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


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 (2)


Re: PFBC Studies
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22315
Offline
I have always thought that complaining about a crowded stream means you are part of the crowd-- go somewhere else and be part of the solution.

Posted on: 2006/11/11 10:05
_________________
Peace, Tony


Re: PFBC Studies

Joined:
2006/10/25 12:30
From York
Posts: 449
Offline
Wow! What a topic! This has become the discussion that I thought one of my previous posts would turn into (Improved regs = crowded streams). IMO I believe that each stream has its own unique set of problems/requirements. Sometimes the SR's help an otherwise overharvested stream and with others it draws attention to a stream that can not handle the increased angler pressure. I don't have the anwers but maybe the PFBC could create a program where a stream steward could report on the effectiveness of SR. This steward could be a volunteer who fishes the stream on a regular basis.

Just my 2 cents. (I can't afford the inflation to 3.)

Steve

Posted on: 2006/11/11 10:09
_________________
7X makes the small fish feel bigger.


Re: PFBC Studies

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6179
Offline
If all wild trout streams had no harvest or low harvest regulations than they wouldn't be "special" regs anymore, they would be the general regs on wild trout streams.

This would give you the best of both worlds. High trout populations, because the amount of harvest definitely does influence trout populations. And less crowding because you wouldn't have the concentration into particular areas, because all the wild trout streams would have limited harvest regs.

Fisheries managers should always go with the option that results in high trout populations, rather than the options that cause lower trout populations.

When there are more trout, our fishing opportunities expand. When there are less trout, our fishing opportunities are reduced.

It always surprises me to hear flyfishers argueing for management that reduces trout populations.

Posted on: 2006/11/11 10:31


Re: PFBC Studies
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22315
Offline
Quote:

troutbert wrote:

It always surprises me to hear flyfishers argueing for management that reduces trout populations.


Believe it or not, some fly anglers like to harvest trout and others, like me, while we don't harvest, feel that others who do should be able to do so within limits. I think 2-3 trout a day is more reasonable than 5.

Posted on: 2006/11/11 10:40
_________________
Peace, Tony


Re: PFBC Studies

Joined:
2006/9/21 0:02
From Pittsburgh
Posts: 4282
Offline
Steve-B:

I too was a little surprised the way your other post - improved regs = crowded streams- turned into a discussion about being checked by WCO's.
Anyway, I'd just like to say that I'm not against SG's areas
It would be a real shame if spring creek, and many others like it, were opened to any kind of harvesting.
It certainly is a lot better to protect the fish, even if it means crowded conditions and fish that can be pretty difficult to catch.
However, as stated in other post, most of my favorite areas are on open water, and I sure wouldn't like to see attention drawn to them. They are fine just the way they are.

Posted on: 2006/11/11 14:00


Re: PFBC Studies

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6179
Offline
Lets go back to the beginning for a moment. Stonefly’s original post said:
“PFBC will take opposing views to presnt what they say is science when it suits its purpose. For instance when making a presentationa few years ago we heard how C & R regs, notably in brookie streams increased the populations significantly.”

I posted this Question for Stone Fly.

Re: "What stream or streams did they say that C&R regs increased brook trout populations significantly?”

This question was never answered. Did the PFBC ever actually say that? Stone_Fly are you out there? Could you clear this up for me?

Posted on: 2006/11/11 14:33


Re: PFBC Studies

Joined:
2006/9/13 12:37
Posts: 496
Offline
Troutbert,
I remember it, but them my memory is foggy at times. I looked around for what they said about it and I'm having trouble finding it. I'm pretty sure it was at the Trout Summit that I saw the numbers and several of the streams where the special regs were had significant increases.
I looked on the PFBC web and they don't have the information. I'm going to have to retract what I said until I find the answer to your question.
In my sumbling around looking for the answer though I found;

"Wild brook trout > 7 inches decreased by 1 in every 200 yds. of stream under selective harvest regulations, increased by 1 in every 100 yds. under catch and release regulations, and increased by 1 in every 40 yds. when stocking was terminated."

"Discontinuing stocking over wild brook trout populations increased the abundance of legal wild brook trout in streams that had habitats capable of supporting an increase."

So this does conflict with what they've been telling us about the Brook Trout Enhancement Program specifically and stocking over wild trout in general.

Troutbert,
You said, "It always surprises me to hear flyfishers argueing for management that reduces trout populations."
Could you explain this, because I can't recall ever hereing this, but then I may not be familiar with your perspective?

Posted on: 2006/11/12 8:41


Re: PFBC Studies

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6179
Offline
Stone_Fly, thanks for digging up the PFBC quotes from the trout summit about management changes improving brook trout populations. Interesting stuff.

Regarding: " "It always surprises me to hear flyfishers argueing for management that reduces trout populations."

I was referring to all the recent posts opposing special regulations, and favoring the general state-wide regs instead. I think streams like Spring Creek would see big drops in their trout populations if they were put under general regs. I think many thousands of trout would be removed from Spring Creek within one week.

Posted on: 2006/11/12 15:33


Re: PFBC Studies

Joined:
2006/11/4 20:39
Posts: 68
Offline
Maurice,
I also hope that the BTEP will do more to enhance, but I applaud the protection it affords these finned gems. I travel many miles from my York county home to enjoy the opportunity to catch these little wild ones.

Posted on: 2006/11/12 17:12


Re: PFBC Studies

Joined:
2006/9/10 22:25
Posts: 136
Offline
Quote:
They are there to protect populations that would not be able to survive without the special regulation.


How can a fisheries biologist in training not know that is a ridiculous statement. So if Slate Run didn't have special regs there wouldn't be any trout?

This is why I think trout or any other fish species mgt decisions should be voted on by anglers. Afterall, we are the ones paying fees and fishing out there 365/24/7.

As for the BTEP, here's a quote from one report I read:

Quote:
No brook trout greater than or equal to nine inches in length were present at the time of the 2004 and 2006 surveys in any of the three streams surveyed


Wow, those special regs are really improving the numbers of larger trout on those 3 streams huh? Hey, maybe its because poachers are sneaking in there and taking all the big brookies or maybe, just maybe, floods and droughts are taking there toll on the streams trout. The 7 to 8.9" trout numbers also dropped on those streams from a total of 200 to 112 a drop of 44%. What do you think is to blame: angling pressure or weather related events? Weather cannot be controlled by spec. regs. On the list of factors that determine a streams trout pop., weather is near the top. Angler harvest is near the bottom. You could close a stream entirely to fishing for years and not guarantee anything. One severe drought or early spring flood event and those trout numbers(especially YOY) drop sharply - as much as 75-80% in some years. The BTEP regs are a good idea but its a case of a good plan executed poorly. Either make it all encompassing(or at least 25-50 streams) or not at all.


Also, why have C&R on the better Class "A" streams when the regs would be better suited on streams struggling to support trout?
The "C" or D" stream is need of protection far more than the "A" stream right? So why ignore them? If you firmly believe C&R helps a streams trout pop., place the regs on a poor trout stream and see what happens. Unless the water quality, pH, flows, temps, etc. change, no amount of protection will make it better.

Mark

Posted on: 2006/12/10 8:33

Edited by NJAngler on 2006/12/10 9:19:51


Re: PFBC Studies

Joined:
2006/10/26 23:01
From Ohio
Posts: 657
Offline
I think while the PFGC does a pretty fair job overall. As an out of state angler, I completely depend on the PFGC designated waters as places to fish. They stear you towards waters that will provide a good angling experience, stand the fishing pressure, and have good access. They provide a variety of angling experiences.....wild fish, trophy stocked fish C an R sections for a "trophy photograph" experience, and stocked C and Eat sections. They don't advertise the struggling streams because they don't want fisherman there. I enjoy all these experience at one time or another during the year. Once you realize that the PFGC has many things to consider including the desires of all anglers (not just the flyfishing C and R type), a quality fishing experience, local econmies, landowner rights, and not just wild trout conservation, you realize they are doing a decent job.

If you really care about the wild fish in your local stream, you wouldn't fish it at all, especially if it is struggling as a fishery. I know where several brook trout streams are within a 1/2 hour from me here in Ohio but would never fish them even if it were legal and choose to go to PA where I know the fish are greater in number and the fishery can withstand the pressure.

Posted on: 2006/12/10 11:34


Re: PFBC Studies

Joined:
2006/9/10 22:25
Posts: 136
Offline
Quote:
I know where several brook trout streams are within a 1/2 hour from me here in Ohio but would never fish them even if it were legal


So we're not suppose to fish a stream because the trout aren't numerous enough? Okay so I'll just stick to the streams where 25 is a lock and skip the 5 to 10 streams. That makes a lot of sense. I don't see how one or two trips a year to a marginal trout stream will cause any harm especially if you C&R.

Mark

Posted on: 2006/12/10 17:42


Re: PFBC Studies

Joined:
2006/10/26 23:01
From Ohio
Posts: 657
Offline
Mark,

No you ALONE making a trip or two would not make much of a difference at all. But why would you want to bother? It might be a cool wilderness experience, but it would be a second rate fishing experience. There are plenty of places you can get both a first rate wilderness experience and a first rate fishing expereince. And if you did bother, you probably would would tell the "secret" to a couple of friends who in turn who would fish it. Or someone would see you fishing it, and then start fishing it. You would definitely not be the only one to fish it. So it really has to be an all or nothing proposition.

Also there is a big difference between you and few locals fishing a small stream and the PFGC putting it on there website and having every yah-hoo such as myself showing up on its banks. In my opinion the special regs are mostly about providing different angling experiences and managing the angling experience for mostly a casual angling public. Conservation is a secondary consideration on approved waters and the PFGCs managing them simply indicates that they can handle the angling pressure either as a wild stream or through their stocking. They stock and designate waters special regs not only by the qualities of the fishery but also by the proximities to metropolitan areas and the angling pressure they have to manage. When they do stock on a wild stream, they tend to stock in the more marginal sections of trout habitat of the stream.

I guaruntee that my "faulty" logic is a major consideration for the PFGC.

Furthermore, considering the just trout numbers is not considering the whole picture in terms of conservation. Fishing and stocking affect non-game fish species, streamside vegitation, invertibrate and mammal habitat, etc. I'm sure biomass and biodiversity are affected not just by stocking, but by fishing as well. You and I stomping in a stream and its banks has tons of effects that you and I don't realize (spawning beds, nesting areas, vegitation that can only survive streamside because of increased sunlight and moisture, etc).

Bill

Posted on: 2006/12/10 21:02



« 1 (2)



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
Do you keep a fishing journal?
Yes 52% (85)
No 47% (78)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/8/22 12:38
2 Comments





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