Trophy Trout Regs Worthless

JackM

JackM

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
17,324
OK, just did that to get you to look. But they just posted stream survey results for Penns creek TT section:

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/images/fisheries/afm/2007/3x09_25penns.htm

There was quite a discussion some time ago with people drawing various conclusions about the regs and reasons why the survey results weren't representative of reality etc., and i recall many were interested in what the future results would show. Well, here's another year to work into the hypothesis.
 
Surprising, at least to me. The numbers seem about what you'd expect, but I would think you'd see more top-end trout. I have rarely fished Penns Creek, but surely there are areas where there are far more large trout than the one surveyed, aren't there?
 
Yeah RRT, they are downstream in the C&R area. :-D
 
rrt wrote:
Surprising, at least to me. The numbers seem about what you'd expect, but I would think you'd see more top-end trout. I have rarely fished Penn's Creek, but surely there are areas where there are far more large trout than the one surveyed, aren't there?
Click to expand...

Actually when you consider that "top end" is a pathetic 14 inches by the rules, there are lots of top end fish. Now if they ever move the regs up to 16, 18 or 20 where they belong, there will be even more, bigger fish. Sorry, 14 inches is no trophy.
 
Never witnessed a shocking but would like to some day. I also think 14 inches is too small for the Trophy regs.
 
What was I thinking???
 
What conclusions is anyone drawing from this about the effects of different management on trout populations?

This section used to be stocked and under "general" regs.

The management was changed to no stocking and "special" regs.

So, what's the verdict?
 
troutbert wrote:
What conclusions is anyone drawing from this about the effects of different management on trout populations?

This section used to be stocked and under "general" regs.

The management was changed to no stocking and "special" regs.

So, what's the verdict?
Click to expand...

Well, not knowing the results before the special regs, that is, the wild trout biomass, I'd say it is a resounding success for the propogation of wild trout. As it should be. There are so few places where this kind of result can be achieved, why shouldn't it be.

As with many special regs, or harvest limitations, the "goals" are often overshot by the very implication of the regs. Meaning once the regs go into place, the target harvest rates are ignored by the harvest crowd. The streams themselves are ignored by them. Probably out of spite or the thought that their ability to harvest what they could once has been shattered.

Maurice
 
I'd call this experiment a resounding success. Lets take the next logical step and bump the size limit for harvest up to 18 inches for the next decade and see what effect that has on the numbers of 14-18 inch trout.
 
Here is a little tid bit for everyone to chew on. Based on a letter I recieved from Mr. Tom Green (PFBC) that provided numbers of trout collected in Sect 3 & 4 in June 2005, the following I found interesting:

76 trout over 14" were surveyed in Sect 3
79 trout over 14" were surveyed in Sect 4

Of those fish collected greater than 14" the following number were greater than 16.5 inches.

24 fish greater than 16.5 inches in Sect 4
4 fish greater than 16.5 incehs in Sect 3

OK...so why is this???

Any thoughts by those that fish the stream regularly?? Is it the Reg differences (ie - cropping?) or habitat, time of year of surveys, differences in stream sections surveyed, other or PUNT ???
 
Because everything over 14 inches is harvested...because it can be...is that what you are asking?
 
Look at the biomass numbers in the report, which are from the stream under this management: Trophy regs, no stocking.

Back in 1977, when this section was managed under "normal" management, i.e. it was stocked and under state-wide regs, the biomass came out to 18 (Eighteen) kg/ha.
 
Most of these special reg sections are put into place to make the majority of fisherman and are not even based on scientific ideas. Also the stream may not even be able to support that many large fish due to lack of habitat, inadquet flows, not enough food, etc, etc. Put the size limit to 16, 18, or even 20 above is not going to greately increase the number of large trout in these size ranges. You may see an increase of 1 or 2 fish each per mile but I doubt that this would make most fisherman happy either.
 
Slumpbuster

I take it you don't or have not fished Penns? Maybe I'm wrong.

FYI - Penns has probably the best habitat, fertility and insect life of any stream on the east coast. Add on a large forage base of minnows and such too for the larger fish to devour. The only negative w/ Penns is that during hot dry years, it does get warm and trout will struggle. But the trout find a way to survive due to the many spring seeps, and a few nice tributaries that are cold all summer.

What I've been told, in most cases, larger trout are more susceptable to warmer water temps than smaller fish. So in theory, during warm dry years, the trout in the C&R section should succomb to thermal stress????

Not to bust your cajones, but I would be highly skeptical that habitat or food base is a limiting factor in Penns in both sections.
 
troutbert wrote:
Look at the biomass numbers in the report, which are from the stream under this management: Trophy regs, no stocking.

Back in 1977, when this section was managed under "normal" management, i.e. it was stocked and under state-wide regs, the biomass came out to 18 (Eighteen) kg/ha.
Click to expand...

They are all just numbers. Data, to be analysed to prove a point or disprove one. The question is; What is the point? In other words, without a goal or objective, it just provides reason toward future goals.

And, different conclusions can be drawn from these same numbers to support each end of the equation. Certainly, the proof is in the numbers that from '77 to '99 showed that TT regs skyrocketed the wild trout population. That is only a success if that was the goal. I don't remember or know if it was or not.

Lehigh Regular's conclusion would be drawn in the direction of, raise the size limit or make it C&R and you will get more large fish. I agree. But is that the goal? I don't believe so. Without a faction driving a reg change, it is very unlikely to see the F&BC move in any direction favoring the C&R crowd, regardless what the data shows...because they could blow some smoke about the natural mortality, The other statewide streams surveyed that average out to no net gain and so forth.

It is what it is...and if you want to see a change based on the numbers, you have to bring it to them. Create the public comment process and take what the compromise gives you.

But first you need a goal.
 
LehighRegular wrote:
Here is a little tid bit for everyone to chew on. Based on a letter I recieved from Mr. Tom Green (PFBC) that provided numbers of trout collected in Sect 3 & 4 in June 2005, the following I found interesting:

76 trout over 14" were surveyed in Sect 3
79 trout over 14" were surveyed in Sect 4

Of those fish collected greater than 14" the following number were greater than 16.5 inches.

24 fish greater than 16.5 inches in Sect 4
4 fish greater than 16.5 incehs in Sect 3

OK...so why is this???

Any thoughts by those that fish the stream regularly?? Is it the Reg differences (ie - cropping?) or habitat, time of year of surveys, differences in stream sections surveyed, other or PUNT ???
Click to expand...

LehighRegular; Maybe I missed this but are sections 3 and 4 the two regulated areas on Penns?

It would seem to me very simple to make three surveys on Penns each a week apart. Do one at Ingleby in the middle of the Trophy section, one in the middle of the C&R section, and then go down below Weikert and do one in the "standard regulations" section. If you did this during an average June there shouldn't be enough temperature variation to make much of a difference.
 
LeighRegular,

No i have never fished Penns but I still don't belive that is is the best trout stream on the east coast. It may be one of the best known on the east coast and a great stream but I can count many streams in PA that could probably rival it and some of these are freestones. Second it may have great habitat but that does not mean that the habitat is great for large fish. Look through some of the biologist reports for other streams that have the same type of regulations. Cedar for example had a good number of fish over 14 inches in the states 525 yd sampling stretch. You are correct that larger fish have trouble in low oxygen warm water because they need more oxygen to survive and can't get it from the warm water. I am sure that warm water is a limiting factor in the number of large trout in Penns but I doubt it is the only one.
 
I don't know how anyone can draw any conslusions on anything from what Jack linked to or others have posted. Anybody have any pre-1995 electrochocking numbers? Specifically biomass numbers for fish in the 7 to 14 inch range?

We need a historical control group.....
 
Troutbert said in '79 it was 18kg/ha...not even class B. My guess is there were not many in the 7' - 14" range. Now (the past 8 years) it floats around 100. thats a 5x change. I don't think it was habitat improvements tha changed that number.
 
Slump

U R correct, that my statement about Penns being one of the best is a matter of personal opinion and preference.

But believe me when I tell you...Penns is big fish habitat. I don't think any of the regulars on this board that fish Penns often will disagree with that statement.

Go fish it...U will see.

Maurice....I agree 100 % with your statement about "what is the goal"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top