C&R - Extended Trout Season

[Stenonema]

Pheind makes a good point. It really is a recent thing for the PFBC to accept the notion that their stocking attempts are temporary. Recent to me being 20 years. What hasn't changed is the waters stocked with a similar view. In other words if it warms in July, who cares. With this approach many more waters could be added to stocking list. I'm not sure of the impacts of stocking on those streams however. It's all a tradeoff. We can't change one thing without changing another and all things should be considered carefully before stocking.

 

[JackM]

attackone wrote:
im confused, when is the extended season

Day after Labor Day until March 1.

 

[troutbert]

Stenonema wrote:

In other words if it warms in July, who cares. With this approach many more waters could be added to stocking list.

What stream sections do you think would be good choices for this?

This year they stocked a few trout in the Bennett Branch because an acid mine drainage treatment plant went online there. If that worked out, they probably will expand stocking there. That's big water and runs for miles.

 

[afishinado]

mcwillja wrote:
Pennsylvania should do away with opening day or at least do what New York does and have opening day April 1st, no matter what day of the week it falls on. Opening day is just a circus anymore and is only done for license sales.

Since the lion's share of revenue for the PFBC comes from fishing license sales, I would say that the circus will continue. Further, what you call a "circus" may be what another person calls a "tradition."

 

[phiendWMD]

Here is a crazy idea to generate some cash for the PFBC. Get more officers out there to write more tickets. Catch people littering, catching more than the limit, and whatever other stupid things people do. There have to be plenty of people to catch. I saw a few officers right after opening day and then its like they went on hiatus for the rest of the season.

 

[PennypackFlyer]

I agree with you PhiendWMD, however that means conflict...and people are shying away from it in fear of rapid lead poisoning (shot with a bullet). So most of the time it seams like they just close their eyes and hope the situation resolves itself.

 

[krayfish]

Hopefully I'm not speaking out of both sides of my mouth. Maybe I can clarify some of the things I've said and absorb some of the things that others have posted.

* "circus" comment. I'll bow to Tom and opening day is a tradition for some and is seen as the beginning of spring. It's a great time of year if you love the outdoors. At the same time, there are many tools slinging hooks in every direction, leaving trash, breaking laws, trespassing, etc. The PFBC should write so many tickets on that Saturday that they run out of them. There are a pretty good percentage of knuckleheads that take 2, 3 or 4 times their limit each day during the first month. I highly doubt it's because they have doctors orders for a fish only diet. They do it for bragging rights and to show how awesome they are. The bad thing is they then get their children involved and the kids think it's OK to do the same.

* "swimming pool for meat heads and stocking of marginal waters". I've always had the stance that if a stream has the ability to hold fish year round, special regulations (lower creel limits) should apply. If a stream is cold enough / clean enough to support trout all year, check for wild populations. If the fish are naturally reproducing, lower the amount of fish stocked to those waters. That then leaves more fish to toss into the put and take / marginal waters. An example would be:

"fictional spring creek #1" is mostly inhabited by wild fish. No additional stocking is required but small numbers may be stocked to enhance the 'catching' by anglers. The limit is reduced to 1 fish per day over 12". The water is open from April 1st to Oct 15th. It is completely closed to fishing from Oct 15th to April 1st to permit undisturbed spawning / hatch out.

"fictional spring creek #2" has small population of wild fish, gets a supplemental stocking trout. On this stream, creel limit is reduced to 3 fish per day.

"west branch of carp creek" which has no wild fish. The water temps exceed 80 degrees in the summer and has been on the late winter / spring stocking list for ages. This water gets the majority of stocked trout. Creel limit is reduced to 5 fish per day and the season runs from April 1st to Feb 28th. Only closed to harvest for one moth per year which is right before the opener.

 

[Stenonema]

West Branch of Carp Creek get the youth day fish derby for first day training as well.
The PFBC is massively under funded. They can't hire anymore wardens.

 

[BrookieChaser]

phiendWMD wrote:

Its funny a lot of posters here want the state to stop stocking water with wild trout and then complain about putting trout in water where they will die by July. You can't have it both ways. Maybe the answer is to make all water with wild trout C&R only with no stocking, and then dump a bunch for the circus somewhere else.

I've made my views perfectly clear on this forum. Wild trout population (regardless of biomass) = no stocking allowed.

Like I said in the other thread, you can stock warm water streams all you want in the Spring.

 

[DGC]

mcwillja wrote:

They (NY) won't stock fish until water temps are right which means some streams don't get fish until after opening day.

That is an interesting point about NY. Perhaps being just a little farther north makes a difference.

While not addressing early cold water mortality, there is another consideration for starting the season early. As follows:

PA ATW fisheries that have wild trout are the only ATWs I fish. I have long thought one of the reasons there can be a throng of anglers jerking fish out in the opening weeks, yet wild fish remain to an extent to be Class B or A, is that the water is cold and the wild fish are not that "needy" regarding nutrition at the lower temperatures, and hence don't get caught as readily. That plus we frequently have relatively unstealthy anglers about and bright sunshine when they do fish, sending the wiser wild fish to hide. Unfortunately, there are exceptions and certainly cropping happens--any wild trout on a stringer makes me cringe.

The newly stocked trout are either too stupid or hungry or both to tell the difference when the water is cold but not too cold. Fortunately (for the wild trout), they are the ones leading Pickett's charge, as it were (no offense to the bravery of those soldiers, it's just a metaphor).

Of course the water does warm up by May and the second and third stockings, if they happen at all and at lower density, take place in these "required feeding" temperatures. But the crowds are down and hopefully the more sport oriented are dominating the stream by that time.

But with the recent trend toward very warm weather in the months of March and April, this thermal angle may not be as true as previously. Whether this has had anything to do with moving up opening day in PA by region, I have no idea--I rather doubt it; but it seems like a good idea even if accidental to keep the opening early for ATWs with wild trout.

I have no data on any of this it's just a hunch.

 

[PennKev]

krayfish:

"fictional spring creek #1" is mostly inhabited by wild fish. No additional stocking is required but small numbers may be stocked to enhance the 'catching' by anglers. The limit is reduced to 1 fish per day over 12". The water is open from April 1st to Oct 15th. It is completely closed to fishing from Oct 15th to April 1st to permit undisturbed spawning / hatch out.

Sorry this scenario and suggested regs just makes no sense. First, reducing the limit to one is practically c&r regs so use by those wishing to harvest is going to plummit. Why even waster time, effort, money, and fish by stocking if there's a decent wild population and (soon to be) very little use by the catch and keep crowd?. Secondly, with a 12" minimum I think you would place most of the remaining harvest pressure on the wild population as most stocked fish are not 12" fish. As for closing spawning season, I'm unconvinced this is needed anyware.

The scenario of a stocked creek with decent wild pops is exactly what most would like to see removed from stocking altogether. Just remove these streams from the atw's and let them fall into obscurity as much as possible. No need to continue wasting stocked fish on them or create new regs. If an opening day angler asks the pafbc why they quit stocking the would be told that the stream has plenty of fish without stocking and then also be told where the stocked fish were reallocated.

The simplest way to adjust the stocking program is to create a new base line on what gets stocked and what doesn't. Ideally, this base line would be reliant on the level of wild populations and perhaps water quality. "Social" concerns would not be a factor.


Kev

 

[greenghost]

krayfish wrote:

"fictional spring creek #1" is mostly inhabited by wild fish. No additional stocking is required but small numbers may be stocked to enhance the 'catching' by anglers. The limit is reduced to 1 fish per day over 12". The water is open from April 1st to Oct 15th. It is completely closed to fishing from Oct 15th to April 1st to permit undisturbed spawning / hatch out.

Ironically, this was pretty much "NON-fictional Spring Creek" in central PA until the late 70's... except fish limits were 3 fish I believe and fishing was permitted until the end of the year.

Back then, Spring Creek was stocked with fish until high-levels of pollutants pulled the stream from the ATW list. BEST thing that ever happened... it became the poster stream for NOT stocking over wild trout water at all, ever.

 

[troutbert]

greenghost wrote:

krayfish wrote:

"fictional spring creek #1" is mostly inhabited by wild fish. No additional stocking is required but small numbers may be stocked to enhance the 'catching' by anglers. The limit is reduced to 1 fish per day over 12". The water is open from April 1st to Oct 15th. It is completely closed to fishing from Oct 15th to April 1st to permit undisturbed spawning / hatch out.

Ironically, this was pretty much "NON-fictional Spring Creek" in central PA until the late 70's... except fish limits were 3 fish I believe and fishing was permitted until the end of the year.

Back then, Spring Creek was stocked with fish until high-levels of pollutants pulled the stream from the ATW list. BEST thing that ever happened... it became the poster stream for NOT stocking over wild trout water at all, ever.

Back when the non-fictional Spring Creek was stocked, the limit was the state-wide regs, which were 8 trout per day during the regular season, and 3 per day during the extended season.

 

[krayfish]

Kev,

Said fictional stream with some wild fish population may need stocked due to high angler usage. The stockers get picked off quicker that the stream born fish will.


Ghost,

You wrote " BEST thing that ever happened... it became the poster stream for NOT stocking over wild trout water at all, ever."....... Really? Was it a poster stream for not stocking or a poster stream for no harvest'? Maybe it's a poster stream for pollution. If you think for one second that stream doesn't get a steady flow of hatchery escapees, you'd be kidding yourself. It also gets supplemented during times of flooding.

My take on it is that closing the streams to harvest was the biggest factor in the increased wild fish numbers but I'm not a biologist. Valley and Spring reflect what I'm saying. If anyone has documentation supporting their position, post it. otherwise, we are simply posting our feelings and opinions.

If it weren't for stocking, no letort browns, no little j and on and on. Unless I have zero reading comprehension, which is possible, I don't recall reading anything documenting that tossing stocker bronot h into a wild brown stream destroys it. I think Mike had previously posted that the wild fish usually inhabit different water/lies from the stockers. The pellet fed fish don't have the natural instincts and typically don't survive all that long. They make perfect targets for guys looking to limit out on a heavily pressured stream containing a wild fish population.

My position on not harvesting fish is a completely selfish one. I enjoy fishing and want my nephews (and the next generation) to be able to experience the same or better fishing than I did.

 

[PelletHead1]

Hopback and anyone else I may have offended:
I made no mention of spinning gear or spin fishing in my post. I was poking fun at a stereotype…… a stereotype that can carry any type of fishing gear. Maybe you would like to fish with me first before you jump to conclusions and blast me on the net that I am a bad person and a bad representative of the sport?
This forum seemed like a place where everybody had a sense of humor but it seems like maybe I struck a nerve? It’s all in good fun and I never type anything with malicious intent.

 

[PennKev]

krayfish wrote:
Kev,

Said fictional stream with some wild fish population may need stocked due to high angler usage. The stockers get picked off quicker that the stream born fish will.


G

Yeah but who the heck is going to go to a particular stream so that they can catch and keep only one trout? It seems rather pointless. Just put C&R regs on the stream if we're going to go that far.

 

[Maurice]

PennKev wrote:

krayfish wrote:
Kev,

Said fictional stream with some wild fish population may need stocked due to high angler usage. The stockers get picked off quicker that the stream born fish will.


G

Yeah but who the heck is going to go to a particular stream so that they can catch and keep only one trout? It seems rather pointless. Just put C&R regs on the stream if we're going to go that far.

Kev, I agree with that in premise but sometimes a weird balance is struck to compromise. Remember the YMC compromise? Stream long held Class A status, Lost a little ground with Biomass and felt heavy pressure to stock with Co-op fish from a largely catch and keep club. Resulting management was to allow them to stock it but make it C&R.

Seemed stupid at the time and I have not fished it recently (over the past 5 years) but I am confident that the non-celebratory regs change on both sides probably had little impact on the fishery.

Maybe someone more familiar with recent events can comment on YWC.

 

[JackM]

Fictional Stream #3.

Southwest PA mountain freestone.

Native Brookies in higher elevations, but not in the final 3 miles of run to the receiving river. Yet this lower portion of the stream, while relatively infertile like the upper reaches, remains cool to trout until early to mid July every year. To be sure, there are likely some wild trout in this lower section during some part of the year, but not enough to be considered a recreational fishery.

Add to this the wide-open access (most on public land), the beauty of the surroundings, and the lack of other similar waters available to the surrounding community, and you have a quality wild trout stream (at least in the upper reaches) that probably could be stocked in the lower reaches without significant harm. And perhaps it probably should be stocked in the lower reaches by the agency charged with trying to conserve a resource while assuring adequate recreational opportunities to the public.

 

[Maurice]

JackM wrote:
Fictional Stream #3.

Southwest PA mountain freestone.

Native Brookies in higher elevations, but not in the final 3 miles of run to the receiving river. Yet this lower portion of the stream, while relatively infertile like the upper reaches, remains cool to trout until early to mid July every year. To be sure, there are likely some wild trout in this lower section during some part of the year, but not enough to be considered a recreational fishery.

Add to this the wide-open access (most on public land), the beauty of the surroundings, and the lack of other similar waters available to the surrounding community, and you have a quality wild trout stream (at least in the upper reaches) that probably could be stocked in the lower reaches without significant harm. And perhaps it probably should be stocked in the lower reaches by the agency charged with trying to conserve a resource while assuring adequate recreational opportunities to the public.

Jack,

While I agree in theory that this sounds reasonable. It is a chicken and the egg scenario. Are the brook trout relegated to the upper portion because of prior stockings or in spite of them? And would't the stocking of other species (brown trout and rainbows) tend to push the brook trout further into the headwaters with resulting genetic propensity for smaller fish size while creating a wild fishery in the intermediate length of stream of the introduced species?

 

[JackM]

I would surmise that the lack of a viable wild trout fishery in lower reaches is the result of thermal inhospitability. Will there be encroachment by stocked specimens? I would say some, but I wonder how significant the encroachment would be when weighed against the excellent stocked-trout fishery that has been created in the downstream section.