Trout harvest limits

[tomitrout]

That all may be true...so why then is it that when there's a push for C&R/less stocking/more wild that 'our voice' is drowned out by the apparent minority of put n takers who seem to be much more vocal about their desires?

PFBC does listen to their customer base and it seems to me that what their hearing doesn't quite reflect the reality as you've described. Maybe if we were more vocal with our legislative reps instead of on these internet forums the PFBC might begin to actually listen to us and consider our desires when it comes to writing the regs and allocating the stockie inventory...

 

[Chaz]

My opinion, I like the approach that Old Lefty and RleeP have. It's not as cut and dried as the C & R guys claim. It's not what PFBC espouses either, as always it's somewhere in the middle.
Or stocked waters, why should there be any reason not to take a limit PFBC will stock more fish.
But on wild trout streams, not all are equal. Use limits, I'd prefer size limits as opposed to qt. limits, to achieve a goal. A goal could be to increase the size of the fish, or, to increase the number of fish. Both require good habitat. Money should be spent on habitat, especially where access is public, that is, public land, or private land with guaranteed access, where it's obvious that human impact has an impact on the result.
I'd prefer a 2 fish limit on most streams with wild trout, but I don't think it should be all wild trout streams. Some streams can afford a higher harvest without impacting the biomass. It's how do you accomplish the goal that matters most.

 

[SteveG]

Why is the PFBC concerned about an uproar if they dropped the harvest limit? No different than the flood of emails sent in opposition to stocking class A streams, which didn't play into their decision making. If they dropped the harvest limit, people who harvest will still buy licenses, just like c&r anglers do.

 

[Mike]

Afish,
The answer from my viewpoint is simple. C&R is just one tool in a fisheries management tool box that is called upon when biologically necessary. It is not an objective in itself. The need is quite limited in Pa because angling pressure in wild trout streams has been documented to be generally low. Likewise with respect to harvest. For the most part, those streams for which C&R regs might be appropriate already have those regs or other special regs in place. I suspect, however, that those regs could be removed from a number of those streams with little change in fish population abundance or size structure.

As for adding C&R regs, I do so when biologically necessary, such as temporarily in new or reclaimed impoundments where fish populations are being allowed to grow from zero to some acceptable density and size structure. See Leaser Lake, Lehigh Co.. I also use them as a permanent management tool in extremely infertile impoundments where fish growth rates are slow, densities could be easily depressed, where high harvest rates would be likely, and harvested fish would not be quickly replaced through growth. See Owl Ck Reservoir, Schuylkill Co. I am presently investigating the possibility of a new trout oriented special reg area that I strongly suspect would have biological and fishing quality benefits within and near the project area. As with some lakes this could more loosely be viewed as a reclamation project, thus at least part of the potential special reg benefit.

 

[JackM]

Look at it this way. If proper management calls for some harvest and science suggests that an average harvest of 2 fish per angler will improve or at least not hurt the resource, then achieving that average angler harvest should be the goal, correct? So what if a five fish limit actually results in an average angler harvest of 2 fish per angler? And what if a two fish limit results in a lesser per angler harvest rate? What should be the limit? 2 fish or 5? Red fish or blue fish?

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:

If proper management calls for some harvest...

Does it?

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

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
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.....
.

by Mike on 2015/3/6 11:43:32 Afish, The answer from my viewpoint is simple. C&R is just one tool in a fisheries management tool box that is called upon when biologically necessary. It is not an objective in itself. The need is quite limited in Pa because angling pressure in wild trout streams has been documented to be generally low. Likewise with respect to harvest. For the most part, those streams for which C&R regs might be appropriate already have those regs or other special regs in place. I suspect, however, that those regs could be removed from a number of those streams with little change in fish population abundance or size structure. As for adding C&R regs, I do so when biologically necessary, such as temporarily in new or reclaimed impoundments where fish populations are being allowed to grow from zero to some acceptable density and size structure. See Leaser Lake, Lehigh Co.. I also use them as a permanent management tool in extremely infertile impoundments where fish growth rates are slow, densities could be easily depressed, where high harvest rates would be likely, and harvested fish would not be quickly replaced through growth. See Owl Ck Reservoir, Schuylkill Co. I am presently investigating the possibility of a new trout oriented special reg area that I strongly suspect would have biological and fishing quality benefits within and near the project area. As with some lakes this could more loosely be viewed as a reclamation project, thus at least part of the potential special reg benefit.

Your reply pretty much touched on nothing afish's post eluded to, his post IMO talked nothing about biologically necessity but rather angler desire. It's pretty clear that afish used your own studies and took the data to show another view of what anglers wish to have thier fishing experience in PA to be like. I have no issues with this because it's a lot like you guys do just from a perspective you disagree with, which is why you avoided it almost in it's entirety.

Tomi,
The reason there is not the out cry is because the data is extremely flawed from those studies. It shows that most anglers catch and release, it also shows when asked that most anglers desire more special regs. You are right that when things change, like stocking, limits or regs the out cry is loud. So what gives?

It's because you CANNOT take a small sample, even if broad across the state, and then apply it like the bible to what is going on with the state of trout fishing and angler desires in PA.
Stream to stream is different. Culture to culture is different.
Broad strokes across a big board in an attempt to blanket everything often leaves streaks, no matter how many coats you try to apply.

 

[SteveG]

PFBC should stand by their statement that 70% of anglers practice c&r by making 70% of our streams c&r. While they're at it, make separate licenses for c&r and harvest. I don't feel I should pay the same license fee as someone who wants a pile of freezer burnt fish.

 

[Chaz]

Unless a stream is being reclaimed as a trout stream that will support wild trout of good quality it makes no sense to put C & R on any stocked trout stream. On the other hand C & R has value on streams with good habitat that aren't as high a biomass as the habitat and food base tell us it should be.
You can't use a policy of one size fits all, it doesn't work that way in the streams in PA. I have no doubt that there are streams that would benefit by having C & R regs, but everyone name 5.

 

[JackM]

Chaz wrote:
You can't use a policy of one size fits all, it doesn't work that way in the streams in PA. I have no doubt that there are streams that would benefit by having C & R regs, but everyone name 5.

You are right, Chaz, but as a regulatory reality, you cannot not "use a policy of one size fits all." That is, special regs on a small percentage of designated streams, could be tailored to the particular stream or stream groups, but each and every stream cannot be managed to its own particular optimum regulations. It just isn't practical.

 

[Maurice]

How about instead of Special Regs, we call them Specific Regs...then we could. And we could make signs specific to the management of the specific stream. Did you know they have printing presses(copiers) that print variable data, the day of the Imposing Stone and California Job Case are over.

 

[RLeep2]

A number of states do something similar to what Maurice suggests only with some additional simplification. They use a system with say, 5 or less categories of regs, and every stream in the state is managed under one of these categories. In order to know what's what, you have to be able to read and have access to the state's fisheries reg booklet which lists every stream, what category it falls into and the specific regs for that category.

Even in these days when the onrushing typhoon of technology seems to paradoxically be making us more stupid rather than more smart in many ways, I don't think this is too much to ask of the average trout angler.

 

[JackM]

Fantasize all you want, but it is most certainly "too much to ask."

 

[k-bob]

There are 20,000 miles of trout streams under statewide regulations.

page 26:

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/pafish/trout/trout_plan/troutplan2010.pdf

 

[Chaz]

k-bob wrote:
There are 20,000 miles of trout streams under statewide regulations.

page 26:

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/pafish/trout/trout_plan/troutplan2010.pdf

And under 2000 miles of water under special regs.

 

[RLeep2]

>>Fantasize all you want, but it is most certainly "too much to ask.">>

Oh, I think it would work just fine and that the vast majority of anglers would have little if any difficulty adapting to such a system. After all, Pennsylvania hunters have had to learn to deal with a fairly complex set of regs, bag limits and seasons under the PGC's Wildlife Management Area set-up and so far, it seems to be working OK. When we talk about regs for trout, what I am thinking of is a similar, geographically-based regulatory structure.

The only real remaining question in my mind would be whether it would be worth it from a fisheries management/biological standpoint. I suspect it may not.

 

[Chaz]

RLeep2 wrote:
>>Fantasize all you want, but it is most certainly "too much to ask.">>

Oh, I think it would work just fine and that the vast majority of anglers would have little if any difficulty adapting to such a system. After all, Pennsylvania hunters have had to learn to deal with a fairly complex set of regs, bag limits and seasons under the PGC's Wildlife Management Area set-up and so far, it seems to be working OK. When we talk about regs for trout, what I am thinking of is a similar, geographically-based regulatory structure.

The only real remaining question in my mind would be whether it would be worth it from a fisheries management/biological standpoint. I suspect it may not.

For those that think it's impossible to manage trout streams on a stream by stream basis, take a look at the regulations in Maine.
It can be done, but PFBC won't don't in this century and there's a lot of time left. However I don't think it necessary to go to the lengths that Maine has, Maine has at least 400 strains of brook trout, meaning distinct populations, divided between lakes, rivers streams and season fish. It's much more complex, and these streams are mostly not stocked, and dependent of the NATIVE fish.
I still think that PA could manage the trout streams with fewer than 6 regs. Just streamline things.

 

[Mason5419]

Fishidiot wrote:

dudemanspecial wrote:

acristickid wrote:
The lil j and Spring Creek are polluted streams which is why they are catch and release. FYI

Is this true? Or is there more to the story than that?

Yes, it's true.
In the case of Spring Creek, it was made catch and release about 30 yrs ago due to toxins in the fish's flesh making them unsafe to eat. As a result of the C&R regs, the wild trout population increased dramatically. In recent years, the toxin levels have abated, but the stream remains C&R. Some irony: Spring Creek had to be polluted to end stocking and harvest and become the world class wild trout stream it is today.

The situation with LJ is a bit different but it too has had pollution issues (like many other recovering streams in PA that are now among our best and most famous waterways).

Fishidiot,
You are correct that the LJ historically suffered from poor water quality; however, the current C&R regulations were in no way intended to prevent anglers from consuming contaminated fish. The motivation for the C&R regulations were socially motivated. Despite popular belief, the water quality of the J is much improved from the days of old when locals referred to it as an "open sewer".