Warm water fly fishermen who just don't care

[TimB]

I'm a little late to this party, but I believe most here are using broad brushstrokes in condemning fishing for trout in warm conditions. To me it begs several questions: What are trout doing in thermally impaired streams in the first place? Were they stocked? Are they wild? are they native? The answers to these specific questions are important to me.

Sorry, I have no issue with people fishing for non-native trout (stocked or wild) in PA when/where it's legal regardless of water temps. IMO, non-native trout are there for recreational fishing, nothing more, nothing less. All this energy "educating' anglers fishing in warm conditions would be better spent lobbying the PFBC to change the regs to protect important populations. To me that means native brookies. Other trout species aren't native to PA and are managed by the PFBC for recreational purposes (rightly so, IMO).

 

[Fly-Swatter]

On the educating them side, what about C&R fishing for trout in thermally impaired streams? I was raised to never waste life. If anglers are fishing to legally catch and keep wild or stocked trout, fine. But if they are releasing fish that are essentially "dead fish swimming", then those anglers need to be taught how to do what they are doing, or intend to do, correctly: When not to fish, how to handle fish that are to be released, etc.

I think they would be open to that, no?

 

[Swattie87]

TimB wrote:
Other trout species aren't native to PA and are managed by the PFBC for recreational purposes (rightly so, IMO).

I get your point about native Brookies, but the rest of that doesn’t make a lot of sense. Most of the non-native, wild Trout in PA are Brown Trout. So let’s think about that. Managing them for recreational purposes may mean the best management strategy is to protect the population during warm water periods, so they can be there for recreation later. (Most places in PA with wild Brown Trout this is completely unnecessary, but in a few, it is. Penns Creek probably being the best example.). The wild Browns in Penns are far better and more cost effective at making more Trout than we are at stocking fish to replace them if they are lost.

Again, in most places in PA with wild Brown Trout, it’s simply not needed from a management perspective. The water doesn’t get warm enough, for long enough. But in a case like Penns, and a few others, mostly larger creeks or rivers, managing to protect the existing wild Brown Trout population is the best and more cost effective strategy to produce a long term, high quality recreational fishery for anglers.

To encourage angling and potentially killing Trout during high temperature periods (not intended for consumption on the table), makes no long term recreational management sense.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Well said Swattie, agree.
In fact, IMO some select watershed should be further managed to increase the brown trout population for better recreational fishing. That is a whole nother discussion because brown trout in PA has never really been managed at all.

 

[tomgamber]

not just closing the season for high temps but what about spawning? in idaho i know of about a half dozen places that close for a few weeks for the spawn. would that help the BT population? remember, managing (closing) tends to **** people off. you know , that whole big gubment thing...

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I believe you can manage the best of our wild brown trout by closing down very little and using a different approach but again a whole different discussion.

 

[Swattie87]

On MOST wild Brown Trout streams in PA, there's no need for a warm weather closure, or a spawning closure IMO. They just don't get warm enough for long enough, and they don't have enough angling pressure on them for it to make a noticeable difference. Keep in mind that MOST wild Brown Trout stream mileage in PA is on small, forested freestoners. On these streams, other things are generally your limiting factors to the population...water quality and habitat first and foremost. And perhaps, on some that are stocked, stocking.

There's maybe a dozen or so larger, popular wild Brown Trout waters where a Summer closed season (say 7/1 - 9/15) or so, and/or a closed spawning season (say 11/1 - 12/31) could be beneficial I think. I'm sure these are all the same common ones we'd all universally come up with that get warm in the Summer, and have relatively heavy angling pressure. But even when limited to these, I don't favor a blanket approach. Case by case, year by year even. If it's a cool wet Summer, like 2018, there's probably no resource management reason to close a stream like Penns, so folks should be able to enjoy fishing it more. 2016, or 2020, a different story clearly. And if survey data suggests the population is good, and healthy, no need to close for the spawn. If it's down, and the fish need added protection to try to repopulate you close. I understand this is costly to monitor and difficult to manage like this, but I think it's the BEST solution.

If it has to be an all or nothing approach, I'd still be in the camp of no closures, as most streams simply don't need it. But a more calculated, case by case approach is best and I think there would be data to support strategic closures on a handful of streams during hot, low flow Summers and during periods of decreasing wild Trout biomass. (Similar to what has been done with the Susky before for SM populations, or Penns in 2016.)

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Really the closing of pinch points would be enough.
Ex: the mouth of the Letort.

You cant fish in front of fish ladders. You shouldnt be able to fish there either. Other than that, expanding habitat in those areas and ease of passage would do great things IMO. That is only on select waters of course.

 

[TimB]

My post makes perfect sense to me, but I have no real affinity for non-native fish in the context of recreational fishing in PA. I prefer fishing for warm water species in PA and native salmonids in other parts of North America.

You folks raise some good points on managing populations in certain conditions, but clearly there is a bias in this group that favors salmonids and especially non-native browns. If you step back a moment and look at it objectively, it doesn't make sense from a recreational fishing point of view. Some of the waters being mentioned are artificial fisheries that would not exist without stocking and/or introduction of non-native species. Those fish serve one purpose: recreational opportunity. Should recreation stop because fish that don't really belong in these waters to begin with are being stressed by that same recreational activity?

One could argue that self-sustaining populations should be protected to maximize the recreational potential and careful C&R can be a part of that. That I understand. But at that point we should also condemn all hero pics, overplaying fish on light tippets, and any of the other many causes of mortality while recreational fishing. Or, you could accept mortality as part of this recreational activity. I do.

The reverence given to some species (wild non-natives) really only resonates with a select group, but not the angling public at large. That’s why this will continue to occur unless the regs change, and condemning people for playing by the rules seems a little harsh. Don’t like the rules? Lobby to get them changed.

Condemning guys for fishing in warm conditions (and God forbid they had an expensive rod carrier on their vehicle!) strikes me as completely illogical and elitist.

 

[larkmark]

Tim- non native to PA at least the watershed on eastern side of state would include bass, carp ,musky,walleye and of course the trout except Brook trout.
By the way no one was condemned.

 

[TimB]

Yep, I agree all those non-native fish are also there for one purpose: recreational fishing and as such should be treated the same.

And you might want to read the original post that condemned anglers for fishing by the rules.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Tim,

You make some good points.
And while i do advocate for expanding and enhancing certain wild brown trout fisheries, i would not at the expense of any brook trout watershed.

They should always come first. Brown trout are for recreational purposes.

 

[Swattie87]

TimB wrote:
I have no real affinity for non-native fish in the context of recreational fishing in PA. I prefer fishing for warm water species in PA

So you're a big Fallfish guy then? Me too.

Just because a non-native fish is there for recreation (Brown Trout, SMB, whatever) and not preservation of a native species (Brook Trout, Fallfish, whatever) doesn't necessarily mean the best management strategy to support the best recreational experience is a free for all.

The guys mentioned in the OP were bozos if they were trying to C&R wild Brown Trout in those conditions. The OP didn't do anything wrong by attempting to (politely) explain that to them. Sure, they weren't doing anything illegal, and the OP had no right to stop them (he didn't), or no grounds to call a WCO (he didn't). That said, no one can objectively say that them fishing in those conditions would be good long term for the recreational (to use your term) wild Brown Trout in that fishery - It's clearly and obviously not. And if anglers aren't going to call the ethics police on themselves, that's when you end up having it managed for you, whether you agree with it or not.

Your outlook on managing fisheries for recreation is woefully short sighted. It's basically they're there for recreation, so do what you want with them as long as it's legal, even if it means destroying the ability to have future recreation opportunities. It's just silly really, and doesn't even warrant the level of response it's getting.

 

[TimB]

So you're a big Fallfish guy then? Me too.

That's too funny, you probably have no idea how true that is! I love catching them, but I refer to them as the noble and mighty chub! This photo was from the swattie just last week.

Short-sighted? I don't think so. I think it's a more enlightened point of view because I'm not encumbered by an infatuation with a non-native species.

 

[Swattie87]

The Swattie is Class A Fallfish water. I know it well. The Fallfish is far superior to the Chub though in PA native fish angling lore, and deserves to be called by its correct name.

I was never one to impose common sense getting in the way of others on their path to enlightenment. Carry on. Hope none of those pesky Smallmouths or Brown Trout get in the way of your Fallfish.

 

[larkmark]

I would guess that the most common trout fished for in the world would be the Brown. If that is true then most fly fishing was built around mainly fishing for it. It is a non native in a big part of where it is now enjoyed by millions of fly fishermen. Brook trout were on their way out probably from the time another non native set foot on this continent. I love Brook Trout but there are many reasons they haven't done as well as Browns. I think all our trout deserve our respect regardless of the law. Just my non enlightened perspective.

 

[ryansheehan]

Swattie87 wrote:
On MOST wild Brown Trout streams in PA, there's no need for a warm weather closure, or a spawning closure IMO. They just don't get warm enough for long enough, and they don't have enough angling pressure on them for it to make a noticeable difference. Keep in mind that MOST wild Brown Trout stream mileage in PA is on small, forested freestoners. On these streams, other things are generally your limiting factors to the population...water quality and habitat first and foremost. And perhaps, on some that are stocked, stocking.

There's maybe a dozen or so larger, popular wild Brown Trout waters where a Summer closed season (say 7/1 - 9/15) or so, and/or a closed spawning season (say 11/1 - 12/31) could be beneficial I think. I'm sure these are all the same common ones we'd all universally come up with that get warm in the Summer, and have relatively heavy angling pressure. But even when limited to these, I don't favor a blanket approach. Case by case, year by year even. If it's a cool wet Summer, like 2018, there's probably no resource management reason to close a stream like Penns, so folks should be able to enjoy fishing it more. 2016, or 2020, a different story clearly. And if survey data suggests the population is good, and healthy, no need to close for the spawn. If it's down, and the fish need added protection to try to repopulate you close. I understand this is costly to monitor and difficult to manage like this, but I think it's the BEST solution.

If it has to be an all or nothing approach, I'd still be in the camp of no closures, as most streams simply don't need it. But a more calculated, case by case approach is best and I think there would be data to support strategic closures on a handful of streams during hot, low flow Summers and during periods of decreasing wild Trout biomass. (Similar to what has been done with the Susky before for SM populations, or Penns in 2016.)

Swatty, to play devil's advocate....what would be the benefit of closing Penns. The obvious possible benefits would be more and/or bigger fish. I believe the numbers on Penns are already pretty high. I don't know Penns well enough to speak confidentially on these questions though. I will say I've heard people discuss closures on some of my home streams and I firmly believe they would have little positive impact.

Edit: I'm referring to spawning closures.

 

[Swattie87]

Yeah, I’m less wild on the need for spawning closures. Right now the population in Penns and the other large popular streams are fine, and it’s not needed IMO. I was advocating for more in the scenario of a population crash and the fish need a boost to rebound. (Think like the Susky Bass crash and the changes in regs that resulted. Some of the big PA limestoners have had big fish kills from pollution spills before..In situations like that.)

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Swattie your head is in a good place here too.
I do agree with Tim that brown trout are for recreational purposes and (i believe he was driving at) brook trout are to be conserved. I agree with that.

I think you are spot on that this does not mean recklessly fish for them and to heck with consequences. Your last post while i agree, i think in those instances spawning AND summer closures should happen. Maybe even full seasons.

Ex: if Penns would have a significant fish kill.

 

[ryansheehan]

Swattie87 wrote:
Yeah, I’m less wild on the need for spawning closures. Right now the population in Penns and the other large popular streams are fine, and it’s not needed IMO. I was advocating for more in the scenario of a population crash and the fish need a boost to rebound. (Think like the Susky Bass crash and the changes in regs that resulted. Some of the big PA limestoners have had big fish kills from pollution spills before..In situations like that.)

I would take zero issue with season or even year long closures in response to a fish kill. I just don't see the value in yearly closures on already healthy streams. Sounds like we are on the same page.