C&R - Extended Trout Season

[BrookieChaser]

Now we're bringing deer in? I don't think that will fly. You can't have fish at the expense of deer. The "no deer mafia" will be looking for a fight. It will be like Phil Robertson himself called them to arms.

I'm in! We will fight brook trout oppression.

On a serious note - One man's weak organism, is another man's specialist. It depends on which side of the coin you are on.

 

[SBecker]

krayfish wrote:

I am bound by contract to drag Becker into lst of my posts, so here we go. It has been documented that there are populations of wild brookies near the feeders throughout the Lehigh. I want you to spearhead a movement to stop stocking the Lehigh so the brook trout can be protected and the population can reach its potential. I'll be your support system. We should be able to get a webpage up by midnight Saturday. You in? I'll work on Shane in the meantime

Native



Also....I am down for Bull trout if they will eat brookie fishermen.

 

[JackM]

Hypothetical #4

Wild brook stream. Mountain freestone, with limestone influences. Very fertile for a mountain stream. Large specimens. High biomass. Cool-year round to the mouth, but, of course, relatively warmer the final mile to the mouth.

Class A for 11 miles, class D at best in the final mile, where it runs through lowland with greater exposure to sunlight and greater development.

The state owns 800 feet wide frontage over the entire lower mile, both sides. Jay Gould's heirs own the upper 11 miles.

Stock the lower mile for the peasantry or not?

 

[krayfish]

Hypothetical #5

A stream that doesn't exist and will never exist but Jack will continue to stir this thread for his own enjoyment. LMAO.

To answer your question.... stock it and make the section for children and the disabled. I'd also like someone to ask the Gould's if they'd mind me operating a hotdog cart right by their property line.

 

[JackM]

Hypothetical #5

A stream that doesn't exist and will never exist but Jack will continue to stir this thread for his own enjoyment. LMAO.

I find this offensive. The stream does exist, in PA, but the names, distances and biomass may have been altered ever so slightly to bring home the point.

 

[krayfish]

I apologize but still have interest in operating a hotdog wagon on said stream.

 

[troutbert]

The stream has great populations right down to the beginning of the last mile of stream. The state owns that last mile. But that last mile has "development" problems that limit its ability to support wild trout?

Sounds like a land management problem. Or, an "opportunity for improvement" to put it in a more positive way.

Seriously, there might be an opportunity for restoration on that last mile of stream.

 

[mike_richardson]

I am just wondering what you feel is the best scenario for Benscreek and if there should be testing done to see if the stocked trout are actually making a big of an impact on the native brook trout as it is assumed.

 

[krayfish]

Contact PFBC to see if you can get the stream on a future survey schedule. The results may be Ben's Crk being placed on te class A list.

 

[Chaz]

fishfuzz wrote:
The “Extended Trout Season” is bogus in my opinion.

Who would like to see a Catch and Release regulation on all trout streams after Labor Day?

I think the PFBC should still stock the streams, but manage them under C&R guidelines from Labor Day until the opening day of trout season. That way they get some people to fish in the fall and get some fish to hold over into the spring.

well it's a gray area, but PFBC says it's ok to fish C & R on wild trout streams after Labor Day, but it isn't a reg and they should make it one.

 

[troutbert]

krayfish wrote:
Contact PFBC to see if you can get the stream on a future survey schedule. The results may be Ben's Crk being placed on te class A list.

Yes, contact the PFBC and tell them your thoughts.

It's always good for them to hear from people interested in wild trout populations.

Just be realistic about the politics. You'll be going up against a sportsmens club. We've seen that scenario before.

What the landowners want also has a big influence. Some landowners like having streams running through their land to be stocked. Some prefer that they not be stocked.

 

[Chaz]

mike_richardson wrote:

troutbert said:

If we knew the name of the stream, we could have a better discussion about it.

Are there people pushing to end stocking in that section? On a stream section with only a few wild trout, early in the year?

The situation you described is very different than on the streams we've been discussing in this thread. The streams discussed in the OP are all Class A streams.

Young Womans Creek, discussed above, was Class A in most years. It dipped just a bit below Class A after the extreme drought of 1999, and that was when the management was changed.

Lets use this as a stream to discuss I think my post above will lay out the exact scenario Jack was referring too.

I apologize for my views in the past, as well as past arguments I have gotten into with you. My eyes have been opened on wild/native trout, and would like to learn the best ways to protect them.

Are there people pushing to end stocking in that section? On a stream section with only a few wild trout, early in the year?

There is no one pushing for the stocking to end on this stream at all. The state also currently stocks this stream as well as a fishing club.

I will add that the fish that are stocked, are crushed by anglers within the first few weeks. The club that stocks this stream, also has a kids fishing rodeo, on another stream, and any fish left over from this get put into the other stream, and the stream that Benscreek flows into, as well as another stream called Noels Creek.

I am willing to bet that if a study was done, prior to any winter stocking of Benscreek, the amount of "hold over" trout would be relatively low, compared to the number that get put into the stream. See my points above with why I feel this way.

More info about the anglers in the area:

The days after the stream is stocked the stream is lined with anglers. I used to have a picture of this, but have deleted it. I am talking that on roughly a 2 mile stretch of road, and a stream at its widest, maybe 12', 10-20 vehicles.

Most are catch a limit and leave anglers. After the first two weeks after stocking, you may catch on or two anglers there, every other day, if that. The class a section is very under utilized IMO. A few member on here may know the area and member railking, has fished both the stocked and unstocked sections, and could comment on this as well.

I would like to learn others thoughts on this scenario, and if you feel that there should be any push to stop stocking the lower reaches now that proper septic systems have been installed, and the Little Conemaugh becoming fishable within the upcoming years.

I will give you mor

My first thought is, why are 2 or more organizations stocking the little wild trout stream? What a waste of resources! Since it is a wild trout stream it should not be stocked at all especially since it flows directly into a good sized river. But let's say for a minute that PFBC wants to keep stocking it because of high use, why then should the clubs stock it too? PFBC should limit the stocking to only PFBC.

Having said that, the headwaters are Class A, so let's take it off the ATW list altogether and see what it's capable of. After a few years do a survey and I'm betting it will be Class A headwaters to the mouth.
The larger issue is streams that small should not be stocked, because most of them are wild trout streams already and halting stocking would push them to Class A except in extreme circumstances.

 

[JackM]

As a result of a question I received, I wanted to clarify to those reading this thread that the streams I described are hypothetical in that I took factors that exist in very many streams and grouped them together in what I thought were realistic ways to demonstrate how the decision to stock a stream in one section even though it contains adjacent or nearby wild populations could be deemed reasonable.

How's that for a run-on sentence?

 

[Chaz]

krayfish wrote:
The end result would be a stream with 1 giant bull trout. That fish would then feed on deer and brookie fishermen.

Brookies are fine, they are pretty and also weak. If you aren't sure, I'll reference big spring. If a so-so brookie fishery can become a great brown trout fishery, let's go!

I am bound by contract to drag Becker into lst of my posts, so here we go. It has been documented that there are populations of wild brookies near the feeders throughout the Lehigh. I want you to spearhead a movement to stop stocking the Lehigh so the brook trout can be protected and the population can reach its potential. I'll be your support system. We should be able to get a webpage up by midnight Saturday. You in? I'll work on Shane in the meantime

Why must you make this thread into a complete farce, just because you think you know a little bit about trout and brookies in particular. You don't know anything about brook trout, it's clear from your posts in the past.
So my suggestion to you is write about fishing large rivers which is something you think you know about, and otherwise keep your lame opinions about small stream fishing to yourself.

 

[JackM]

Easy now....
There is room for disagreement among preferences and priorities in fishery management.

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:
Easy now....
There is room for disagreement among preferences and priorities in fishery management.

krayfish's post had nothing to do with "preferences and priorities in fishery management."

It was intended to disrupt discussion of that topic, with a bunch of rudeness and absurdity.

 

[krayfish]

Who kicked his cage?

What I do know about brookies....

State fish.

Very pretty

Require clean / cold water

Typically found in remote areas with beautiful surroundings

Usually small in size

Easy to catch because they are starving

I would label them as fragile/weak because they are easily displaced by other trout

I appreciate your compliment Chaz. I don't believe in any of my posts that I claim to know much about fisheries biology, small water, big water or fishing in general. I know that water tends to be wet most of the time. Unlike you, I won't come on here posting and expecting my words to be read as scripture. As a general rule, I see you posts as having a "know it all" tone but they always seem to be wrapped in anger. My wish for you in 2014 is that you are able to relax a bit, channel your anger into something productive and lighten up / improve your sense of humor.

Thanks and shoot me a PM if you want to go fishing sometime

 

[krayfish]

Which post was rude and disruptive? I must have missed it completely.

The "PC" filter on my phone must not be working. Just checked the map and did discover that Pennsylvania is in the US. I had the misconception that we were all free to express thoughts or opinions ..... Even if they differed from yours or someone else's.

In order to maintain "thread enjoyment" for all, I will remove myself from further discussion but I still like the idea of a bull trout that feeds on brookie fisherman. Some would see that as absurd but most would see it as humor.

Lighten up guys.

 

[BrookieChaser]

I took Krayfish's post as a joke, and I'm probably one of the most dedicated native brook trout proponents around.