Poll on 2 of the specific motivators for C&R of WILD trout

[Mike]

This is a preference survey, so you need to choose one or the other, not both or a combination of both. Among the perhaps many reasons why you fish C&R for wild trout, which is the greater of these two motivators? Is it your thought that C&R fishing if practiced by everyone will produce 1) more fish, OR is it that if C&R fishing were practiced by everyone it would produce 2) larger fish? DO NOT ANSWER : MORE AND LARGER FISH. I really want to know which of the two is a GREATER motivator among the members of this group....to catch more fish or to catch larger fish. Thank you for your time.

 

[pete41]

Bigger

 

[jayL]

I just don't like killing stuff.

If I have to pick, I'll say more. Bigger doesn't make sense. To get bigger fish, you need to cull some of the population.

 

[Padraic]

I'll echo JayL's statement.

If I'd quibble with anything he said, it's that culling fish would result in bigger fish. IMHO, it's habitat that determines that.

 

[jayL]

I wouldn't disagree, pad. I just feel that if we are going to reduce it to two choices, it won't hurt for me to take the ten thousand foot view. When it comes to an animal population in the wild, there are tons of variables. I do feel that of in the scope of these questions, that a controlled harvest would increase the size of fish... perhaps unnaturally.

I should say that I am no expert in biology. I've never taken a university level bio class (aquatic biology was offered in the morning when I had to work :-( ). I should also say that it was, of course, my opinion, but that disclaimer goes with any post I make.

I still don't like killing animals, and I don't like the taste of trout. When I fish for wild trout, numbers are my target... well, behind solitude, fresh air, and scenery.

 

[firandfeather]

M

A hard question to answer. Bigger or more. I like to catch several trout and then I like to catch just one. I like to get the ones many can't get to with a well place fly line.

As for your question, I think we need to regulate the streams on an induvidual basis and push the PABC to do so.

If the can produce wild trout protect them!!!! A stream will regulate itself. The stream will know what is enough trout and how big they should be.

I have a brook trout stream below my cabin that is loaded with brook trout none over 6 inches except for the pond at the end. I can find brookies four or more to one hole.

A blast to fish, just with the Grouse were still there.

Mike

 

[David]

Boy that's tough because it depends on my mood. I would say numbers as well though. That makes the day more interesting and the occasional large one more challenging to find.

 

[pete41]

2 x 4 ~4 x2~8 x 1~16 x 1/2~32 x 1/4=follow the hatchery trucks.
How many of those little fellers do you remember-lol

 

[wetnet]

Let them all go. Natural selection doesn't have a rod & reel or a stocky truck. Bigger isn't always better and if you haven't seen a native brookie dance then you don't know they don't have to be big. Are you mounting them? There are a ton of big dogs to catch fishing Steelheads and Salmon if you're looking for big. Leave those pretty babies be.

firandfeather we have native grouse too and they are just as fine and in the same predicament. I agree with your point.

 

[MKern]

I opt for more!

 

[kdkeller]

Anytime I catch a fish and put it back I always thing to myself that I've left something for someone else to enjoy another time, so I would have to say MORE FISH!!! I like the lunkers but i would rather have constant action all day. My two cents...

 

[JF_]

I say more fish. Without the habitat you're probably not going to get bigger fish.

 

[tomgamber]

I'd say more...A day of catching twenty 12 inchers would beat a day of catching one or two 20 incher any day...

 

[brookie]

I would have to go with more as well, If fishing for the sake of just catching large fish then I could go to a pay to fish pond or something. I think its more important to have healthy populations and good habitat, the fish's size reflecting their habitat.

 

[Raven456]

More!!

 

[albatross]

My vote is for larger. I caught a really nice brook trout Saturday wild or holdover, I'm not sure. The larger fish are more memorable. I've had 40 fish days on brookie streams when I was a kid fishing worms, but I think this big brookie will stick longer in my memory.

 

[MattBoyer]

More. That being said I wish the PFBC got out of the trophy business and back in the old stocking plan. Smaller fish simply adapt better to their surroundings. Maybe it was the summer temps, but some of the more marginal streams I fish didn't seem to hold over well this year. I have no studies to back this up, so I wouldn't go so far as to argue the point, but I like for mother nature to provide the state records.

Boyer

 

[afishinado]

Like most Jay, I fish wild trout for the solitude, scenery, and also the challenge. Many times I’ll catch dozens of wild trout on a stream with none measuring over 6”. I suppose I would trade a larger number of fish caught for a few larger fish. But I also believe that the major limiting factor with respect to the size of wild trout is the stream environment itself. Many of PA’s wild trout streams cannot support large wild fish. I do believe that the streams that have the potential to support larger fish should be managed to that end. I too believe that the PFBC should classify wild streams based on their potential for holding wild fish, and larger wild fish, and adjust harvest regulations to help the stream reach its potential. I do realize that in reality, harvest regulations in many cases have the least effect on the population makeup and density of a stream when compared to the factors of water quality, habitat quality, predators, availability and type of macros present, etc. But harvest is the one piece of the puzzle that is most easily controlled, and the PFBC should make more of an effort to evaluate each stream and adjust regulations to optimize each stream's potential as a wild trout fishery.

 

[sundrunk]

More wild trout.

 

[FarmerDave]

Tough question. I can't remember the last time i harvested a wild trout. Pretty much the only time I will keep one now is if I don't think it will make it because it was hooked deep. That said, I am not a die hard C&R guy. I am an apex predator, and who says that me eating a trout isn't natural. I say it is. Keeping a few doesn't change the population one way or the other, long term. I guess i throw them back simply because it feels right. Plus, I like a natural experience. Eating a few is a natural thing to do if I chose to. Keeping a few to try and manipulate the population, isn't natural. It just doesn't enter into my decision. Well, at least not much. ;-)

As far as what Jay says, I don't disagree with it.

I believe you can manage a stream for larger size trout but it involves harvest. It can be done in my opinion, but is it worth it??? It is true that the biggest limiting factor is their environment. Left on their own, the average stream that I fish for wild trout (Small Class B,C, or D freestone streams) just simply can't produce many large trout. There isn't enough food for that. However, if you reduce the number of trout, that leaves more food for the ones that are left. Less competition. It most definitely works in ponds. It just wouldn't be easy to do this on a trout stream for several reasons. Besides the obvious reasons, most people would still throw them all back (including myself). Then you will have a small number of people who would still keep the largest ones, and it wouldn't take many people to screw up the plan. Even if you were able to manipulate the population over a couple years to get a more desireable result, you would have to stay after it constantly to keep it that way. It aint natural.

Keep in mind ... I'm just commenting on the typical streams that I have fished. They are actually easier to screw up short term than they would be to make better long term, so please don't try this at home. :-D Limestone streams are a whole different ballgame and I am not commenting on those.