Statewide stocked trout catch and release rates

[Mike]

There was some mention of stocked trout catch and release rates in another post. I assume that reference was being made to the regular stocked trout waters under statewide regs as opposed to special reg waters. There is no need to speculate about the stocked trout catch and release rates in Pa. The results from the relatively recent statewide stocked trout creel survey were clear in this regard: Anglers fishing stocked trout streams in the spring caught, on average, slightly more than one trout per hour fished; 63.1% of those fish were subsequently released. (On opening day on the urban stream that I surveyed around 70 percent of the trout that were caught were released).

As a sidebar: With respect to the release rates of wild trout in unstocked wild trout streams, the statewide wild trout stream creel survey showed that 92.7% of wild trout were released.

 

[Maurice]

Mike,

Because the creel survey is based on legal harvest of trout size limits are an obvious factor. For instance, at 63.7%-70.% released in statewide and urban creel surveys, it can be assumed near all the trout released were of legal size.

Conversly, in wild trout streams where legal sized trout are a very small percentage of the trout caught, issuing a 92% release rate when perhaps 90% of the trout caught could not be harvested anyway is misleading. I would like to know of the wild trout caught, what is the percentage of trout that were legal to keep in the first place? And as a result, what percentage that were caught over the legal size limit are harvested? I would venture to guess it is closer to 50%.

{edit} This is assuming the streams are smaller streams, 2-7m wide.

How big were the wild trout streams?


Maurice

 

[LehighRegular]

Conversly, in wild trout streams where legal sized trout are a very small percentage of the trout caught, issuing a 92% release rate when perhaps 90% of the trout caught could not be harvested anyway is misleading. I would like to know of the wild trout caught, what is the percentage of trout that were legal to keep in the first place? And as a result, what percentage that were caught over the legal size limit are harvested? I would venture to guess it is closer to 50%.

IMO - this piece of information is vital to the assesment of the wild trout survey and the affects on a wild trout fishery.

Also, IMO, creel surveys only give a snap shot of how many fish are being creeled. These surveys should not be construed, or soley relied upon, to say that anglers are not creeling 5 fish (or more illegally in some cases) a day in other locations/streams, wild or stocked. The effects of creeling 5 fish on a wild trout stream (esp small streams) can have an affect on the population and size distribution of trout for that given stream.

 

[JackM]

As long as we are speculating, I have my own suspicion that less than 20% of anglers fishing on wild trout streams are even looking to harvest. Of those, less than half are catching more than a couple fish over 7". I have never heard any documented case of wild trout populations being harmed by over-harvest in the modern era-- maybe this was the case in the early part of last century.

 

[JustFish]

Once again JackM I agree with you. I think the biggest predator for wild and native trout is over development and pollution.

 

[MKern]

JustFish,
The largest Predator to wild fish is a larger wild fish.

However, drastic population changes result from instant polution (fertilizer spill), development (if streamside vegatation is disturbed), and extreme weather (floods, droubts) (but weather is the leat out of those three - there has been these changes throughout time, and the fish are still here).

 

[JackM]

In wild trout streams, the trout themselves are typically the largest underwater predator. As for true predation, I think birds and four-footed mammals probably are a greater threat than angling man.

 

[JustFish]

MKern wrote:
JustFish,
The largest Predator to wild fish is a larger wild fish.

However, drastic population changes result from instant polution (fertilizer spill), development (if streamside vegatation is disturbed), and extreme weather (floods, droubts) (but weather is the leat out of those three - there has been these changes throughout time, and the fish are still here).

Mkern come further south closer to me and you will actually see what over development actually does to a stream. Sometimes I feel as if I am surf fishing rather than fishing in a stream for trout. Due to all the silt build up. Mayflie hatches few far and between on most streams I fish due to excessive runoff. Wild trout?????????????????????????.........A couple of streams, however, reproduction isn't possible on most due to the excessive runoff. This isn't my opinion these are surveys that I have read from the DEP. Down hear and up there are two different worlds my friend. Valley Creek is staying alive due to VFTU and their efforts and the hundred of thousands of dollars they spend in consultant fees to fend off from excessive runoff from developers. If TU had the financial support to help all of the streams I know they would.

When I used the word predator I wasn't speaking literally! A guy I know moved to Mongtgomery county from Brooklyn thirty years ago and he said his biggest worry was where he was going to get milk. Now he is planting trees so he doesn't have to look at the 500 $600,000 dollar house being built behind his. This pattern in SEPA is becoming the norm. So over developing might not be an issue in other parts of PA but one day it will be and it will have a major impact on streams that aren't effected today.

 

[afishinado]

Perhaps 63% of stocked trout are released, but from my experience, and my observations from being out on a ATW this weekend, most of the releasing was done after the angler caught their limit. 90% + of the anglers I saw had a stringer or creel with them.

Also, I assume that you got your data from angler interviews to determine how many fish were caught vs. how many were kept. Since when do you consider a fisherman’s story of what he caught as being reliable? They’re (we’re) all liars!

With respect to wild trout. I agree that the vast majority of wild trout anglers do not keep their fish, but if Jack’s number of 20% of anglers do look to harvest fish on wild trout streams, a small stream could be depleted of adult trout in short order. I’ll give you an example – Saucon Creek in Northampton County has a wild trout water section under trophy trout regulations. If you fish the SR section, you will find that there are some decent fish to catch. Cross into the open water section and you are hard pressed to even catch one fish 7” or greater. I’ve seen it time and time again. If this were not the case, why even have a trophy trout designation?

 

[LehighRegular]

20% of anglers fishing on wild trout streams are even looking to harvest. Of those, less than half are catching more than a couple fish over 7". I have never heard any documented case of wild trout populations being harmed by over-harvest in the modern era-- maybe this was the case in the early part of last century.

So your saying 10%of those anglers want to keep fish. Depending on the skill of the angler and size of the stream, you don't think that 10% at 5 fish (or even 2 fish) a day can't effect fish populations. Think again!!!

As for documented cases of over-harvest in the modern era - then why the need for C&R regulations?????


Every stream is different and has differing factors that limit trout population and size distribution. I realize fisheries management is a difficult job and balancing act...but I would think we should err on the side of conservation than the latter.

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:
As long as we are speculating, I have my own suspicion that less than 20% of anglers fishing on wild trout streams are even looking to harvest. Of those, less than half are catching more than a couple fish over 7". I have never heard any documented case of wild trout populations being harmed by over-harvest in the modern era-- maybe this was the case in the early part of last century.

The PFBC report on Saucon Creek, which was on their website, has been posted on this forum several times in the past. I'll let someone else dig up the link this time, if they still have it on their site.

This study showed that Saucons Creek's population soared after being changed from stocking and general regs to no stocking and protective harvest regs.

Similar results have occurred on: Spring Cr, Penns Cr, Fishing Cr, Monocacy Cr, Slate Run, Cedar Run, and Rauchtown Cr.

The before-and-after data for these streams has not ever been posted on their website, as far as I know. But some of us in TU who have an interest in such things have seen the data. It's public information and the PFBC will provide it if you ask for it.

It's interesting that so many anglers are agreeing that harvest has no effect on trout populations. But they won't post the names of good brook trout streams.

 

[troutbert]

Mike wrote:
There was some mention of stocked trout catch and release rates in another post. I assume that reference was being made to the regular stocked trout waters under statewide regs as opposed to special reg waters. There is no need to speculate about the stocked trout catch and release rates in Pa. The results from the relatively recent statewide stocked trout creel survey were clear in this regard: Anglers fishing stocked trout streams in the spring caught, on average, slightly more than one trout per hour fished; 63.1% of those fish were subsequently released. (On opening day on the urban stream that I surveyed around 70 percent of the trout that were caught were released).

Those are interesting numbers but they don't tell you the percentage of stocked fish removed the first day.

The number released isn't even relevant in this. What is relevant is the number of trout HARVESTED. Dividing the number harvested by the number stocked gives you this percentage.

One guy can release a trout, but a half hour later another guy can catch it and creel it. It's the number harvested, not the number released, that is significant.

 

[JackM]

troutbert wrote:

This study showed that Saucons Creek's population soared after being changed from stocking and general regs to no stocking and protective harvest regs.

You mention two changes to the stream: cessation of stocking and protective harvest regulations. Why would the harvest regs garner your attention over eliminating stocking?

Let's focus on the variable you ignored:

1. Stocked trout compete for food and cover against the wild trout;

2. Ending the stocking program essentially reduces the population by eliminating trout that would otherwise have added to the total stream population;

3. The wild trout thrive.

What does that say about the effect of "removing trout from the population," i.e. harvest?

 

[Maurice]

troutbert wrote:
One guy can release a trout, but a half hour later another guy can catch it and creel it. It's the number harvested, not the number released, that is significant.

This is especially true on small wild trout streams. For instance, if I catch a trout that is of legal size and release it only to have it harvested, I cannot go back and catch it again, nor can you or even the guy who harvested it.

On the other hand, if a guy harvests a trout of legal size and I fish there, I cannot catch that trout either.

This isn't rocket science.....think of it like your check book. You have money in there, you try to be frugal with it and spend it at a lesser rate than it is replenished. When along comes Mr Harvest and takes money out.....at a rate faster than you can replenish it. Now you don't have it to spend anymore.

Alls I'm saying is....if a guy fishes a small wild trout stream and he catches 25 fish with 2 over legal size limit and keeps them both, he just harvested 8% of his catch and released 92%. Now, think about it....he kept all the trout that were legal. Another guy comes in and catches the same number and distribution and releases them all....and another comes in and does the same and keeps the two.


The big question is size distribution toward population. I believe there should be goal to maintain a certain number or percentage of a class A population greater than the legal size limit and stop treating wild trout like they are stockd trout. They are not stocked so why should the regulations be the same.

If stocked trout are reared to be harvested and have a creel limit designed to allow for such, why on earth would an agency designed to protect the aquatic resources apply the same regulations toward a resource that is not resupplied with harvestable numbers at the same rate?

 

[LehighRegular]

If stocked trout are reared to be harvested and have a creel limit designed to allow for such, why on earth would an agency designed to protect the aquatic resources apply the same regulations toward a resource that is not resupplied with harvestable numbers at the same rate?

Now that's a novel idea....HERE HERE!!!!

 

[JackM]

seems to me your analogy may break down at this point:

" When along comes Mr Harvest and takes money out.....at a rate faster than you can replenish it. "

In addition, suppose you have way more money in the bank than you can spend and you earn and deposit more than you can spend. "Mr. Harvest" keeps skimming, but not enough to make the difference between your surplus deposits over your spending habits. Has this changed your lifestyle at all?

 

[bigjlup12]

I go to Shippensburg University so I have been fishing the local streams the last couple of days and everyone has stringer. I get funny looks when I throw fish back.

 

[Mike]

I could not tell you how many sub-legal fish vs legal fish wild trout anglers release because most don't measure their released fish ( so we don't ask). Furthermore, their estimates of what is legal and what is not legal are unreliable. What is really most important is what proportion of the legal size population is being harvested during such studies, and that is an answer that I do have. When a 76 stream sub-sample of the wild trout creel survey streams was examined by electrofishing, avg. population sizes were 76 legal brook trout per mile and 142 legal brown trout per mile. The statewide avg. harvest of brook trout was 7 per mile and the harvest of brown trout was 1 per mile. Such low harvest rates relative to population sizes are hardly going to impact your next fishing trip whether the harvesting anglers are fishing ahead of you or behind you. Furthermore, with the low harvest rate discussion of a lower creel limit is rather moot. From my personal fishing standpoint, I couldn't care less whether the harvesting anglers hit the streams before me or after me; there are plenty of legal size fish remaining in these streams and despite my well-tuned abilities , a fishing rod is just not efficient enough of a sampling tool to determine small variations in fish populations. There seem to me to be an unbelivable number of trout anglers who psyche themselves out into thinking that fishing will be poor in their favorite stream just because someone may have harvested a few fish. This is not an attitide that I see very often among anglers who fish for other species. Furthermore, fish just ahead of an electrofishing crew sometime and have yourself humbled when you see how many legal size fish never responded to your presentation and/or how many legal size fish you missed.

As for wondering why there is a need for C&R regs.... Based on the creel survey data, I wonder the same thing. The "need" must be very limited and perhaps some trout anglers, just like some consumers we read about, are confusing "wants" with "needs."

 

[tomgamber]

One good reason for C&R regs is that the stream remains open to fishing all year long...I'm for that...I hate opening day and closed seasons...if they keep moving up the opening day we might as well rid ourselves of the pseudo holiday. stocking wold be easier if you had more of the year to do it...you'd still have truck chasers but so many that now only fish for two days a year (opening weekend) they might spread themselves out and maybe they'd sell more licenses...just a thought.

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:

troutbert wrote:

This study showed that Saucons Creek's population soared after being changed from stocking and general regs to no stocking and protective harvest regs.

You mention two changes to the stream: cessation of stocking and protective harvest regulations. Why would the harvest regs garner your attention over eliminating stocking?

Let's focus on the variable you ignored:

1. Stocked trout compete for food and cover against the wild trout;

2. Ending the stocking program essentially reduces the population by eliminating trout that would otherwise have added to the total stream population;

3. The wild trout thrive.

What does that say about the effect of "removing trout from the population," i.e. harvest?

The study shows very clearly that the population went up only modestly when stocking was ended. After the special regs were put in place the population went way up.

Maybe Mike could comment on this study. The data certainly appears to be a "smoking gun" in regard to the impact of harvest on trout populations. They reduced the harvest and the population shot up like a rocket.