The Assault Continues...

[double00]

..on special regulations that exclude the use of bait. It seems that it has become a regular occurance every few years for someone, from some quarter or another, take up the cause of opening up the tiny fraction of special regulation stream miles out there to the use of bait. (As is the case currently with the Saucon Creek Special regs area controversy.)

Check out this article:

http://www.centredaily.com/sports/outdoors/article69687357.html

Note the final sentence:
“This study and other recent research demonstrates that there is no scientific basis for excluding any segment of the angling public from specially-regulated trout water."

Can this article be the opening shots of the next round statewide?

 

[Mike]

Going where science leads us is hardly an assault on fly or lure fishing. Special reg areas were first established based on the best scientific information available at the time. FFO regs nationwide, for instance, are a remnant of a time period in fisheries science when spin fishing was fairly unusual, at least in Pa, and bait fishing was king. It was considered to be a management technique that would be effective in substantially reducing C&R mortality. Later, as spin fishing became more common and studies of delayed mortality rates were studied, it was found that those mortality rates varied, as did fly mortality rates, but that they were running around 4-7 percent, slightly higher than flies in most cases, but which were acceptable for C&R fisheries. The continued practice of strictly FFO was, therefore, more of a social than biological program, since the same management objectives could be met by ALO. Thus, the birth of ALO. More recently, the type of fishing normally practiced by bait anglers intent on C&R, specifically tight line fishing, has been shown in a few studies, as mentioned in the article, to also produce acceptable mortality rates for C&R fisheries. This should be nothing new here, as I have brought this up in the past. The difference now is that more studies with similar results have been completed. Again, this is hardly an assault; it is the natural evolution and maturation of scientific investigations. These more recent investigations are shedding a new light on an old topic by investigating the mortality that occurs in stream environments when a more modern bait fishing technique is practiced...the tight line technique...which is apparently common (or could easily be made common through education) in situations where bait anglers are fishing C&R.

 

[johnw]

It is probably true that bait fishermen intent on catch and release fishing a tight line cause acceptable mortality rates but how many of them do you think there are. They are a very, very small minority. In over 50 years of trout fishing I'm not sure I've met even one. Hardly a justification for opening up special reg areas to bait fishing.

 

[Dave_W]

Interesting report.
Personally speaking, I am somewhat skeptical of these mortality studies but, for now, they're the best science we have to go with.

I think many of us in the FF community have come to be somewhat more tolerant of bait fishing than many of us were a generation ago. Large sections of "all tackle - catch and release" streams that are chock full of wild trout testify to the idea that bait and C&R can coexist. On the other hand, from what I have seen, these sections are almost entirely unutilized by bait anglers. Why?

What is the "take home" on these changing norms and studies?
The answers lie in the complex connections between trout angling ethics, fads, traditions, etc. These changes have been evolving for decades.

Perhaps the collective benefits of a study such as this outweigh the collective drawbacks? Consider that studies such as this one may be seen by some FFers as a step backward and a weakening of tackle restrictions. Perhaps so. On the flip side however, this study can be just as easily used as ammunition for our side in arguing for more C&R sections.

Whatever the case, the debate will continue.

 

[afishinado]

The link is no longer available, but I posted info a while back about the mortality of trout parks in Missouri. They are stocked sections of streams with varying regulations. Some sections allowed fly-only, artificial lures as well as bait. These numbers are based on actual results from fishing day in and day out and based on how many trout must be restocked to maintain the section fished:

Afishinado wrote:
From Mike’s writings, I believe that he cites some studies that claim bait, fly, and artificial lure mortality rates are similar. This article is from a recent study in Missouri, where they have "trout parks", which are heavily stocked, and have areas segregated for bait, artificial lures, and flies. This is a perfect laboratory for studying mortality rates under realistic conditions. They studied mortality on a long-term basis through all months of every season. Many of the other studies I’ve read, were for a short-term and involved only few hundred anglers and fish. In these SR areas, many thousands of anglers catching many thousands of fish under actual conditions led them to their conclusions. One other note, since it is a pay-to-fish area, and trout are very expensive to raise, the Missouri Dept. of Conservation has a financial interest to protect. Here are their conclusions:

“Studies conducted by fisheries biologist across the country for the past 40 years, and most recently right here in Missouri, have documented that anglers can improve trout fishing just by changing what is on the end of their line. These studies have shown that trout caught and released using bait are five times more likely to die than trout caught and released using artificial lures or flies. In the trout management areas of Missouri, where minimum size limits require anglers to release sublegal size trout, the effects of bait fishing can have a detrimental effect on the fish population. Up to 80% of the sublegal size fish can die before they reach legal size of 15 or 18" in these areas.

Trout, like many other fish, use their sense of smell and taste when selecting food items. When a trout bites a food item, the scents released from the food can trigger the trout to hang onto its prey even more aggressively than if the smell and taste cues were not present. Unfortunately, this can lead to the hook penetrating very sensitive parts of the fish such as gills, esophagus, or even the heart located just under the skin in the lower rear part of the mouth.

Natural, prepared, and scented baits are often fished passively, meaning the bait is left to set on the stream or lake bottom, or suspended below a float, until the fish ingests it and begins to swim off. By this time the hook is usually deep in the fish's mouth. Because artificial lures and flies don't release scents, and because they are fished more actively by pulling them through the water, the time between biting and hooking is reduced, and the hook does not end up as deep in the trout's mouth. Therefore, if trout are to be released, their chances of survival are much greater if anglers use artificial lures or flies.

The use of artificial lures or flies when trout fishing will reduce catch and release mortality, resulting in more and larger fish for all anglers.”

 

[troutbert]

Dave_W wrote:

On the flip side however, this study can be just as easily used as ammunition for our side in arguing for more C&R sections.

True. The "special" regulation areas are already very busy, over crowded, reducing the quality of the fishing experience.

If you want to increase the number of anglers using these areas even more, then you must increase the stream mileage, to avoid over-crowding.

 

[Mike]

Afish,
Their conclusion does not surprise me if there is a lot of "passive" bait fishing going on as opposed to the tight line fishing, which was practiced and discussed in the recent studies and also is known as "active" bait fishing. Tight line, or active bait fishing, has produced lower mortality rates.

The Missouri write-up's second to last paragraph that you provided goes to some length to point out the passive fishing problem, so I would think that there must have been a fair amount of that occurring in the trout parks. I have no problem with on-going concerns about passive bait fishing's mortality rates.

For anglers, the proof may be in the pudding, and Dave W's second paragraph, second sentence speaks to that.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I have no issues with more Catch and Release All Tackle Sections.
But for the love of God, convert more DH areas like Falling Spring to this regulation. Also extend more overall available mileage of special regulation waters.

The proof is in the pudding. The PFBC studies show ALL PA ANGLERS are practicing catch and release.

One thing,

DO NOT mess with the Letort and Big Spring fly only areas. PA heritage there. But what a great idea it would be to make both the lower Letort, lower big spring and a lower part of the breeches C&R all tackle.

 

[troutbert]

I don't think you can assume that the techniques used by these anglers were typical of bait anglers in general.

There was likely some selection going on with bait anglers who agreed to be involved in the study. Not all anglers would choose to do that.

And knowing that they were involved in the study very likely changed their behavior. If you knew that you were involved in a study that would be published, and that would reflect either well or poorly on your group, wouldn't you take that into consideration in how you conducted yourself during the survey?

The INTENT of the study was to show that catch and release with bait has low mortality. That is clear from reading the article.

And they DID show that it's possible to catch and release with bait with low mortality. I believe that it is possible, if you take care in your methods to achieve that result.

What I question is whether those methods, and the resulting mortality rate, are TYPICAL of bait fishermen.

It would be very difficult to design a study that was truly accurate. Because conducting a study, getting volunteers, and the angler's knowledge that they are involved in a study, and their desire to have the study show a particular outcome influences people's behaviors.

 

[afishinado]

Mike wrote:
Afish,
Their conclusion does not surprise me if there is a lot of "passive" bait fishing going on as opposed to the tight line fishing, which was practiced and discussed in the recent studies and also is known as "active" bait fishing. Tight line, or active bait fishing, has produced lower mortality rates.

The Missouri write-up's second to last paragraph that you provided goes to some length to point out the passive fishing problem, so I would think that there must have been a fair amount of that occurring in the trout parks. I have no problem with on-going concerns about passive bait fishing's mortality rates.

For anglers, the proof may be in the pudding, and Dave W's second paragraph, second sentence speaks to that.

^ Agreed. No doubt mortality rates for fish can be drastically reduced by tight-line/active fishing with bait. In fact, since it is costing a lot of money to continually restock the bait-fishing sections of the trout parks in Missouri, they give anglers directions and tips on how to bait-fish using tight-line methods.

Hopefully the idea will catch on. It is a real waste to release wounded fish to die in the stream or lake.

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:
I don't think you can assume that the techniques used by these anglers were typical of bait anglers in general.

There was likely some selection going on with bait anglers who agreed to be involved in the study. Not all anglers would choose to do that.

And knowing that they were involved in the study very likely changed their behavior. If you knew that you were involved in a study that would be published, and that would reflect either well or poorly on your group, wouldn't you take that into consideration in how you conducted yourself during the survey?

The INTENT of the study was to show that catch and release with bait has low mortality. That is clear from reading the article.

And they DID show that it's possible to catch and release with bait with low mortality. I believe that it is possible, if you take care in your methods to achieve that result.

What I question is whether those methods, and the resulting mortality rate, are TYPICAL of bait fishermen.

It would be very difficult to design a study that was truly accurate. Because conducting a study, getting volunteers, and the angler's knowledge that they are involved in a study, and their desire to have the study show a particular outcome influences people's behaviors.

If you read my post above, the mortality rates in the Missouri Trout Parks are not really from a study. They are actual mortality rates from actual fishing based upon the number of trout needed to be restocked after trout mortality in the fly, artificial lures and bait-fishing sections of the park.

 

[dshaffer]

Well it has been a while since I have posted and I have tried to be a smart fish and keep my mouth shut. BUT.......sometimes common sense seems to be not so common.

Tight line bait fishing sounds wonderful, but how many practice this type of fishing? How many worms or power bait or......get swallowed by the fish? I am not saying it does not happen with flies, but it just seems to me that fishing with barbless hooks on a size 18 fly is going to create a lot less harm than a worm on a size 6.

I just wish the folks that are "in charge" would think of resource first as I believe it was meant to be. We need not provide resources (stocked fish) in order to support the infrastructure, but to let nature take its course without harming our resources.

If we continue with stocked fish in order to sell more licenses we will destroy our natural resources. So let's sell more licenses to produce more stocked fish in order to sell more licenses so we can produce more stocked fish in order to sell more licenses so we can produce
more stocked fish in order to sell more licenses so we can produce
more stocked fish in order to sell more licenses so we can produce
more stocked fish in order to sell more licenses so we can produce
more stocked fish in order to sell more licenses so we can produce
more stocked fish in order to sell more licenses so we can produce.................

And so it goes!

 

[troutbert]

Forked sticks in the banks along trout streams are a pretty good indication that not everyone is fishing with "tight line" techniques.

And haven't you ever heard the advice of "let em take it" before setting the hook?

I have, growing up fishing for bluegills with worms. The "let em take it" technique is something that is done DELIBERATELY, not just inadvertently, by many baitfishers.

Young people are TAUGHT that technique by their mentors.

 

[CRB]

Perhaps it is time for the PAFBC to do a study here on a small section of stream. I doubt the results will be duplicated as I feel the mortality will be much higher here. The study will actually support the the feelings here to increase C/R artificial only mileage in the state.
Tight line bait fishing does not exist in our state.
And
Yes<
"It would be very difficult to design a study that was truly accurate. Because conducting a study, getting volunteers, and the angler's knowledge that they are involved in a study, and their desire to have the study show a particular outcome influences people's behaviors.

 

[Opie610]

Is it just me or does Mike appear in every topic involving an assault on DHALO? Why the hardon for DHALO from the fish commission? They are always referring to studies that seem to defy logic in real life situations. Mike sometimes common sense is a better way to go rather than science. If not for the DHALO i mostl likely would stop fishing altogether. Just 1 look at the madness on Saturday reminded me i want no part of that type of meat fishing.

Tight line bait fishing, Really? Watch a joke our fish commission has become. $$$$$

 

[KenU]

I once reviewed many bait vs artificial lures studies and wrote a report for the Forbes Trail Chapter of TU. All the conclusions were that bait showed a 20 to 40% mortality rate. Flies and spinners had 4% and 10% mortality rates, respectively.

Some of the spinner studies compared bare spinners to baited spinners. The bare spinners had a much lower mortality rate. The investigators attributed the higher mortality rate to be because trout attacked baited spinners more savagely because of the scent and taste they encountered as they struck.

What the PFBC is doing is an old ploy. Do many studies until you get one that shows the desired results and discount all the rest. It's an old trick that still works.

 

[Six-Gun]

This whole thread has brought up some very interesting and noteworthy points. Maybe it's just me, but I find it really intriguing to follow the ethos and habits of bait fisherman, spin fisherman and fly fisherman from the stream to the home.

For instance, I grew up bait fishing for blues, flounder or whatever else was running off of the Jersey shore with my dad when I was a kid. Going fishing was a huge deal back then because of the time and planning it involved. We went out on the head boats, and cleaned and ate everything we caught.

Later in life, when the military took me to inland duty stations and into the world of fresh water fish, I got into baitcast and spin fishing for largemouth bass, bluegill, etc. and released everything I caught. I wanted to preserve the resource in these much smaller lakes and ponds, and behaved accordingly.

Then, a few years back I got into fly fishing. Again, I was releasing everything I caught, with the rare exception of keeping fish to eat from stocked mountain lakes while out camping over long weekends in the wilderness to serve as actual camp meals. Particularly when I frequented Utah almost every weekend, I really felt like I was a guest in a very delicate stream environment, and went out of my way to protect those wild cutthroats and browns. Conversely, I felt no guilt about taking a couple of put-n-take rainbows that were airdropped into lakes where I float tubed.

Now, my dad has a completely different perspective. Until I dragged him kicking and screaming fly fishing with me, he was 100% a bait/creel catch fisherman. He is no fan at all of catch-and-release fishing. Why? He believes it's unethical to "torture" a fish for fun and not eat it for food. It's to the point that he told me that if he ever comes fly fishing with me again, he will do so only under the condition that he keeps what he catches within the legal limit. I have honestly never met anyone else who holds that viewpoint, but that's how he feels.

 

[Opie610]

Now, my dad has a completely different perspective. Until I dragged him kicking and screaming fly fishing with me, he was 100% a bait/creel catch fisherman. He is no fan at all of catch-and-release fishing. Why? He believes it's unethical to "torture" a fish for fun and not eat it for food. It's to the point that he told me that if he ever comes fly fishing with me again, he will do so only under the condition that he keeps what he catches within the legal limit. I have honestly never met anyone else who holds that viewpoint, but that's how he feels.

Kind of a odd view your father has there six-gun. No offense but given the choice between a #18 hook in my mouth for 2 minutes or suffering on a stringer only to be gutted and fried later, I will opt for the hook every time. Sadly I would guess most never see the frying pan but are forgotten in the freezer until next year.

 

[outsider]

I think back to when (many many decades ago) I fished with worms for trout. How many of those fish "swallowed the hook". They were dead trout swimming. So I don't buy into low mortality rates when fishing bait.

Fly fishing is by nature a community. And most of us pass on how to properly release a trout without harm. Would that be passed on to bait fishermen? Doubtful. Would they even care? And how many bait fishing organizations (although TU does not discriminate) care and protect our streams. My words may open up a can of worms.

 

[troutbert]

Six-Gun wrote:

Now, my dad has a completely different perspective. Until I dragged him kicking and screaming fly fishing with me, he was 100% a bait/creel catch fisherman. He is no fan at all of catch-and-release fishing. Why? He believes it's unethical to "torture" a fish for fun and not eat it for food. It's to the point that he told me that if he ever comes fly fishing with me again, he will do so only under the condition that he keeps what he catches within the legal limit. I have honestly never met anyone else who holds that viewpoint, but that's how he feels.

I've heard that idea before. It's not really uncommon.

The solution is to take him to a stocked stream, fly fish, and go ahead and keep them and eat them.

There is a stream in our area that is stocked, and is fairly pleasant to fish, but that gets too warm for trout, usually sometime around early to mid June.

I go to that stream around that time, fly fish, and keep and eat what I catch.

If you do that on wild trout streams, you'll hurt the trout populations. The numbers of wild trout / numbers of anglers is not very high in PA.

This is particularly true on brook streams.Many of these streams are small, the number of pools that provide habitat for a 7 inch or larger brookie is limited, and brookies are very easy to catch.

It would be pretty easy to remove a substantial percentage of the legal sized brook trout in many of these streams.

You can also go flyfishing with your dad for panfish, and keep them and eat them. Again, it has to do with POPULATIONS. Five panfish out of a lake is a much smaller percent of the population than 5 brook trout out of a small stream.