Fryin' up wild browns

[geebee]

Swattie87 wrote:
I pretty much agree with pcray’s breakdown on the relative frequency of catching large Brookies in the sizes he describes. This mirrors my experience for the most part…assuming you’re talking about small, headwater freestoners that is.

and that could be any State south of Canada, sparing the odd pocket of oversized brookies.

which is part of the problem/issue - people like 16"/18" trout, and brookies are slow growers with short lifespans.

do ya want small wild trout in your streams or chunky browns/bows ?

I think it would take a huge leap of faith on the part of the PFBC to stop stocking brownies and re-introduce just brookies.

i thinks thats why its piecemeal and limited to small waters imho.

 

[k-bob]

"do ya want small wild trout in your streams or chunky browns/bows ?"

I like to fish for wild brook trout in small streams, even though the fish are mostly small. I think the current sets of stocked and unstocked/wild waters in Eastern PA are fine. Both kinds of fishing are available.

 

[troutbert]

geebee wrote:

I think it would take a huge leap of faith on the part of the PFBC to stop stocking brownies and re-introduce just brookies.

Is anyone advocating that?

 

[geebee]

troutbert wrote:

geebee wrote:

I think it would take a huge leap of faith on the part of the PFBC to stop stocking brownies and re-introduce just brookies.

Is anyone advocating that?

if they're asking you to chow down on a brownie, that's effectively what they are doing no ?

 

[Chaz]

I'm gonna eat them all.

 

[troutbert]

geebee wrote:

troutbert wrote:

geebee wrote:

I think it would take a huge leap of faith on the part of the PFBC to stop stocking brownies and re-introduce just brookies.

Is anyone advocating that?

if they're asking you to chow down on a brownie, that's effectively what they are doing no ?

No, those positions are not not the same things at all.

Also, who are "they?" It says "they" in the OP, but doesn't state who is referred to. You shouldn't assume that "they" actually exist.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

I wish I would have asked "they" when BradfromPotter gave that statement streamside.

 

[k-bob]

this thread has everything: brookies, browns, big fish, stocking, WBTEP, fish recipes, a touch of burn spotting!

 

[geebee]

the alternative would be to take a battery powered bait aerator and haul em out and transplant them to a pond or another stream thats too warm for natives.

 

[geebee]

double post.

 

[jdaddy]

Everyone knows brook trout taste better. Unfortunately they are too small.

 

[gfen]

I know a spot that we can get some, and we don't even have to travel far.

Would Chaz like me to share with the class?

 

[BradFromPotter]

The_Sasquatch wrote:
I wish I would have asked "they" when BradfromPotter gave that statement streamside.

It was just a general statement....My thought back when they started this regulation was that if you can't kill brook trout but can kill brown trout what does that mean? It amazing what the word "they" could start.

 

[BradFromPotter]

troutbert wrote:

geebee wrote:

troutbert wrote:

geebee wrote:

I think it would take a huge leap of faith on the part of the PFBC to stop stocking brownies and re-introduce just brookies.

Is anyone advocating that?

if they're asking you to chow down on a brownie, that's effectively what they are doing no ?

No, those positions are not not the same things at all.

Also, who are "they?" It says "they" in the OP, but doesn't state who is referred to. You shouldn't assume that "they" actually exist.

Dwight,
I confess I heard about "they" on Glenn Beck.

 

[troutbert]

BradFromPotter wrote:

troutbert wrote:

geebee wrote:

troutbert wrote:

geebee wrote:

I think it would take a huge leap of faith on the part of the PFBC to stop stocking brownies and re-introduce just brookies.

Is anyone advocating that?

if they're asking you to chow down on a brownie, that's effectively what they are doing no ?

No, those positions are not not the same things at all.

Also, who are "they?" It says "they" in the OP, but doesn't state who is referred to. You shouldn't assume that "they" actually exist.

Dwight,
I confess I heard about "they" on Glenn Beck.

Ah, so "they" are Saudi nationals!!!

Joking aside, yinz can look at the regs book and see what it says for Brook Trout Enhancement regs. It says C&R for brookies. And that these regs apply to brook trout only, for other species the normal regulations apply.

That's it. So, for species other than brook trout, the regs are the same as the general regs across the whole state.

There is no language saying that they "really encourage the harvesting of the browns."

 

[BradFromPotter]

troutbert wrote:

BradFromPotter wrote:

troutbert wrote:

geebee wrote:

troutbert wrote:

geebee wrote:

I think it would take a huge leap of faith on the part of the PFBC to stop stocking brownies and re-introduce just brookies.

Is anyone advocating that?

if they're asking you to chow down on a brownie, that's effectively what they are doing no ?

No, those positions are not not the same things at all.

Also, who are "they?" It says "they" in the OP, but doesn't state who is referred to. You shouldn't assume that "they" actually exist.

Dwight,
I confess I heard about "they" on Glenn Beck.

Ah, so "they" are Saudi nationals!!!

Joking aside, yinz can look at the regs book and see what it says for Brook Trout Enhancement regs. It says C&R for brookies. And that these regs apply to brook trout only, for other species the normal regulations apply.

That's it. So, for species other than brook trout, the regs are the same as the general regs across the whole state.

There is no language saying that they "really encourage the harvesting of the browns."

I never said that it was in the regs book. It was just an opinion of what I thought it meant to NOT kill any brook trout & to be allowed to kill brown trout on a stream that has more brook trout then brown trout. The more I think of it I still think it was a very subtle way of encouraging the harvest of brown trout.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Sure. If the goal is to restore a native population, it makes sense to harvest the invasive species.

 

[Chaz]

geebee wrote:

troutbert wrote:

geebee wrote:

I think it would take a huge leap of faith on the part of the PFBC to stop stocking brownies and re-introduce just brookies.

Is anyone advocating that?

if they're asking you to chow down on a brownie, that's effectively what they are doing no ?

THAT would be NO! The stream they are talking about is not stocked and is in the BTE program. They should be re-introducting brookies though, which they aren't

 

[k-bob]

I though this thread had everything ten posts ago. since then, a glenn beck mention, didn't see that coming, ... Billy Mays voice: But Wait, There's More!

I must admit, I do kinda think of brown trout as cold blooded, anglo-germanic predators!

 

[troutbert]

If you kill a brown trout under 7 inches in Lyman Run, you would be in violation of the law.

If you kill more than 5 brown trout in Lyman Run, you would be in violation of the law.

The regs the PFBC has in place state-wide to protect brown trout populations from over-harvest are also in place on Lyman Run.