Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

[wildtrout2]

All three of these types of stream classifications allow for year round fishing with CR during the "off season", except WBT Enhancement streams which are always CR. Also, all three of these stream types allow for all tackle use! I think this is bad native/wild trout fisheries management and I'd love to hear what everyone else thinks about this. I don't expect everyone to agree with my feelings/thoughts, but I'll give my reasons for the way I feel and I'll keep an open mind regarding other peoples opinions.

These streams in question are fragile and so are the trout that inhabit them! Simply put, I don't think year round fishing in these streams is in the better interest of these native/wild trout. I believe these fish need x amount of time in the stream throughout the year when they aren't being pressured, giving them a much better chace at survival. Especially the Wild Brook Trout Enhancement waters! I don't think that fly fishing plays that big of role in this pressure because of the way fish are usually hooked, but spin fishing certainly does! Even during the CR period, a certain amount of fish will suffer injury and or mortality either from being hooked too deeply, fought too long, kept out of the water too long/handled improperly. So, I think that allowing fishing of any kind to go on throughout the entire year is detrimental to the overall well being of these special fish on these special streams.

I really believe that the fishing seasons on these streams should be the same as on other streams with "regular season dates", with NO extended season. Doing it this way, in my opinion would help preserve the numbers and quality/age of these precious trout in our wild streams. What are your thoughts?

 

[JackM]

Your argument seems logical if one accepts your premise: "These streams in question are fragile and so are the trout that inhabit them!" I do not accept this as I think it is mostly untrue. I think while some of these waters are fragile, the majority if not the vast majority are not. I don't think the trout that inhabit them are fragile in any of them.

This said, I do like the idea of closing the streams to fishing during a part of the year, though I don't think it needs to be the entire extended season. If they are closed to fishing, I would suggest during the spawn, or, say, from September 1 through Febraury 28/29, but only if they are closed to all types of fishing, including fly angling.

 

[wildtrout2]

JackM wrote:
Your argument seems logical if one accepts your premise: "These streams in question are fragile and so are the trout that inhabit them!" I do not accept this as I think it is mostly untrue. I think while some of these waters are fragile, the majority if not the vast majority are not. I don't think the trout that inhabit them are fragile in any of them.

This said, I do like the idea of closing the streams to fishing during a part of the year, though I don't think it needs to be the entire extended season.


If they are closed to fishing, I would suggest during the spawn, or, say, from September 1 through Febraury 28/29, but only if they are closed to all types of fishing, including fly angling.

Well, we agree on the important part. You say you think that the first part of what I said is "untrue", which is fine, yet you don't say why you think it's untrue?

 

[tomgamber]

I think a lot of the guys who love their brookie streams (myself included) tend to confuse the value of these streams and their fragility. C&R on these streams is good if you find value in them but I don't think they are so fragile that if C&R is practiced that you will do any real harm to them by incidental mortality.

Frankly, I think all streams should be open year round and stocking should be done throughout the year. Streams that support natural reproduction should have a close period to support a spawn but other than that seasonal fishing only supports the financial boom that is Opening Day. They would sell a lot less licenses if there was no opening day. I enjoy the tradition of it but it enhances my fishing experience in no way what so ever.

 

[JackM]

You are asking me to prove a negative to explain why I don't think the streams in the categories you identify are fragile, nor the fish. I cannot really do that other than to say I have never seen evidence or heard argument that convinced me that they are.

I think, as Tom says, that people (and yourself) confuse the concept of fragility with that of preciousness. A diamond may be precious, but it is hardly fragile. At the same time, an icycle is fragile, but is hardly precious.

 

[pcray1231]

I fish one WBT enhancement stream commonly, it was one of my home waters well before the regs, back when it was open water.

I'm not sure the study period is long enough to make a definitive conclusion, the population always spiked and fell.

But my observations are this: The regs were harmful to the stream in the lower areas within about a mile of where the road crosses it. The stream was open to bait fishing before, general regs, but it rarely got fished. Now it gets fished pretty heavy down there and there aren't as many trout. But walk in 1+ miles and its had no effect whatsoever.

Before Jack has a fit, I do still support the regulations. It's introducing more people to brook trout fishing, and those people become more responsible towards trout as a result, which has to have positive impacts on other fisheries. These streams breed more responsible fishermen than truck chaser streams, so promoting them is a good thing. And there's plenty of identical streams nearby, still with general regulations, where the fishing is every bit as good.

The stream population is not class A, and never was, but its gotta be close as when conditions are right, 10-20 fish is pretty normal.

On brookie streams, and there are exceptions, my impression is that they are fragile, but the fishing pressure is so low it doesn't even begin to get to the point where it endangers the population. On some of them, my once or twice a year visits might make up half of the angler hours the stream sees.

 

[JackM]

You have never seen Jack have a fit, so there is no need to try to head one off at the pass.

 

[tomgamber]

pcray1231 wrote:


But my observations are this: The regs were harmful to the stream in the lower areas within about a mile of where the road crosses it. The stream was open to bait fishing before, general regs, but it rarely got fished. Now it gets fished pretty heavy down there and there aren't as many trout. But walk in 1+ miles and its had no effect whatsoever.

I'm not disputing the observation. I do think that it is possible that the trout may not have been so much harvested in that easily accessed area, but could have moved to and retreated from the pressure. Now the pressure probably resulted from the regs. I fish a lot of streams where you can always find trout under that tree limb with all the line and bobbers and flies hanging from it when all the places that are easily fished are devoid of fish. If this is the case the fishing could have improved in the less accessible places.

 

[TroutBuster]

Ah yet another attempt to bash spin fisherman..... The streams that I fish for natives in are so small (like 3 foot wide) and remote that I really believe that I am the only person that fishes some of these. So I don't think any kind of "season" is needed to keep the pressure down on them. And most of them would be near impossible to fish with a flyrod. I'm not sure what a "wilderness" stream is, so this might not fall into your category of native streams.

 

[Acristickid]

TB- it's a fly fishing site? There are lots of things that are legal but that does'nt make it right. Like abortion.

 

[TroutBuster]

I belong to lots of bowhunting sites too... but I don't go on there saying all rifle hunters should be banned from the woods... Think about that one...

 

[littlelehigh]

TroutBuster wrote:
I belong to lots of bowhunting sites too... but I don't go on there saying all rifle hunters should be banned from the woods... Think about that one...

So am I and with the current state of out deer population at least in the SE region I would not oppose it. At least for a few (10-20) yrs

 

[TroutBuster]

Still too many doe over on this (West) side of the state. I'd still like to see more of them harvested.

 

[RLeeP]

I understand and appreciate the thread parent's concern, but I think there's just about zero evidence to support the notion that either the year-round season on special regs waters or the all-tackle regs, where they are allowed, do anything measurable to depress these fisheries.

I believe special regs are a good thing. All the same, I'm a little suspicious of the notion that we can routinely stockpile trout through their use..

 

[vcregular]

I think fragile is a pretty accurate term for brook trout, but I can see how one who parses words might think differently, or at least choose a different word to describe them. But in the large picture, they are just about every day being assaulted in some form or another, and their populations are for the most part diminishing. The don't respond well to the majority of human activity and its impact on a stream. If they are not fragile then why are their populations only found in mainly the more pristine waters of today?

Now as for the WBTE streams. I'd like to see more waters added to the program. And I'd also like to see a longer time frame of studying and evaluation. Also, I'd like to see the elimination of bait and trebles on these streams as well. Why not make a control stream or streams, with no fishing as well...for comparison sake?? And why we are at it, why not do some telemetry studies on wild brook trout, to determine where exactly they go, how they move. Seems to me some good could be gained by such a study. Hell, the PFBC did that with the almighty stockie, but that is cause they have big bux tied into that program. I guess cause brookies are wild, and native and renewable they are not as precious?

 

[tomgamber]

You want to see mortality? Start radio tagging wild brookies.

 

[pcray1231]

vc,

I dispute that the populations are diminishing. They certainly were devastated in the past, their range today isn't near what it once was. Mostly this was due to poor logging practices and coal mining. However, in the last 10-20 years, things are generally improving, not getting worse. The streams where they always existed are by and large stable, with few exceptions (still natural spikes and lulls). But now acid rain is getting better, still a problem but not as bad as it once was. And also, brookies are reclaiming some of the AMD streams where reclamation work has been done.

To be sure, there are still issues, and this doesn't mean every location is improving. I just think those last 2 positives are outweighing the negatives at the time being, when looking at the big picture.

 

[albatross]

PCray wrote

But walk in 1+ miles and its had no effect whatsoever.

I've seen this effect on my local WBTEP stream. Some of this may be fewer fish, but I'd have to say the larger aspect is the fish there (near the easy access) are harder to catch since they get pounded often.

 

[JackM]

How is it that brook trout are "easily broken or destroyed?" I think anyone using that term to describe brook trout is misusing the terminology to satisfy or really determine the conclusion that they have already made that some form of "protection" is required to preserve them. So, if you want to describe them as "fragile" and stretch the term to cover the fact that they are high-temperature intolerant or susceptible to harm from siltation or even from extremely highly acidic water chemistry, then be my guest, but then, for the argument from such a premise to any conclusion of regulations to follow logically, the proposed regulations should be addressing only the harms described-- temperature, siltation and acidity. Tackle restrictions and harvest have no relevance.

On the flip-side, then, if you want to support regulations on tackle and harvest, you are going to have to claim that brookies are "easily broken or destroyed" because of these supposed harms, and that cannot be proven. In fact, all the evidence points to the conclusion that harvest and tackle issues have very little effect on brook trout populations.

I do favor the control conditions you recommend (some streams with no fishing at all, some with tackle restrictions, some with no-harvest) because I believe it would put these ill-supported conceptions of wild brook trout fragility to rest for good.

 

[FarmerDave]

Proven once again on this thread, a sure way to increase fishing pressure is to hang up some signs.

Fragile is a relative term. You aren't going to destroy a stream by simply fishing, or by harvesting. I tend not to think these streams are "fragile" to fishing pressure. you are not going to break them by fishing. You may put a dent on the adult population for the season, sometimes pretty easily on the tiny streams, but it does not destroy the stream or the population.

The wild streams should be kept open to fishing all year, and I'm satisfied that harvest is closed from September on. I don't fish over spawning trout, but that is my choice.

I wouldn't have a problem with closing the BTE streams during the spawn as part of the BTE enhancement, but not the rest of the streams.

I suppose I wouldn't be opposed to tackle restrictions of artificial only on BTE streams either. But I would be opposed to tackle restrictions on all wild streams, class A or otherwise that are not under special regs. Leave the tackle restrictions to the special regs streams. Tackle restrictions for the most part are not trout management tools.