Trout harvest limits

[KenU]

As for the notion that the brook trout population is not suffering from overharvesting, that isn't the point. The term population covers many, many miles of water. Much of it remote and seldom if ever fished. The data do not represent what happens on streams that are being regularly fished (and harvested). And, as Lefty and others have already said, there aren't that many limits in most freestone brook trout streams. Those adjacent to or accessible from the road are being harvested. I know, because I have had discussions with those who fish them and kill a mess of trout when they do. That's why they go there!

 

[Fishidiot]

RLeep2 wrote:
I find it difficult to become a true believer in either position on this question.

Me too.

While I also (as mentioned) would favor a creel reduction...I am seeing more and more stocked ATWs in central PA developing robust wild trout populations. This in spite of continued stocking and harvest by traditional anglers.

A couple local CV creeks that I've fished for thirty years fit this situation. Talk to local traditional anglers who fish these waters by late April and they'll tell yuh the stream is "fished out." Come back a month later when the sulphers are popping and you'll see how many wild trout are in there. I'm seeing this in many streams. To be sure, we're talking BT here not ST however and these are mid sized valley freestoners or mixed limestone - not typical small mountain streams..

As is true with so many sticky situations...a middle road is often the best for a state agency like PFBC with a broad constituency.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

As for the notion that the brook trout population is not suffering from overharvesting, that isn't the point. The term population covers many, many miles of water. Much of it remote and seldom if ever fished. The data do not represent what happens on streams that are being regularly fished (and harvested). And, as Lefty and others have already said, there aren't that many limits in most freestone brook trout streams. Those adjacent to or accessible from the road are being harvested. I know, because I have had discussions with those who fish them and kill a mess of trout when they do. That's why they go there!

Exactly. Because that kind of study would have given an undesirable result.

 

[brookieaddict]

My two cents; The PA FISH COM. have introduced a trout stamp somewhere in the past with a promise to stock more fish and bigger fish. We have less fish, more fingerlings, and degrading hold over habitat. The first day of trout is a fiasco even in special regs areas. For some their first time out since last year usualy taking their limit with them and leaving a littered streamside in their wake. For our trout fishing to change we have to take a page from our western states and limit put and take streams and increase catch and release ( barbless hooks) in 95% of our streams . Most of our streams do not have the capability to retain trout because of water temps and no cover from predators. A few years ago we were invited to a meeting that entailed spending millions of dollars on habitat improvement for Hammer Creek in N. Lancaster and S.Lebanon county. After the slide show and the phd's expounding their belief in such a project we asked about the water temp issue. needles to say the project was sheled. We have a very high fisherman to waterway population in the lower countys . The Tully is a sucess story because it drains water from the bottom of Blue Marsh impound and the local TU chapter works tirelessly in stream improvement and fish habitat, along with a special reg. area that is inforced. Its a very big job that needs us and the state to change trout fishing for the better and the future

 

[tomitrout]

Suppose Spring Creek and the special regs areas on Penns and Little J were changed to the state-wide 5 fish limit.

Would the populations stay as good as now, or would they decrease?

If the answer is decrease, what does that tell us about wild trout waters currently under the 5 fish limit?

Want to throw in the stretch of Penns that is open to ATW harvest and is still rated as Class A? How's that fit into your query?

Personally, I like the 5 fish limit, allows me to put a decent dinner on the table for me and the lady in one outing....2 fish limit, fine I guess if I'm the only one I plan to feed.

 

[troutbert]

tomitrout wrote:

Suppose Spring Creek and the special regs areas on Penns and Little J were changed to the state-wide 5 fish limit.

Would the populations stay as good as now, or would they decrease?

If the answer is decrease, what does that tell us about wild trout waters currently under the 5 fish limit?

Want to throw in the stretch of Penns that is open to ATW harvest and is still rated as Class A? How's that fit into your query?

That section has a trout population well below its potential, because of the current management.

 

[jifigz]

I have no problem with the current creel limit of 5 Fish. I wouldn't mind seeing it lowered to 2 or 3, but I'm fine with 5. I also agree with the overall usage and harvest of wild trout populations in PA to be VERY low. I know of quite A few streams that harbor excellent populations of wild trout and I've never seen anyone fishing them. In fact, I bet 99% of anglers that would drive by and see someone fishing these streams would think that person is crazy for fishing there because they know it is not stocked and, from the appearance of the stream, obviously holds no trout.

To the one poster, can't remember who, but why would feeding stocked trout to your cats shut down their kidneys?

 

[jifigz]

And don't hang me here, but I see no problem with occasionally doing a selective harvest of a few wild trout. Especially since most of those streams receive hardly any pressure if any at all. And I may not even harvest one a year, but if I did I don't perceive it as taboo. Sometimes I think that culling a few fish can be beneficial to the population. This is definitely the case with many fish in the sunfish category and I would assume it would apply to trout in certain streams as well.

 

[afishinado]

Let’s do some reverse engineering and look at fishing in PA like it was a business. The first question would be: what seems to be working and what’s not working?

The most popular places for trout fishing in PA are places like Spring Creek, Fishing Creek Clinton County, the Little Juniata and the Upper Delaware, to name but a few. They are heavily utilized for much of the year and have a high customer (angler) satisfaction because they offer a high quality fishing experience. Anyone that fishes any of these places will observe anglers from all over PA and even anglers from out-of-state fishing there. These places are real money-makers for the state through both license sales and adding to the local economy.

All the above streams and rivers have one thing in common; they are either 100% C&R or have strict harvest restrictions. If I were the licensing agent and running the fish program in the State, I would try to replicate this success in other streams and rivers. Catch and keep (C&K) streams are utilized seasonally since they become depleted rapidly and the quality of fishing quickly declines. C&R streams are self-sustaining in terms of fish population and are less costly (no need to stock) to maintain. In addition, the data given by the PFBC is that 70% or so anglers practice C&R. Why not go with the flow and give anglers what they desire?…a quality fishing experience that is self-sustainable.

While every stream or even most streams cannot be a self-sustaining C&R stream or river, there are many that can! I would identify some of the best “blue ribbon” trout streams and set aside them as C&R streams. The target would be 5% of the stream miles in the State, which would leave 95% of the stream miles in PA for those who chose to catch and keep trout. A 95 to 5% split of C&K to C&R seems fair, especially since the majority of the anglers in the state practice C&R!

I find it ironic that the PFBC, with nearly every action lately, is doing everything it can to open up streams to catch and keep, at very time when revenues are down and costs are rising. The solution is to promote and expand catch and release opportunities to give anglers the quality angling experience they are looking for, since the anglers themselves are choosing to C&R; and that’s according to the data from the FBC!

Rather then align themselves with groups that embrace the C&R philosophy, which makes sense from both a biological standpoint as well as a cost standpoint, the Commission seems to bury it’s head in the stream bottom and continues on a path that is unsustainable, unpopular and unwise.

 

[Acristickid]

I agree with the logic but the commish is not a business- it is a political football. Subject to the whims of the powers that be.

 

[jifigz]

I would love it if all streams that held a decent population of wild fish went wild and received no stockings and a strict harvest regulation. I think that it would surprise many how many fantastic wild trout streams that we would be blessed with in PA....at least in the central portion of the state.

 

[BrookieChaser]

Montana.

 

[jifigz]

BrookieChaser wrote:
Montana.

Amen. People were irrate when they basically ceased 90% of stocking. What happened? Amazing fishing. Obviously we have many streams that would require a stocking to maintain a fishery, but we also have many that thrive and would thrive much greater from a cessation of stocking.

 

[OldLefty]

I would suspect that the majority of PFBC commissioners aren't wild trout savvy. Their most vocal constituency is the catch-and-kill folks.

Way back when I was part of the Trout Summits held by PFBC I was told that that it took a 3 trout limit to see a trout population less impacted by harvest.

Later, when I was part of another group called together by PFBC to discuss wild trout we were told that raising the size limit to 8" would reduce harvest on native brook trout populations to the point that there would be few, if any, fish available to harvest on some streams. One person in the room leaned over and said to another, "Well, I guess we'll have to break a h... of a lot 'a necks next year." These two fellas liked to kill native brookies and they saw their "killing" future threatened. Another fella became so angry over the prospect that he didn't even realize the group had decided to no longer consider raising the size limit and move on to another issue. This fella nearly exploded when he thought (erroneously) that someone was further commenting on the issue. We had to inform him that we were discussing something else. By the way, all three of these folks were PFBC employees.

Then, too, there's a study which concludes that a stream will see a 40% loss in trout population over a period of, I believe, a year. Some would say that there's no way to reduce that and only the factors leading to that loss may vary. Let your imagination run wild on this one. Angling is only one factor. Eliminate it and other factors will only weigh more heavily, etc., etc.

I have no problem with someone taking a few fish now and then if they like to eat them. Someone taking fish frequently to feed the relation or the neighborhood is another thing. And, that's without considering the wasted trout which have become freezer burned over time. I know someone who used to kill a limit most every time out. I can remember more than one instance of throwing out somewhere around 100 trout which spoiled in the freezer. After that, no more. Talk about regret...

 

[Mike]

Old Lefty,

In a stratified random sample that type of activity is "captured" by the creel clerks in the relative frequency with which it occurs. If it is infrequent, then it is recorded infrequently. If it is moderately frequent, then it is recorded moderately frequently, and so on.

Just in case it is necessary for clarification purposes, stratified in the sense that it is used above means that random samples occur equally within various strata. In the statewide study, weekend days and holidays were one stratum and weekdays were another stratum. Within the weekend/holiday days, there were also two strata: mornings and afternoons/evenings. Likewise for weekdays. Additionally, streams were broken down into two groups based on avg width...larger streams and smaller streams with 6 meters used as the break point.

As I have said regarding stocked trout fisheries, the sum of the harvests by those relatively few who keep limits is unimportant in comparison to the sum of the harvests by those many anglers who keep only a single fish when you look at the impact on the populations. In the big picture, that is most likely true for wild trout fisheries as well. Heck, the harvest of wild trout is low anyway...only 7 per kilometer on avg. throughout the season and less than one trout per trip on average.

Limit keeping, because it is a somewhat rare event, is more of a social and emotional issue than a biological problem when it comes to stocked or wild trout fisheries in Pa. Harvest of wild trout is low in Pa whether those harvests are occurring as single fish or as limits. In the simplest terms, it matters not at the population level whether one angler makes four trips and keeps five trout each time or 20 anglers make 20 trips and each keep a single fish; the impact at the population level is the same and in Pennsylvania that impact is low.

One thing that I will say about limits, however, is that they may become a target when anglers get close to the limit. When conducting stocked trout creel surveys, particularly when the creel limit was 8, we usually saw more 8 fish creels than 7 fish creels or 6 fish creels in the harvest data. The creel limit was obviously a target as I described.

RLeep2: The harvest estimate on small brook trout streams was 4 brook trout per kilometer.

 

[Mike]

Troutbert,
It does not tell you anything because they are high use waters while the typical wild trout waters across the state are not. Your example missed a key component: angler effort. Spring Creek is probably the highest use wild trout stream in the state and if it isn't, it is darn close. As for Little J, I don't know how much use it receives, but its population size structure and condition could probably benefit from some harvest. Furthermore, the point ignores a key principle of harvest in wildlife fisheries management, and for that matter, conditions at your the berry patch: Sustainable yield. And fish populations have one more thing going for them: compensatory mortality above certain levels of harvest or, if one prefers, compensatory survival.

For the general reader:
A fish population does not have to be managed 365 days per year at its maximum potential to provide good fishing and I would say that this would be true for waters like Spring Creek and the Little J. No other anglers to whom I am exposed aside from select trout anglers seem to demand this. I even hear it for the Tulpehocken, a stream that has temperature problems. I don't see the argument for maximum potential, especially in our most famous Class A limestone wild trout fisheries where trout abundances are extremely high. Really, when is enough enough? I could better understand the argument for low density wild trout streams.

For clarification, I would not recommend changing a thing on Spring Ck. outside of the Paradise.

 

[Mike]

KenU,

The data certainly cover the types of waters along roads that you describe. Given that the stream segments studied were randomly selected, the types of segments that you describe should have occurred in the same frequency at which they occur in comparison to the occurrence of less accessible segments across the state. Franky, as an angler and one who electrofishes, I have no expectation that fishing is going to be uniformly good throughout the length of a stream, nor is the habitat and access, but I can tell you that there are plenty of good wild trout populations and there is plenty of good close to the road wild trout fishing to be had in Pa.

 

[Mike]

Afish:

I surveyed Fishing Creek in the late 1970's throughout its length when it was a general stocked trout stream (ATW). Except for perhaps a 100 yd stretch in the Narrows, it did not have to be a C&R or Trophy Trout stream to make it good. Fishing for wild trout was already very good and the wild trout population size structure was impressive. I fished it and took others there to do so as well (for wild trout).

 

[CRB]

Mike,
PAFBC wants "good fishing?"? Is that what your stating? Why not raise the bar?
Better fishing, would that not bring in more license sales?

Sounds to me the management needs to go back to school and see how big business gain more market shares. Look at Apple they are striving every time a new product comes out to increase sales by exceeding market perceptions. By always striving to better their product they raise the bar, there by making their old products out dated and making the customer always feel they need the next new product they develop.

Bringing it back to tout fishing in PA, would it not lead that catching fish is the most important object to fishing. Would it not also lead that in order to catch fish there has to be fish to catch? By meeting this demand would it not be, that more fish in the stream keeping them their longer lead to a better fishing experience?
Why or why not?

 

[afishinado]

Mike,

In any business, if you don't do or have what the customers want your sales decline.

According to the info released by the PFBC, the vast majority of anglers practice catch and release. Anglers value a quality fishing experience over keeping a couple of fish. There are plenty of catch and keep waters in the state where fish are and should be kept. In PA we are blessed with having some of the best wild trout streams and rivers in the east.

The angler/customer has spoken. As a matter of fact, in the extensive trout survey done a years ago by the PFBC there was a resounding "yes" to more C&R fishing by PA anglers. I have not seen any movement in that direction. In fact, quite the opposite with the opening up of DH areas earlier and to bait fishing proposal. The Commission seems to cling to the old days with that put and take philosophy.

For the life of me, I cannot see why the Commission is not on board with C&R movement to improve the fishing experience for anglers. That's what anglers do in this day and age that's what they want. And it also saves money for a budget strapped organization! It's all there on a silver platter.....