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


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 ... 16 17 18 (19) 20 21 »


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: 13598
Offline
Yes, fertile is a relative term. Still, small headwater streams do tend to be less fertile than the larger streams they run into.

Harvest 5 per year, yeah, the median is probably somewhere around there on the streams I'm thinking of. On a few of them I wouldn't be shocked if not more than 2 or 3 people fish them all year, maybe a total of 5-10 angler trips. There's a few that are going to be much higher than that, though.

Now that you add class A, that really limits things, most of the brookie streams I'm familiar with are not class A. Class A is really a small percentage of the wild brook trout streams out there, and are generally the most highly pressured by a good margin.

Of course, one could argue that the class A streams are not the ones we need to be focused on, they're fine as they are. They should be protected from damage, but improvement is going to come from other streams.

They look like this:



And are full of beutiful ADULT specimens that look like this:


Posted on: 2009/3/25 18:27

Edited by Maurice on 2009/3/25 21:02:24
Edited by JackM on 2009/3/25 22:48:06


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

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 6462
Offline
Ok ive got somethings to say after sitting back and reading all this "nonsense" for this long. Please dont take offense to that statement, just not understanding some of your guys viewpoints. Or I should say, I dont think any of you are seeing the entire picture. Please not this will be a long post and im not trying to be a voice of "reason" just being a voice of opinion.

It is certain that there are 2 groups of fisherman. Spin and Fly. I dont know why this has come about but im sure that the flyfisherman have made it out to be more than it is. In these 2 groups are C&R and Creeling anglers. Neither of which is nessasarily exlusive to eachothers group or subgroup. Sometimes some C&R and other times harvest. Some only C&R and some only harvest.Ive heard so much about the word selfish in the past few posts it made me sick. Since that is a hot topic lets see how EACH group is selfish. Lets look at what each of these sub groups want.

C&R: What all streams to be catch and release, or at least a vast majority of the wild trout streams. This will make their fishing experience better and the wild trout MIGHT benefit from it. By definition that does sound kinda selfish and but also MIGHT benefit the fish.

Creelers : Want a stocked, unstocked or mixed trout fishing experience to up their catch rates and take fish home to eat. Because it is their right, privledge, or because generations have done it. This will make their fishing experience better and the fish will NEVER benefit from that. By definition that sure sounds selfish.

I have noticed in the previous post that C&R anglers are being considered selfish by advocating for their agenda. Ok maybe it is selfish but lets not forget that the other side of the coin is just as selfish and PROBABLY way more selfish.

Do you guys remember the post that brought about the idealism and realist discussion. I still believe that C&R wild trout nuts are the realists and not the idealist. Sure in real life we cram streams full of stock trout and wild trout in those streams are left to suffer. But real trout fishing is nothing like that. Real trout fishing is as nature intended. Wild trout streams with wild trout. I know it all got started because some guy named "Larry" with the PFBC was fishing with his buddy Bob at a stream and said, "You know what Bob? I wish we could throw 3,000 bigger than normal trout in this stream and we would have more fun than we are now working for these small fish." Bob said, "THat sounds great Larry!" That my friends is idealism at its finest. I know it didnt happen just like that but the same principle applies.

im getting to the point of all this....

Please note i like everyones opinion but i disagree with all of you Im not just talking about C&R but also stocking in my views, just so you know.

Quote:
I am totally against making all streams (stocked or otherwise), C&R only. it would be no skin off my nose if it happens (because I C&R wild trout), but I think most people that would be for this are narrow minded and somewhat selfish.

Dave, isnt stocking fish on top of wild trout about as selfish as it gets? We know its not like nature intended. We also know that the wild trout suffer. It takes a real narrow mind to either NOT care or just accept its our right to play god on the ecosystems as we please.

Quote:
They are not in the business to make a few die hard C&R guys happy at the expense of everyone else.


I agree except we arent looking at the other species involved in these decisions. The wild trout. While they cant speak for themselves, some humans have to try. So while they are not in the business of making a few die hard wild trout guys happy they sure arent making the fish happy either Instead stockings and the harvest associated with them, are at the ecosystems expense.

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

There is nothing wrong with that. On a greater scale some people wave a pro-life flag and some a pro-choice flag. We need all opinions to come to good decisions. Not just one view or even people attempting to hush a persons viewpoint. Its still the USA and we all have a voice.

Quote:
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 remaning population is healthier and less susceptible 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).


Im not sure that this would apply to brook trout. I have never seen any evidence that cropping a brook trout population helps wild brook trout. You might be crushing oranges with that one

LR, I respect what you say but i disagree.

Quote:
Because its called conservation while still providing angling opportunities.

Took me a long time to understand that conservation is NOT managing regs. Conservation is restoring and protecting. Blanket regs like all C&R is not conservation because like so many have stated, INCLUDING the EBTJV, harvest is NOT a limiting factor. So what would C&R be conserving the brook trout from? Restore their habitat and then your conserving populations.

Quote:
Eliminate one portion of the problem or help in sustaining the population (i.e. eliminate harvest) and try to fix the other issues (i.e. habitat, etc) where possible

This statement doesnt work. I agree that the PFBC has NOT be proactive in restoring brook trout habitat but take away harvest and let them lose money, will they ever? They just dont now nor will they if everything was C&R to restore habitat. Take away harvest and habitat will never be restored. There are a few streams in the Lancaster County area that a sportsmans club help restore in the 60's. One is Segloch Run. That is one of Lancasters class A waters. It was stocked before the early 1980's when the PFBC decided to stop stocking over class a populations. Do you think the sportmans club help restore it because it had wild trout or because it was stocked and they could harvest fish? I can tell you it had nothing to do with the wild trout. Once they stopped stocking it, the sportmans club stopped working on it. They just didnt want to harvest the 7 inch wild brookies. Do you think that stream would be the class a it is today without the restoration? Probably not. Whats happening to it now.....well the wild browns that took hold ( due to stockings) are slowing pushing the brookies out. So it was a win lose situation.

Quote:
Harvest may or may not be the biggest issue...it most likely isnt.


Not likely. It just plain isnt.

Now my opinions.

We need to stop stocking over wild fish and we need to start restoring habitat. THAT IS FIRST AND FOREMOST! No if ands or buts. By making everything C&R we are losing the efforts of other angling populations that just wont care unless they can harvest a fish. I would rather have them care than shut them out. I would rather have them take a beautiful 10 inch wild brookie out of my favorite stream one day and then rolling rocks to restore a stream with me the next day. Those efforts could create hundreds of fish like the one he just kept the day before. Benefiting the C&R angler and the Creeling angler.

We need to work together as an angling community.

Creelers need to learn about wild trout and need to use their head to decided what is best for any given fishery. Dave mentioned:
Quote:
C&R as a regulation is a good thing for some streams, but not all. I keep hearing this C&R for conservation. It may be true for some streams, but certainly not all.

AGREED! The problem is we arent deciding what is best for these streams. Its going to take awhile but it could be done slowly.The PFBC doesnt have the man power to do it all right now. The problem is they arent doing it at all! Blanket regs will not work but if determining what is best for any given watershed is the way to go. If they dont start though, i can tell you exactly how long its going to take.

I could go on but this post is long enough. LR go back and read my post 49. Go to all the WBTJV links you can find. Read all the information. Its not harvest bud, its stocking and habitat. They are the main problems. Please everyone keep in mind that before we call others selfish because of their views or opinions, remember to flip the coin. Theres always just as much selfishness on that side too. And pointing it out isnt working together and getting to the REAL crux of the issues wild brook trout face today

Posted on: 2009/3/25 18:53
_________________
http://cvtu.homestead.com/





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

Joined:
2006/9/18 8:28
From Attitudinally, one mile south of Lake LeBoeuf
Posts: 871
Offline
>>Dave, isnt stocking fish on top of wild trout about as selfish as it gets? We know its not like nature intended. We also know that the wild trout suffer. It takes a real narrow mind to either NOT care or just accept its our right to play god on the ecosystems as we please.>>

Maybe, maybe not..

There's a reason the discipline is called Fisheries Management and not Fisheries Shoe Repair or Fisheries Needlepoint.

We mange our fisheries based (in part anyway..) on what we (the aggregate "we") want them to be. I may prefer wild trout. You may prefer wild trout. But neither my preference nor yours is categorically "right" or "wrong". It's all subjective and based on, well, preferences..

In any event, color me among the skeptical that stocking over wild trout is categorically or always bad for the wild fish. I'm sure there is literature to support the idea that it is bad. But PA also has literally hundreds of stream sections where wild trout populations have improved while the section was being stocked. They include, for example, all the stream sections that have been taken off the stocking list over the 25+ year history of intentional wild trout management in the Commonwealth.

I think stocking over wild fish CAN be bad for the wild trout. I think just as often though, it doesn't matter that much. A lot depends on the individual circumstances of each situation. How much pressure there is. How strong the wild trout pop is. Etc.. 500 RT dumped preseason into a fairly strong Class B wild brown trout population isn't going to impact the wild fishery to the point that an angler is going to notice it. Other situations may have different outcomes depending upon their specifics...

Other than that little bit of old guy grumbling, I think you made a pretty insightful post, Sal and particularly like your ideas about cooperation and education.

Posted on: 2009/3/25 19:22


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

Joined:
2009/2/19 19:59
From Mont Co, Pa
Posts: 2034
Offline
Why is it that since pcray's last post and the enlarging of the pics, it made it so you have to go half way across the country to read the following post's?

Never mind, now it's back to normal.

Posted on: 2009/3/25 19:34
_________________
Protect the resource, let them go!


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

Joined:
2009/2/19 19:59
From Mont Co, Pa
Posts: 2034
Offline
Quote:

RLeeP wrote:
>>Dave, isnt stocking fish on top of wild trout about as selfish as it gets? We know its not like nature intended. We also know that the wild trout suffer. It takes a real narrow mind to either NOT care or just accept its our right to play god on the ecosystems as we please.>>

Maybe, maybe not..

There's a reason the discipline is called Fisheries Management and not Fisheries Shoe Repair or Fisheries Needlepoint.

We mange our fisheries based (in part anyway..) on what we (the aggregate "we") want them to be. I may prefer wild trout. You may prefer wild trout. But neither my preference nor yours is categorically "right" or "wrong". It's all subjective and based on, well, preferences..

In any event, color me among the skeptical that stocking over wild trout is categorically or always bad for the wild fish. I'm sure there is literature to support the idea that it is bad. But PA also has literally hundreds of stream sections where wild trout populations have improved while the section was being stocked. They include, for example, all the stream sections that have been taken off the stocking list over the 25+ year history of intentional wild trout management in the Commonwealth.

I think stocking over wild fish CAN be bad for the wild trout. I think just as often though, it doesn't matter that much. A lot depends on the individual circumstances of each situation. How much pressure there is. How strong the wild trout pop is. Etc.. 500 RT dumped preseason into a fairly strong Class B wild brown trout population isn't going to impact the wild fishery to the point that an angler is going to notice it. Other situations may have different outcomes depending upon their specifics...

Other than that little bit of old guy grumbling, I think you made a pretty insightful post, Sal and particularly like your ideas about cooperation and education.


The way I see it, stocking over a wild trout population (which I personally despise) does nothing but harm. All I know is when I used to fish for stocked trout with spinning tackle, minnows were second only to worms as the best bait for catching them. This tells me one thing. Young newly born native/wild trout HAVE to be high on the list of preferred foods for these stocked trout. Does anyone not agree?

Posted on: 2009/3/25 19:52
_________________
Protect the resource, let them go!


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

Joined:
2008/12/29 13:34
From Lehigh Valley
Posts: 670
Offline
Sal - fantastic post!

Posted on: 2009/3/25 22:02


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

Joined:
2006/12/20 18:08
Posts: 39
Offline
I definately agree, infact I believe a couple of years ago when I first started coming to this site there was a post about whether it was right or wrong to turn someone in for stocking a class A stream, If that person was a good friend. I think Mkern brought it up. I personally know that turning in a friend for stocking the lower 500 yards of a class A isn't going to gain you many loyalty points. I also know that only 8"+ brookies could be caught in that section untill the following fall when some younger year classes would begin to show back up. This is very wrong too. I think that stocking over wild trout populations affects it for years to follow. Yes you can still catch wild fish, but they are the bigger ones able to compete somewhat with stockies. the little imature brookies and brownies get gobbled up. I once caught a 10" stocked trout in the stream MKern had been refering to, with a 7" native brookie in its throat. Stocking over wild fish is worse than most of us really think, because it is hard to see the damage that it causes, and also it is almost impossible to tell how much better a wild stream would be if they didn't stock it because......well they keep dumping them in.

Also all these posts about native brookies shows that we all consider this a major concern. it is a good thing I mean we all take native brook trout very seriously! I would be interested after all these posts who would show up for a brook trout stream habitat improvement jam? I mean it seems like we all agree that is one thing we can do to see some results. Even if we did one stream, it would be interesting to see who really cares enough to do something like that.

p.s. I don't have a problem with a long post about native brook trout! of all the topics talked about on here it is one that shouldn't be a 3 reply post.

~ 5footfenwick

Posted on: 2009/3/25 22:19


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22424
Offline
I would be interested after all these posts who would show up for a brook trout fish fry at the jam?

Sal, you missed a category well represented in this thread-- the C & R fly angler who thinks making streams C & R and or fly only without any significant benefit to the trout populations is wrong-headed.

Posted on: 2009/3/25 22:54
_________________
Peace, Tony


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

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19931
Offline
I'll attend both jams, though I don't like freshwater fish. I'd like to try a wild one, but can't bring myself to keep one for that purpose, and also don't know of any creeks where I'd be able to harvest one big enough. Most of the wild trout streams I know are gifts from others, and I wouldn't want to betray those that told me about them. If I know it'll get eaten, I'm game.

I also fit in the category jack just mentioned...

Posted on: 2009/3/25 22:57


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: 13598
Offline
Great post Sal. Still, as Jack said, you missed a category and I fit in that one.

I'll show up to a brookie habitat improvement jam. As far as the fry, it wouldn't hurt anything if we fried up a couple of them over the evening campfire. Was it you Jack who was asking if they tasted good a while back? They do in case you're wondering, very much like salmon, but its been years since I've kept one. Used to keep 2 or 3 for the pan on a yearly backwoods camping trip I did when I was a teen/early 20's. Yeah, that 7" mark is hard to hit though.

RLeeP, to even more confuse matters, I believe its not so much the stocked fish themselves that hurts the wild brook trout population in those streams (though I'm sure it does have an effect), its the anglers that show up as a result of them. I know I argued fishing pressure has little to do with wild brook trout populations and I hold to that view, most wild brook trout streams see very little pressure. However, small stocked streams see much, much more pressure, and a different type of pressure too. Thats sustained, every year pressure by the anglers (of all tackle choices) who are more likely to keep and/or accidently injure fish.

Posted on: 2009/3/25 22:59


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

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18883
Offline
Holly crap sal, I think you set a new record. I believe we agree on most if not all the important issues when it comes to wild trout, but I went ahead and made a few comments to your message just for the fun of it.

Quote:

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
Ok ive got somethings to say after sitting back and reading all this "nonsense" for this long. Please dont take offense to that statement, just not understanding some of your guys viewpoints. Or I should say, I dont think any of you are seeing the entire picture. Please not this will be a long post and im not trying to be a voice of "reason" just being a voice of opinion.

It is certain that there are 2 groups of fisherman. Spin and Fly. I dont know why this has come about but im sure that the flyfisherman have made it out to be more than it is. In these 2 groups are C&R and Creeling anglers. Neither of which is nessasarily exlusive to eachothers group or subgroup. Sometimes some C&R and other times harvest. Some only C&R and some only harvest.Ive heard so much about the word selfish in the past few posts it made me sick. Since that is a hot topic lets see how EACH group is selfish. Lets look at what each of these sub groups want.

C&R: What all streams to be catch and release, or at least a vast majority of the wild trout streams. This will make their fishing experience better and the wild trout MIGHT benefit from it. By definition that does sound kinda selfish and but also MIGHT benefit the fish.

Creelers : Want a stocked, unstocked or mixed trout fishing experience to up their catch rates and take fish home to eat. Because it is their right, privledge, or because generations have done it. This will make their fishing experience better and the fish will NEVER benefit from that. By definition that sure sounds selfish.

I have noticed in the previous post that C&R anglers are being considered selfish by advocating for their agenda. Ok maybe it is selfish but lets not forget that the other side of the coin is just as selfish and PROBABLY way more selfish.

Do you guys remember the post that brought about the idealism and realist discussion. I still believe that C&R wild trout nuts are the realists and not the idealist. Sure in real life we cram streams full of stock trout and wild trout in those streams are left to suffer. But real trout fishing is nothing like that. Real trout fishing is as nature intended. Wild trout streams with wild trout. I know it all got started because some guy named "Larry" with the PFBC was fishing with his buddy Bob at a stream and said, "You know what Bob? I wish we could throw 3,000 bigger than normal trout in this stream and we would have more fun than we are now working for these small fish." Bob said, "THat sounds great Larry!" That my friends is idealism at its finest. I know it didnt happen just like that but the same principle applies.

im getting to the point of all this....

Please note i like everyones opinion but i disagree with all of you Im not just talking about C&R but also stocking in my views, just so you know.

Quote:
I am totally against making all streams (stocked or otherwise), C&R only. it would be no skin off my nose if it happens (because I C&R wild trout), but I think most people that would be for this are narrow minded and somewhat selfish.

Dave, isnt stocking fish on top of wild trout about as selfish as it gets? We know its not like nature intended. We also know that the wild trout suffer. It takes a real narrow mind to either NOT care or just accept its our right to play god on the ecosystems as we please.

Absolutely it is selfish, and I refuse to follow that tangent. Both are selfish, so what't the point. However, you must have forgot that I am the guy who keeps proposing that they stop stocking all streams and open the hatcheries for the freezer fillers. It would save gas money. Stock ponds and lakes if you want, but by all means stop stocking over wild trout. Yea, that is extreme and unrealistic, but the truth is that reducing the number of streams that are stocked would do more to improve brook trout ranges, then making all of them C&R.

Quote:
They are not in the business to make a few die hard C&R guys happy at the expense of everyone else.


I agree except we arent looking at the other species involved in these decisions. The wild trout. While they cant speak for themselves, some humans have to try. So while they are not in the business of making a few die hard wild trout guys happy they sure arent making the fish happy either Instead stockings and the harvest associated with them, are at the ecosystems expense.

Your name wouldn't happen to be nimo, would it? I'm not a fan of PETA. But actually trout can "speak" for themselves, but a lot of people apparently don't listen. If you polute the stream, they die, don't they? that should tell everyone something, right? Studues shows that harvest is not a limiting factor in most cases. that should tell us something, too.

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

There is nothing wrong with that. On a greater scale some people wave a pro-life flag and some a pro-choice flag. We need all opinions to come to good decisions. Not just one view or even people attempting to hush a persons viewpoint. Its still the USA and we all have a voice.

I never said there was any problem with waving the C&R flag. I also respect what he is saying, I just disagree with it and was having a little fun. It still looks to me like he was trying to push his agenda using emotion rather than science.

Quote:
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 remaning population is healthier and less susceptible 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).


Im not sure that this would apply to brook trout. I have never seen any evidence that cropping a brook trout population helps wild brook trout. You might be crushing oranges with that one

I used the word "some," not "all." And IMO a better one to go after would have been where I said it could actually increase the population. this one probably does apply. I'm sure you average angler would think that is a good thing, but doing it this way would be bad. The comeback for that would be that increasing a population beyond carrying capacity is a bad thing for any population. In that case, C&R would actually be argues as better for the population. I gave the C&R guys the perfect opportunity to use my words against me, but they all failed. In your casie, it could be that you just cut me some slack.

LR, I respect what you say but i disagree.

Quote:
Because its called conservation while still providing angling opportunities.

Took me a long time to understand that conservation is NOT managing regs. Conservation is restoring and protecting. Blanket regs like all C&R is not conservation because like so many have stated, INCLUDING the EBTJV, harvest is NOT a limiting factor. So what would C&R be conserving the brook trout from? Restore their habitat and then your conserving populations.

Exactly. I see you like to argue both sides.

Quote:
Eliminate one portion of the problem or help in sustaining the population (i.e. eliminate harvest) and try to fix the other issues (i.e. habitat, etc) where possible

This statement doesnt work. I agree that the PFBC has NOT be proactive in restoring brook trout habitat but take away harvest and let them lose money, will they ever? They just dont now nor will they if everything was C&R to restore habitat. Take away harvest and habitat will never be restored. There are a few streams in the Lancaster County area that a sportsmans club help restore in the 60's. One is Segloch Run. That is one of Lancasters class A waters. It was stocked before the early 1980's when the PFBC decided to stop stocking over class a populations. Do you think the sportmans club help restore it because it had wild trout or because it was stocked and they could harvest fish? I can tell you it had nothing to do with the wild trout. Once they stopped stocking it, the sportmans club stopped working on it. They just didnt want to harvest the 7 inch wild brookies. Do you think that stream would be the class a it is today without the restoration? Probably not. Whats happening to it now.....well the wild browns that took hold ( due to stockings) are slowing pushing the brookies out. So it was a win lose situation.

Quote:
Harvest may or may not be the biggest issue...it most likely isnt.


Not likely. It just plain isnt.

Now my opinions.

We need to stop stocking over wild fish and we need to start restoring habitat. THAT IS FIRST AND FOREMOST! No if ands or buts. By making everything C&R we are losing the efforts of other angling populations that just wont care unless they can harvest a fish. I would rather have them care than shut them out. I would rather have them take a beautiful 10 inch wild brookie out of my favorite stream one day and then rolling rocks to restore a stream with me the next day. Those efforts could create hundreds of fish like the one he just kept the day before. Benefiting the C&R angler and the Creeling angler.

We need to work together as an angling community.

Creelers need to learn about wild trout and need to use their head to decided what is best for any given fishery. Dave mentioned:
Quote:
C&R as a regulation is a good thing for some streams, but not all. I keep hearing this C&R for conservation. It may be true for some streams, but certainly not all.

AGREED! The problem is we arent deciding what is best for these streams. Its going to take awhile but it could be done slowly.The PFBC doesnt have the man power to do it all right now. The problem is they arent doing it at all! Blanket regs will not work but if determining what is best for any given watershed is the way to go. If they dont start though, i can tell you exactly how long its going to take.

I could go on but this post is long enough. LR go back and read my post 49. Go to all the WBTJV links you can find. Read all the information. Its not harvest bud, its stocking and habitat. They are the main problems. Please everyone keep in mind that before we call others selfish because of their views or opinions, remember to flip the coin. Theres always just as much selfishness on that side too. And pointing it out isnt working together and getting to the REAL crux of the issues wild brook trout face today

Posted on: 2009/3/26 10:46
_________________
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: 13598
Offline
Maybe not brook trout, but I do believe the cropping of wild trout populations has an effect on the SIZE of the remaining trout. I've seen wild trout streams where when special regs are enacted, the total number of trout goes up while the average size goes down.

Before anyone asks, I don't have hard proof of this and its just personal observation, so take it for what its worth, its just an idea. Still, it makes sense to me, more competition for the same amount of food = smaller fish.

Posted on: 2009/3/26 10:59


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

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19931
Offline
I believe dave has evidence for that in panfish populations.

Posted on: 2009/3/26 11:11


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

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18883
Offline
Quote:

jayL wrote:
I believe dave has evidence for that in panfish populations.


Hell, I can do better than that. there is info on the web if anyone cares to look. You can manipulate a population.

In a nut shell...

For max numbers, take out a certain pecentage of the big ones.

For max size, you need to harvest quite a few mid range.

Or, you could just feed the heck out of them.

The problem with the first and last one is you may be increasing the population beyone the carrying capacity which becomes quite apparent during times of stress. But the problems with a pond are different than they are with a stream, but there is a little overlap.

Posted on: 2009/3/26 11:22
_________________
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: 13598
Offline
The biggest influence of panfish I've seen is the bass population. If you have a pond with panfish and no bass, you'll have tiny panfish. Put a few bass in there and you'll find your panfish size goes way up. There's even a known ratio of panfish/bass, but I have to admit I don't know it. Dave, I have a feeling you might?

Posted on: 2009/3/26 11:24



« 1 ... 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
No
Thinking about it
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll will close at 2014/10/31 17:56
1 Comment





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