, increasing the likelihood of reproductive success. Protecting and keeping these large fish in the system ensures that there will
be strong spawning stock present during and following those years with adverse environmental conditions. This also keeps larger fish available for anglers to enjoy a quality recreational fishery even during poor recruitment years.”

 

[troutbert]

View attachment 1641231758
I get confused. So this protects them and makes more 7" fish? But making them C&R has no affect on population size structure?
Weird messaging.

Where are you reading "C&R has no effect on population size structure?"

 

[troutbert]

reproduction can be seen in lower numbers of adults 1 - 3 years later, and back-to-back years (or more) of poor reproduction can reduce the adult population to less than half of what we are used to seeing. This highlights the fisheries management value of protecting the older and larger fish in the population. Larger brook trout produce more and healthier eggs and choose the best spawning sites, increasing the likelihood of reproductive success. Protecting and keeping these large fish in the system ensures that there will
be strong spawning stock present during and following those years with adverse environmental conditions. This also keeps larger fish available for anglers to enjoy a quality recreational fishery even during poor recruitment years.”

Some interesting stuff there. Larger trout can lay their eggs in places that smaller trout cannot. Because larger trout can move larger rocks.

 

[wildtrout2]

At 7” I have to take my limit of gemmies just to get a decent meal.

At 7", you'd probably need 15 of them to make a meal. Very few trout fishermen fish for sustenance anyway.

 

[tomgamber]

I think raising the limit to 9 inches would result in more brook trout spawning.

Unfortunately I think raising the size limit will only result in more undersized fish being kept. If someone is conservation minded, they're already doing it. Others are still culling their catch, poa hing special regs. and fishing with M80s.

Oh, look I'm a pessimist today.

 

[Fish Sticks]

just like Al Pachino said in the movie Any Given Sunday -“its a game of inches”

Same goes with PA fish and boat(except for brown trout now) because they have a “don’t say brook trout policy.” See no brook trout, hear no brook trout, speak no brook trout.

They will tell you that we changed said reg to so and so inches and that helps brook trout. But its like they don’t want the public to know brook trout should be protected. And as per the above MD dnr material their leaving the most important class of brokkies unprotected( the post-stochastic event repopulaters) we also know these same fish are often involved in moving between streams and sharing genetic material.

I say brook trout all the time and lightning hasn’t struck me, the four horsemen never came, and i am still here. Why can’t PFBC say brook trout??