Special Regs; Good or Bad?

[troutbert]

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!

Comments such as "wild speculation" and "apples and oranges" and "grassy knoll" etc. do nothing to disprove other opinions and nothing to support your own.

 

[LarryFine]

How about "single bullet theory" although I can't take credit for that one?

With no disrespect intended I wasn't trying to sway anyone's opinion. I know better than to try that here. My intention was to draw attention to the results of the NEPA survey, state my own useless non-scientific opinions based on experience on the watersheds in question while at the same time driving wild speculation about causes and effects while bashing the PFBC.

I think I suceeded on all three accounts!

;-)

 

[troutbert]

LarryFine wrote:
How about "single bullet theory" although I can't take credit for that one?

With no disrespect intended I wasn't trying to sway anyone's opinion. I know better than to try that here. My intention was to draw attention to the results of the NEPA survey, state my own useless non-scientific opinions based on experience on the watersheds in question while at the same time driving wild speculation about causes and effects while bashing the PFBC.

I think I suceeded on all three accounts!

;-)

So you mean no respect by referring to other people's ideas as "wild speculation." That's comforting.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

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.

now i know where you get most of your beliefs and ideas Jack :-D

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

First off i never siad anything about a reduction in numbers of fish. What reduction are you talking about?

Secondly, I would have to fish a stream with Didymo to spread it. There has been no such accounts in any of the streams that i fish. Beyond that....I have 4 pairs of non-felt shoes that I rotate. My stuff is very clean and very dry by the time I use it again.
Im not a Gunpowerfalls visitor

My points was that in which Chaz had stated. To think that a very small sample of streams can represent the entire state of PA is a bit of a stretch. Im not saying the data is totally bad. In fact, its better than what we had before. But i would be willing to bet that wild trout streams get used more than the PFBC thinks. There has to be a better way than hoping to run into an angler on any said stream section. Heck while you sampled X stream 3 guys could have been on Z stream 3 miles over. I just dont see that as a very affective way. Thats all I meant by that.

:-D

 

[RLeeP]

Whether or not there "must be a better way" to gather this data seems rather moot to me. It happens to be the best way we have and my guess is that, in terms of measuring pressure, it is probably pretty accurate.

I mean, we routinely use representative sampling to accurately predict the results of a presidential election within 3-4 points.

Compared to that, I'd think something like this would be relatively simple.

I tend to think everybody has a piece of the truth here.

I think pressure on a given stream has the potential to vary significantly and that enough of an increase in pressure is possible to significantly detract from the well being of a given fishery.

I think though that the converse is much more common and that the majority of brook trout streams are not adversely impacted by pressure to the extent that any given angler can say for certain that it is happening.

That's my sense of it, anyway..

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Likewise with the belief that harvest practices prevent brookie streams from teeming with lunker trout.

In the days when most of the larger creeks and rivers still could hold wild brook trout there were large wild brook trout. Someday if any of you havent you should get Nick Karas book Brook Trout. Beyond being a ver enjoyable read...its is also very informative about the history of Brook Trout. In those days there were alot of large wild trout and also a very large creel limit. Slowly the fish diminished. So in those days harvest DID have an effect on large wild brook trout.

Today, after all the logging, pollution and other biological factors that have made the wild brook trout go upward farther into watersheds...the large wild brook trout have disappeared. Now with that said.....there are still some larger creeks or rivers that support wild brook trout. This being so...the only factor that i see could be stopping them from reaching full potental is harvest and herons. Not lack of food or habitat. But those types of streams are few and far between today.

As far as a better way:

I know its all we got right now.......and your right about that.
To compare it to the Presidential Election is a bit of a stretch. Because again...there you directly talk to people over a very large area...as opposed to a very small area in a large place ;-)

 

[RLeeP]

>>As far as a better way:

I know its all we got right now.......and your right about that.
To compare it to the Presidential Election is a bit of a stretch. Because again...there you directly talk to people over a very large area...as opposed to a very small area in a large place >>

Well, the way I see it is that we have on the one hand, an anecdotally-based belief that pressure is primarily and directly responsible for a perceived lack of larger individuals across a pretty broad range of wild brook trout populations. On the other hand, we have an (admittedly) small-sample size study conducted with some rigor and discipline that has produced a contrary conclusion.

Neither is so definitive that it settles the question and both lend themselves rather easily to extrapolation in support of something we already want to believe anyway.

But if forced to choose, I'll go with the one that has at least some control and made some use of statistical methodology, with the proviso that when we are talking about something like this, the reality is more of a plaid than a solid and that exceptions exist. There are probably brook trout streams that are being beat down by pressure and there are certainly brook trout streams where the impact of pressure is negligible. My belief is that the former are decidedly in the minority.

 

[FarmerDave]

Fishidiot wrote:
FarmerDave,
I agree that they need samples of other creeks in the same watersheds iot provide control sample comparison. Maybe this is being done at PFBC over a longer period - I don't believe that all their survey samples are posted on the website. There is also an increasing gap between when the surveys are completed and when they're posted (in this case about 4 months). As for pressure, while your theory about "special regs" makes sense, for waters such as these, short of mounting trail cameras, I don't see how they can get an accurate count of anglers. I am curious, on what basis do you make your claim that hardware anglers casting down and across will increase mortality? In all my years of fishing streamers down and across (and using hardware for trout and bass) I don't believe that the fish are hooked any deeper. Frankly, I hook trout and bass deepest on flies with dries and poppers.

The comment about special regulations is one of those things that is true, but I can't prove it. Most of us agree that publicity increases pressure. I'll leave it at that.

About your question. It was based mostly on experience and opinion. Also, I didn't say down and across. I was talking about casting downstream and retreiving straight back up the current. In slow water, it makes little difference, but in the typical freestones that I fish (or should I say used to fish), it does. The trout hit from downstream, therefore if the spinner is moving strait against the current (strait away from the trout when it hits), it is also a straight line into the throat. Native brook trout and wild rainbows (IMHO) tend to hit very agressive in the freestones. If you are casting upstream, you tend ot hook fish in the corner of the mouth. You mentioned streamers. I'm betting it is down and across, and you are keeping it moving sidways for the most part. Swinging a streamer decreases the chances of deep hooking a fish IMHO because of the lateral component.

Have you ever heard of the Nale brothers. They are arguably two of the best spinner anglers in the state at least. Ask them what they think about casting straight down stream. I believe at least one of them have expressed the same opinion in the past.

 

[FarmerDave]

Mike wrote:
Farmer Dave: Regarding the brook trout special regulations, there are "control" streams (non-special reg streams) being examined as well, which will help reveal the impact (or probable lack thereof) of the special regs on the streams included in the brook trout special reg program.

As I have said many times in this forum, the fishing pressure and harvest are very low Pennsylvania's wild trout streams. Few receive substantial pressure. Combine that with the difficult freestone environment, where natural forces have a much greater impact on fish populations than the existing fishing pressure, and you're not likely to have a special regulation impact.

Regarding the need for large water to have large brook trout, we still have many brook trout streams that are tributaries to very lightly fished (if at all) larger waters, yet we still don't find large brook trout in the bigger waters or the tribs. For this larger water scenario to play out, the tribs that served as summer refugia would also have to have large fish habitat, and lots of it, if the tribs were to support populations of large trout to the extent that these fish would be numerous enough to provide an interesting fishery in the larger water during the spring.

Thanks for the input Mike.

About your last paragraph. That argument had nothing to do with fishing pressure. Are there browns or rainbows in that larger water downstream? If they aren't poluted, then I'll bet there are. This is happening, but the brook trout have been replaced by browns and sometime rainbows. I think that was the point or at least part of it. I know of several brook trout streams that get fair numbers of large browns and rainbows in their lower reaches from summer into the fall. Take the Allegheny or Clarion Rivers for example. There are large browns and the occasional rainbow in both until the water warms up at which time they head up the brookie streams or park their arses at the mouth to become otter food. It isn't much of a stretch to argue that if those browns and rainbows were not there, they would be replaced by brook trout.

 

[FarmerDave]

Great to see you back KenU. We haven't heard from you in a long time here (or at least i haven't).

 

[KenU]

It just seems to me that it is nonsensical to say that harvesting has no effect on the size range of a population of trout. Every one removed is one less to catch. Sure the smaller ones can grow bigger and replace those caught, but growth rates in small infertile freestone streams are, at best, about 2 inches per year. It takes at least 3 years to grow a 7-inch brookie in these streams and more typically 4 years. It takes another couple of years for them to achieve maximum size, about 10 inches. Because food and cover is scarce, very few survive long enough to reach this size. Yes, they get replaced, but it is a pretty slow process and if many of the “quality” 8-inch and over brookies are removed from the population, it really degrades the fishery.

However, that being said, harvesting is not the worst thing we do. For that reason, I don’t like to argue about the effects of regulations. The single most significant thing we could do to improve the lot of the native brook trout would be to quit stocking over them.

 

[Chaz]

The deal is that back in the 1800's all of the big brookies were removed from the gene pool,with none left and degraded habiatat it's very hard for a brook trout population to recver any semblance of what it used to be.

 

[LehighRegular]

Here is a thought/idea....

To conform to the "back the brookie" initiative and Trout Unlimited's brook trout conservation effort.... maybe if the PFBC were really serious about protecting our state fish and its habitat, there would be stricter regulations to prevent people killing these fish. Can't return a dead fish, right?

How bout these regs...
C&R on all wild brook trout state wide...period.
Artifical Lures Only on wild brook trout waters.
Eliminate stocking of brook trout state wide
Eliminate stocking of trout in wild brook trout streams
Ramp up habitat restoration efforts and form partnerships with conservationg groups

If you kill a brookie today, there is no chance for it to grow, reproduce and provide for another to catch again.

Its tough to determine if the Brook Trout Enhancement program/regs are working and I believe there are some flaws with the program anyway to make it work properly.

The only real way to see if wild brook trout populations can rebound significantly is to put a moritorium on creeling these fish...maybe a 5-8 year moritorium is required?