Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

[wildtrout2]

JackM wrote:


On the flip-side, then, if you want to support regulations on tackle and harvest, you are going to have to claim that brookies are "easily broken destroyed" because of these supposed harms, and that cannot be proven. In fact, all the evidence points to the conclusion that harvest and tackle issues have very little effect on brook trout populations.

I do favor the control conditions you recommend (some streams with no fishing at all, some with tackle restrictions, some with no-harvest) because I believe it would put these ill-supported conceptions of wild brook trout fragility to rest for good.

You're a stong advocate of YOUR own opinion, that's for sure. All of what "evidence points to the conclusion that harvest and tackle issues have very little effect on brook trout populations"? My "ill-supported conceptions of wild brook trout fragility" are quite well founded when I see a wild section of the WB of Fishing Creek in Sullivan Co, starting from two miles up from the Game Lands gate in Emmons right on up to the headwaters, go from loaded with natives in 2002, to just a few here and there as recently as 2007. Now they're stocking all the way up to Hemlock run. That whole streach was originally on the Class A Wild Trout list. So this isn't a fragile fishery? What do YOU think happened to these trout?

 

[RLeeP]

In all kindness, I think that's largely nonsense, Jack...

And I'm probably nearly as skeptical of the "fragility" argument as you seem to be.

Still, it makes no sense to me to assert that harvest and size regs are not applicable or relevant as a tool to manage a species whose abundance is threatened by siltation, thermal problems or acidity because the regs do not specifically address these 3 things.

The relationships are a portion of a whole and not independent considerations. A brook trout population that is already stressed by thermal problems is going to be additionally challenged by open or liberal creel/size regs, probably more so than a healthy population without said stresses.

To me, in aggregate, these things are multiple strikes on the same batter, not things that take place in different innings. The effect is cumulative.

Or maybe I'm not understanding you quite right..

 

[RLeeP]

>>That whole streach was originally on the Class A Wild Trout list. So this isn't a fragile fishery? What do YOU think happened to these trout?>>

What makes you think that fishing pressure played a primary or even significant role in what happened?

I mean, was everything else in the stream section that could impact brook trout abundance (water chemistry, floods during spawn or fry swim-up, etc.) static over the entire period?

 

[Fly_Fisher]

Maybe they're not that fragile....relatively speaking.

However, you muck up the habitat then you have problems


see link:


http://afs.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1577%2FM05-110.1

 

[wildtrout2]

RLeeP wrote:
>>That whole streach was originally on the Class A Wild Trout list. So this isn't a fragile fishery? What do YOU think happened to these trout?>>

What makes you think that fishing pressure played a primary or even significant role in what happened?

I mean, was everything else in the stream section that could impact brook trout abundance (water chemistry, floods during spawn or fry swim-up, etc.) static over the entire period?

I have as much statistical proof as anyone who disputes my thinking. I'm going on what I have experienced on this stream over a span of 5-6 years. I still maintain that if a lot of these streams were left alone after the "regular season", they would have more stable populations of wild/native trout. I would like to hear what troutbert has to say on this subject and ask him if I'm using the word "fragile" too loosely?

 

[jayL]

wildtrout2 wrote:

I have as much statistical proof as anyone who disputes my thinking. I'm going on what I have experienced on this stream over a span of 5-6 years.

You claim "statistical proof", yet use one stream over a period of 5 years. Your sample size is insufficient in two ways, and your methods are completely unscientific.

I'd be willing to bet Dave's farm that there are parties with more statistically valid evidence to the contrary, based on the mere lack of validity to yours.

Not trying to be a dick, but that's how I see this argument. I should add that I agree with Jack here.

 

[wildtrout2]

jayL wrote:

wildtrout2 wrote:

I have as much statistical proof as anyone who disputes my thinking. I'm going on what I have experienced on this stream over a span of 5-6 years.

You claim "statistical proof", yet use one stream over a period of 5 years. Your sample size is insufficient in two ways, and your methods are completely unscientific.

I'd be willing to bet Dave's farm that there are parties with more statistically valid evidence to the contrary, based on the mere lack of validity to yours.

Not trying to be a dick, but that's how I see this argument. I should add that I agree with Jack here.

Like I said in the initial thread, I will respect everyone's opinion on this. Until I see this "valid evidence to the contrary" I'll stand by what I've already said.

 

[pcray1231]

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. Big Spring fits in the same "exceptional" category. They are not what brook trout regs should be about, because these types of streams represent an extreme minority compared to the thousands of small mountain freestoners that carry brookies. Now, separate regulations on these streams are fine.

But I somewhat agree with Jack. The things affecting MOST brookie streams are not harvest related. The population is mostly limited by habitat and other issues like temperature, siltation, availability of food, acidity, etc. Unlike BFC and other limestoners, the population is at its carrying capacity. So harvest regs are indeed separate from trying to increase the carrying capacity, its not all "part of the whole". If a given hole supports 5 fish, and somebody keeps two, the remaining fish still produce 100 young per year, of which 2 live to replace the ones that were taken. The population is in no way limited by the number of breeding adults, as long as there's a few, there's enough young ones to fully replenish the population.

Increasing the carrying capacity should be the focus. In the exceptional cases where harvest or pressure actually does limit the population, like BFC, then you can consider harvest or tackle restrictions.

 

[jayL]

wildtrout2 wrote:

jayL wrote:

wildtrout2 wrote:

I have as much statistical proof as anyone who disputes my thinking. I'm going on what I have experienced on this stream over a span of 5-6 years.

You claim "statistical proof", yet use one stream over a period of 5 years. Your sample size is insufficient in two ways, and your methods are completely unscientific.

I'd be willing to bet Dave's farm that there are parties with more statistically valid evidence to the contrary, based on the mere lack of validity to yours.

Not trying to be a dick, but that's how I see this argument. I should add that I agree with Jack here.

Like I said in the initial thread, I will respect everyone's opinion on this. Until I see this "valid evidence to the contrary" I'll stand by what I've already said.

Fair enough.

 

[skeeter]

Wild,

I was thinking you brought this up because of the recent findings that the PFBC had when then conducted a study on WBT streams in NE Pa. To summarize an article in PA Trout Unlimited Newsletter (2009), the PFBC released a report on the results of their Statistical Information and so far:

"Based on information compiled on wild brook trout
waters for the 2002 Trout Summit, the statewide average
for legal size wild brook trout (greater than or equal to 7
inches in length) from freestone streams was 34 trout/mile.
Prior to their placement in the Wild Brook Trout Enhancement
Program, wild brook trout populations exceeded the
statewide average of 34 legal size brook trout per mile in
Kistler Run, Wolf Swamp Run and Jeans Run. However,
by 2006, only Kistler Run (53 legal trout/mile) and Wolf
Swamp Run (48 legal trout/mile) remained above the statewide
average for legal size wild brook trout. In 2008, the
abundance of legal size brook trout fell below the statewide
average in each of the streams managed under Wild
Brook Trout Enhancement regulations. In addition, larger
wild brook trout (greater than or equal to 9 inches in length)
have not been captured during recent examinations on the
study waters. Sampling will continue through the 2010 season
to monitor the response of wild brook trout populations
to Wild Brook Trout Enhancement regulations."
To read the full article click here.

So there are the numbers, and back to the debate. The slump in numbers is due to nature or how we get involved and "nurture" it

 

[JackM]

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

 

[Fly_Fisher]

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.

 

[JackM]

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.

 

[wildtrout2]

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.

 

[JackM]

"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."

 

[pcray1231]

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.

 

[vcregular]

Jack...you get an 'A' for finding something on the web that supports your argument . ;-)

 

[jayL]

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.

 

[JackM]

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.

 

[JackM]

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.