Why streams with no harvest?

[3wt7X]

I think if we self loath ourselves into only taking about a half dozen trips a year. Then use all of our extra down time to spread the word to other anglers regarding our negative impact. Then they will start to follow suit with the self loathing. The fish size should grown exponentially.

Maybe we can organize a jam to heckle the herons and mergansers as well.

I guess my point is... While the average size fish may fluctuate over time for any number of variables. I think we as an angling community have done more good than bad to improve our water ways. Becoming upset over the average fish size on a stream with the population of Spring seems like a first world problem to me. Trust me, there are big ones still in there. Timing, location, and approach (think streamer fishing in off color conditions) are the key to catching the hogs in a pressured stream. Pay attention to the historic Valley creek stream reports posted on here and you’ll see an example of what I’m talking about.

 

[troutbert]

The wild trout stream stretches that are heavily pounded are a very small percentage of the stream mileage that have "special regulations" areas, i.e. with low/no kill regs.

If ALL wild trout waters had low/no kill regs, then you wouldn't that focus on a limited stream mileage as "special."

People would spread out more.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Nailed it!

I think if we self loath ourselves into only taking about a half dozen trips a year. Then use all of our extra down time to spread the word to other anglers regarding our negative impact. Then they will start to follow suit with the self loathing. The fish size should grown exponentially.

Maybe we can organize a jam to heckle the herons and mergansers as well.

I guess my point is... While the average size fish may fluctuate over time for any number of variables. I think we as an angling community have done more good than bad to improve our water ways. Becoming upset over the average fish size on a stream with the population of Spring seems like a first world problem to me. Trust me, there are big ones still in there. Timing, location, and approach (think streamer fishing in off color conditions) are the key to catching the hogs in a pressured stream. Pay attention to the historic Valley creek stream reports posted on here and you’ll see an example of what I’m talking about.

 

[Swattie87]

When you buy your license each year, it comes with seven (one week’s worth) Trout fishing days. This would reduce the angler hours on the streams from the guys who pound them and fish a lot. Should also thin the crowds on the popular streams.

If you wet a line at all for the day it counts, so use them wisely!

Couple this with the above mentioned closed seasons and we’re on to something.

 

[jifigz]

troutbert wrote:
The wild trout stream stretches that are heavily pounded are a very small percentage of the stream mileage that have "special regulations" areas, i.e. with low/no kill regs.

If ALL wild trout waters had low/no kill regs, then you wouldn't that focus on a limited stream mileage as "special."

People would spread out more.

Let's keep people concentrated so the other streams are fished less. Just my .02.

I honestly have no problem fishing spring the way it is. It's fine

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

But.... spring had big fish and I'm not convinced that all were hatchery escapees.

The fish of the Lackawanna look the way they do because of their environment. Limited insect life causes them to transition to meat eaters at an earlier stage than you typically see on other streams. I guess some fish 'breeds' may have abnormally large heads but that's something I usually think of when I see fish that are malnourished because the body growth can't match the head size...which may not be the case since that system hold a lot of good sized fish.

Only part of the picture.
Lackawanna is known for its crane fly larva. Nothing like all them sewers adding nutrients.
Pick up some drowned sticks. Youll see what i mean.

But yes ravenous meat eaters are Lackawanna browns.

 

[silverfox]

With regard to the closure concept, I think something that might be beneficial to SOME wild trout streams is section closures during the spawn. I know on BS the one section is obviously prime redd habitat. I read the report on Spring mentioned earlier (I remember reading it a while ago too) and it mentions redd surveys with some sections clearly preferred by the fish for spawning. I don't think that would do anything for the size structure, but I think it would be beneficial overall.

One thing I gleaned from the spring report now that I was looking for it specifically, is that it seems to indicate that the size structure really hasn't changed much. The period in 2005 where there were a bunch of escapees due to the hurricane was an anomaly. I also noticed the same findings in terms of stream sections and times of year as far as larger fish.

I think with spring specifically, its had such a long history of "being messed with" that it may just be finding it's natural equilibrium in terms of wild populations. The fish kills, stocking and regulation changes are very recent in terms of genetic makeup and natural population control. What it is today may very well be what it's supposed to be in terms of trout population. Well, other than the fact that it shouldn't have brown trout at all of course.

 

[krayfish2]

I only trout fish 20-30 days per max ....so, I'm doing my part and doubt my hero shots are doing any damage.

 

[Swattie87]

krayfish2 wrote:
I only trout fish 20-30 days per max ....so, I'm doing my part and doubt my hero shots are doing any damage.

kray - You’re 13-23 days over the recommended accepted amount of angling days/year. More time for golf. I may get back to single digits HC again.

There just better be big fish throwing themselves at my fly on the 7 days I do fish though. Or I’m gonna be pissed.

 

[krayfish2]

That's my max days on the water and yes, hope to get the golf game dialed in a bit this year.

 

[krayfish2]

I'd like to approach it from a completely different angle. Is it possible that the fish haven't actually gotten smaller but the fishermen have gotten fatter / older and have skewed perceptions of the past because they were younger then? We always tend to look back on times when we were younger with rose colored glasses.

 

[timmyt2]

I'm fatter and older for sure, i have only fished spring creek a handul of times so other than that i cant comment, lol

 

[rrt]

Yep, Kray, I'm fatter, older, and have some skewed perceptions of the past. However, my journals from the '80s and early '90s show that it was rare to make a trip to Spring Creek without catching and releasing at least one trout 16" or longer, including during trico hatches.

The last couple of times I visited the same stretches of Spring that I fished when I was younger produced no fish that size, with the top fish being 11 or 12 inches -- quite a remarkable difference.

I have not fished there for several years, not just b/c of the smaller size of the trout but b/c I am afraid of transporting snails on my boots to other places. (I'd like to fish there -- and on Pine Creek, which has rock snot -- but I'm afraid I wouldn't get all the stuff off my boots and would spread the problems. [Didn't mean to change the topic with this.])

 

[moon1284]

Close trout fishing from October to April. You will be surprised how much dumber and fatter the fish are when hendricksons come around.

 

[troutbert]

It's only "special" regs areas that get pounded.

So, get rid of special regs areas and make every trout stream in PA, whether wild, stocked, brownies, brookies the same regs:

2 fish per day, no minimum size.

I realize that has no chance of being passed, but it would be an interesting experiment.

The biomass of trout in Spring Creek would go down substantially, probably around 50%.

But if that would reduce the crowding, it might be worth it.

 

[JackM]

troutbert wrote:
It's only "special" regs areas that get pounded.

False premise/assumption. But stream sections that always got pounded before the proliferation of "special reg" areas spawn the proliferation of special reg areas.

 

[silverfox]

troutbert wrote:
It's only "special" regs areas that get pounded.

So, get rid of special regs areas and make every trout stream in PA, whether wild, stocked, brownies, brookies the same regs:

2 fish per day, no minimum size.

I realize that has no chance of being passed, but it would be an interesting experiment.

The biomass of trout in Spring Creek would go down substantially, probably around 50%.

But if that would reduce the crowding, it might be worth it.

I agree ^

I'm all for spreading out pressure. Both by location and time of year (get rid of the fake/hyped up opening day madness)

I realized a long time ago that areas that are frequently mentioned or have special regs are less productive than a lot of other streams.

I just fished a section of a stream the other day that is stocked/statewide trout regs. I don't think anyone has fished there since about May of last year. I landed probably close to 60 (I don't keep track or care). All 100% wild browns and some nice ones too. One was sub legal.

 

[Swattie87]

There are some streams that need no harvest regs for other societal reasons...safe fish consumption by the public. Spring Creek is actually one of these I think, right? Valley Creek is another.

Other than that, I like tb’s idea. With the caveat perhaps of no Brook Trout harvest other than in STW’s.

FWIW, statistically speaking, the biomass of Spring could reduce by 50% and Spring would still be one of the top streams in the state, if we’re measuring by biomass.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

krayfish2 wrote:
I'd like to approach it from a completely different angle. Is it possible that the fish haven't actually gotten smaller but the fishermen have gotten fatter / older and have skewed perceptions of the past because they were younger then? We always tend to look back on times when we were younger with rose colored glasses.

I actually could go back and pick a stretch of Spring Creek from a particular month twenty-plus years ago and compare the trout I caught there that day with the trout I caught in that same section in the same month this year. I have all of my tablet sheets listing every trout I've caught going back close to 35 years. However, I'm pretty busy right now. Maybe I'll come back to this thread when my time frees up a bit.

 

[PennKev]

troutbert wrote:
It's only "special" regs areas that get pounded.

So, get rid of special regs areas and make every trout stream in PA, whether wild, stocked, brownies, brookies the same regs:

2 fish per day, no minimum size.

I don't think stocked streams and wild streams should have the same regulations, but I do think that every un-stocked streams should have the following:

1) Conservative creel limits. I think 3 fish is reasonable.

2) Slot limits. No fish over 14" and perhaps no lower size limit.

3) Open to year-round fishing with no-kill during the fall. Maybe Oct through Jan. or Oct. through the traditional/stocked trout opening day.

Other than that, I am vary wary of additional restrictive regs. I think the above regulations allow for a reasonable amount of harvest for anglers who would like to keep a few while also protecting larger fish and also offering a degree of protection for spawning fish.

The more often the topic comes up, the more I'm intrigued by a slot limit. I think it really is the best of both worlds as it allows harvest as a component for fisheries management/improvement and still protects the fish anglers want to see more of.