Why streams with no harvest?

[jifigz]

http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2015/bigTrout.htm

Okay, the link provides information that is commonly taken as fact regarding many species. Overpopulation leads to smaller fish and by removing some fish trout have the chance to grow larger. So, why do we have very productive streams with no harvest regulations? Why are streams like Spring Creek and the Little J closed totally to harvest? Why not have a 2 fish a day or a slot limit or something? Especially knowing that 99% of anglers release all fish anyways but why not give anglers the option? I know that many consider keeping a wild fish as taboo and whatnot but I'm not sure why. I held the same beliefs for certain fish species for a long time but now no longer maintain that position.

One argument for me. I like fish and to eat fish. The oceans are overfished to the max. Many of us on here will eat haddock, hake, mahi, etc and never bat an eye and then scorn those who took a 12" wild brownie home for dinner. Why not allow some removal of fish from productive streams and actually help the fish grow larger. There will still be plenty of fish. Many class A streams survive harvest, stockings, etc and do fine. If the stream is a good trout stream it can handle it. Just my opinion.

I may have posed this before but it's on my mind.

 

[bikerfish]

well, for one, spring creek is poisoned, so eating a fish out of there might not be the best idea. It doesn't affect the fish, but eating them could result in 3 eyed and 5 armed babies. Not sure about the Little J.

 

[moon1284]

I think spring creek has PCB issues.

 

[krayfish2]

Yeah, between pesticide spills and sewer spills, that creek is actually pretty fortunate to have fish or insect life.

Side note:. Does the keystone state have any quality wild trout fisheries that are closed to harvest....other than ones closed due to PCB or other contamination?

I'm not asking about a 1.2 mile stretch of blah blah creek that has been labeled FFCR or ATCR. I'm asking about "insert name" creek that is 11.8 miles long with a strong wild trout population. The entire stream is not polluted yet it's closed to any harvest....and open to all methods of angling. I don't think anything like that exists here, does it?

'Resource first' on one side of the truck and 'here comes another truckload of family fun' on the other

 

[troutbert]

jifigz wrote:
http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2015/bigTrout.htm

Okay, the link provides information that is commonly taken as fact regarding many species. Overpopulation leads to smaller fish and by removing some fish trout have the chance to grow larger.

I don't take that as fact.

Streams that are almost never fished typically have large trout, and do not suffer stunting or over-population.

Which disproves the theory.

When Lee Wulff flew his float plane to remote places in northern Canada, did he find over-populated, thin, small trout? Nope. He found unusually large trout.

And it's been the same all over the world, where people have explored obscure streams that got fished rarely to never. They typically find the exact opposite of what the theory predicts.

They find big fish and lots of them. That is why people go to such extremes of effort and time and money spent to find untouched (or nearly so) waters.

Can you think of any alternative theories about why the the trout tend to be modest-sized in Spring Creek? This has been discussed on paflyfish quite a bit.

 

[ryansheehan]

troutbert wrote:

Can you think of any alternative theories about why the the trout tend to be modest-sized in Spring Creek? This has been discussed on paflyfish quite a bit.

Because people take hero shots!?!

 

[Dave_W]

jifigz wrote:
I like fish and to eat fish. The oceans are overfished to the max. Many of us on here will eat haddock, hake, mahi, etc and never bat an eye and then scorn those who took a 12" wild brownie home for dinner.

This is a fair point and worth pondering.

(I'm a fish eater too, although I generally harvest stocked trout for food, and sometimes panfish or some other WW species.)

 

[Dave_W]

krayfish2 wrote:

Side note:. Does the keystone state have any quality wild trout fisheries that are closed to harvest....other than ones closed due to PCB or other contamination?

I'm not asking about a 1.2 mile stretch of blah blah creek that has been labeled FFCR or ATCR. I'm asking about "insert name" creek that is 11.8 miles long with a strong wild trout population. The entire stream is not polluted yet it's closed to any harvest....and open to all methods of angling. I don't think anything like that exists here, does it?

The Little Juniata comes to mind: about 13 miles of all tackle C&R and a strong wild BT population.

 

[Dave_W]

moon1284 wrote:
I think spring creek has PCB issues.

Valley Creek has (or had) PCB issues.

Spring Creek was contaminated mainly with Kepone and Mirex. I believe this has been cleared, but the stream remains C&R due to public support for this regulation (social reasons, as the PFBC would put it) .

 

[PennKev]

jifigz wrote:
Why are streams like Spring Creek and the Little J closed totally to harvest? Why not have a 2 fish a day or a slot limit or something?

Harvest was allowed on the LJR for a very long time under trophy trout regs. (2 a day @ 14" minimum).

If I recall, the change to C&R was due to pressure from anglers after it was proven that the trout population was nearly 100% wild. Or at least the two coincided.

Health issues aside, I would not be opposed to a slot limit on Spring or LJR. Maybe 3 fish up to 10" a day?

 

[PennKev]

troutbert wrote:

Can you think of any alternative theories about why the the trout tend to be modest-sized in Spring Creek? This has been discussed on paflyfish quite a bit.

Because the stream is more screwed up than we already know?

Seriously though, Spring's size structure matches a lot of other creeks that I've fished here in PA. There's just a lot more fish in Spring.

I think we've been conditioned to think that any limestone spring fed creek should be automatically growing tons of giant fish, but maybe it's not that simple. Given Spring's history, I'd say that there are likely many contributing factors.

And finally, FWIW, there are some truly large trout in spring. They're just not under every rock.

 

[jifigz]

troutbert wrote:

jifigz wrote:
http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2015/bigTrout.htm

Okay, the link provides information that is commonly taken as fact regarding many species. Overpopulation leads to smaller fish and by removing some fish trout have the chance to grow larger.

I don't take that as fact.

Streams that are almost never fished typically have large trout, and do not suffer stunting or over-population.

Which disproves the theory.

When Lee Wulff flew his float plane to remote places in northern Canada, did he find over-populated, thin, small trout? Nope. He found unusually large trout.

And it's been the same all over the world, where people have explored obscure streams that got fished rarely to never. They typically find the exact opposite of what the theory predicts.

They find big fish and lots of them. That is why people go to such extremes of effort and time and money spent to find untouched (or nearly so) waters.

Can you think of any alternative theories about why the the trout tend to be modest-sized in Spring Creek? This has been discussed on paflyfish quite a bit.

Have you ever pondered the fact that you know about these particular waters and their amazing fishing, fish growing ability, and they have their reputation they do because they are an elite set of waters that, although they are less tampered with by humans and and more untouched, are the gems of the world? How about the other 99% of waters that are less tampered that also hold wild populations of these fish that may not be spectacular? Not all waters grow an abundance of large trout and it makes no difference if they have a lot of angling or not, in my opinion.

 

[jifigz]

Regarding Spring Creek and the size of their fish my take is as follows: it does have too many fish and Spring is also lacking in prime big fish habitat for the length of trout water in that stream.

And the article isn't only about angling thinning the population, but also about the warmer stretches, about marginal waters, and larger downstream sections (this all pertains to browns, mostly in our state.). These are things that anglers here have taken as almost fact for recipes for big fish. So, if a stream grows an abundance of fish and not many large fish I see no problem in having harvest occur.

I understand that catch and release waters are few and far between but I'm just curious as to why they exist at all other than for the reason contamination.

 

[PennKev]

jifigz wrote:

I understand that catch and release waters are few and far between but I'm just curious as to why they exist at all other than for the reason contamination.

The same reason we still stock trout in a few Class A's streams. Anglers demand/expect it. In the case of C&R, anglers see heavy fishing pressure on certain stream and assume that something needs to be done to help protect the fish.. C&R is a solution looking for a problem.

 

[troutbert]

ryansheehan wrote:

troutbert wrote:

Can you think of any alternative theories about why the the trout tend to be modest-sized in Spring Creek? This has been discussed on paflyfish quite a bit.

Because people take hero shots!?!

Spring Creek is the most heavily fished stream in PA. This has been studied by the PFBC with Penn State. They estimate that trout on average are caught 6 times per year in Spring Creek. In 4 years that would mean that a trout is caught and released 24 times.

It certainly makes sense that that would reduce the life expectancy of the trout, hero shots or not.

So fewer fish reach the age of 5 years or more, so you find fewer large trout.

In unexploited fisheries there are large trout in all the prime lies. They prevent over-population by eating small trout.

In Spring Creek the incessant fishing pressure reduces the number of trout that reach the old, large category, so cannibalism is less, resulting in large numbers of small trout.

 

[silverfox]

The problem with spring is that all the big fish end up at the bread feeding holes. J/K

Really, there are some big fish throughout the stream, but I think it's more of a habitat/food thing than a harvest thing.

In general though, I do wish we had slot limits on more streams than straight 7 and up.

 

[larkmark]

Constant pounding year round and handling equals smaller fish overall. troutbert has it right.

 

[acesedgley]

I know someone who took a swim on Spring a couple years ago at the jam due to a large fish....he knows they are in there.

 

[Steeltrap]

I didn't read every post in this thread and I'm far from an expert on trout ....or some say "anything". However I do know from a 5 day wonderful fishing trip at Great Bear Lake that trout ...lake trout....are not only carnivores, but they are also cannibals. The big eat the small.

Many a 40-lb lake trout have been taken as a person is reeling in a "tiny" 15-lb trout.

I can only think that stream trout are the same. If the little one is swimming by, he make become more protein for the big one.

 

[jifigz]

Of course stream trout are cannibals. Basically every species of fish are cannibals. Fish aren't smart. Most all of them will eat what strikes their fancy at the moment and if it will fit in their mouth.

Of course spring creek has large trout. It is a high quality trout stream. I do know that there are a lot of other streams that I like a whole lot more than Spring.

There is also this argument. A man who goes fishing and catches three trout and keeps them and goes home may very likely cause less damage than a guy who goes out and catches and releases 20 fish because of those 20 more than 3 fish have a higher chance of mortality. I know, that doesn't line up with the ideals of having a fun day of catch and release angling.

With all of this said I love fishing and rarely keep fish. It is a hobby and an obsession and a puzzle all at once. I'm the kind of person that wants to go out and catch 20 and have a fun day.