Fryin' up wild browns

[BradFromPotter]

troutbert wrote:
If you kill a brown trout under 7 inches in Lyman Run, you would be in violation of the law. [color=CC0000]I know[/color]

If you kill more than 5 brown trout in Lyman Run, you would be in violation of the law. [color=CC0000]I know[/color]

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

So why do they allow you to harvest browns & not brookies from a stream that has way more brookies then browns if they want to protect over harvest of the browns??

Maybe they just want the bigger ones to be harvested so they can't eat the smaller brook trout.


P.S. There I go again, I used the "they" word!

 

[Chaz]

BradFromPotter wrote:

troutbert wrote:
If you kill a brown trout under 7 inches in Lyman Run, you would be in violation of the law. [color=CC0000]I know[/color]

If you kill more than 5 brown trout in Lyman Run, you would be in violation of the law. [color=CC0000]I know[/color]

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

So why do they allow you to harvest browns & not brookies from a stream that has way more brookies then browns if they want to protect over harvest of the browns??

Maybe they just want the bigger ones to be harvested so they can't eat the smaller brook trout.

P.S. There I go again, I used the "they" word!

The simple answer is, that given the stream conditions on the streams in question they are experimenting with a regulation that may keep the balance either status quo or slanted in favor of brook trout. Nearly every stream that has good habitat and a mixed population nearly always slants to browns eventually. There is a long history of this on our trout streams.
By having brook trout protected in the BTE streams the brook trout are expanding their populations and the browns and bows are shrinking in population.

 

[Chaz]

The_Sasquatch wrote:
We just got pcrayed! OT pcrayed!

Back on topic, if BT have existed in NCPA since the early 20th century (which I'm not arguing), then I wonder by what measure the state used to designate Lyman and Kettle a "WBTE" stream.

A better question is; why on earth if they are trying to reduce the number of browns and bows in the headwaters of Lyman Run, that would be above the reservoir, are they still stocking the stupid lake?
I know the locals like it, and when I was up there a couple of weeks ago I saw the anglers first hand at the reservoir. I'd suggest to PFBC that if they intend the BTE regs to work they ought not to be stocking the reservoir.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Dude, as long as that lake is there, it will be stocked with trout.

They don't stock it w/ brownies anymore (I don't think), and like I said, I think the bows stick to the lower reaches close to the lake (before the stream splits up). Still, that section is part of the WBTE area, so how much sense does that make!? Maybe the area should start 1/5 mile upstream of the lake or something.

 

[troutbert]

Just a reminder, here is the original assertion:

"they really encourage the harvesting of the browns on that stream."

Are you all still claiming that assertion is true?

 

[Chaz]

k-bob wrote:
WBTEP every stream in the state and it wouldn't make much difference imho...

Actually it would result in some streams having more large brookies, because if the browns were harvested, the good habitat could be taken by brookies. This would be especially true if all the browns were removed.

 

[BradFromPotter]

troutbert wrote:
Just a reminder, here is the original assertion:

"they really encourage the harvesting of the browns on that stream."

Are you all still claiming that assertion is true?

I thought I cleared this up in post #77.


Ok I'll play...YES. Now what? Are you going to get the Fish commission to revoke my license now?

How come you're not out fishing? :-?