M
Mike
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 5,427
I don't know how carefully you read the Pa. A&B, but in the Jan-Feb, '03 issue on p. 27 is a bar graph that depicts the results of creel censuses done on stocked trout waters since the trout creel limit reduction from 8 to 5 went into effect. You'll see that although there was projected a slight, but insignificant, reduction in total harvest when the creel limit dropped from 8 to 5, it turned out that there was no reduction in total harvest. What had projected to be a slight change turned out to be no change, which is as insignificant as you can get. Under both creel limits the harvest was 138 trout per 100 anglers. Perhaps there was a redistribution of the catch, but I doubt that it was significant. The better anglers probably continued to catch and harvest most of the fish. The 3 fish creel limit was also evaluated using waters where that limit is in effect and the harvest under a 3 fish creel limit fell to 114 trout per 100 anglers, a reduction of 17 percent. So now we have the answer to the creel limit reduction issue; just as was stated beforehand by the PFBC biologists there was no biological basis for the 8 to 5 reduction.