Special Regs; Good or Bad?

Floods and low, hot water are the biggest problem. Too many people, too much trash and nitrates going into all the fresh water systems. IMHO!
I think that every warm & cold water creek, stream, lake, or river in PA should be a catch & release only with barbless hooks!!
I also think that a PA fishing license should cost at least $500. The money should be spent on constantly restocking and checking fish populations. Fish biologists and environmentalists should be hired to fix the prob.
Anyone caught killing a fish or throwing trash in the woods should be put in prison for a couple years!
Opening day every year has thousands of "morons" as said above, that buy cheap licenses and put power bait on a treble hook to catch a couple trout to take home and eat!!
They would be better off buying a fish sandwich at McDonalds for only a couple bucks........ if the fishing license was $500!
Most people hate the outdoors. They leave their stinkin' worm containers and all their trash with all the tangled mono every time they go fishing.
Climate Change, Global Warming is here and will get worse every year. The only way to save our trout fishing is to jack the license price up so much that the meat hunters and gut hookers won't fish anymore,
 
Plain and simple: A special regulation in Pennsylvania is any regulation that is different from the general statewide regulations for a given species.

As for the impact of special size and creel limits, Troutbert was correct in his earlier point about streams that are lightly fished (or, I would add, lightly harvested), if the fishing pressure, specifically harvest or delayed fishing mortality, is not high enough on average to substantially modify the fish population size structure, age structure, or abundance above that caused by natural conditions, then special regs will not have any beneficial fish population effects.

And, on average in Pennsylvania, fishing pressure (harvest) is too light on wild brook trout streams for special regs to have any benefit (Once again we return to the wild trout creel survey, which has documented the light fishing pressure). We'll see in the future if those brook trout streams presently under special regs were an exception.
 
Mike,

I curious to know.....

who was the sample of anglers surveyed on your wild trout creel survey? If you would have surveyed me you would of had a spike in your fishing pressure theroy. ;-)
 
Maybe it's just me. I fish Brook Trout natives and I don't think they need to be monsters. All the brookies that we catch are 6-8 inches or smaller in natural waters. Not saying we don't need to support the habitat, I live and breathe it. I don't care that they are big, I just care that they are here to stay. I fish water muddled with stocked Browns and Rainbows, big pigs, but the brookies are always there to keep things just that more interesting. A little fish sprinting from out behind a piece of grass to beat a hog stocked rainbow. I wish they would stop stocking native streams.

As far as nitrates, they are tolerated by trout more than you would think but cause algae blooms that can significantly be detrimental. You should probably visit all of the small waste water treatment plants in your area. I've tested water from some of them where the smell of chlorine in their effluent left bleach spots on my pants. Not that they discharge that but they do what they think will protect their jobs. Get to personally know these people and work with them. Take your own samples if you have to. Ammonia is the biggest problem and phosphates that are very hard to remove don't help either. A small package plant releasing Ammonia even at small levels is worse than either high nitrates or phosphate.
 
Mike wrote:
Plain and simple: A special regulation in Pennsylvania is any regulation that is different from the general statewide regulations for a given species.

As for the impact of special size and creel limits, Troutbert was correct in his earlier point about streams that are lightly fished (or, I would add, lightly harvested), if the fishing pressure, specifically harvest or delayed fishing mortality, is not high enough on average to substantially modify the fish population size structure, age structure, or abundance above that caused by natural conditions, then special regs will not have any beneficial fish population effects.

And, on average in Pennsylvania, fishing pressure (harvest) is too light on wild brook trout streams for special regs to have any benefit (Once again we return to the wild trout creel survey, which has documented the light fishing pressure). We'll see in the future if those brook trout streams presently under special regs were an exception.
Click to expand...

Mike, my point was that SOME of these streams do not get fished much, for various reasons, such as very thick vegetation (Kistler Run), brutal topography (Jeans Run), access limitations from posted property (many streams on public land have had their access cut off at the bottom), and "dead" stream reputations because of AMD, acid precipitation. In addition some streams get overlooked because they are at "odd" locations, like smack along an interstate or in industrial areas etc.

But the typical freestone, unstocked wild trout streams through state forests and gamelands in northern PA DO get fished, and lot more than most people might expect.

If you walk along these streams, and are observant, you will see that the great majority of them have a well defined angler trail paralleling them, with well defined side trails leading down to the better pools. Also, it is common to see hook and bait and lure packaging, line in trees etc. even on very small obscure streams.

Also, my opening day tradition for quite a few years now, has been to go out on small, unstocked forested freestoners on opening day. So I've had the opportunity to meet many of the people who fish these streams. Many of them have been kind enough to show me their catches.
 
I don't disagree. I just don't think it should be the size of fish. At this point populations of small native reproducing brookies should be more impotant. I support special regs as well.
 
Troutbert: As a hiker and angler, I am not going to agree that the foot paths along streams are strictly angler trails. Long before I have fished some streams I have walked or hiked along them, using the stream corridor as a hiking route. And, since the prettiest sections most interesting to hikers, casual walkers, or anglers are either falls or big pools, of course there are well-defined trail leading to these areas. And given the sloping terrain and soil moisture near and along many streams, it does not take much activity to create a trail, plus it takes a long time for trails to heal over in those conditions. As for trails leading to big pools, of course these pools see more angler usage, but that doesn't mean the streams are depleted of larger trout. Stream electrofishing surveys often reveal many nice fish in tougher filshing places between the heavier fished pools.

Also, keep in mind that the anglers who show you their catches on opening day or opening weekend may represent the lions share of the harvest for the year in those streams. As I have pointed out before, we have done electrofishing surveys before opening day and then later in the summer and the adult trout populations are better in July and August than they are just before opening day. This suggests that opening day harvest is of minor consequence on these streams.
 
Mike,

I can tell you that no matter what the study shows...im not willingly going to except the data. im not really sure what you guys are looking to discover.

One we all know that enviromental factors are the largest contributing factor to wild brook trout populations. Drought, habitat and pollution are at the top of the list. So without doing a large extensive study of a large area on a variety of waters....the data seems useless.

We also dont know who are fishing these streams and how often. Is it bait anglers,flyfisherman,people who harvest, C&R anglers? We dont really know.

So what is the point of a study that we already know isnt going to prove much with such little data other than the numbers of fish?
Im not saying you guys arent trying....im not blaming you guys either. Im just confused by it.

In conclusion: It shouldnt suprise you that a flyfisherman isnt willing to accept PFBC data from a study
;-)
 
Sal,

Which study are you speaking about.... the now long-completed study of angler use and harvest on wild trout streams that you can read in its entirety on the PFBC web site or are you speaking of the brook trout special regs evaluation?
 
the WBTEP. :) :-D

but as far as the angler usage.....im curious, again, to whom you got your data from. there are people like me and chaz that are diehard wild trout fisherman. In fact my angler usage on small streams probably consists of about 200 days a year. while i know iam not like most people...still we are out there. I was out there this weekend...on and unstocked creek....as last weekend...and the one before that....heck even during the week :-D
 
Do you guys want to complain or do something? How many are doing stream samples? Less than $200 will get you a Kit to do pH, DO, Nitrate, ammonia, Phosphate etc. A thermometer is less. Do your own studies.
 
Creel limits, special regs aren't going to support the brook trout. Maybe no-fish only zones, and no stocking only zones and no pollute only zones. You can look at numbers and statistics all day long, but if you have to designate waters how about no fishing zones! Period! How about designating some brook trout streams as no fishing? Period! I know of a few stream owners that would comply. I listen to fish size and creel limits but I don't hear anything other than spectulation. Do you want to save the species or just spend time catching those little 4-6 inch mighty mights. Either way I don't think it's about big fish. You other wild brook trout fisherman may feel different. I rather leave them alone than ever catch them with thorn apples spurs in my hair. Stupid multiflora rose as well. Crappy brush. Little spotted fish! You want to have some water samples tested. Contact me.
 
No fishing zones?

Well this was something I suggested along time ago to help preserve wild brook trout for future generations. I suggested having about 20 streams statewide designated as such and studied as to populations and sizes...also to help insure future populations in case we ever needed to repopulate streams after global warming.

the idea was laughed off the board.
 
Sal,
The angler usage methodology is in the wild trout creel survey report on the PFBC web site. Angler counts were done on 200 randomly selected stream sections statewide and done on randomly selected weekdays and weekend days by 10 creel clerks. The study occurred throughout the trout season. Anglers were interviewed. Random selection meant that among other things, the streams were studied in proportion to their occurrence around the state. As a result, for instance, 8 streams were included from SE Pa. and two of those were purely brook trout waters with a third one being mixed brook and brown trout water. The rest from SE Pa were brown trout waters. As I say, if you are interested in details, read the report or its summary.
 
I did read the report ;-)

my point was prehaps hoping to run into an angler on a said stream section on a said day is a poor way to determine if the stream is being fished.

You will see me in SC PA fishing a wild trout stream on Wednesday and a SEPA wild trout stream on Thursday and a NEPA stream on the weekend. Often i will hit mulitple streams in one day spending maybe a few hours at each one. The chances of you running into me on any given day are slim at best. Especailly with the thousands of stream sections out there.

I would think with all our names being in the PFBC data base....(through lisence purchases) there has to be a better way. Again im not faulting you guys but i think its bad way to go to a stream and see no one and assume no one fishes it.
Or even go all 7 days during the week and see one angler one day.Then figure that the stream gets fished 52 days out of the year by one angler. ;-) This methodology is faulty at best.
Im not saying that the pressure isnt light....but i bet its more than u think. I went to Tucquan Creek 4 times in my life now and each time have seen anglers on that unstocked wild trout stream. But i also dont assume it gets fished 352 days out of the year ;-)

Just my take.



Now you never answered about the WBTEP. :-D
 
It's random sampling. It works. You don't get much data on individual streams, but the results from the samples can be used to get a picture of wild trout stream usage statewide.

Correct me if I'm wrong, Albatross. :)
 
I tend to think that the data you get is relative only to the streams surveyed with such a small sample. There are almost 8,000 miles of streams sections with wild trout populations representing over 3,300 streams. 200 streams is a very small sample, but it may give us enough data to say whether or not it is worth a closer look.
But to look at 4 of the 10 stream in the WBTEP, and say it's representative of all the streams, I still wouldn't take that leap. I can say that when I've fished Jeans Run there were plenty of fish and there were brookies over 7 inches. Then again I fished a brookie stream with a friend a couple of years ago and we caught over 130 brookies between 9 and 15 inches in about 4 hours of fishing. Sadly I think most of those fish have disappeared, probably due to floods and droughts not harvest.
There are other brookie streams I fish that also have fair numbers of larger brookies that have been impacted not by droughts and floods but by sewer plants dumping warm brown water into the stream in the headwaters leaving the stream void of brookies for a long distance down stream. The plant may even be legal in doing that, because of the designation of the stream and the NPDES permit they have for the sewer plant. The point I want to make is it is still more about habitat then harvest. But harvest does play a role.
 
salvelinusfontinalis wrote:

You will see me in SC PA fishing a wild trout stream on Wednesday and a SEPA wild trout stream on Thursday and a NEPA stream on the weekend. Often i will hit mulitple streams in one day spending maybe a few hours at each one.
Click to expand...

Hmmmmm, maybe Didymo is the cause of the reduced fish numbers?

Are you thoroughly cleaning your gear and hopefully drying it completely between streams to make sure you aren't spreading invasives?? Using non-felt soles isn't a free pass.

Just had to get that in ;-)


In all seriousness I have few comments.

1. Trails along streams mean nothing as Mike speculated. While it's no secret stream; Hawk Run in Carbon County is a good example. The trail along the stream is heavily used as a path to Hawk Falls. Every time I fish that stream I am the lone person on the trail with a fishing rod except for the occasional Mud Run fisherman I may encounter.

2. Using other streams as a way to speculate about Jean's Run, Kistler Run and Wolf Swamp Run is dodgy at best unless you have fished or should I say ATTEMPTED to fish them. These streams are not Slate Run or even Manor Fork; they are extremely small, shallow, tight and a royal pain in the butt to access or fish in more than a few spots. I know at least two of the holes the PFBC does electroshocking surveys on at Wolf Swamp Run and they are a MAJOR hassle to get to.

3. With #2 in mind; I would have to place mortality caused by anglers at the bottom of my list of causes for the results on the streams outlined in the 2008 Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Evaluations for Northeast Pennsylvania. I have fished all of the streams in the survey and lot of the WBTEA streams across the state including plenty of the unnamed tributaries and other than one or two named streams in Northcentral PA; I really can't think of many that might be seeing increased pressure due to the designation.

4. With #3 in mind; blaming spin and/or bait fisherman for anything related to the statistics in the linked survey or possibly any WBTEA Results Surveys is extremely suspect as well. In order for that theory to hold much water the PAFBC is naive, lazy and is only electrofishing in the holes where access is extremely easy and close to the road because the often espoused opinion is all spin/bait fisherman are morons and incapable of hiking into remote locations to fish.

For the record; while I may be wrong about my assumptions and my opinions may differ from the majority; I don't believe either.


I started this post to see what folks who had first hand experience with these streams thought about the results because I have no idea. I thank everyone for their comments and opinions.

I also have to admit to some "baiting" since I wanted to see how long it would take others to extrapolate the results to other watersheds with little or no similarities to the survey streams other than size and the species present. In many cases those other streams aren't included in the WBTEA regulation and possibly don't even meet the WBTEA criteria to be accurately considered for comparison. Another reason was to see how long it would take before the PFBC and their results, methods and mission were called into question. I particularly enjoy those "grassy knoll" theories.

;-)

While I'm no fan of Special Regulations for the "attraction factor"; I'm also not a fisheries biologist so I can't accurately determine the benefits or lack thereof of special regulation implementation. For that I'll defer to the experts and leave the wild speculation and apples to oranges comparisons to the fishermen.

I have no idea what the end results of the Wild Brook Trout Management experiment will reveal but for the time being I'll keep an open mind and believe what the PFBC offers as accurate. I think the regulation has merit despite the attraction factor because in my experience; these streams are just not fishermen friendly enough to be impacted by increased pressure.

In my way of thinking if the WBTEA designation increases awareness and promotes the catch and release of wild brook trout it will accomplish its goals and probably protect and increase the resource as a result. Call me naive or worse but I believe it will if we give it time and factor out natural and historical fluctuations.

Your opinion and mileage may vary!
 
LarryFine wrote:
Another reason was to see how long it would take before the PFBC and their results, methods and mission were called into question. I particularly enjoy those "grassy knoll" theories.
Click to expand...

Poor analogy! The accusations aimed at PFBC have no basis in reality, whereas the "grassy knoll" conclusion is much more plausible than the magic bullet fantasy. The unfortunate truth of human belief patterns is that people find it easier to believe things of which they have no direct knowledge when it conforms closely to their preconceived (even if completely erroneous) notions. At one time, the idea that assasination of Kennedy could not have been a broader conspiracy was such an erroneous preconceived notion. Likewise with the belief that harvest practices prevent brookie streams from teeming with lunker trout.
 
All good stuff. I also waited to read the responses before I posted. You can debate until you’re blue in the face whether special harvest regulations hurt or enhance a stream with respect to overall wild trout populations or larger wild trout. To me it’s all kind of silly. Setting a regulation on a stream or stream section is one thing, but it is meaningless if the regulation is not enforced. Even in the limited miles of SR sections of streams in PA the regulations are not enforced for the most part, how we expect enforcement on a remote wild trout stream? The PFBC is incapable of enforcing any harvest regulation since they are severely understaffed to undertake such a task.

The results of the surveys are based on the assumption that regulations are enforced, and no harvest is taking place. This is a controlled experiment without controls. I suppose that a C&R designation would stop some of the harvest, but unless you knew the amount of harvest taking place before the survey versus during the survey period, the numbers are basically meaningless. While I have no idea what the effect of C&R would have on a certain trout stream, my guess is they would be minimal in remote streams, since poachers are usually by nature, pretty lazy. One thing I do know is in most wild trout streams, there are but a handful of decent sized fish in any given 100 yard stretch, and they are for the most part concentrated in a few holes and runs in the stretch. A poacher or two can easily wipe out all or most of the larger fish in a trip or two on any small stream.

While I am generally in favor of stricter harvest regulations on some wild trout streams, I believe that harvest regulation is the least important factor in improving wild trout fishing in PA. I, as the PFBC does, also factor in the loss of license revenue if casual fisherman no longer bought licenses if harvest was curtailed or eliminated. Many casual fishermen catch and keep a few trout in one or two outings and never fish again for the entire year. This cash cow helps drive the FBC budget for many worthwhile things.

Without strict enforcement, I suppose we will never know for sure how much of a factor harvest is on our streams, but one thing I do know is that improving the habitat improves the fishing…for sure. Which license dollar is better spent by the PFBC, an extra dollar on enforcement, or an extra dollar on habitat improvement?
 
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