Quote:

Actually, there are at least a couple ways to test the theory espoused by some: an alternative to yours would be to lower the Trophy Trout length requirement to 12" for 4 years and see if there is a drop-off at 12". I can probably think of another few ways to adequately test the hypothesis.

THink about that? There really is only one way of determining if its the habitat that is the limiting factor. Doing your proposal will not make that determination.

I thought we were testing the theory that creeling at 14" is the limiting factor. If so, we should see the same effect by lowering the limit to 12". No, there are more ways to test the hypothesis than the proposal you suggest.

kind of ...if you took it that way you would see or wouldnt see 12 or 13 inch fish...but to see if the study was correct for habitat you would have to up the size limit to 17. Then only could you see if the lack of 14 inch fish was actually habitat. I like the idea of fixing the habitat to see

either way that wasent the main point i hoped for the post. Even though we all know these threads have a mind of thier own. These urban trout streams always amaze me. The stream is doing very well right now despite the regs.

Quote:

I know...but if the stream doesnt have the habitat to grow fish larger than 14"....than the TT regs would work in this case by protecting the fish under 14". If it can grow higher populations of 14" or larger fish under C&R, then it may be a candidate for that type of regulation...if that is the goal...to have and grow a higher populations of larger fish.

Quote:

Agreed - while more fish >14 would be nice - it still is a jewel of a stream that continues to hold up given the environment endures (pressure, abuse, development etc).

Sometimes its nice to focus on the positives. Thanks for the reminder Sal.

JackM wrote: “Hmmm.....do I believe the state agency whose job duties, education and training involve drawing these conclusions or do I believe the best guesses of avid catch-and-release fly anglers on a message board. I'll check back in when I have decided which way I'm going to lean.”



Ah Hmmmm……this statement is based on the assumption that the FBC regulations and stream designations are based solely on scientific / biologic data, and with the sole objective of optimizing both the size of the trout population and maintaining a natural size / year-class distribution of the trout, and not based, at least in part, on satisfying the majority of anglers that buy licenses and fund the entire system.

I do agree that the PFBC are indeed experts and have a tremendous knowledge of the fisheries and the fish, but I don’t believe that very many their decisions are based solely on science; rightfully so in some cases, and wrongfully so in others.

The statement I made wasn't based on the assumption about why the regs are in place on this stream; rather, it was based upon the information I have about those who, on the one hand, read the data as showing that habitat constraints account for a drop-off in 14+" trout versus those who, on the other hand, read the data as suggesting that allowing harvest at 14" is the explanation for the drop-off. I'm still deciding who to put my faith in.

Jack,

From my read, many of the posters in this thread are not agreeing or disagreeing with the FBC assessment of the reason for the drop off of trout at the 14” size, just “wouldn’t it be nice” if they made the SR section C&R, just to find out if the trout size limitations are caused by the habitat limitations or by the regulations.

IMO, many times the FBC feels that it is easier NOT to a prove things that may beneficial to the streams / fish, because what they find out the may not be popular with the wishes of the majority of anglers / boaters (their sole source of funding).

I always remember that the FBC is there to care for the streams and rivers of PA, AND serve their customers to assure repeat sales. The two must always be balanced in some way; it’s just a matter of your belief as to how much their policies should be tilted and in which direction.

Great post afishinado.

That's the point here Jack, its not that we doubt the knowledge of the folks at the PFBC, but the reality is - the two competing interests ("care for the streams and rivers of PA" and "serve their customers to assure repeat sales") are very often in conflict and they must make a choice as to how to balance the two. Unfortunately for folks like me, the C&R angler is not their ONLY customer.

well said

I think, then, you are both* seeing in the discussion what you want to see. The results were posted; some praise was lavished on the stream; then afishinado suggested it was a possibility that cropping was occuring and that is another explanation for the 14" drop-off. Sal said he was "thinking the same thing" and then by means of rolling eyes emoticon, insinuated once again the unspoken accusation of the broad conspiracy the PFBC conducts to screw catch and release anglers; next comes two claims of "anecdotal evidence" of alleged cropping.

It was at this point that I showed the Spring Creek results, suggesting for consideration that 14"+ trout in small or medium sized (though extremely fertile) streams may not be capable of sustaining the same high population as smaller, but still decent-sized trout, etc. Each of my replies have focused on that issue-- that is, whether the drop-off of 14"+ fish is more likely to be the result of typical trout stream dynamics or the nefarious effects of permitting harvest of large trout.

Now, if each of your alls' replies, etc., were really just arguments about what "would be nice" to have as regs on that stream, I apologize, but then I would humbly suggests that you owe me as much an apology for saying something (at least until just now) that was entirely different.

* now I can include Sal, too. Will Ken join soon?

you know in all my years on this board i have finally come to the conclusion that flyfisherman feel the need to debate everything and analize every little thing.

Is it Jack that prehap[s you are seeing that in this post and then are reading into what you expect to see.Yes i rolled my eyes. I have been flyfishing pa for 26 years now and can tell you the PFBC has let me and the resource down a heck of alot more than they have lifted us up. so as a conditioning yes i doubt thier motives.

what exactly can you include me into?

All im saying is i see alot of could be , may be in thier evidence. Be nice to know for once if it is harvest or habitat. Only one way to tell.....and that is a study. i see nothing wrong with that. Jack we will always continue to have these arguements until someone really studies it.

My point was not to get into a regs debate but rather say hey look at this stream on our side of the state. Something is going right...................EVGEN WITH THE CURRENT REGS.

Regaurdless, im tired of having to explain my opinion on here. from now on im posting once and done...take what you like from my post and leave the rest. You guys are just making me tired anymore.

p.s i apologize for making you make me justify my opinion

classy jayL disclaimer: that was a joke