NY Times Chimes in on The Cost of Trout Fishing

[MD_Gene]

Posting this not to provoke a war but to encourage dialogue on the topic,

My 2 cents is that whatever we do it needs to be sustainable.

What do you think?

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/opinion/the-cost-of-trout-fishing.html?emc=eta1

 

[fishbaithohaha]

Easily solved, Mr Charles W. Thompson. Fishing licenses will now be $2,000.00 each, Trout stamps 500.00/each. Feel better Mr. Thompson?

Alternatively, the impact/cost of producing the newspapers should be reviewed. Further the cost of people living in the Boston, NY, Philadelphia, Washington corridor should be reviewed. The activity with the higher cost should be eliminated. Idiot.

 

[wgmiller]

Here's a link to his book for anyone so inclined to read it: http://www.amazon.com/The-Quest-Golden-Trout-Environmental/dp/161168319X

I always like to hear differing opinions on subjects. It makes me take a step back and take a look at the bigger picture. I don't always agree with what other people have to say, but it forces me to keep an open mind.

 

[SteveG]

Fairly obvious info in the article. But he seems to miss the point when he advocates harvesting only stockers, and releasing wild fish. How about dial back stocking heavily (eliminate completely on the best streams), and more special regs. Beyond the environmental concerns, raising fish for put and take just isn't economical.

Thats why I still think that there should be a c&r only license option.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

He doesn't just advocate C&R for wilds, it has to be NATIVE wilds. All others he correctly sees as invasive species. But the reality is, the native trout are never going to live in some streams again. I would rather have a wild, reproducing and solid, population of a non-native trout than no trout at all on streams. I think there are times that harvesting non-native trout could help restore the native range (the Smokies comes to mind), but it's not like the gemmies are going to all of a sudden reappear in the Letort or Valley Creek if we harvested all the browns.

 

[Sylvaneous]

If ANYWHERE has no valid voice for sustainability, it is a resource-sucking entity like NYC and the NYTimes. Basically, the article was a fairly snarky analysis of everything wrong with trout fishing. Of all the destructive and consumptive things the NYTimes can cover, trout stocking? If you want to see depravity and the violation of all things reasonable and holy, go see the Hamptons. Sustainability out there is passing the Range Rover down to the kids after the 3rd year.

 

[RLeep2]

Sylvaneous has it right, IMO...

I don't rely on Better Homes & Gardens or the Journal of The American Dental Association to help me choose my next mandolin; why on earth would I care what the NYT has to say about cold water fisheries management?

 

[JohnPowers]

not the NYT, guys a PhD in Earth resources but I haven't read the book and quit the article when I got the gist. I quit cheese steaks, heart...smoking, lungs...cut back on drinking after I was reminded that "words can Hurt"...I'm going to go fishing.

 

[gulfgreyhound]

Opinions are like some body parts,everyone has one.
PhD not with standing, it's his opinion. Money drives the economy and hence the "put and take' fisheries. True wild, self sustaining trout fishing might just be a pipe dream. If you want big Brook Trout look in Canada. Less people and catch and release ,and not easily accessed. GG IMO

 

[FarmerDave]

I looked past the fact that it was from the New York Times. To me, attacking the source is always lame unless I do it. ;-)

Anyway, I looked past the media source and looked at the article. I'm going to buck the trend.

Frankly, I think he has a lot of good points.

1. I see no point in C&R regulations for stocked trout.

2. If you are going to harvest wild trout, make it non-native.

3. Hatcheries do pollute and in more ways than 1.

The article is from New London Connecticut. I lived in SE Connecticut for 2 years and worked in New London. That was 30 some years ago, but maybe I can provide some perspective of where he might be coming from.

While there, I made it a point to try to find some native brook trout.

Even though clean water was about the only plentiful resource in Connecticut besides granite, it was harder than you might think to find native brook trout back then. I didn't have the internet to help me find them back then, either.

I did manage to find some. Even then, the brookie stream I found near where I lived was a mixture of brook trout and browns. I'm sure there were many more further north, but I lived along the coast.

Connecticut was terrible about stocking EVERYTHING that had road access regardless of the stream size. They were worse than PA at the time. Smaller streams just got smaller trout.

I don't know what he is talking about when he says high limits though. CT had no minimum size limit at the time, and creel limit was 5 trout clear back in 1983. So either they didn't care about natural reproduction, or assumed all trout were stocked. Afterall, why have a minimum size of all of them are stocked. Sound familiar to you older guys? The creel limit now for the stream I used to live on is now 2 with a minimum size limit of 15". I don't know if that is the general rules, or just for that stream (it has sea runs in it). That would give more protection to natives, would it not? that is, if there are any. Likely not, because it is too warm in the summer (lake upstream).

CT also seemed to stock all the lakes too and I believe some of those did have lake trout and/or landlock at one time. Many times I would be fishing in a lake for panfish and catch the occasional stocked trout.

Maybe that is where he is coming from.

Things have changed for the better in PA and from what I have read, they have in Connecticut, too. They haven't changed as much or as quickly as I would like, but changed for the better none the less.

He specifically mentioned the Salmon River and it is no exception.

So why would he give up fishing and blame it on the sorry state of it when things were markedly improving? It is vastly better than it was 100 years ago. Although stocking likely isn't helping the stream any, it was the textile industry that put the hurt on it for a couple hundred years, not trout angling. Now it's biggest problem is too many people. Yet he quit and blamed it on the harms caused by angling. Why would that be?

Somebody find out if he swallow a PITA pill and become a vegan.

Salmon River is one of the best known in the state. Is that his only experience?

Maybe he never figured out how to find streams on his own, or through the internet. ;-)

But it sounds to me like now that he has enough money to travel and can fish more pristine areas and write about them, he longs for the same in Connecticut. It aint happening cept for a few pockets and Salmon river isn't one of them.

Do I expect a stream like Penn's creek to ever be dominated by brook trout ever again? Of course not. But if I'm fishing a stream that has native brooks and wild browns in it and want to harvest a meal, I'm harvesting the browns even though they don't taste as good.;-)

 

[pcray1231]

Yeah, he has some good points, which have been pointed out here many times. I do agree that we stock in too many places. And I also agree that stocked trout fishing is often too artificial for my tastes. I mean, I can take part, but the more natural it seems the more enjoyable it is. The PFBC seems to go the other way, trying to breed bigger and bigger freakish fish, putting them in smaller and easier to access areas, etc.

What he misses is that it wasn't purely fishing pressure, hatchery pollution, and invasive species that did in large brook trout populations. In fact, the former two played almost zero effect. It's urban sprawl, logging & textiles, mine drainage, etc., that are, in the grand scheme, much more damaging. Land has been cleared resulting in siltation and warming of streams, making them unsuitable for wild brook trout.

Those TU habitat projects? umm, yeah, read the above. The original habitat has been degraded beyond recognition. These projects are trying to RESTORE something more similar to the original than what exists today.

Invasive species is a real problem. That said, that ship has sailed. I don't think modern stocking practices are contributing much if any to that problem. As he said himself, the modern stockie is genetically modified and doesn't possess the needed traits to survive in the wild. We're not seeding new populations. And, as a general rule, if say, a wild brookie population exists and you have to stock it, you want to stock bows and browns, NOT BROOKIES, as the former may hold down the brookie population but won't eliminate it or permanently damage it. Crossing the wild population with stocked brookies has the potential to permanently damage the gene pool.

As a general rule, there are a few streams I think we shouldn't stock. But they are exceptions. We stock streams that can't sustain sizable wild trout populations, and we don't stock streams that can.

Ok, now the main point.

If a national "no fishing law" were enacted tomorrow, and every hatchery shut down, and all TU habitat restoration efforts ceased immediately. This would not result in an increase in the # of streams which harbor native brook trout. Long term, it'd probably lead to a reduction as far less priority would be put on preserving watersheds. Who cares if they log the headwaters, as long as the stream still looks pretty by my house, right? But if you fish that stream, then you do care.

Which means the article brings up some valid food for thought but the premise is severely misguided. He's leaving his rod at home? His loss, as he wasn't gonna hurt anything. Regarding habitat restoration and like, he's attacking the good guys. And while I may agree on the ridiculousness of stocked trout "sportsmanship", I'm not going to use it as an excuse why native brook trout can't re-take streams that are simply too warm, silty, or polluted to hold native brook trout. And yes, brown trout are one reason brookies can't retake some streams, but it's WILD brown trout populations seeded in the 1920's, not the modern ones the PFBC is stocking.

 

[troutbert]

pcray1231 wrote:

We stock streams that can't sustain sizable wild trout populations, and we don't stock streams that can.

That's not the case at present.

It's a goal we should work for, advocate for. But it is not the existing situation in PA.

Stocking of good wild trout streams is still very common in PA, both by the PFBC, coop hatcheries, and private parties. Including stocking over native brook trout.

I wish the author of the article would have advocated for shifting of hatchery trout away from wild trout streams, and towards other waters. I think there is opportunity to make progress there.

Instead of taking what appears to be a total anti-hatchery stance. Taking that stance can harm our cause rather than help it, IMHO.

Ending stocking of trout in Wissahickon Creek or Pennypack Creek or many other waters would do nothing to improve wild trout populations let alone native trout in those streams.

 

[pcray1231]

troutbert, we likely agree, but disagree with each other on the definition of the term "exception". And in those "exceptions", our disagreement with the PFBC boils down to defining the word "sizable".

i.e. Lets say the PFBC stocks 1000 stream sections (most of which hold very few, if any wild trout). 3000 more hold wild fish and the PFBC does not stock them. And lets say there's 200 stream sections which are stocked but you and I feel shouldn't be due a reasonably strong population of wild trout, or the capability to hold as such.

Well, we'd agree with the PFBC policy on 3800 streams, and disagree on 200. I'd call those 200 stream sections "exceptions".

Now, for the word sizable. The bar the PFBC uses is the distinction between class A and class B (yes, I know a few class A's are stocked, but that's the "extreme" exception). To the PFBC, class A = sizable population and not stocked, class B = non-sizable population that should be stocked.

You and I would likely set the bar lower, and if the PFBC did so, it'd clear up the disagreement on nearly all of those 200 streams.

We can continue criticizing PFBC policy on Young Woman's, lower Bald Eagle, etc. Just putting it in perspective, we agree with the PFBC policy on more streams than we disagree. When you're dealing with thousands of separate decisions, disagreeing on only a small % is actually quite impressive.

 

[troutbert]

We don't agree (and that's OK.)

You said: "We stock streams that can't sustain sizable wild trout populations, and we don't stock streams that can."

I disagree. I don't think that is an accurate statement.

And that is not really an attack on the PFBC, it's simply stating the situation as it exists now, out on the streams.

In many cases the PFBC has tried to take many of the streams off the stocking list, and put the hatchery trout in a more appropriate place, but they got beat back by the politicians backed by the sportsmens clubs. But we should give the PFBC staff credit for trying.

Your statement gives the impression that for the most part the situation regarding stocking over wild trout is pretty good. And I've heard many people on here say similar things.

I disagree. I think most people are just not familiar with a lot of these streams, so don't realize how widespread stocking is over wild trout, including over native brook trout.

Where the coop hatcheries stock is not even published, either in print or online. So very few people know how widespread the coop stocking is over wild trout. Many of the streams they stock are streams smaller than the PFBC stocks, and many of those hold brook trout.

 

[pcray1231]

With the exception of a handful of the class A's which are stocked, is not the PFBC policy to:

1. Set a bar for wild trout biomass.
2. Sample streams.
3. If wild trout biomass is above that bar --> do not stock.
4. If wild trout biomass is below the bar, AND there exists public access, AND the water quality is high enough, AND enough fishermen want to fish there --> stock.

We disagree with the PFBC (and maybe each other, to a lesser extent) on #1: where to set the bar. But that's pretty much it. Am I wrong?

 

[Chaz]

TB and Pcray,
I would like to see PFBC do what's right as NH did years ago, set a threshold, i.e. if a stream has x biomass then it doesn't get stocked. The threshold in NH is 13 K/H. That is reasonable when there are 15,000 miles of stocked water, that's plenty of place to fish on opening day.
13 K/H is Class C, in PA there are many Class C streams that are excellent fisheries, why mess with them by dumping in a bunch of rubber fish?

 

[pcray1231]

Chaz,

In my view, PA does, for all intents and purposes, set a threshold (boundary between class A and B). I know they make the rare exception to their own rule, but the rule exists nonetheless.

I agree that it's too high and NH's threshold of 13 K/H is closer to where, if I were king, I'd set the bar. Yes, I would agree that many/most class C's offer excellent fisheries.