Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 ... 9 10 11 (12) 13 14 15 »


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19931
Offline
Quote:

pcray1231 wrote:
Jay,

Fishing pressure hurts the fish population in all streams. Even C&R guys accidently kill a certain percentage, and guys wade through breeding areas, stress fish in low-flow periods, etc. But the damage done by a single C&R guy is considerably less than the damage done by your average fisherman.

However, adding special regs draws attention to a stream. Many of the brookie streams are lightly fished, but with special regs they get much more pressure. 100 C&R guys is still more damaging than 1 average fisherman. An example is Minister Creek in the Tionesta drainage. That drainage has at least 7 or 8 streams that are naturally as good as Minister, and they fish well. But as soon as they put those regs on Minister, it got considerably worse within a mile or so of the road, and the fish populations are indeed worse there. Go a mile or so and you outwalk the pressure, its back to how it was before the regs.


As I said earlier, I think that's a fair point.

I, personally, have never fished any of these specially managed streams, nor have I done much research into brook trout management. I'll take your guys' word for it.

The question I have is whether the WBTEP has increased pressure to that magnitude on the streams in question. As usual, I'm skeptical that the numbers used here are realistic, but that's just in my nature I guess.

Posted on: 2009/6/30 15:36


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18467
Offline
Quote:

tomgamber wrote:
Quote:

FarmerDave wrote:
Quote:

tomgamber wrote:
I don't have numbers so dispute the theory if you will. But when I look up class A wild brookie streams with the idea of fishing one. MANY are on private land and many of those lands are posted which not only removes them from stocking (which I assume is where brown trout come from) but also from special regs.

I'm not even sure how you can compare special regs and wild trout streams since most special regs are stocked.


I'm not going to disagree with that. However, I wasn't talking about all special regs. I was only talking about the C&R regulated streams. I think you find most if not all of these are not stocked.

The stocked DHs are neutral for this argument.


I didn't know you were talking about them at all. PcRay is who I was referring to and he already clarified. You may now continue with your lovefest.



that is why I provide reference to who I am talking to. your response followed shortly after mine.

But sorry, things were moving a little fast there. I did miss Pcrays. But thanks for letting me know the gloves are off again.

Posted on: 2009/6/30 15:39
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19931
Offline
Quote:

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
Ya id like Mikes take on this one also.

I can say that a better overall management would be WBTEP on all unstocked wild brook trout streams. ALL wild brook trout would be NO-KILL year round. Just on the UNstocked streams. That would end the " they ignore them" attitude while satisfying the " we need brookies to have special regs" people.


I don't think that banning harvest is acceptable when the population of fish can sustain it. As I've said before, I don't like harvest, but there are WBT anglers that do enjoy eating a few. I don't think it's within the state's right to prevent that when it is ecologically possible. I, personally, would not enjoy the experience of killing a brookie... but the libertarian in me cannot accept unnecessary regulations.

Posted on: 2009/6/30 15:41


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13453
Offline
Well, I made up the numbers! Just sayin that C&R guys are less damaging than the average fisherman, but still cause damage. There's a certain number of C&R guys thats equivalent to a lesser number of average guys. The increase in pressure due to WBTEP has surpassed that figure in some cases, maybe most, so that the stream section is more damaged today.

An alternative would be to add more special regs, so that the pressure increase in each is less. Or as Sal proposed, make them all that way.

The reason I think its good is that drawing attention to wild trout, makes more C&R wild trout fishermen overall. Many "average fishermen" hardly realize they exist and take no precautions whatsoever. As they begin to appreciate resources, they help take care of resources, and we get more conservationists and less truck chasers. So I consider the WBTEP as sort of "taking one for the team", which since there's so many brook trout waters, we can afford to do. Plus its not permanent damage, like development would be.

Edit: Your banning harvest argument is valid, though, for a reason not to make them all that way as Sal suggested....

Posted on: 2009/6/30 15:44


Re: "wild" rainbows
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22305
Offline
Wild brown trout streams are generally more fertile than their brook trout counter-parts. Hence the consequential truth that wild brown trout tend to be larger or grow to large sizes sooner. These are the types of streams where harvest regulations can assist in maintaining stronger populations of catchable trout. Catchable trout means trout over 7 inches. Most brookie waters would not be improved in this aspect by special regulations. I believe it has been suggested by studies that harvest is NOT the limiting factor in population density or size distribution in the relatively infertile waters where brook trout have their stronghold.

I consider the above line of reasoning to be a likely explanation for why more brown trout streams have special regulations. Simply put, the fishery managers, with judgment unclouded by a preference for one species over another, are applying the regulations to the streams which can most benefit by them.

In addition, since we all know these regulations are primarily social, the truth is that wild brown trout streams tend to be more popular-- not because of a preference for brown trout per se, but more likely because of a preference for catchable trout.

Posted on: 2009/6/30 16:22
_________________
Peace, Tony


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13453
Offline
Jack, I said as much. I used size of stream, which goes along with size of fish. The fertility thing is mostly about limestoners, but the trend still holds true in areas with only freestoners, so I don't think fertility has a lot to do with it.

Size of fish does, people like catching bigger fish. Size of stream does, people seem to like to fish bigger water.

Posted on: 2009/6/30 16:31


Re: "wild" rainbows
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22305
Offline
Quote:

pcray1231 wrote:
Jack, I said as much....


pcray, I'm afraid I said much more.

Posted on: 2009/6/30 16:37
_________________
Peace, Tony


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2006/10/26 23:01
From Ohio
Posts: 657
Offline
So what do you all think of the National Park Service killing rainbows and replacing them with brook trout in the GSMNP on a large scale effort?

Are their no brook trout like this in PA, that just don't have the fortune of having their "strain" identified as special and residing in national park?

Posted on: 2009/6/30 19:03


Re: "wild" rainbows
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22305
Offline
I favor the GSMNP program, which is not as comprehensive a replacement program as might potentially be inferred from your description. As I understand it, they are restoring confirmed indigenous strains of the brookie into a single watershed in a broad expanse of public forest that has very few protected areas of stream with such strain. They chose a location to carry out their efforts where an insurmountable barrier exists that will protect the heritage population from re-encroachment by the not-native species. A National Park has as one of its primary purposes the preservation of indigenous flora and fauna. I applaud their efforts, particularly their enlightened approach to dealing with the issue of harvest regulations.

Posted on: 2009/6/30 19:40
_________________
Peace, Tony


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19931
Offline
Jack,

Regarding the harvest regs, do tell.

Posted on: 2009/6/30 19:44


Re: "wild" rainbows
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22305
Offline
Daily Possession Limits
Five (5) brook, rainbow or brown trout, smallmouth bass, or a combination of these, each day or in possession, regardless of whether they are fresh, stored in an ice chest, or otherwise preserved. The combined total must not exceed five fish.

Twenty (20) rock bass may be kept in addition to the above limit.

A person must stop fishing immediately after obtaining the limit.


Size Limits
Brook, rainbow, and brown trout: 7 inch minimum
Smallmouth bass: 7 inch minimum
Rockbass: no minimum

Trout or smallmouth bass caught less than the legal length shall be immediately returned to the water from which it was taken.

Oh, also, artificial lures only, with a single hook.

Posted on: 2009/6/30 19:48
_________________
Peace, Tony


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2007/7/2 19:40
Posts: 15147
Offline
Think the point about browns growing larger than Brook trout because of size and fertility of water they normally inhabit is questionable.

Posted on: 2009/6/30 19:48
_________________
Obstrification> The fine art of confusing liberals.


Re: "wild" rainbows
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22305
Offline
You are saying that trout grow large in infertile streams to the same extent as they do in fertile ones?

Posted on: 2009/6/30 19:52
_________________
Peace, Tony


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2006/10/26 23:01
From Ohio
Posts: 657
Offline
From my understanding, the GSMNP staff have been trying a restoration on a watershed a year since the year 2000. They also had most of the brook trout streams in the park closed entirely to fishing from 1976 to 2005 to protect them.

These brook trout must be considered special by someone to get this special treament. The national parks philosophy of preservation as opposed to a looser conservation also has something to do with it. The finding that the park fish were a unique strain provided justification according to those who advocated for it.

All of our "special" species/strains - from redband rainbows to apache trout to lohatian cuthroats - required a group of people to advocate for them who believe that preserving small populations of trout that have unique gentics is worthwhile. If you read any TROUT magazine or Orvis catolog you come away with the impression that this is a mainstream, not a radical view.....biodiversity seems to be considered intrinsically valuable as well as helpful for a species survival over geological time.

So do PA brook trout lack the the unique genetics or just the advocates to be considered "special trout"?

I don't know the answer but believe its a question worth answering.

Posted on: 2009/7/1 6:30


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18467
Offline
Quote:

JackM wrote:
You are saying that trout grow large in infertile streams to the same extent as they do in fertile ones?


I think he meant was that brook and brown trout both grow larger in larger fertile vs smaller infertile to about the same extent. It isn't just a brown trout thing.

Posted on: 2009/7/1 7:33
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--



« 1 ... 9 10 11 (12) 13 14 15 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Do you keep a fishing journal?
Yes 52% (85)
No 47% (78)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/8/22 12:38
2 Comments





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com