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


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 (2) 3 4 5 ... 21 »


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

Joined:
2006/9/10 21:53
From Greensburg, PA
Posts: 13631
Offline
You want to see mortality? Start radio tagging wild brookies.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 12:49


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: 13701
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 12:50


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

Joined:
2006/10/2 10:08
From Westmoreland County (near fairgrounds)
Posts: 3781
Offline
PCray wrote Quote:
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.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 12:56
_________________
Resized Image
Only one constant in the universe, all men are equal in the eyes of the fish.
-GulfGreyhound paraphrasing Herbert Hoover


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22582
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 13:02
_________________
Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal.

-- Leo Tolstoy


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

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 19118
Offline
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.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 13:06
_________________
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:
2009/2/19 19:59
From Mont Co, Pa
Posts: 2040
Offline
Quote:

JackM wrote:


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 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.


You're a stong advocate of YOUR own opinion, that's for sure. All of what "evidence points to the conclusion that harvest and tackle issues have very little effect on brook trout populations"? My "ill-supported conceptions of wild brook trout fragility" are quite well founded when I see a wild section of the WB of Fishing Creek in Sullivan Co, starting from two miles up from the Game Lands gate in Emmons right on up to the headwaters, go from loaded with natives in 2002, to just a few here and there as recently as 2007. Now they're stocking all the way up to Hemlock run. That whole streach was originally on the Class A Wild Trout list. So this isn't a fragile fishery? What do YOU think happened to these trout?

Posted on: 2009/3/10 13:26
_________________
Protect the resource, let them go!


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

Joined:
2006/9/18 8:28
From Attitudinally, one mile south of Lake LeBoeuf
Posts: 878
Offline
In all kindness, I think that's largely nonsense, Jack...

And I'm probably nearly as skeptical of the "fragility" argument as you seem to be.

Still, it makes no sense to me to assert that harvest and size regs are not applicable or relevant as a tool to manage a species whose abundance is threatened by siltation, thermal problems or acidity because the regs do not specifically address these 3 things.

The relationships are a portion of a whole and not independent considerations. A brook trout population that is already stressed by thermal problems is going to be additionally challenged by open or liberal creel/size regs, probably more so than a healthy population without said stresses.

To me, in aggregate, these things are multiple strikes on the same batter, not things that take place in different innings. The effect is cumulative.

Or maybe I'm not understanding you quite right..

Posted on: 2009/3/10 13:27


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

Joined:
2006/9/18 8:28
From Attitudinally, one mile south of Lake LeBoeuf
Posts: 878
Offline
>>That whole streach was originally on the Class A Wild Trout list. So this isn't a fragile fishery? What do YOU think happened to these trout?>>

What makes you think that fishing pressure played a primary or even significant role in what happened?

I mean, was everything else in the stream section that could impact brook trout abundance (water chemistry, floods during spawn or fry swim-up, etc.) static over the entire period?

Posted on: 2009/3/10 13:31


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

Joined:
2008/7/18 1:55
Posts: 17
Offline
Maybe they're not that fragile....relatively speaking.

However, you muck up the habitat then you have problems


see link:


http://afs.allenpress.com/perlserv/?r ... t&doi=10.1577%2FM05-110.1

Posted on: 2009/3/10 13:37


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

Joined:
2009/2/19 19:59
From Mont Co, Pa
Posts: 2040
Offline
Quote:

RLeeP wrote:
>>That whole streach was originally on the Class A Wild Trout list. So this isn't a fragile fishery? What do YOU think happened to these trout?>>

What makes you think that fishing pressure played a primary or even significant role in what happened?

I mean, was everything else in the stream section that could impact brook trout abundance (water chemistry, floods during spawn or fry swim-up, etc.) static over the entire period?

I have as much statistical proof as anyone who disputes my thinking. I'm going on what I have experienced on this stream over a span of 5-6 years. I still maintain that if a lot of these streams were left alone after the "regular season", they would have more stable populations of wild/native trout. I would like to hear what troutbert has to say on this subject and ask him if I'm using the word "fragile" too loosely?

Posted on: 2009/3/10 13:51
_________________
Protect the resource, let them go!


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

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

wildtrout2 wrote:

I have as much statistical proof as anyone who disputes my thinking. I'm going on what I have experienced on this stream over a span of 5-6 years.


You claim "statistical proof", yet use one stream over a period of 5 years. Your sample size is insufficient in two ways, and your methods are completely unscientific.

I'd be willing to bet Dave's farm that there are parties with more statistically valid evidence to the contrary, based on the mere lack of validity to yours.

Not trying to be a dick, but that's how I see this argument. I should add that I agree with Jack here.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 13:59


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

Joined:
2009/2/19 19:59
From Mont Co, Pa
Posts: 2040
Offline
Quote:

jayL wrote:
Quote:

wildtrout2 wrote:

I have as much statistical proof as anyone who disputes my thinking. I'm going on what I have experienced on this stream over a span of 5-6 years.


You claim "statistical proof", yet use one stream over a period of 5 years. Your sample size is insufficient in two ways, and your methods are completely unscientific.

I'd be willing to bet Dave's farm that there are parties with more statistically valid evidence to the contrary, based on the mere lack of validity to yours.

Not trying to be a dick, but that's how I see this argument. I should add that I agree with Jack here.

Like I said in the initial thread, I will respect everyone's opinion on this. Until I see this "valid evidence to the contrary" I'll stand by what I've already said.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 14:12
_________________
Protect the resource, let them go!


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: 13701
Offline
First,

BFC is hardly a representative case of wild brook trout streams. It is far different than your run of the mill brookie stream, and faces different pressures. Big Spring fits in the same "exceptional" category. They are not what brook trout regs should be about, because these types of streams represent an extreme minority compared to the thousands of small mountain freestoners that carry brookies. Now, separate regulations on these streams are fine.

But I somewhat agree with Jack. The things affecting MOST brookie streams are not harvest related. The population is mostly limited by habitat and other issues like temperature, siltation, availability of food, acidity, etc. Unlike BFC and other limestoners, the population is at its carrying capacity. So harvest regs are indeed separate from trying to increase the carrying capacity, its not all "part of the whole". If a given hole supports 5 fish, and somebody keeps two, the remaining fish still produce 100 young per year, of which 2 live to replace the ones that were taken. The population is in no way limited by the number of breeding adults, as long as there's a few, there's enough young ones to fully replenish the population.

Increasing the carrying capacity should be the focus. In the exceptional cases where harvest or pressure actually does limit the population, like BFC, then you can consider harvest or tackle restrictions.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 14:21


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

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

wildtrout2 wrote:
Quote:

jayL wrote:
Quote:

wildtrout2 wrote:

I have as much statistical proof as anyone who disputes my thinking. I'm going on what I have experienced on this stream over a span of 5-6 years.


You claim "statistical proof", yet use one stream over a period of 5 years. Your sample size is insufficient in two ways, and your methods are completely unscientific.

I'd be willing to bet Dave's farm that there are parties with more statistically valid evidence to the contrary, based on the mere lack of validity to yours.

Not trying to be a dick, but that's how I see this argument. I should add that I agree with Jack here.

Like I said in the initial thread, I will respect everyone's opinion on this. Until I see this "valid evidence to the contrary" I'll stand by what I've already said.


Fair enough.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 14:25


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

Joined:
2006/9/11 14:30
From Franklin County
Posts: 242
Offline
Wild,

I was thinking you brought this up because of the recent findings that the PFBC had when then conducted a study on WBT streams in NE Pa. To summarize an article in PA Trout Unlimited Newsletter (2009), the PFBC released a report on the results of their Statistical Information and so far:

"Based on information compiled on wild brook trout
waters for the 2002 Trout Summit, the statewide average
for legal size wild brook trout (greater than or equal to 7
inches in length) from freestone streams was 34 trout/mile.
Prior to their placement in the Wild Brook Trout Enhancement
Program, wild brook trout populations exceeded the
statewide average of 34 legal size brook trout per mile in
Kistler Run, Wolf Swamp Run and Jeans Run. However,
by 2006, only Kistler Run (53 legal trout/mile) and Wolf
Swamp Run (48 legal trout/mile) remained above the statewide
average for legal size wild brook trout. In 2008, the
abundance of legal size brook trout fell below the statewide
average in each of the streams managed under Wild
Brook Trout Enhancement regulations. In addition, larger
wild brook trout (greater than or equal to 9 inches in length)
have not been captured during recent examinations on the
study waters. Sampling will continue through the 2010 season
to monitor the response of wild brook trout populations
to Wild Brook Trout Enhancement regulations."
To read the full article click here.

So there are the numbers, and back to the debate. The slump in numbers is due to nature or how we get involved and "nurture" it

Posted on: 2009/3/10 14:32
_________________
Perhaps fishing is, for me, only an excuse to be near rivers.



« 1 (2) 3 4 5 ... 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





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