Size change?

[sixfootfenwick]

I thought it through and determined that is horse pucky.

If anything in this state will lead to no fishing it will be access issues.

 

[Mike]

Watch out and think through, or...
CR=will become NO FISHING.

Just a question for clarification. Are you saying that statewide required C&R fishing minus landowner permission for implementing such rules along privately owned (riparian lands) wild trout streams will lead to posting?

If so, I could see that being true. People don’t appreciate being told what to do on their own lands. Parents/grandparents don’t appreciate the state telling their children/grandchildren how to fish and not to harvest from the streams on their properties. And then there are the obnoxious anglers who can’t keep their mouths shut and tell the landowner’s children or grandchildren that they can’t keep the fish that is in their hand or on their stringer. If the stream wasn’t posted before, it will be then.

 

[CRB]

Just a question for clarification. Are you saying that statewide required C&R fishing minus landowner permission for implementing such rules along privately owned (riparian lands) wild trout streams will lead to posting?

If so, I could see that being true. People don’t appreciate being told what to do on their own lands. Parents/grandparents don’t appreciate the state telling their children/grandchildren how to fish and not to harvest from the streams on their properties. And then there are the obnoxious anglers who can’t keep their mouths shut and tell the landowner’s children or grandchildren that they can’t keep the fish that is in their hand or on their stringer. If the stream wasn’t posted before, it will be then.

Yes
Once opened the door will be hard to close.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

(Just an opinion based on very limited non-expert knowledge.)
Most years, I'll kill maybe 5 trout at the most. It's typically way less than that since we only have one family member who even likes to eat trout (and she won't' even cook it).
I expect this new minimum to only increase C&R mortality on 7-10" fish. The first-day limit-fillers like to use tackle that doesn't lend itself to fish survival after release. Trebles and offset J-hooks don't let go of a fish's insides, even a little bit gently.
Higher minimum may increase average trout size (across all species) but only if they bigger fish are dumped out of the stock trucks.

Let's say the minimum size limit is raised to 8". Since virtually all stocked trout are longer than 8", I would say those "first-day limit fillers" that you mentioned wouldn't notice any difference whatsoever.

Ditto if it was raised to 9".

I'm one of those guys who fishes spinners with #10 barbed treble hooks. Virtually all trout are hooked in the jaw and I have no problem releasing them unharmed. I rarely have a treble that "don't let go of a fish's insides" as you mentioned because rarely are trout hooked in the "insides."

How often are your dry flies swallowed deeply? I've talked to several fly anglers and they've volunteered that they think dry fly fishing has the highest hooking mortality of the various fly fishing methods.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Just a question for clarification. Are you saying that statewide required C&R fishing minus landowner permission for implementing such rules along privately owned (riparian lands) wild trout streams will lead to posting?

If so, I could see that being true. People don’t appreciate being told what to do on their own lands. Parents/grandparents don’t appreciate the state telling their children/grandchildren how to fish and not to harvest from the streams on their properties. And then there are the obnoxious anglers who can’t keep their mouths shut and tell the landowner’s children or grandchildren that they can’t keep the fish that is in their hand or on their stringer. If the stream wasn’t posted before, it will be then.

People don’t like being told not to mow to the creek

People don’t like being told don’t discharge point source into the creek

People don’t like to be told you cannot get mini excavators int he creek on their property to straighten it or trench ironically because of flooding

People don’t like being told not to build rock dams that screw up AOP on their property.

People don’t like being told they can’t keep a 6” trout on their property if its not legal and they want to make an anchovy out of it.


Either we make rules to manage streams coherently or everyone just crap, dump, excavate, and harvest, however, wherever, and whenever they want. Every person for themselves

 

[silverfox]

Let's say the minimum size limit is raised to 8". Since virtually all stocked trout are longer than 8", I would say those "first-day limit fillers" that you mentioned wouldn't notice any difference whatsoever.

Ditto if it was raised to 9".

I'm one of those guys who fishes spinners with #10 barbed treble hooks. Virtually all trout are hooked in the jaw and I have no problem releasing them unharmed. I rarely have a treble that "don't let go of a fish's insides" as you mentioned because rarely are trout hooked in the "insides."

How often are your dry flies swallowed deeply? I've talked to several fly anglers and they've volunteered that they think dry fly fishing has the highest hooking mortality of the various fly fishing methods.

Yeah, I wouldn’t have said trebles. Appropriately sized trebles are probably better than single barbless. I would’ve said passive bait anglers. That’s where mortality goes through the roof. Size 14 baitholders with a wax worm chucked in a hole, rod in a Y stick and walk away for 20 minutes.

 

[Mike]

People don’t like being told not to mow to the creek

People don’t like being told don’t discharge point source into the creek

People don’t like to be told you cannot get mini excavators int he creek on their property to straighten it or trench ironically because of flooding

People don’t like being told not to build rock dams that screw up AOP on their property.

People don’t like being told they can’t keep a 6” trout on their property if its not legal and they want to make an anchovy out of it.


Either we make rules to manage streams coherently or everyone just crap, dump, excavate, and harvest, however, wherever, and whenever they want. Every person for themselves

Yep, all of those necessary regulations make landowners more sensitive to the unnecessary, arbitrary ones.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Yep, all of those necessary regulations make landowners more sensitive to the unnecessary, arbitrary ones.

Oh yea good point, Like catch and release on brown trout in the 13 class A ‘s that are stocked.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Yep, all of those necessary regulations make landowners more sensitive to the unnecessary, arbitrary ones.

So 6" size limit is necessary but a 8-9" limit unnecessary ✅.

So you disagree with the PFBC's possible decision to raise the minimum size and deem it as arbitrary.

From the looks of it, you wouldn't see passive bait fishing with Y sticks being illegal as an
arbitrary and unnecessary regulation. You should have advocated for this during your tenure.

 

[HopBack]

This is for you Brook Trout BRIGADE : You know who you are!

The disrespect for long time contributing members, some of which have devoted their lives fisheries biology, is down right egregious.

Your time would be better spent on educating landowners about brook trout conservation. I don’t mean shoving it down their throats either.

Here is an example… Most landowners would now agree you should not dump petroleum waste products directly into the ground because of the detrimental effects that it could have on the environment. This is a practice that people have done all the way up to maybe the 2000s. At some point people started believe what environmentalist were preaching. Pick these people brains because you clearly don’t have a handle on how to influence the general public about such sensitive issues. Often times you are dealing with regional and historical points of view that will be difficult to change.

When it comes to brook trout, your average citizen of Pennsylvania has no idea what a brook trout is let alone the complex ecosystem it takes to support such a salmonoid. If you take the same approach with landowners (people who actually matter in regards to brook trout conservation) as you do with people on this forum, you won’t see conditions improve in your lifetime.

Know your audience, pick your battles, and plan your approach accordingly.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

This is for you Brook Trout BRIGADE : You know who you are!

The disrespect for long time contributing members, some of which have devoted their lives fisheries biology, is down right egregious.

Your time would be better spent on educating landowners about brook trout conservation. I don’t mean shoving it down their throats either.

Here is an example… Most landowners would now agree you should not dump petroleum waste products directly into the ground because of the detrimental effects that it could have on the environment. This is a practice that people have done all the way up to maybe the 2000s. At some point people started believe what environmentalist were preaching. Pick these people brains because you clearly don’t have a handle on how to influence the general public about such sensitive issues. Often times you are dealing with regional and historical points of view that will be difficult to change.

When it comes to brook trout, your average citizen of Pennsylvania has no idea what a brook trout is let alone the complex ecosystem it takes to support such a salmonoid. If you take the same approach with landowners (people who actually matter in regards to brook trout conservation) as you do with people on this forum, you won’t see conditions improve in your lifetime.

Know your audience, pick your battles, and plan your approach accordingly.

Oh I gave up on that a long time ago, just look at this place as an example but let's digress a bit.

Your post assumes people in the "brook trout brigade" don't talk to landowners and all they do is post here and slam those that "dedicated their lives to fishery biology". I've seen, heard about and seen the results of some of the very people you are attempting to call out change landowners opinions on watersheds. Some in my very area. One landowner in particular has been destroying a creek for many years with no interest of changing, no matter water "conservation group" approached him. Why? Because fishing was always part of the deal. He had zero interest in allowing fishing, which many "conservation groups" and grants require to be part of the deal.
It wasn't until those interested in repairing the upstream sections, without requirement of access, got through to him and now the projects can take place and will benefit the downstream sections where access is already secure.

Back to the point. It's a losing battle anyways. This place isn't the general public, it's the people who should support conservation of these fish. Unfortunately, it isn't about that, too much "my fishing interest" is taking place. Political realities have no place in conservation, especially in those that "dedicated their lives to fisheries biology." Sounds to me like they were serving two masters.

That's the reason things won't change in my lifetime. I know it, you know it, we all know it.

You can hate what the people in "the brook trout brigade" say, I don't really care. Why should I, with the clown show brook trout conservation has become in this state? Especially with the 1 percent of anglers that should be caring for the fish, that's those on this forum, regard and react to its ideals.

Pointing out how ridiculous the whole thing has become is pretty much all that's left to do.
As we all, that's you, me, them, everyone watch it burn to the ground, you don't get to avoid the flames either.

 

[silverfox]

When it comes to brook trout, your average citizen of Pennsylvania has no idea what a brook trout is let alone the complex ecosystem it takes to support such a salmonoid. If you take the same approach with landowners (people who actually matter in regards to brook trout conservation) as you do with people on this forum, you won’t see conditions improve in your lifetime.

Know your audience, pick your battles, and plan your approach accordingly.

Well that’s effectively the exact point I’ve been trying to make for some time. It ain’t up to me or any other citizen to do the job of the agency that is supposed to do it. Through regulations, media, outreach, education, or simple information on their website.

I equate posting on this forum to screaming into the ether, banging my fist on a table and yelling at my wall. It ain’t done with the hope it changes anything at this point. That’s for sure. It’s a heck of a lot more entertaining than arguin politics on twitter or x or whatever it is today. As long as you don’t take anything too seriously.

Anyway, I sure hope the commish protects all the amazing wild trout regardless of the tone of their spots so only a handful of folks remain frustrated. I’m sure they will.

 

[troutbert]

That's the reason things won't change in my lifetime. I know it, you know it, we all know it.

Things have already changed a great deal.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Things have already changed a great deal.

They have and I don't mean to say otherwise.
IMO it's a snails pace too slow.

But you are right.

 

[Fish Sticks]

This is for you Brook Trout BRIGADE : You know who you are!

The disrespect for long time contributing members, some of which have devoted their lives fisheries biology, is down right egregious.

Your time would be better spent on educating landowners about brook trout conservation. I don’t mean shoving it down their throats either.

Here is an example… Most landowners would now agree you should not dump petroleum waste products directly into the ground because of the detrimental effects that it could have on the environment. This is a practice that people have done all the way up to maybe the 2000s. At some point people started believe what environmentalist were preaching. Pick these people brains because you clearly don’t have a handle on how to influence the general public about such sensitive issues. Often times you are dealing with regional and historical points of view that will be difficult to change.

When it comes to brook trout, your average citizen of Pennsylvania has no idea what a brook trout is let alone the complex ecosystem it takes to support such a salmonoid. If you take the same approach with landowners (people who actually matter in regards to brook trout conservation) as you do with people on this forum, you won’t see conditions improve in your lifetime.

Know your audience, pick your battles, and plan your approach accordingly.

“Disrespect to people who have devoted their lives to fisheries science” lol

We share over 100 fisheries science papers and so many ignore the consensus opinion of an entire field begging the state to stop shooting our state fish in the foot and so many just post that they know better and won’t lift a finger, send an e-mail or make a phone call to do anything.

 

[TimMurphy]

“Disrespect to people who have devoted their lives to fisheries science” lol

We share over 100 fisheries science papers and so many ignore the consensus opinion of an entire field begging the state to stop shooting our state fish in the foot and so many just post that they know better and won’t lift a finger, send an e-mail or make a phone call to do anything.

Dear Fish Sticks,

I'm with HopBack. You remind me of when Homer was talking to the dog in the Simpsons. The dog would get a quizzical look, and the dialog balloon over the dog's head would read, "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!'"

Give it a rest fer chrissakes.

Or better yet, move to your native land and argue with them. No doubt they'll find you equally annoying.

You and your ilk have long since passed the intolerable stage.

Brookies, they're for dinner is my new motto.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[Fish Sticks]

Dear Fish Sticks,

I'm with HopBack. You remind me of when Homer was talking to the dog in the Simpsons. The dog would get a quizzical look, and the dialog balloon over the dog's head would read, "Blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah!'"

Give it a rest fer chrissakes.

Or better yet, move to your native land and argue with them. No doubt they'll find you equally annoying.

You and your ilk have long since passed the intolerable stage.

Brookies, they're for dinner is my new motto.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

It was you and your ilk that created us and you all sound quite repetitive these days with your your claims of being “forced to respond to my posts” . There are more people participating than protesting or having temper tantrums like you guys these days, take a hint. Some new member joined and their first mention of brook teout was met with a whiny complaining lambasting of the topic. If we are all just white noise treat us as such unless of course you have a vested interest in making sure nothing changes that is

Maybe paff is accepting new moderator applications? Until then how about we leave it to the professionals ?

 

[silverfox]

It was you and your ilk that created us and you all sound quite repetitive these days with your your claims of being “forced to respond to my posts” . There are more people participating than protesting or having temper tantrums like you guys these days, take a hint. Some new member joined and their first mention of brook teout was met with a whiny complaining lambasting of the topic. If we are all just white noise treat us as such unless of course you have a vested interest in making sure nothing changes that is

Maybe paff is accepting new moderator applications? Until then how about we leave it to the professionals ?

Or a post about bluegills that immediately gets trolled with invasive species talk. The irony is the “yOu pEoPlE aLwAyS dErAiL eVeRy tHrEaD” posts are as disruptive as bringing up brook trout anymore.

Plenty of non-brook trout related posts on paff. Don’t like the brook trout discussions, don’t participate. It’s okay to make derailing posts off topic about other forum members though. Give me a break. 🙄

 

[Fish Sticks]

Or a post about bluegills that immediately gets trolled with invasive species talk. The irony is the “yOu pEoPlE aLwAyS dErAiL eVeRy tHrEaD” posts are as disruptive as bringing up brook trout anymore.

Plenty of non-brook trout related posts on paff. Don’t like the brook trout discussions, don’t participate. It’s okay to make derailing posts off topic about other forum members though. Give me a break. 🙄

Yea and the funny thing is we are on a forum about catch and release regulations what did you think was going to come up? Fishing locations, wild vs. stocked photos, what to rub on your leader to make it float ( all past deemed acceptable derailments by the “don’t say brook trout” brigade(you know who you are))? Who geld you at Gun point and made you enter the thread or even then take your precious time to generate a response? As I have said and have always said, unless you have a vested interest in suppressing the the sharing of information with a growing number of receptive people to maintain a status quo you like, go about your day and ignore people talking about species conservation.

 

[TimMurphy]

Yea and the funny thing is we are on a forum about catch and release regulations what did you think was going to come up? Fishing locations, wild vs. stocked photos, what to rub on your leader to make it float ( all past deemed acceptable derailments by the “don’t say brook trout” brigade(you know who you are))? Who geld you at Gun point and made you enter the thread or even then take your precious time to generate a response? As I have said and have always said, unless you have a vested interest in suppressing the the sharing of information with a growing number of receptive people to maintain a status quo you like, go about your day and ignore people talking about species conservation.

Oh look, Heckle and Jeckle are talking to themselves again.

The thread is about the raising the minimum size of harvestable trout, not catch and release. But you don't care what the thread is about as long as you make it about brook trout.

Regards,

Tim Murphy