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


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 ... 15 16 17 (18) 19 20 21 »


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2006/9/11 21:48
Posts: 580
Offline
Dave

You are never going to make "everyone" happy especially when it comes to conservation and protection.

pcray

There is a big difference between eliminating harvest to just reducing harvest if you want to make a statement in the minds of the public or decision makers.

That is why there was a proposal out there to stop harvest on the S-hanna for smallmouth until they define the problem better. Why, because it makes a big statement. But we see where that proposal went.

As for a never ending goal...then why do anything at all.

Posted on: 2009/3/25 11:52


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13662
Offline
Making a statement is one thing. But to actually have a solution is another, and in this case will require every bit of support, money, etc. that they can get. I dont' mind making a statement so long as you're not alienating anyone from the cause. Stopping harvest on a grand scale will alienate people.

Quote:
As for a never ending goal...then why do anything at all.


Because I didn't say the efforts wouldn't help matters. Lets say the brook trout population is at 20% of historical levels and falling 1% per year. We'll never get back to 100%, just won't be done. But if we can reverse the decline, or even just stop it or slow it, that is worthwhile IMO.

Posted on: 2009/3/25 12:00


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/11 8:26
From Chester County
Posts: 9111
Offline
I do not advoacte all PA wild trout streams be designated C&R, for all the reasons stated above. I agree that harvest regulations are well down on the list of importance for maintaining or increasing the wild fish population, but if you look at the age structure of the population, from an angler’s perspective, it may be a factor. I have fished many wild trout streams in PA, and the streams that seem to have a much higher population of larger adult fish, are the ones that are the most lightly fished, such as streams with good habitat and water chemistry in hard-to-reach areas, or completely surrounded by private land without access, or C&R streams.

You can’t argue that it doesn’t take much pressure to harvest a good portion of the largest fish in a small stream. If I show up on my favorite trout stream and 50 adult fish were harvested from the stream mile I am fishing, that doesn’t affect my fishing success? In most cases even with harvest, there are enough adult fish left to spawn to allow the population to remain stable, and the density of trout may remain at a decent level, but looking at the age structure of the stream, it is likely holds more juvenile fish and less adult fish. Yes it may remain a class A or B……but a dinky one.

Eliminating harvest will have little effect on the overall biomass (kg/ha), but to the angler the stream would be a better place to fish……..at least for the big’uns.

Posted on: 2009/3/25 12:05


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 19000
Offline
Quote:
How about...

5. We have all this data that says harvest is not an issue, but we have no balls (political will, money, stomach, call it what you will) to restore and protect the habitat which is the real solution.


Even though that may be true, and I'm not saying it is, It makes as much sense as saying I don't like apples, so I'm boing to crush all these oranges.

The flag he was waving was the C&R flag.

If any of you really think that by making all streams C&R is a good way to tell people there are environmental issues... then you must either think the average person is really really smart, or really really stupid.

Maybe it's me, but the argument just seems so silly. Admit it. The only real reason you guys would want all streams to be C&R, is because you have the perception that that means more fish for you.

What would you say if I told you I could produce info that says harvesting deer can actually increase a population. Jack M told me that and at first I thought he was nuts. But he provided a link, and after reading it, it actually made sense. As it turns out, there is a lot to managing a herd, and you have to harvest a whole lot, every year in order to limit the population to something below maximum carrying capacity. Even still, it doesn't hurt the overall population unless you really go nuts with that. in fact, the reamining population is healthier and less susceptable to desease, but I digress.

I'm sure some of that holds true for trout, but I don't have any info on that. I don't have time to look it up. Too busy hiding. The axe is flying here again. (survuved another one).

However, I still think Jack is nuts, but I don't mean that as a negative.

Posted on: 2009/3/25 12:18
_________________
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: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2006/9/11 21:48
Posts: 580
Offline
Quote:
Making a statement is one thing. But to actually have a solution is another, and in this case will require every bit of support, money, etc. that they can get. I dont' mind making a statement so long as you're not alienating anyone from the cause. Stopping harvest on a grand scale will alienate people.


You chances are slimmer of gaining support, money etc if you don't make a big statement for it. Saying we have a "little" problem by showing we reduced creel limits will likely not get you anywhere.

How is that alienating anyone from fishing? Yes, you can't kill them, but there is a reason for it.

Quote:
Because I didn't say the efforts wouldn't help matters. Lets say the brook trout population is at 20% of historical levels and falling 1% per year. We'll never get back to 100%, just won't be done. But if we can reverse the decline, or even just stop it or slow it, that is worthwhile IMO.


No kidding we aren't going to get back 100% of historical levels. I think we all know that is impossible. But if there is to be a concerted effort, there has to be some type of goal. Is it getting back 30,40 or 50% or just as you said, reverse decline or just stop it.

Posted on: 2009/3/25 12:19


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2006/9/10 21:53
From Greensburg, PA
Posts: 13629
Offline
I was just reading an excerpt from the new Geirach book about wild trout. Thought you guys would appreciate it...Especially those who have said that Cutthroats are no fun because they htis dries "so easily"...

"And they say the recovery team had a lot of trouble raising them in a hatchery because, among other things, the greenbacks refused to eat commercial trout food. You've got to admire that."

Posted on: 2009/3/25 12:23


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19931
Offline
Tom, which book was that?

Posted on: 2009/3/25 12:33


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2006/9/10 21:53
From Greensburg, PA
Posts: 13629
Offline
I deleted the newsletter but I think it was called, "In praise of Wild Trout"?

Posted on: 2009/3/25 12:36


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 19000
Offline
Quote:
Saying we have a "little" problem by showing we reduced creel limits will likely not get you anywhere.


Once again. How exactly would it say that? Why do you keep avoiding that quesiton.

Harvest and environmental problems are two completely different and virtually unrelated things. Improving the environment can help the fishing, but can changing the fishing really help the environment?

PF&BC is responsible for managing a resource.

EPA is in charge of protecting the environment.

I also noticed that now you are just saying "reduced creel limits," instead of C&R only. is that your way of admitting you were wrong? Like several of us said, we would not be opposed to that, but not for the illogical reason you have stated. The PF&BC doesn’t have to lie to us to justify that.

Why not take that one step further. Outlaw fishing all together. You could still walk along or in the stream though. Trout anglers are a minority of anglers, and are a very small percentage of all anglers.

I never was a fan of people or groups that talk out of the side of their mouth. Why not just say what the real problem is rather than trying to adress a personal agenda in such a dishonest way.

The quoted argument makes about as much sense as saying that outlawing pedestrians in state parks might tell people that ATVs cause erosion problems. Maybe even less sense.

Posted on: 2009/3/25 12:44
_________________
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: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13662
Offline
Afish, I think you are talking about different streams than we. We're mostly talking about the infertile, small mountain streams that make up 90% of our brook trout streams in PA. If size is what you're after in those places, then you've picked the wrong species and location. Mature, adult fish may average 6 or 7" with the occasional trophy at 10". Most of them might see 50 fish harvested per decade, not per year. Where there are exceptions and there is high pressure, I agree with you, special regs might be in order. But not global regulations....

LehighRegular,

Quote:
Yes, you can't kill them, but there is a reason for it.


No, there isn't a reason for it!

Posted on: 2009/3/25 13:51


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6348
Online
There are quite a few people on here who apparently believe that there is a consensus among fisheries scientists that harvest has little to no effect on wild trout populations.

That is not the case. If you actually read fisheries literature to any extent, you will see.

Posted on: 2009/3/25 17:06


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 17:32
From Gettysburg
Posts: 9273
Offline
Wow.
The Incredible Fly Fishin Weiner Dog has bet me a Milkbone that this thread will go to 300 posts.

Posted on: 2009/3/25 17:23


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2009/2/19 19:59
From Mont Co, Pa
Posts: 2036
Offline
Quote:

pcray1231 wrote:
Afish, I think you are talking about different streams than we. We're mostly talking about the infertile, small mountain streams that make up 90% of our brook trout streams in PA. If size is what you're after in those places, then you've picked the wrong species and location. Mature, adult fish may average 6 or 7" with the occasional trophy at 10". Most of them might see 50 fish harvested per decade, not per year. Where there are exceptions and there is high pressure, I agree with you, special regs might be in order. But not global regulations....

LehighRegular,

Quote:
Yes, you can't kill them, but there is a reason for it.


No, there isn't a reason for it!


So you're saying only 10% of mountain trout streams in Pa are fertile? Where do you get that statistic? I think fertile is a relative word anyway. I say this because most wild streams that I have fished have a pretty good population of native/wild trout, which would lead me to believe that they are fertile to some extent, or they wouldn't support the populations that they do. Also, these same streams that I speak of regularly yield fish in the 8"-10" range. Yes, most are smaller though.

You really think many of these streams only have 5 trout per year (50 fish per decade) harvested? You're kidding yourself if you actually believe that. All of the stream rehab, enviornmental changes that we need, ect.. will take too long, as there are far too many streams involved. Regulated fishing (no all year round fishing) is an immediate way of protecting more of the wild trout that we still have available to us for fishing during the "regular season". Not global, just "Class A Wild Trout", "Wilderness Trout Streams" in Pa.

Posted on: 2009/3/25 17:28
_________________
Protect the resource, let them go!


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2007/4/25 10:02
Posts: 5874
Offline
Okay- how many brookies are leagal size that harvest- if done legally would have a impact?

Since I don't keep wild fish- what's the size 7 inches?

I really don't do that type of fishing but I am guessing from what I hear on here from the brookie people (not to be confused with the Burrito People and their white box trucked I have followed around to numerous dead shows) that they are pretty hard to come by.

I think their Burritos were larger than 7 inches. HA!

Posted on: 2009/3/25 17:38
_________________
I flyfish because I enjoy it.


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2006/9/18 8:28
From Attitudinally, one mile south of Lake LeBoeuf
Posts: 875
Offline
This thread reminds me of the story of Rasputin...

Shot, poisoned, strangled. Repeatedly. But he would not die..

Here, let me hit him a couple times with this club and see if he stops moving...:)

Harvest matters, but it is seldom primary. It matters more in a stream with some existing impairment and less in an overall healthy stream. By and large, IMO, there are few (if any) unstocked 1st or 2nd order wild brook trout streams in PA where harvest in determinative in suppressing the quantitative aspects of a fishery. I think the case is considerably less clear when we consider the qualitative aspects of a fishery and much more dependent upon the amount of pressure and our individual definition of quality.

Brook trout are more fragile than bluegills and bullhead and less fragile than Waterford crystal and extra large duck eggs.

Stream "fertility" is not necessarily demonstrated by trout abundance. There are zillions of streams all up and down the Appalachian spine that are hopping with trout and invertebrates that easily fit the definition of "infertile". It's more a measure of chemical characteristics and biological potential than it is anything to do with what you can discern or learn waving a graphite stick over a stream.

There. I whacked him as hard as I could. Is he dead now?

Oops, guess not...:)

Posted on: 2009/3/25 18:14



« 1 ... 15 16 17 (18) 19 20 21 »



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
Will you be fly fishing this autumn?
Yes 95% (139)
No 0% (0)
Thinking about it 4% (6)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/10/31 17:56
1 Comment





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