Class A Wild Trout, Wilderness & WBT Enhancement Streams

[tomgamber]

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.

 

[JackM]

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.

 

[RLeeP]

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..

 

[RLeeP]

>>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.

 

[wildtrout2]

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. :-D

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

all im going to do is :roll:

 

[vcregular]

I will still stick with what I said earlier, and say that Brook Trout, and their environment is fragile. I don't doubt that they are resilient where protected (closed to fishing, and in the upper reaches of a stream, sounds protected to me), and I think that is where Jack pulled his term from in the Study sited.

 

[wildtrout2]

vcregular wrote:
I will still stick with what I said earlier, and say that Brook Trout, and their environment is fragile. I don't doubt that they are resilient where protected (closed to fishing, and in the upper reaches of a stream, sounds protected to me), and I think that is where Jack pulled his term from in the Study sited.

I'm in complete agreement with this thinking.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Threats: Regional experts ranked poor land management associated with agriculture as the most widespread disturbance to brook trout habitat across Pennsylvania, impacting almost 50% of subwatersheds with brook trout data. Traditional land uses that remove streamside trees directly contribute to high water temperature, the second most widespread disturbance. Increased partnerships on private lands to reduce water temperature, nutrient runoff and sedimentation could greatly benefit Pennsylvania’s water quality and brook trout populations.

This is where we need to focus. This is from the Eastern Brook Trout: Status and Threats Produced by Trout Unlimited for the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture.

http://www.easternbrooktrout.net/docs/brookiereportfinal.pdf

I do believe that bait fishing with snelled hooks does harm brook trout. I also believe using treble hooks harms them also. But we are never going to accomplish the bigger picture with just fly anglers. It is with the help of many different anglers that we will get our once great brook trout fishery back. Lets try to focus on this rather than fighting about regs. I once felt the exact same way as you wildtrout2 but im getting a bit wiser about the overall picture. IF we limit who can fish these streams then they wont care anymore. (this goes into the whole conservationists only do it to help their own fishing experience thing ;-) ) We need their help. We need your help. We all need to help. Lets stop pointing fingers and get to restoring habitat.

THIS COMES FROM THIS:

West Virginia, Maryland and Pennsylvania have large opportunities for restoring subwatersheds impacted by abandoned mine drainage, acid deposition and outdated agricultural and grazing practices.

http://www.tu.org/site/c.kkLRJ7MSKtH/b.4348001/k.A11B/Brook_Trout.htm

WE HAVE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY HERE!

This is all coming from the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture. They know what they are talking about. You guys can stop searching for sites to support arguements about regs, bait fishing and harvest. Lets make so many brook trout streams we cant possibly effect them all with bait and harvest. This is where we need to focus.

http://www.easternbrooktrout.org/docs/EBTJV_Pennsylvania_CS.pdf

In Pennsylvania streams, wild brook trout often occur in combination with wild brown trout (596 sections, 1,984 miles) and to a much lesser degree in combination with wild rainbow trout populations (22 sections, 61.61 miles). Of the 5,044.3 miles of stream that support some level of brook trout reproduction, a total of 299 sections and 1,268.65 miles are also stocked with hatchery trout. Although Pennsylvania supports a considerable wild brook trout resource, much of this resource is fragmented and primarily exists in first and second order headwater streams. Major threats to wild brook trout populations in Pennsylvania include poor land use practices stemming from agriculture and urbanization, sedimentation from road construction and dirt and gravel roads, water temperature elevations stemming from storm water runoff and the loss of riparian vegetation along the stream corridor, and the presence of non-native species such as, brown trout.

We know that stocking over them is bad. This should also stop. There are plenty of other streams to stock than brook trout waters.

5.1. Increase angler awareness of brook trout angling opportunities Strategy 5.1.1. Focus on existing angling opportunities through the various Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission information and media outlets. Include an emphasis on the special nature of brook trout and why they are important. Encourage conservation angling practices when fishing for wild brook trout.

No ones going to be interested if you limit who can fish for them. Also people need to start using their brain on how, when and where they fish for them.

http://www.easternbrooktrout.org/docs/BrookTroutJointVenture.pdf

At the subwatershed level, local fisheries biologists identified high water temperature, agriculture, urbanization, one or more exotic fish species, and poor riparian habitat as the top reasons for the loss of self-sustaining brook trout.

Again stocking over them is bad. You can deny that fact all you want but TU, the biologist studing all this in the EBJV know it and we all should know it also. That includes you PFBC.

No matter what. this is where all our initial focus should lay and no where else.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

Wow.

100% agree. Regs are just icing on the consevation cake.

Special regs are an advertisment for fishery which negates much of the beneficial effect for the fishery. They are most effective as a conservation tool where fishing pressure is heavy already.

At the end of the day, special regs like the BTEP promote the value of our wild fisheries and promote C and R. I'm sure change many people's mind about keeping fish on ALL the streams they fish, regardless of the regs on a particular stream.

Changing peoples minds is much more powerful than changing regulations.

My work is done here, apparently.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

well your one of the guys that got me thinking about it a year ago. ;-)

 

[jayL]

Sal,

Agreed on your conclusions. Why, then, did you give the eye roll earlier? I assumed it was directed toward Jack's arguments, which I took to imply that fishing regs were not where we should be focusing.

Either way, good post.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
well your one of the guys that got me thinking about it a year ago. ;-)

Well, you've changed my mind about publicizing wild brook trout streams. I used to argue that it was a good thing. Now I just promote brook trout without naming any specific streams, unless they are in trouble.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

nah the eye roll was for the fact this subject comes up all the time. And it usually gets the most amount of posts. Yet if someone was to post about such a thing as restoring habitat on a brookie stream in might get 1 comment.


I agree that promoting them is they way to go. It would be nice in the future if we could freely discuss these streams to anyone.

One thing we all agree on is that the wild brook trout is a treasure worth saving .

Glad you guys enjoyed the post

 

[wildtrout2]

Thanks sal, that was an interesting post and I appreciate reading specifics about Pa's native brook trout situation. Like I said in my original thread, I'll remain open minded on the subject. I'm not beyond learning, and I do believe habitat maintenance is critical. I also think that we share a common interest in these native/wild fish here in Pa, we just see things differently sometimes.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Nothin wrong with that. I dont completely disagree with you. I think once we restore what we can and the brookies are thriving, ill be on your team no doubt. But we will probably be long dead by then ;-)

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Speaking of which. Join up!

http://www.fishhabitat.org/

 

[Mike]

JackM and pcray are doing such good jobs here that I pretty much feel content to sit on the sidelines. I will add, however, that I too once bought into the notion of brook trout population fragility. The brook trout populations themselves, specifically where and under what circumstances I found them, really gave me pause, however. They have certain specific sensitivities, but they are more resilient and perhaps less generally sensitive than than one might be led to believe.

As for the West Branch of Fishing Creek is concerned, going back as far as the late 1970's I have known it as a stream with acid precipitation problems (through general conversations with its fisheries managers and following our own fishing trips to the stream). The precip problems have a history of negatively affecting its trout populaiton.

 

[5footfenwick]

opps

 

[5footfenwick]

I haven't posted in a coons age, but here goes. I think this is a catch.22 situation. I mean if you change a class A to special regulations WBTE then you increase pressure. However you take it from a stream where in season harvest is legal to a stream where it is year round no harvest. So which is better? the stream that receives little to no pressure but trout can be harvested, Or the one that takes a spike in pressure but where brook trout must be released??? I hate to admit it, but I don't really know, nor do I think anyone does!!!! the mindset that bait should be banned would be fine in a few streams, but not all Native brook trout areas. I do feel that educating spinfisherman in catch and release, barbless hook use and proper handling of natives would be very benificial. Because more people brooktrout fishing would mean that the PFC would have to alot more money to wild trout fisheries. I think the reason that so few peso's are put towards wild trout is that a large majority of fisherman in pa spinfish for stocker's, so the PFC see's this and to keep license ssales up, they cave to the pressure of giving the people what they want. (haha or what they think the people want.) I think the key is to begin to change what the people want. Make a demand for more and better wildtrout regulations and the supply will follow. I think this gets me back to why have a WBTE area and alow live bait. Not all stockie fishermans mind set can jump right from dunking crawlers over put and take, to catch and release artificials. And If I'm not mistaken this seems to be a good median between the two. get stockie fisherman to start fishing for wild trout in catch and release waters, and I think alot of keep what you catch mindsets would change.
also I am in no way advocating this, but does anyone think that the WBTE regs with their no kill native brookie, yet open season on wild brown, allows for the mind set that they want the Browns removed??????? just curious~
~ME