Murder at Stans Pool

TDB wrote:
I understand the science behind it - I'm sure harvest isn't going to have a major impact on a creek like Penn's
Click to expand...

Science doesn't actually tell us that harvest doesn't have a major impact on a creek like Penns. Science actually tells us just the opposite.

When that section of Penns Creek was changed from general regs and stocking, to not stocking and the current special regs, the population went up tremendously in response to that and has stayed high in the following years.

The data indicates that harvest was suppressing the population on Penns for many years, and the reduction in harvest allowed the population to rise up closer to its real potential.

What we are talking about now is the additional gain that might be expected from a change from the current trophy regs to C&R regs. That change would be much less. But, the results from the Little Juniata indicate that you would see some benefits in the larger fish category, i.e. 14 inches +. The Little J was changed from trophy trout
to C&R and the number of larger trout has increased noticeably in response.

But the biggest gains in trout populations could be made by changing the management of streams that have the correct conditions for supporting really substantial trout populations, but where the trout population is still suppressed by the combination of stocking and state-wide regs.

Examples include:
1) Bald Eagle Cr, from Spring Creek to the lake.
2) Kish Creek, from Tea Creek at Reedsivlle on downstream.

Here is where you could have LARGE increases in trout populations, as opposed to incremental tweaking. Not that incremental gains are such a bad thing. :) It shouldn't be necessary to choose. But if we are going to prioritize, I'd say go for the LARGE increases in trout populations.
 
jeff wrote:
Farmer Dave,

I thought mention of the word PETA rubbed me the wrong way!!!

It sounds like all you have to do is think about them, jeez!!! LOL


If you are interested in some info on circle hooks I stumbled across a website the other day thay has some useful info.


www.moffittangling.com


Jeff
Click to expand...

Yea, just the thought of them tends to tick me off too, and when people talk like that, it reminds me of them. We're cool (I hope). Not your fault. Like i said, I should have been clearer.

And I was serious about the circle hooks. Hate to see fish belly hooked if there is no intent on eating them. The main reason is I hate to see fish going belly up in front of the kids. It might turn them off to fishing. thanks for the link
 
To no one in particular: it's amazing the wrath that can come down on someone for just typing a few words on a message board. I get the perception that some here only want comments and opinions expressed that fully agree with their views....if not then all hell breaks loose. :roll:
 
kind of to what JF said...we argue and discuss much dumber topics in the OT section without name calling and playground tactics. Funny how people can't do that with topics we actually care about. I think when you do that it takes most of your credibility away from the discussion.
 
Sorry for my part.

too late for me to delete it.
 
i enjoy reading these "debates", it makes work easier...
 
There is little to fear from harvest trout from unstocked wild brown trout streams. The most frequently caught trout are 8-10 inches long, of which there are usually many and often a surplus through periodic production of large year classes. The kinds of fishing and harvest pressures combined that would be required to cause a noticeable decline in the fish populations (brown trout) using something so inefficient as a fishing rod are typical only of those specific stocked trout streams that receive very high protracted pressure because of frequent stockings. Exceptions in Pa. would be atypical.

Statistically, the chance that a wild brown trout caught and released will live long enough to be caught again at a much larger size is somewhat slim. Total annual mortality rates in Pa wild trout populations generally average 60-65%. If you want to see how slim the chances are start with an imaginary population of 1000 2 year old trout and start depleting that population through natural mortality of 65% per year. There won't be many 5 year olds left whether harvest occurs or not. Keep going by two more years and see how few 7 year old trophies you will have (assuming that there is habitat good enough in stream X to support 7 year olds). It is probable, with perhaps rare exceptions, that natural mortality overrides the light fishing mortality seen in Pa's wild brown trout streams. It is also probable that the exceptions already are managed under special regs.
 
Gee Mike thanks for the input....I suppose we should not hope to catch large wild trout in PA, If not for the natural mortality then for the harvest. We won't miss them so you might as well kill them all. Let us be happy with the statistically significant, run of the mill pee pee trouts at 9"-10" unless the great white fleet comes swooping in and graces us with the stocking of some truly large fish that nature cannot provide....statistically speaking of course.

Hope is the glue of fools! And I am a fool to believe that large wild trout are possible in PA. with our current science and philosophy. Notice I didn't say regulations because that has nothing to do with it does it.

If those size fish are so rare than how can removing four be insinificant?
 
If catching and keeping fish is murder than catching and releasing fish is torture. I reject both assertions because they represent a polyanna world view that man can somehow prevent himself from interacting with nature.

If those fish were large, they likely had multiple breeding seasons already. While removing them sucks from the stand point of you catching large fish from that pool this summer, it is a fart in the wind when talking about its effect on that fish population.

The fact is that the spin fisherman who catches and keeps two fish probably has the same impact as the C and R fisherman who catches and releases twenty and kills two due to handling. One values meat and the other entertainment form their fishing experince. As long as they both are legal, I wish them both the best.

We can all imagine hypothetical situations about streams being "cleaned out". The fact is that most creeling fisherman stick close to access points and leave 90% of the stream alone and leave when their creel is full. Carrying a stringer,bucket, or creel around a stream is no fun and you start worrying about your fish spoiling and head back to the car sooner than you do when C and R fish. There is room enough for everyone on our streams.

If you guys are for public access, you can't start whining every time a broader general public starts using a public resource in a legal manner and then whine even louder when you restrict use, loose broader public support, and then public access because no one cares anymore.
 
Maurice,

IMO the unstocked stream sections that support large wild brown trout in quantities greater than the occasional fish already have them because the habitat (physical and thermal) is good for large trout. In some rare cases the physical habitat could support more large fish, but a good forage base is lacking. In my experience, exceptions are rare. That does not mean that their large trout are easy to catch, however, and this may be their true means of "protection." regardless of the regulations. Plus, I am not the only one who has noticed that the greatest numbers of large browns are often in better habitat outside of the special reg areas on the very same streams where special regs have been applied.

The once best real trophy trout stream in Pa. was also a stocked trout/wild trout stream that received very high pressure. Its habitat and forage were absolutely exceptional for large browns, however, and they thrived despite the fishing pressure. They were only occasionally caught, usually by specialists who knew they were there. The specialists could not deplete their numbers, nor could the stocked trout anglers; harvested fish were quickly replaced by a new fish in the lies. Since that time the habitat has changed and conditions no longer favor these large fish.

Actually, you have some good large (trophy) brown trout habitat in a few York Co streams and the fish are there, so I think you'll have large wild trout over which to fish for quite some time. One or two other York Co wild bown trout populations are expanding into what may be some good large fish habitat as well.
Mike
 
Hey I don't have a problem with people who follow the rules and keep their limit, just don't try to tell me that their actions won't affect my future potential to catch large fish when they keep large fish....cuz thats a lie!

A fish killed is a fish I cannot catch. slice it anyway you want...fair and square, good for the goose, good for the gander, 20:1, whatever.

If I catch 20 large fish and one dies....and you catch one and kill it 20 times, I am ahead of you 20:1. there are 19 more fish for you and none for me. Hows that for fair?

Of course I should be thrilled that you can fish the same water as me. I preserve, you reserve. I release, you put on a leash. I enjoy and put back, you take and go home. I have all the best water, you get the stocked streams. When they are empty, you come to the "best streams" and take again.

But I CAN live with the regulations if you can live with the truth behind the statistics. Lets spen some dough on figuring out how many 9-10" wild trout die from C&R and we can make a regulation that will limit the number of fish we cna C&R to match the mortality of harvest. We can call it the Catch and Release to Die (CaRD) limit streams. You can either kill 2 large trout that had a "few good spawns" or C&R a couple dozen, either one.

Oh and it's on the honor system, just like the harvest system in PA. Since no one watches the wild trout streams anyway.
 
I don't have a problem with an angler harvesting a large wild brown from a stream that I'm fishing. If the stream has good habitat there will be more big fish elsewhere for me to fish over or catch. If not, my congrats to the angler who caught the fish. Catching that specific fish would most likely have been a rare event anyway.
 
Mike wrote:
I don't have a problem with an angler harvesting a large wild brown from a stream that I'm fishing. If the stream has good habitat there will be more big fish elsewhere for me to fish over or catch. If not, my congrats to the angler who caught the fish. Catching that specific fish would most likely have been a rare event anyway.
Click to expand...

I agree, a rare event I too would cherish....should I get the chance....but alas, I won't! Rats 'n fratzin!
 
thanks for your input Mike.

Here is the way I look at it in layman's terms. Natural mortality is somewhat offset by harvest, or maybe I am saying that backwards. Take deer for example, something that we can see without applying electricity. Right now natural mortality is fairly low in PA (once the deer lose their spots) because we have quite a bit of harvest and mortality due to automobiles (but it aint freakin murder). Reduce the deaths from the human activity and natural mortality goes up. Reproduction rate (per doe) also goes down, but that is a different story.

With trout, it kinda works the same way. Natural mortality is higher where there is no harvest. (for this argument I am saying angler mortality is not "natural" mortality, but in reality it is). Habitat is still the limiting factor.

Something else I picked up on from Mikes post, and a bunch more posts in the past. He said most of the wild browns caught and havested are 9-10 inch (or something like that). Removing more of the mid range fish usually results in more larger fish and the max size potential can even go up.

I also cringe when I see someone carrying a large wild trout on a stringer, especially this late in the season. I say if it made it this far, let it spawn and pass along those genes. But I realize it is only a feeling I have. I've learned a lot from this site, and realize it has virtually no effect on the overall population.

Still, to this day, I usually throw the really big fish back, and if I want to harvest anything, it is the mid range fish. This applies to almost all fish I catch, except maybe steelhead and maybe a couple species that I don't fish for very often (e.g. walleye). I've thrown bacu the larges fish of just about every species I've caught. Call it a self imposed slot limit, but some of the reason is so someone else would have a chance. For stream trout though. If i want to harvest, I go to a stocked stream. That is what they are put in there for. I pretty much throw all the wild ones back unless deep hooked, but I am not prepared to give up the privelege of being able to harvest wild fish if I want to purely for sentimental reasons (it is not science based). So I would not endorse that limitation as a general regulation on anyone else either. But it is only an opinion.

Yea, Ive seen populations cropped on very small freestone streams. One can fairly easily do short term damage to the fishing quality of a small stream through harvest (IMO), but that is all it is (short term). It is also only to the quality as perceived by the angler because the next time he goes, he doesn't catch as many. But it may actually improve the quality for the remaining fish. A lot of that is just opinion though, and since fish are a prey species...

Last night I murdered a couple of Pittsburgh's Best sausages. We were in a hurry, so first my wife put them through some water torture to softn them up, then I grill them for information. You should have seen them squirm. all is well though because we put a little vermouth with the onions and mushrooms that we piled on top.
 
My only problem with "trophy trout" regs is the "trophy" part. Using the word "trophy" implies two things that I think can be detrimenetal....that only large fish are special and that you are more likely to catch one on that designated "trophy" area. This leads to unrealistic expectations by both C and R anglers and creeling anglers alike and in turn creates the demands for tighter regs by C and R crowd and more stocking by the creeling crowd. I think the entire fish population and the river ecosystem in which they inhabit are a lot more special than any particular large fish. Leads to the tail wagging the conservatation dog, IMHO.

Dave, you know its funny that not keeping fish during breeding season brings up the fact that I and my hunting crew that I hang with don't shoot doe after the rut voluntarily. Whether this actually helps the deer herd or not is a matter of debate. However, I think it brings home the point that people who are interested in sustainable harvest are at least as concerned if not more so about the health of a wildlife population than those who just observe nature or only get entertainment from it. When people claim the opposite, I find it insulting.
 
In a month there won't be anymore trout harvested in Penns trophy section until next April then you can go have a tea party to celebrate.
 
Ah, the infernal debate that will rage on forever - to consume for the benefits of nutrition or to release for the pleasure of the angler. The debate that will override and deride the best scientific evidence regardless of who or how the weight of evidence is presented.

In the late 1880's, Dr. James Henshall, a physician and angling author, suggested three stages of angler evolution. First, an angler desires to catch fish, then an angler concentrates on catching trophy fish, and finally how fish are caught is more important than how many fish are captured. Perhaps there is a fourth stage, a stage of devolution, if you will, when an angler wants all of the above - to catch all the fish and all of the big fish by only using his partcular method even if that means fishing in situation similar to 'fishing in a barrel' like kids at an angling carnival.

The good fortune for most anglers is that fish are naturally reproducing resources. Fish populations are not static. The loss of one or a couple of large fish does not mean the demise of the population. The second good fortune for anglers is that fish exhibit indeterminate growth rates. While there are certainly genetic influences on an individual in a population, environmental influcences likely have a greater impact to the poulation.

As Mike has pointed out, angling mortality is a small part of the overall mortality to a fish population; therfore anglers have a relatively inconsequential effect at the population level. As anglers, our greatest expenditure of resources could be or should be to try and influence those factors i.e. environmental factors where we can have the greatest effect to influence the fish population.

Become educated, not opinionated.
Become proactive, not reactive.
 
OhioOutdoorsman wrote:

Dave, you know its funny that not keeping fish during breeding season brings up the fact that I and my hunting crew that I hang with don't shoot doe after the rut voluntarily. Whether this actually helps the deer herd or not is a matter of debate.
Click to expand...

LOL! now that is funny. As opposed to shooting them before the rut? How would that help the herd? All it does is make the bucks a lot more happy during the rut. I wasn't talking about letting them spawn for their pleasure. :lol:

Makes more sense to not shoot the biggest bucks until after the rut to let them pass their genes on. does should be fare game.

We always waited until strawberry season to shoot deer. By then we figured the fawns can fend for themselves. Hey, at least it is consistant with the trout thing. :lol:
 
My only problem with trophy regs is that they call a 14 inch fish a trophy. That's a joke. In Idaho it was 20 inches. At 14 inches you really could do some damage to the population.
 
Mike wrote:
There is little to fear from harvest trout from unstocked wild brown trout streams. The most frequently caught trout are 8-10 inches long, of which there are usually many and often a surplus through periodic production of large year classes. The kinds of fishing and harvest pressures combined that would be required to cause a noticeable decline in the fish populations (brown trout) using something so inefficient as a fishing rod are typical only of those specific stocked trout streams that receive very high protracted pressure because of frequent stockings. Exceptions in Pa. would be atypical.

Statistically, the chance that a wild brown trout caught and released will live long enough to be caught again at a much larger size is somewhat slim. Total annual mortality rates in Pa wild trout populations generally average 60-65%. If you want to see how slim the chances are start with an imaginary population of 1000 2 year old trout and start depleting that population through natural mortality of 65% per year. There won't be many 5 year olds left whether harvest occurs or not. Keep going by two more years and see how few 7 year old trophies you will have (assuming that there is habitat good enough in stream X to support 7 year olds). It is probable, with perhaps rare exceptions, that natural mortality overrides the light fishing mortality seen in Pa's wild brown trout streams. It is also probable that the exceptions already are managed under special regs.
Click to expand...

Studies done at Penn State show that brown trout in Spring Creek, an unstocked stream, are caught and released, on average, 6 times per year.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top