Creel limit changes: typically not the effect that you might expect

[JackM]

You calling me unethical just because I don't have a felony, ain't addicted to heroin and have never been treated for serious mental illness.?

 

[mario66pens]

You can't win an argument about creel limits.

Individuals either love and respect the resource, or they don't. How you define the resource -- whether you define it as the fish themselves, the river ecosystem, or the wilderness that surrounds it -- is irrelevant

Nail on the head. I fished the mouth of spring (bald eagle) a few days ago in milesburg, where a guy and a lady showed me two fine specimes of wild brown trout. Such a shame.

 

[greenlander]

JackM wrote:
You calling me unethical just because I don't have a felony, ain't addicted to heroin and have never been treated for serious mental illness.?

As long as you've only been treated for run-of-the-mill mental illness, you're okay in my book.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

mario66pens wrote:

You can't win an argument about creel limits.

Individuals either love and respect the resource, or they don't. How you define the resource -- whether you define it as the fish themselves, the river ecosystem, or the wilderness that surrounds it -- is irrelevant

Nail on the head. I fished the mouth of spring (bald eagle) a few days ago in milesburg, where a guy and a lady showed me two fine specimes of wild brown trout. Such a shame.

And what was a shame about it?

I generally support catch and release, but there are some streams, such as Spring, that have such a high density of fish that harvesting may actually help the general population. It would certainly help the overall size of the fish. You can have TOO many trout in a stream, especially if food can't support the high population.

 

[troutbert]

The_Sasquatch wrote:

I generally support catch and release, but there are some streams, such as Spring, that have such a high density of fish that harvesting may actually help the general population. It would certainly help the overall size of the fish. You can have TOO many trout in a stream, especially if food can't support the high population.

That reminds me of a conversation I had with a guy from NC PA. He and his family owned a big chunk of forest land, around 800 acres I think, with a brook trout stream running through it.

He told me the brookies never get very big, hardly any ever over 7 inches long.

He said we catch as many as we can, all through the season, to keep them from getting over-populated, but they just don't get any bigger.

He wasn't joking! He was serious.

 

[greenlander]

troutbert wrote:

He told me the brookies never get very big, hardly any ever over 7 inches long.

He said we catch as many as we can, all through the season, to keep them from getting over-populated, but they just don't get any bigger.

He wasn't joking! He was serious.

It's not his fault that dumb stupid brook trout don't grow faster.

 

[JackM]

Well, I don't think he is stupid. Larger trout require more food. Forage is rare in most Brook Trout streams. Taking a couple here and there may actually help, but will not likely hurt the stream.

 

[Maurice]

The_Sasquatch wrote:

mario66pens wrote:

You can't win an argument about creel limits.

Individuals either love and respect the resource, or they don't. How you define the resource -- whether you define it as the fish themselves, the river ecosystem, or the wilderness that surrounds it -- is irrelevant

Nail on the head. I fished the mouth of spring (bald eagle) a few days ago in milesburg, where a guy and a lady showed me two fine specimes of wild brown trout. Such a shame.

And what was a shame about it?

I generally support catch and release, but there are some streams, such as Spring, that have such a high density of fish that harvesting may actually help the general population. It would certainly help the overall size of the fish. You can have TOO many trout in a stream, especially if food can't support the high population.

So what you are saying is that the key to making bigger trout is to kill the bigger trout. That is a zero sum game with a delayed response. If there are too many trout to grow big ones you need to kill the age class with the over population, not the "nice ones".

A killed trophy pleases one angler. A released trophy has the potential to please many. Its not difficult to understand.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

Mario66 (or is it Morneau66 for the next 2 months?)
Imagine what the LBE would be like with even a few regs? Being from the area, we both know what an uproar that would bring. Fishing the bald Eagle on opening day is engrained into the culture.
I'd settle for a DHALO from the mouth of spring creek until the trestle. That would be huge for the stream. I wonder if getting the word out that the stream has only been stocked with rainbows the last two years would make some people think twice about taking the browns?
The thing about limits is that they are self enforced, an honor system. I've too often seen people exceed the limits on the LBE. I never have to say something, just look. Then the excuses start (I have a family picnic, I caught none yesterday....)

And let's not forget the worse behavior, "stringer rotation"- walking out with the limit, while tossing back the smaller fish already killed.

I'm sure you've seen the harvest fisherman sneaking up into spring creek catching fish and stringing them in the LBE past the mouth.

 

[greenlander]

I was just being a wise ***.

That said, I'm no biologist, but I'm entirely certain that harvesting as many fish as you're able to isn't a recipe for bigger trouts.

 

[Squaretail]

Absolutely. Some of those brookie streams rely on their own young for food.
The previous example of Spring creek doesnt work in my book. Certainly enough food in there to grow many fish to gigantic proportions. I dont know the reason of the size cropping there. Constant pressure? The residual mercury and whatnot from the days when it was polluted? Lord only knows but the question of the rarity of very large trout in there has always puzzled me.
They're there, but few and far between.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

IMO: two factors
lack of water and cover. Only one big hog per hole and there aren't that many.
Pressure: The more times a fish is handled/caught, great chance of mortality. We all are careful, but accidents happen

 

[The_Sasquatch]

I once had a fish tank with two oscars. They grew, but not huge. Then when they died, I bought another oscar, but only one. He got HUGE.

 

[greenlander]

The_Sasquatch wrote:
I once had a fish tank with two oscars. They grew, but not huge. Then when they died, I bought another oscar, but only one. He got HUGE.

Check and mate.

 

[Squaretail]

Doesnt work in this scenario, cept for the smaller brookie trickles and ponds.

 

[albud1962]

John Arway wrote this in the Pa Angler.

"Our current research shows that more
of us are practicing catch and release, whether with wild
trout, stocked trout or trophy walleye, bass or muskies.
The Pennsylvania Fish 8r Boat Commission (PFBC)
staff angler use and harvest surveys conducted in 2005
and 2006 on wild trout (Aprill7 through September 3)
and stocked trout streams (first 8 weeks) throughout the
Commonwealth showed that anglers released 92.7 percent
of the wild trout and 60.1 percent of the stocked trout
that they caught."

"...This change .in the practice of catch and release got me
thinking about how many trout we are now recycling or
re-stocking back .into our streams and lakes. I did some
quick math and found that if 30 percent of the 3.2 million
trout that are stocked are harvested and 70 percent of
the stocked trout are caught and released two times each
in a season, this would amount to an angler re-stocking
program of 3.8 million trout every year. Does it .really
matter if the PFBC or the angler does the stocking? The
same trout then become available to be caught again. If we
could compare these numbers to when harvest was greater
than catch and release rates and licensed anglers numbered
over 1.2 million (850,000 today), we would most likely
find that there are more trout per licensed angler available
today than perhaps any time in our history. Think about it,
and let me know if you agree."

I am not sure I agree with these statistics but what do guys think?
Looks like an argument for reduced stocking.

 

[troutbert]

greenlander wrote:

The_Sasquatch wrote:
I once had a fish tank with two oscars. They grew, but not huge. Then when they died, I bought another oscar, but only one. He got HUGE.

Check and mate.

Do you actually think so? Or are you being ironic?

 

[troutbert]

The native brookie streams that are stocked with hatchery trout get far more fishing pressure and harvest than unstocked brookie streams.

By the theory, these streams should have larger brookies than the unstocked streams. But do they?

 

[troutbert]

Regarding the guy in NCPA that was taking as many brookies out of the stream on their family property, in hopes of getting larger brookies.

The reason that didn't work is simply that the brookies were killed at 7 inches.

Whether removing brookies would increase the growth rate at all, I'm not sure. I think the effect would be negligible.

But even if it did increase the growth rate somewhat, that would not help in their situation, because they were killing the trout when the reached 7 inches.

When you cut their heads off, that REALLY affects their growth rate.

On a stretch of small stream, if experienced anglers fish it regularly, very few, if any, brookies that reached 7 inches would remain to grow larger.

Brookies are easy to catch.

 

[greenlander]

troutbert wrote:

greenlander wrote:

Check and mate.

Do you actually think so? Or are you being ironic?

No, I was being a wise *** again.