Special Regs; Good or Bad?

[LarryFine]

Since I love wild speculation and theories formulated by fly fishermen based on supposition, emotion and faded memory; I offer this:

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/images/fisheries/afm/2008/5x11_24brook.htm

and ask the question WHY?

Is it increased pressure due to the publicity of the Special Regs causing increased mortality or were the PFBC dudes wearing orange and all the fish bolted when they approached? ;-)

I have fished all of those streams with some regularity and I can tell you they are not the friendliest environs so I really wonder what might be the reason since I don't believe the water quality has declined significantly.

If it is increased pressure it must be all of those "poachers" braving a citation and almost impenetrable Rhododendron for a crack at those dinks!

Any ideas?

 

[tomgamber]

I think its only been a couple of years with the regs and in those years the weather has been quite abnormal. I think harvest in those streams would be of greater detriment. I think its too soon to come to any conclusions.

 

[Fishidiot]

Yeah, I agree with Tom. Such a small sample and so few years of data really don't allow for any solid conclusions about the WBEP. If you look at the numbers of fish and their sizes, there is really not much real fluctuation on these waters. People can look at studies like this and they'll invariabley draw conclusions based on their own predisposed opinions

 

[JackM]

The conclusion I would like to draw based upon my own suppositions is that the harvest regulations will do very little if anything to improve the overall numbers and size of the fish in these streams. The population will fluctuate from year to year like it has for the past hundreds. Habitat, including the amount of available forage establishes the stream's carrying capacity and harvest just causes temporary shifts. Nature will find its equilibrium. Now, I'll duck away and let the informed and intelligent offer their considered analysis.

 

[LarryFine]

Here's part of the 2006 report on the same streams in case anyone considers weather a factor:

"Statewide the average estimated abundance of wild brook trout seven inches and longer, and nine inches and greater in freestone streams, is 34 and 4 trout per mile of stream, respectively (2000 Trout Summit). In 2004, all three streams exceeded the statewide average abundance for brook trout seven inches and longer. However, in 2006, only Kistler Run and Wolf Swamp Run remained above the statewide average with abundance estimates of 53 and 48 trout/mile greater than or equal to seven inches in length.

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.

Some anglers may wonder what impact, if any, the severe June flood of 2006 may have had on the trout populations in these streams. The total catch data for each stream suggests its impact may have been minimal, particularly for Wolf Swamp Run (no decline in abundance of legal size trout from 2004). The decline of legal size trout in Kistler Run (51 percent from 2004) and Jeans Run (74 percent from 2004) may simply reflect natural year class variation rather than climatic impacts. It is interesting to note that the section gradients (ft/mile) and drainage area (sq. mi) from highest to lowest are 260 and 4.25 for Jeans Run, 239 and 2.70 for Wolf Swamp Run, and 86.7 and 2.32 for Kistler Run.

The gradient aspect reflects the harshness of the environment the aquatic organisms face during high flow conditions. For example, the steeper the gradient and the larger the drainage area, the more influence floodwaters may have on both the physical and biological nature of the stream. Thus, when reviewing the survey results in light of the stream’s physical gradient, there does not seem to be any correlation regarding steepness and the loss of legal size trout from a high flow perspective".

 

[RLeeP]

Without getting all long winded, I think situations where special regs are the dominant factor in fish abundance are very much the exception rather than the rule. In situations where pressure is not unrelenting and habitat and water quality is good, they are at best an additive. Sort of the same way a pair of suspenders would be if you're already wearing a belt..

 

[troutbert]

LarryFine wrote:
Since I love wild speculation and theories formulated by fly fishermen based on supposition, emotion and faded memory; I offer this:

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/images/fisheries/afm/2008/5x11_24brook.htm

and ask the question WHY?

Why what? What do you think the data shows?

Only data from 3 streams are shown, which is a very small sample.

The regs went into effect in 2004, so the sample time is also small.

Wolf Swamp Run didn't change much at all.

On the other 2 streams, the total number of fish didn't change much. But the number of 7"+ fish decreased significantly. Here's my theory about why.

I fish a lot in NC PA, not so much in NE. But in NC PA, the number of legal sized brook trout in the streams seemed very unusually high in 2003 and 2004, probably because of good flow conditions for a few years.

There was a severe scouring flood state-wide in Sept. 2004 (Ivan). That appeared to seriously knock down the number of larger brook trout in NC PA streams.

In NE PA there was also a severe scouring flood in 2006, as mentioned in your quotes.

According to Bob Carline, recently retired fisheries prof at Penn State, scouring floods kill a greater percentage of larger trout than smaller trout. He didn't know why this is so, but that's what the data showed. And you see the same thing with this data.

Their smaller body size may just enable them to hide behind structure better, or to scoot to the edges, and behind roots or other obstructions, to avoid the scouring flow.

The other thing is that the smaller fish are quickly replenished by reproduction. The total numbers they give include all fish 2 inches and up. It doesn't break that down, so they may be getting a whole swarm of 2 inchers, whose numbers rebounded after the floods.

Regarding fishing pressure. You've fished these streams, and said they are tough places. Do you think many people fished them before?

I've been to Kistler Run. Very brushy, I thought. I've been to Jeans, too. A small section of it is fairly easily accessible, where the trail comes down from the SGL parking lot. But the lower end is extremely rough and also thick with vegetation. Probably the most brutal section of stream I've seen in PA. I don't know where they electrofished it.

I haven't been to Wolf Swamp.

Maybe these streams are so tough to fish, or hardly known (Wolf Swamp) that there was very little fishing done there. In that case, you would not expect any positive effect of special regs.

Which, according to one guy I talked to, was the idea of choosing those streams. His opinion was that to test the utility of the regs, you should choose a stream that you know gets a lot of fishing pressure, and that has good numbers of fish, but a very low percentage of legal sized fish, i.e. a stream that appears to be getting cropped off. Rather than choosing streams that have higher than average numbers of fish larger than legal size, which is an indication that they aren't getting cropped. Makes some sense, yah?

 

[Chaz]

Natural disasters such as floods and droughts trump all other factors. There were at least 3 scouring floods on these streams since Ivan, and you can see the damage done to the stream beds of all the streams in the NE region. Some streams have lost nearly all of the wild trout larger than 5 inches, I know I fish these streams, some have bounced back with more fish, but they take several years to get to legal size. Some streams will take several more years to recover populations, and even then won't have the larger than legal fish for a few more years.
To say that floods don't affect the structure of trout populations is absurd and I thought so when I first saw those comments, I believe this was stated out of ignorance. I too have read Carlines study, done after the 96 flood, in some streams 85% of all brook trout simply vanished in the maelstrom.
An 85% loss of population is significant enough to have a long term impact, from which a population could even disappear. The activity on these streams is very low, I've never seen anyone else fishing them when I've been there. That doesn't mean harvest is not a factor, but I think it is small, particularly on Jeans Run.
I would expect the population of Jeans Run to reflect the damage done by floods to the population much more than the other streams. The overall structure of the stream once it comes off the mountain is plunge, pool, plunge, pool. The gradient is extremely steep, probably on the order of 45%. I would also expect Wolf Swamp Run to have the lowest flood impact on the population, and that's what the data indicate.

 

[FarmerDave]

I think a lot of fish are dying from electrocution.

OK, I’m half joking, but it is a fact that there is a mortality rate associated with this type of sampling method. I’ve been told the effect is greater on larger fish. Unfortunately, there really is no other way to get useful data. But look at the data especially on Jean’s Run. First year, 47 trout/mile over 9 inches? Second year, zero? And look at the overall numbers.

Something to note. 47 trout/mile over 7 inches is less than 3 per 100 meters.

Lots of good ideas or opinions so far. Here is another one.

I believe these streams were under general regulation before the brook trout enhancement program. I would think the publicity of the program has increased fishing pressure. Is there any information available about numbers of anglers. Keep in mind that the Brook Trout enhancement allows all tackle. The average bait angler (not I said average, and not all) will gut hook at least a third of their catch. The average hardware angler is also going to kill fair numbers, especially if casting downstream which most spinner anglers seem to do (because it is easier). Increase the numbers of anglers, and more fish will die. Sure they will be replaced by other fish as Jack suggested, but the numbers of larger fish will decrease, and the number of smaller fish will increase. The numbers suggest that. 2008 was best or second best year in the study in all three, but worst in numbers over 7 inches.

Look, any time you create a “special” regulation, it draws more anglers. The only way to really protect the brook trout is to make them so they are not so “special.” In my opinion, this is done by one of three ways.

1. Leave them completely alone. Make them off limits to fishing,
2. Leave them somewhat alone (general regulation).
3. Add a whole lot more streams under the program so they aren’t so special.

Another thing to note.

Did they take samplings from other nearby streams that are not part of the Brook Trout enhancement program? It would help weed out environmental impact (common mode effects). Not entirely, but it would help.

What are the numbers and sizes of other trout species sampled. If they really wanted to enhance the brook trout, they would kill all the Browns and Rainbows during the sampling. But we all know that would never happen, at least not in this quarter century.

Bottom line: The data is inconclusive. No big surprise. It actually looks to me like the experiment was designed to be inconclusive.

 

[pcray1231]

I don't know much about the streams mentioned.

First, as others said, its a very small sample, and its always hard to draw conclusions from a small sample. On small brookie streams, its also hard to separate angler impact from natural fluctuations in trout populations, which tend to be quite large.

We tend to think that a large percentage of streams experience overharvest. I just don't think its true. I don't remember the numbers, but recent fish commission surveys indicated somewhere around 80% of trout caught are released.

But what they don't say, is that 90% of those that are kept are probably kept on only 20% of the streams. They so happen to be the most popular streams. The meat hunters/deep hookers/etc. (we'll call them morons), in general, don't do their homework, they just go to where they've been going for 20 years, or where their friends told them to go, and they don't work to find new streams and aren't willing to walk away from access points.

But there are lots of streams out there than don't see huge pressure. And because they're not popular, typically smaller, and require doing a little homework and/or walking to access, the pressure they do see tends to be more avid anglers. Bait, fly, or lure, these anglers tend to be more experienced, more likely to C&R, more likely to know how to increase the survival rate, and less likely to harm the resource.

Most wild brook trout streams fit this category. Yes, 1 or 2 morons can do a lot of damage, and it does happen. But make it special reg, and you bring more people, even if their generally the better type. 150 perfectly ethical anglers per year still do more damage than 15 ethical anglers and 1 moron.

There is a wild brook trout enhancement stream that I fish often, both before and after the regs were enacted. Near the access points, the regulations have had, IMO, a negative impact on the stream. While I can't say that for sure because other factors are at play, I've caught less fish, with less size there since the regs went into affect. Away from the access point, there's no change.

Personally, I think wild brook trout enhancement was enacted not to protect streams, but rather to somewhat sacrifice a handful of them. The reason is to advertise wild brook trout streams, which in the fish commission's view, is an underutilized resource. On the surface its terrible. But I don't think it's such a terrible idea. Getting people to fish for brookies is getting them to realize how many wild fish we really have. And thats how you change the truck chasing meat crowd mentality and turn them into ethical anglers. It takes time, but I don't think these guys don't care because they're selfish and hate wild trout, I think they don't care because they don't realize what many of our streams are actually capable of. To them, its not a question of stocked trout or wild trout, its stocked trout or no trout.

 

[Fishidiot]

FarmerDave,
I agree that they need samples of other creeks in the same watersheds iot provide control sample comparison. Maybe this is being done at PFBC over a longer period - I don't believe that all their survey samples are posted on the website. There is also an increasing gap between when the surveys are completed and when they're posted (in this case about 4 months). As for pressure, while your theory about "special regs" makes sense, for waters such as these, short of mounting trail cameras, I don't see how they can get an accurate count of anglers. I am curious, on what basis do you make your claim that hardware anglers casting down and across will increase mortality? In all my years of fishing streamers down and across (and using hardware for trout and bass) I don't believe that the fish are hooked any deeper. Frankly, I hook trout and bass deepest on flies with dries and poppers.

 

[afishinado]

Fishidiot,

As a former lure/bait angler, I would rate treble hooks on lures as the number killer of trout - even behind bait fishing with single hooks. Just my opinion / experience. I rarely have a problem releasing a trout quickly and without harm with barbless flies of any kind.

Here is an interesting study on trout mortality from fishing:

http://www.dftu.org/Clippings/MD_mort_study.htm

 

[KenU]

There are so many things going on in these streams that the sampling process simply can’t account for. Brookies move with the seasons as water temperatures and levels fluctuate. Floods, droughts etc. have already been covered, so I won’t go into that. The problem I have with the Brook Trout Enhancement Program is that it is confined to so few streams (actually short stream sections). Drawing conclusions is almost impossible.

Trout simply can’t grow much bigger than about 10 inches in small, infertile, freestone streams. Trout need big water, lots of food and time to grow. These resources simply aren’t available in tiny, infertile freestones. Of course brookies can and did get really big in limestone streams, but these are now mostly dominated by brown trout. However, Chaz knows a couple that are producing some really nice brookies and has the pictures to prove it.

In the past, the really great freestones like Kettle Creek, Loyalsock and Sinnemahoning grew brookies we can only dream about today.. They averaged around 9 inches, 12-inch brookies were not unusual and they occasionally reached 20 inches.

In the days just before and after the turn of the 20th-Century, brook trout were able to utilize the whole expanse of big freestone stream systems. They spawned in the headwaters then and still do. But trout can’t grow big in these tiny infertile waters ... never did and never will.

Brookies were once able to move downstream into bigger waters as they grew in order to capitalize on the bigger forage base there. These waters typically got too warm for brook trout (and even brown trout) most summers) so they moved upstream into tributaries and headwaters for the summer. By fall they would be well up into the headwaters and spawned. After spawning, when the winter rains came, they dropped back down into the bigger waters for the winter. Old angling literature describes these movements in great detail.

Now, we treat these bigger, downstream waters as if they can no longer hold wild brook trout. And in some cases that may be true. But we will never know unless we change the way we manage our brook trout waters, Stocking and plundering the larger waters that can hold brook trout for the critical period from November to early summer has taken away a very critical part of the habitat needed by brook trout in order to grow large.

The fact that trout need to be able to move in order to thrive is finally being acknowledged by enlightened fisheries people all over the country. Well-connected stream sections are needed for brook trout to thrive and grow to sizes in excess of ten inches. A few miles of small infertile water here and there simply won’t do it. The Kettle Creek section under the Brook Trout Enhancement Program is perhaps big enough to do the trick. But even there, brookies are still under assault in the really big, fertile downstream waters where they once grew to sizes described in old angling literature.

 

[bigjohn58]

This type of topic comes up every winter. Regs do no good at all if no one enforces them and at least where I live they are rarely if ever enforced. Our enforcement officers would be more concerned about a rattle snake kill then fish being poached. Regulated waters have both positive and negative side effects and honestly for me its mostly negative especially if no one ever enforces the laws. I'd be willing to pay more for a license if I knew the WCOs were doing their job and as often as I'm on the stream I should definitely be seeing them a lot more. Oh and don't someone tell me that they are undercover or around more then I think they are. I know the WCO in my area and he's nearly worthless.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

I agree with every statement above by every person above. Having fished mostly unmentionable small streams this past year on my trips to NW PA, I hope the BTEP is not expanded. I'd personally like to see those monies spent on acid and iron ore abatement and the regulation of oil/gas drillling, development, and deforestation. Just a persepective from someone who sees more herons, snakes, and brook trout over 9" than fisherman on the streams he chooses to fish.

 

[Mike]

Farmer Dave: Regarding the brook trout special regulations, there are "control" streams (non-special reg streams) being examined as well, which will help reveal the impact (or probable lack thereof) of the special regs on the streams included in the brook trout special reg program.

As I have said many times in this forum, the fishing pressure and harvest are very low Pennsylvania's wild trout streams. Few receive substantial pressure. Combine that with the difficult freestone environment, where natural forces have a much greater impact on fish populations than the existing fishing pressure, and you're not likely to have a special regulation impact.

Regarding the need for large water to have large brook trout, we still have many brook trout streams that are tributaries to very lightly fished (if at all) larger waters, yet we still don't find large brook trout in the bigger waters or the tribs. For this larger water scenario to play out, the tribs that served as summer refugia would also have to have large fish habitat, and lots of it, if the tribs were to support populations of large trout to the extent that these fish would be numerous enough to provide an interesting fishery in the larger water during the spring.

 

[Chaz]

Even the streams that are lightly fished the big brookies are being found out, or have no protection in the larger waters. Take for instance Pine Creek (Big Pine), I've caught wild brookies as far downstream as Babb Creek. There are a fair number of big brookies in Slate Run, but no regulations on Pine Creek to protect brook trout. Both Babb and Slate Run have Big brookie habitat. However in the case of Babb Creek there is no protection, and in Slate Run drainage the tributaries are not protected. So even though Slate Run is no kill you can go to the refugia and kill as many brookies as the law allows.
The big freestone streams always had migratory populations of brookies and still do, the difference is, because of fishing pressure in Pine, Sinnemahoning, and Kettle and some other big freestone streams we just don't see the numbers of big brookies we could see. I can tell you that big brookies get big because they are either protected or not fished for, in some of the streams I've found big brookies in fishable numbers, some of the populations are down, way down. One can make the argument that it is harvest, but you could make the argument that it is other factors too, I say where we find them we should take harvest out of the equation and figure out why they are where they are and try to preserve those populations.
Heavy fishing pressure may trump everything, populations of big browns aren’t as high in more recent surveys of Slate Run and Cedar Run as the once were. Whether this is because of harvest or the influences of nature we can’t be sure because we really don’t have the data. Unfortunately we may never have the data.

 

[KenU]

Mike Said:

"Regarding the need for large water to have large brook trout, we still have many brook trout streams that are tributaries to very lightly fished (if at all) larger waters, yet we still don't find large brook trout in the bigger waters or the tribs. For this larger water scenario to play out, the tribs that served as summer refugia would also have to have large fish habitat, and lots of it, if the tribs were to support populations of large trout to the extent that these fish would be numerous enough to provide an interesting fishery in the larger water during the spring."

Small freestone streams did not grow large brook trout, even in “The Good Old Days.” That’s a fact! But, they did provide refuge from elevated water temperatures that regularly occurred in the lower and larger stream sections during the summer. I can’t imagine why they could not still function as summer refugia. I fish them and catch lots of brookies there from 2 to 10 and even occasionally 11 inches, all summer long. As long as there are sufficient pools and larger pockets of cold water, there is no reason brook trout a foot or longer could not survive the summer in these places. And there is some food available (YOY and small siblings make fine fare).

PA’s limestone streams still provide adequate food and favorable water temperatures year-round. But these are pretty much dominated by brown trout, many to the point where the brook trout population has been extirpated. Where brook trout are still present in sympatry with brown trout, the brook trout tend to be smaller in size. Studies indicate that because brown trout average slightly larger in size, they are able to take, hold and dominate better streams positions than brook trout.

It is pretty well established that when trout approach about ten inches, growth slows significantly unless they have access to large and abundant prey species. Without access to more abundant invertebrates (and more importantly minnows and crayfish), weight gains during the spring and early summer become insufficient to support reproduction and the rigors of winter. After spawning in the fall, trout must carry the fat reserves needed to sustain them thru the winter, otherwise they starve. In the early spring, larger brook trout in small infertile streams are typically emaciated. They look like pencils with fins! And I’m sure, many do not survive.

Now the lower, larger, downstream waters are considered to be unable to support wild trout and are therefore heavily stocked and fished during the spring. Few wild brook trout of legal size or larger escape the creel and, even if the do, they are under constant pressure from the freshly stocked hordes of hatchery trout, which compete with them for food and living space. Brook trout, and for that matter all trout, need whole stream systems in order to survive and grow large. That is why we are making such an effort now to re-connect stream sections by removing barriers to migration and provide access to as much of the system as possible. Imagine for a minute how big salmon or steelhead would get if they could no longer utilize oceans and lakes to expand their forage bases. They don’t spawn in these big bodies of water, but without them they would not exist.

 

[troutbert]

Re: "Special Regs; Good or Bad?"

In MD there are some wild trout streams under a 2 fish per day bag limit. Would you call that a "special" regulation?

If you are going to try to determine whether "special" regs are good or bad, you have to define your terms.

 

[tomgamber]

troutbert wrote:
Re: "Special Regs; Good or Bad?"

In MD there are some wild trout streams under a 2 fish per day bag limit. Would you call that a "special" regulation?

If you are going to try to determine whether "special" regs are good or bad, you have to define your terms.

yes I would call those special regs..an one I'd like to see here....this thread has dealt mainly with the special "Brook Trout Enhancement" catch and release regs that are on a few streams right now...I'd say that's pretty defined.