wildtrout2
Well-known member
Thankfully, the vast majority of folks who pursue natives in PA are C&R fishermen. Their biggest threat appears to be environmental issues.
NY STATE record Brook Trout
- Thread starter CRB
- Start date
Unfortunately, harvest of brook trout has a very significant negative effect on their populations.
wildtrout2
Well-known member
What leads you to think that's the case? I have never seen, or spoken to a single fisherman who keeps natives in my 40 years of fishing in PA.
Didn't the Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Program show that not to be the case?
Last edited:
dryflyguy
Well-known member
That fish is freakishly fat.
And no, I’m not saying that it’s stocked because of that
But seems kinda odd to me
You guys that fish there - have you caught other pig brookies like that?
And no, I’m not saying that it’s stocked because of that
But seems kinda odd to me
You guys that fish there - have you caught other pig brookies like that?
wildtrout2
Well-known member
It really is a fat brookie. A lot of the large lake caught trout I've seen pics of have a big gut. That brookie (the one on the left of the two pics) looks like it could be wild though. We may never know.
Edit: Looking again at the two side by side pics of that monster brookie, they actually look like different fish.
Last edited:
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
The data set analysis of that study was almost as abysmal as the set up and premise of the study.
Last edited:
wildtrout2
Well-known member
How would you have gone about it, more streams included in the program?
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission has applied regulations to different trout species differently. Between 2004 and 2015, the state piloted an experimental angling regulation called the “Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Program” (WBTEP) aimed at protecting larger brook trout. The program allowed angling year-round with no tackle restrictions and allowed the harvest of nonnative brown and rainbow trout, but required all brook trout be released.
There were several problems with the design of this study and the implementation of the regulations. First, the regulations aimed to increase the number of large brook trout present in the streams managed under this regulation. This would imply that the only factor limiting brook trout size is angling and harvest. I’m not sure how this ever passed peer review. Brook trout size is a function of many factors, and limiting one doesn’t necessarily mean that all the others are present to achieve the desired outcome. Second, the regulations were applied to small sections of first, second, and third-order streams except Kettle Creek (the only stream that showed an improvement in the number of larger brook trout after regulation implementation). This is somewhat tied to the first issue in that habitat size, connectivity, habitat quality, water quality, food resources, presence of nonnative trout, and a host of other factors play a role in average fish size. Lastly, the program’s goal should have been to either increase the population size, protect the species, or both. The goal of increasing the number of larger brook trout implies that the regulation’s only purpose for this critical conservation species is angling.
Unfortunately, the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission has used the “failure” of the Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Program as justification for failing to implement any brook trout catch and release regulations. While the program failed to achieve its stated goal of increasing the number of larger brook trout in Pennsylvania when applied to small individual stream sections, other states have proven that catch and release angling regulations for brook trout have had other benefits to the species. Namely, in Maryland, the MD DNR stated that the catch and release regulations applied to the entire upper Savage River watershed,
There were several problems with the design of this study and the implementation of the regulations. First, the regulations aimed to increase the number of large brook trout present in the streams managed under this regulation. This would imply that the only factor limiting brook trout size is angling and harvest. I’m not sure how this ever passed peer review. Brook trout size is a function of many factors, and limiting one doesn’t necessarily mean that all the others are present to achieve the desired outcome. Second, the regulations were applied to small sections of first, second, and third-order streams except Kettle Creek (the only stream that showed an improvement in the number of larger brook trout after regulation implementation). This is somewhat tied to the first issue in that habitat size, connectivity, habitat quality, water quality, food resources, presence of nonnative trout, and a host of other factors play a role in average fish size. Lastly, the program’s goal should have been to either increase the population size, protect the species, or both. The goal of increasing the number of larger brook trout implies that the regulation’s only purpose for this critical conservation species is angling.
Unfortunately, the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission has used the “failure” of the Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Program as justification for failing to implement any brook trout catch and release regulations. While the program failed to achieve its stated goal of increasing the number of larger brook trout in Pennsylvania when applied to small individual stream sections, other states have proven that catch and release angling regulations for brook trout have had other benefits to the species. Namely, in Maryland, the MD DNR stated that the catch and release regulations applied to the entire upper Savage River watershed,
Research has shown that brook trout need large, interconnected watersheds to maintain robust populations and ensure genetic diversity. Angling regulations need to be applied at this same scale to be effective. The “failure” of the WBTEP does not imply that angling regulations aren’t effective for brook trout; it simply means that you have to apply the regulations to a larger region or network of streams and rivers instead of small sections of tiny headwater streams.
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
In the end, the WBTEP only showed that small segment, tiny watershed populations are impacted greatly by deep freeze and drought, which Pennsylvania experienced during that time frame.
History has shown that over harvest decimated brook trout populations in Pennsylvania. While today many that pursue them are C&R, stocking over brook trout continues, the people pursuing stocked fish do harvest in some capacity.
Also, the angling methods on those streams employed during that time frame are not the best for the health of a brook trout too.
Another problem with the study is it didn't consider the notion of a blanket reg vs a pointed one.
If you do a little searching, you will find reports of one of the streams in the program receiving a significant increase in pressure due to the published regulation. Imagine if you will, advertising it and putting out fish here signs. Brook trout never do well with increased pressure. In that stream it is likely the regulation hurt the population without harvest. A state wide C&R on brook trout would stop concentrated pressure due to regulations.
Kettle was the only one that saw an increase in population and fish size of brook trout.... A larger interconnected waterway. Seems restricting harvest there worked.
History has shown that over harvest decimated brook trout populations in Pennsylvania. While today many that pursue them are C&R, stocking over brook trout continues, the people pursuing stocked fish do harvest in some capacity.
Also, the angling methods on those streams employed during that time frame are not the best for the health of a brook trout too.
Another problem with the study is it didn't consider the notion of a blanket reg vs a pointed one.
If you do a little searching, you will find reports of one of the streams in the program receiving a significant increase in pressure due to the published regulation. Imagine if you will, advertising it and putting out fish here signs. Brook trout never do well with increased pressure. In that stream it is likely the regulation hurt the population without harvest. A state wide C&R on brook trout would stop concentrated pressure due to regulations.
Kettle was the only one that saw an increase in population and fish size of brook trout.... A larger interconnected waterway. Seems restricting harvest there worked.
Last edited:
