WBTE

[The_Sasquatch]

So is the WBTE program officially done? I was up at camp this past weekend, drove along Lyman Run. Didn't see any of the signs on the trees anymore, just the big wooden signs at the beginning and end of the 5+ mile section.

Will these streams just be managed under standard Class A regs?

 

[LetortAngler]

Pretty sure its still in effect. The 2015 Summary book has this stream and the others listed still under the WBTE regs.

 

[troutbert]

LetortAngler wrote:
Pretty sure its still in effect. The 2015 Summary book has this stream and the others listed still under the WBTE regs.

That's true. It's still on the PFBC website also.

Maybe someone just took the signs down because they disagree with the regs. People do that pretty often.

 

[Maurice]

The elimination of the WBTE program is one of the regs changes in the proposal #264 up for public comment until May 4.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Okay I wasn't sure if it was gone already or not. I've just never seen all the signs gone like that. For anyone who has ever driven along the stream, those signs were quite frequent and numerous.

 

[Chaz]

Someone, a local local probably took the signs down, they were there last fall.

 

[Chaz]

Maurice wrote:
The elimination of the WBTE program is one of the regs changes in the proposal #264 up for public comment until May 4.

They snuck that one in there, why are they writing all this stuff into a massive proposal. I smell a conspiracy. Where's my tin foil hat?

 

[troutbert]

This is the language used:

"(7) The Commission proposes eliminating § 65.13 in its entirety because based on peer reviewed and published scientific research on the waters within this program, the Commission’s staff have determined that this regulation is ineffective. If the program is eliminated, waters currently in the program will be distributed to other programs."

And that is under:

"#264 Subject: Simplification and consolidation of regulations"

 

[Luke]

So, I am interested in what members think of the proposal to eliminate the WBTE program? We had a lot of dialogue about Center-Pinning, but very little about this other substanative change.

On the surface, I would think that we would support the WBTE program as it forces catch and release on the streams we wish to protect. How do we feel about allowing people to keep these fish so long as they are 7" long or bigger? Do we agree with the scientific research conclusion directly below?

The Commission proposes eliminating § 65.13 in its entirety because based on peer reviewed and published scientific research on the waters within this program, the Commission’s staff have determined that this regulation is ineffective. If the program is eliminated, waters currently in the program will be distributed to other programs.

Here is the section of the regulations to be eliminated:

[§ 65.13. Wild brook trout enhancement.
(a) The Executive Director, with the approval of the Commission, may designate waters as “Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Regulations” waters. The designation shall be effective upon publication of a notice of designation in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.
(b) It is unlawful to fish in designated “Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Regulations” waters except in compliance with the following requirements:
(1) Brook trout may not be killed or had in possession.
(2) There is no closed season for brook trout.
(3) There are no tackle restrictions.
(4) Other trout species shall be subject to Statewide regulations (including seasons, sizes and creel limits).
(5) A current trout/salmon permit is required.]

Maybe i should have posted this seperately in the "Conservation" forum. I hope that I did not take your thread too off-track Sasquatch.

 

[Chaz]

My feeling is that the size limit on all streams should be raised to 9 inches, because PFBC doesn't stock fish smaller then that. Otherwise roll all of them into the C & R ALO program.

 

[Luke]

Chaz wrote:
My feeling is that the size limit on all streams should be raised to 9 inches, because PFBC doesn't stock fish smaller then that. Otherwise roll all of them into the C & R ALO program.

Chaz, this make a lot of sense to me!

Personally, things that result in less signs on trees are welcome. As the Five Man Electrical Band sang....

Oh, sign, sign everywhere a sign
Blocking up the scenery, breaking my mind
Do this, don't do that, can't you read the sign

 

[KenU]

The conclusions of any report are only as good as the data. Conditions in freestone streams are so variable that reliability of the conclusions stated in the paper are highly suspect. Yes, it was peer reviewed, but it misses the main point. Actually, it doesn't miss it so much as it does not address the main point.

I refer to this statement in the conclusions:

“However, applying more restrictive angling regulations will likely not have the desired results of increased abundance of larger fish if voluntary CR is high prior to regulation implementation, angler use is low, and thus together, angling mortality is low and does not comprise a considerable portion of the total annual mortality.”

Can't disagree with that statement, but there’s a big “if” in there.

Angling mortality is not necessarily low in stocked streams. In addition, anglers tend to remove the larger, faster growing, and more reproductively successful fish from the gene pool. This is probably not inconsequential. Human impacts have very seriously reduced both the average size and number of brook trout throughout Pennsylvania over the last hundred or more years. Brook trout have been driven into upstream waters where life is tenuous and brief. That's why they no longer achieve historical sizes. Resources are scant in small freestone streams and competition from hatchery trout cannot be assumed to be irrelevant. I maintain that the increased angling pressure and subsequent harvesting that stocking encourages are seriously depressing brook trout size and numbers. I feel confident that those who regularly fish our native brook trout streams would agree.

I would very much like to see this type of study done on some of our better native brook trout streams that are close to the road and currently being managed as put-and-take waters. And there are many!

 

[FarmerDave]

Luke wrote:

Chaz wrote:
My feeling is that the size limit on all streams should be raised to 9 inches, because PFBC doesn't stock fish smaller then that. Otherwise roll all of them into the C & R ALO program.

Chaz, this make a lot of sense to me!

Personally, things that result in less signs on trees are welcome.

Good to see I'm not the only one who thinks this.

 

[Swattie87]

I don’t think removing the WBTE reg from the handful of streams across the state that have it will have a material effect on anything either way. It was basically a reg to test to see if changing from general regs on these streams would make for better and bigger Brookie populations. Based on the control studies it seemed to have little effect, and other factors like habitat, high water events, droughts, etc seemed to have more of an impact on fish populations in these streams (and their associated control streams) than did fishing pressure or harvest. Fair enough, if it’s not making a difference and the results of the “test” have been obtained, why keep the reg?

Makes sense and is in line with my own personal anecdotal evidence from fishing…the biggest thing I’ve found that makes a good Brookie stream is habitat. Lots of small plunge pools and pocket water…this is usually found in relatively steep streams, and generally the higher biomass Brookie streams are pretty steep and/or have a gravel/boulder stream bottom that lends itself to lots of little pockets and cover.

I think in general, most people fishing these streams don’t have much of an interest in harvesting fish anyway…they are small. The one exception is the guy who likes to fry up the little ones whole, and intentional targets the little ones for “Brookie Fries” or “Gem Chips” or the like. I have seen evidence of this before streamside on occasion, and that guy is gonna engage in that behavior no matter what the reg is. My opinion on Trout management…everyone else has one, so why shouldn’t I?:

Class C or better wild population in stream section – Don’t stock it. I have fished plenty of “C’s” that are viable, good fishing, wild Trout streams. Some years a C is an A based on natural fluctuation in the population as described above, and vice versa.

Class D or no natural reproduction in stream section – Stock it if desired.

If a stream section is unstocked – 2 Trout/angler per day. This is enough for a streamside lunch or dinner if so desired. Most of these fish are likely to be wild, and the people who fish them generally don’t harvest fish most of the time.

If a stream is stocked – 5 Trout/angler per day. These will most likely be stockies in these streams and help satisfy those who like to eat a few, and freeze or smoke a few for later.

Minimum size 8” in either case. Do away with all the tackle restrictions, except netting, etc. Fish how you like. Imagine the paper I could save in the reg book!

 

[k-bob]

swattie: "Makes sense and is in line with my own personal anecdotal evidence from fishing…the biggest thing I’ve found that makes a good Brookie stream is habitat. Lots of small plunge pools and pocket water…this is usually found in relatively steep streams, and generally the higher biomass Brookie streams are pretty steep and/or have a gravel/boulder stream bottom that lends itself to lots of little pockets and cover."


+1 ... my anecdotal experience is that habitat (as swattie describes) and headwaters geology are much better predictors of good brookie fishing than access and likely fishing pressure.

I just fished a super-remote long/ walk brookie stream, normal fishing in numbers and size, but loved the wilderness trip back 2+ mi from the car. but I was not at all surprised to catch the biggest fish of the day just before packing up, in the bigger pool that is created by the bridge... right by the car.

I was once given permission to fish heavily posted private land by owners who wanted to know if a stream 1.5 mi from a road has fish ... it does, but not many (low buffering headwaters geology).

if finding great ST fishing was really as simple as walking to places with lower fishing pressure, we'd all know it by now... imho the really big factors in ST size and abundance - habitat and fertility (as driven by geology) - overwhelm any ez-access or cropping issue, with only rare exceptions.

geology, habitat, AMD, and acid rain don't care about harvest or access...

 

[troutbert]

To improve brook trout populations the single most important thing that could be done is to end stocking over native brook trout.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

I'm still not sure what they were hoping to accomplish with the program. We already know harvesting is not why we don't see larger brookies.

I would have put the regs in on a stream where the habitat can support larger, "legal size" brook trout, and I would have required the killing of ALL invasive species, particularly brown and rainbow trout, regardless of the size. Give the brookies as much advantage as possible and see what would happen. I've only ever fished 2 of the streams on this list (Lyman and the upper reaches of Kettle), but I know that on Lyman, I usually don't catch brookies in the bigger pools up towards the lake. I have to get a few miles in, on skinnier water, before its all brook trout. It's browns and "lake run rainbows" in the stretches closer to the lake. Get those invasives out of there so that the brookies could start occupying bigger holding water again, it might be interesting to see what would happen. I also wouldn't make streams that are upstream of a large, stocked mountain lake on the list, as stocked fish often run up the stream and pollute the stream.

I really don't care what they do with the program. Seems like it was a big joke to begin with. We don't see more legal size brookies because of habitat, not because of harvesting. My biggest concern is that the handful of streams get some kind of protection. C&R FFO or C&R ALO, something like that.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

troutbert wrote:
To improve brook trout populations the single most important thing that could be done is to end stocking over native brook trout.

Come on. We know THAT has no effect on wild fish, dude! *cough cough*

 

[troutbert]

The_Sasquatch wrote:

troutbert wrote:
To improve brook trout populations the single most important thing that could be done is to end stocking over native brook trout.

Come on. We know THAT has no effect on wild fish, dude! *cough cough*

Has anyone taken that position?

 

[The_Sasquatch]

I don't really know if anyone has come right out and said that, but as long as the fish commission stocks over native populations, I will assume that they take that position. I mean, they ARE "resource first", so surely they would not do anything that they believe has a negative impact on native populations.