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


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 2 (3) 4 5 6 ... 21 »


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 21729
Offline
Happy reading:

I'll look forward to all the efforts to explain this away and describe why it has no application to Pennsylvania's brook trout streams:

http://www.nps.gov/grsm/parknews/brooktroutassess.htm

(Note the description of brook trout as "resilient."*)

www.nps.gov/grsm/naturescience/upload/fishing-study.pdf


* Thesaurus Entry: fragile
Near Antonyms: firm, solid, substantial; elastic, flexible, resilient

Posted on: 2009/3/10 14:59
_________________
I don't like spinach, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked it I'd eat it, and I just hate it. --Clarence Darrow


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2008/7/18 1:55
Posts: 17
Offline
Jack M,

The NPS can do this because they don't have to answer to or represent the opinion of the fishing public like other state fish management agencies...like the PFBC.

I believe that in a lot of cases special regs are in affect for social reasons and not biological especially for species like brook trout that mature at a young age.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 15:06


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 21729
Offline
Note to RLeeP: the Smokies study touches on the issue you raise. Those "habitat" factors did their damage many years ago. The current state of our mountain freestones is stable or improving (as I think pcray mentioned). What the few good studies seem to suggest is that harvest is not effecting the new (admittedly reduced) carrying capacity of these streams.

While it may be true that turning hundreds of anglers loose on a small mountain freestoner with emerald shiners and redworms with instructions to keep anything over 7 inches would probably effect the stream for a year or two, as Mike (our PFBC mole) would likely remind us, harvest just does not happen to this extent under current regulations. I don't doubt that there might be an isolated brookie stream or dozen that actually have been impacted by harvest; however, this would not make the stream or the fish "fragile" any more than the allowing 10 lumberjacks to hack away with axes at a mature oak tree would make such a tree "fragile" because it finally succumbs and falls to the ground.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 15:17
_________________
I don't like spinach, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked it I'd eat it, and I just hate it. --Clarence Darrow


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2009/2/19 19:59
From Mont Co, Pa
Posts: 1872
Offline
Quote:

JackM wrote:
Happy reading:

I'll look forward to all the efforts to explain this away and describe why it has no application to Pennsylvania's brook trout streams:

http://www.nps.gov/grsm/parknews/brooktroutassess.htm

(Note the description of brook trout as "resilient."*)

www.nps.gov/grsm/naturescience/upload/fishing-study.pdf


* Thesaurus Entry: fragile
Near Antonyms: firm, solid, substantial; elastic, flexible, resilient

Interesting read Jack. No effort needed though, you explained it away yourself with the last nine words.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 15:21
_________________
Protect the resource, let them go!


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 21729
Offline
"I'm sorry, Judge, but that case has no applicability to the one before you because the defendant's name is Browne, whereas my client's name is Brown."

Posted on: 2009/3/10 15:23
_________________
I don't like spinach, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked it I'd eat it, and I just hate it. --Clarence Darrow


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 12960
Offline
I would say brook trout individuals are fragile. Brook trout populations, on the other hand, are resilient. At least they are resilient to things like harvest.

They are not resilient to environmental factors like all of the other factors mentioned. And I believe it was wildtrout who mentioned stocking, yes, this will harm a wild brook trout population. But the question of whether to stock, and whether to limit harvest, are separate discussions. There is nothing saying that open regulations mean it has to be stocked.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 15:36


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2006/9/9 22:44
Posts: 701
Offline
Jack...you get an 'A' for finding something on the web that supports your argument .

Posted on: 2009/3/10 15:43


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19932
Offline
Quote:

vcregular wrote:
Jack...you get an 'A' for finding something on the web that supports your argument .


That was the challenge, no? It's an internet forum. Any call for evidence carries the implication that web-based results are to be expected.

However, the statistically insignificant claims of the OP are without any justification or support at all.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 15:48


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 21729
Offline
Well, I had the Smokies experiment in mind from the moment I posted on this thread because it is the only study I am aware of that dealt with the issue of whether harvest is a significant limiting factor in brook trout populations in mountain freestones.

It was easy to "find," though, because all I did was search for "Smoky Mountains Brook Trout Study" and those two links were right at the top.

Maybe someone can find a study demonstrating that eastern brook trout in mountain freestones are impacted by harvest-- but, I have great doubts.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 15:53
_________________
I don't like spinach, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked it I'd eat it, and I just hate it. --Clarence Darrow


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 21729
Offline
Incidentally, I think it was the first link that mentioned that studies in nearby states reached similar conclusions. Let me see if I can find that reference.

Ok, here is what I was recalling:

"Brook trout distribution data from surrounding states for this same time period also demonstrates that existing populations have remained relatively stable for the last 30 years. These findings refuted the 1970’s predictions that brook trout range loss was a systematic and irreversible process."

It really didn't suggest the "surrounding states" studies dealt specifically with harvest issues. Nonetheless, since those states probably allow harvest on brookie streams and the ranges and populations have "remained stable," we might surmise that harvest practice under standard regulations is not having a significant impact.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 15:55
_________________
I don't like spinach, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked it I'd eat it, and I just hate it. --Clarence Darrow


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2006/9/10 21:53
From Greensburg, PA
Posts: 13614
Offline
Quote:

Fly_Fisher wrote:
Maybe they're not that fragile....relatively speaking.

However, you muck up the habitat then you have problems


I like this statement...it tells me that its the habitat that needs protection, not the fish. That's something many have always said on this board. It also has nothing to do with fishing regulations.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 15:58


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 21729
Offline
I agree that habitat is the issue and think that greater efforts improving habitat-- and I don't mean more logs and rebar-- would be a more efficacious move than would restricting fishing technique or harvest regulations. My experience on brookie streams is limited, but from my casual contacts, I see low total alkalinity as a big issue. All the mountain freestones with total alkalinity of above, say, 15 are good bets for robust populations. I assume this has a big impact on the forage base and contributes to a higher carrying capacity and also greater growth rates, but fisheries biology is not within my expertise.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 16:12
_________________
I don't like spinach, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked it I'd eat it, and I just hate it. --Clarence Darrow


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2006/9/18 8:28
From Attitudinally, one mile south of Lake LeBoeuf
Posts: 811
Offline
I understand what you are saying Jack and for the most part I do not disagree.

I simply objected to the notion that in an overall picture of health in a trout population, regs are irrelevant (or completely separate) as a component of a management strategy to conserve a population that is already undergoing other stresses. I realize this is not *exactly* what you suggested, but it seems the logical conclusion of the line of reasoning you were following.

Again, I tend to see this more holistically and feel that both regs and environment/habitat stresses are components of a single equation that can determine the overall well being of a trout population.

Otherwise, we're pretty close to being in the same chapter, although probably not on the same page..

Posted on: 2009/3/10 16:13


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2006/9/18 8:28
From Attitudinally, one mile south of Lake LeBoeuf
Posts: 811
Offline
>>First,

BFC is hardly a representative case of wild brook trout streams. It is far different than your run of the mill brookie stream, and faces different pressures.>>

Unless I suffered a fugue and missed some posts (an increasing possibility), I think the Fishing Creek under discussion here is one of the branches of the big freestone version in Sullivan and Columbia counties and not BFC, as in Big Fishing Creek in Clinton County.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 16:16


Re: Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

Joined:
2009/2/19 19:59
From Mont Co, Pa
Posts: 1872
Offline
Quote:

RLeeP wrote:
>>First,

BFC is hardly a representative case of wild brook trout streams. It is far different than your run of the mill brookie stream, and faces different pressures.>>

Unless I suffered a fugue and missed some posts (an increasing possibility), I think the Fishing Creek under discussion here is one of the branches of the big freestone version in Sullivan and Columbia counties and not BFC, as in Big Fishing Creek in Clinton County.

No, you didn't miss anything. I was indeed referring to the West Branch of Fishing Creek in Sullivan Co SGL 13 earlier. The one that used to have "Class A Wild Trout Stream" status. For whatever that's worth.

Posted on: 2009/3/10 16:30
_________________
Protect the resource, let them go!



« 1 2 (3) 4 5 6 ... 21 »



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
What kind of streams do you primarily fish?
Approved Trout Waters (Stocked Fish)
Class A Wild Trout Streams
Special Regulation Areas
Wilderness Trout Streams
No Preference All Trout Streams
154 total votes!
The poll will close at 2014/4/30 15:00
4 Comments
USGS Water Levels





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