Heritage Brook Trout

Fish Sticks

Fish Sticks

Active member
Joined
Mar 19, 2022
Messages
713
Location
Central PA
Exactly, I think the key word here is life history.


“or how a fish forages, ages, grows, and reproduces throughout its life—can help us understand what it takes to preserve fish populations for future generations. We can use life history information to make practical regulations for fisheries”

Electro surveying in august and finding were fish are huddle around thermal
refuge tells you one small of the brook trouts life history and managing for just that is ridiculous. This is why other states are managing entire watersheds, life history.

It would be like if someone study/conserve you you busted into your house randomly one day found you on the crapper and concluded that must be the only area of your home you needed and put a bunch of other peoplein your living room kitchen, bed room ect and “managed you in the bathroom”. Its completely incoherent and its what PA fish and boat is doing right now. I understand there are social and political pressures and this cannot be done everywhere we find a brook trout but not even one stream state wide??? Really?
Watershed statewide*
 
use2wuz

use2wuz

Active member
Joined
May 7, 2022
Messages
231
Location
Northern Hemisphere
For me the overall takeaway is beware of talking in generalities. What fits for one stream may be very, very different from another.

The brook trout enhancement program. They picked streams that were already excellent!!!! Like every one of them. From the day it was enacted I NEVER saw it as a regulation tool. Those streams were NOT overharvested or overfished, and it was clear from the get go. Almost to a T, it hurt those particular streams, and it was VERY predictable. We had a thread here about it!!! We all said it was trouble for those streams. Not bad. Not ir-recoverable. But it would be a detriment to each of them. It was obvious. You had already good, lightly fished brook trout streams, and they put signs up saying to the general public "FISH HERE". I mean, comon.

I still supported the program though. Not for any management reason on those streams, I did not see the intent as to make those particular streams better. But to me the entire point of the program was: "Hey, all you numbnuts anglers. Yeah, you guys that follow that stocking schedule and chase white trucks around. That's ok, nothing wrong with that. But many of you got into a rut. You got addicted to that crack so bad that you're completely blind to the fact that right in your back yard, we have all of these other streams that we don't even have to stock. Why is it on this small stream, there's 30 guys fishing the day after a stocking huddling around the spot where the road crosses? Yet 1 mile down the road there's a similar sized quality wild trout stream with more fish but only like 1 guy on it? You don't even know they exist because they aren't on the stocking schedule. Yeah, some of you are new. Some have kids with. But a bunch of you others here, you should be progressing to those wild streams by now. Here, we'll help. We'll publicize a few good ones in each area of the state. Put em on a list, put signs up, make it easy on you. Go fish em. Try it out. If you have fun, hopefully you'll realize a stream does not have to be on a stocking list to be good. Go find more of them on your own. Consider it a step program to get off your addiction."

Hurts that stream, absolutely. But supported it anyway because it was a worthwhile teaching tool. A minor sacrifice on those streams, C&R so it doesn't hurt too bad, but overall good for the state as it may open a few eyes to the fact we have wild trout.

So, I'm sorry, those streams were all very good BEFORE the program. They were examples of GOOD streams. Hand picked streams that didn't need any help, they already provided an "example" angling experience. I don't read much into using them to say that regs don't work.

C&R regs will not benefit the majority of brookie streams in this state. They WILL benefit some. Which ones? The easily accessible, overly pressured, generally larger ones. The ones that even if you never fished, you know about it. Household names. Big Spring. Savage. Absolutely. And also the ones that have middling wild trout populations that get stocked over and see large opening day crowds. Those streams need a teaching tool. Hey everyone, there are wild trout present. Please take care not to deep hook fish, and once caught, release the wild ones please...
Well said PC - wouldn’t it be nice if they just quit stocking factory Brookies and made no kill regs for remaining Natives? Doesn’t matter anyway as we only have about 9.5 years left on the planet according to certain science minded politicians
 
silverfox

silverfox

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
937
You don't have to confirm or deny but that sounds an awful lot like MD. Their brook trout management plan released mid-2000's printed population estimates on a lot of streams. Sometimes estimating 50-200 adult fish per KM. I always noticed from fishing those streams that sometimes you only had adult fish in 0.5 km of stream so those estimates were really misleading. Upstream of the core areas these streams are too shallow to support much because of the habitat degradation. The lower ends are the last areas to hold brookies before they blink out from a stream because the habitat loss starts at the top and moves down over time.

I think this is true in some parts of PA also especially with the unassessed waters program which from what I understand starts at the mouth and goes until enough fish are captured to confirm a population, then the stream is protected from that point upstream regardless of how far up the trout are present. However PA has a lot more mountain brook trout streams that do support fish up to their source, so instead of overestimating by 80% it's probably not anywhere near that.
Not MD. I highly doubt it's unique to that specific area though. It's also in a vast park system with pristine habitat, so it should represent the very best case scenario population-wise.

The UWI uses single-pass electrofishing and is done in Summer during low flow. Not exactly a good snapshot of population size at all. More like a pass/fail test, but it's only done in the first .5 mile of stream from the mouth up and then at the crew's discretion whether to establish a 2nd station if they find no fish in the first 1/2 mile. Why they're not using eDNA + e-fishing is beyond me. I also don't understand why they don't just do the full surveys at the same time. Mobilizing crews is the hard part. Once they're there, they should collect as much data as possible (IMO).

To be fair, I don't think the UWI results dictate population size estimates. I'm pretty sure PFBC goes back a 2nd time and does multi-pass to establish class.
 
sarce

sarce

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 16, 2013
Messages
1,371
Not MD. I highly doubt it's unique to that specific area though. It's also in a vast park system with pristine habitat, so it should represent the very best case scenario population-wise.

The UWI uses single-pass electrofishing and is done in Summer during low flow. Not exactly a good snapshot of population size at all. More like a pass/fail test, but it's only done in the first .5 mile of stream from the mouth up and then at the crew's discretion whether to establish a 2nd station if they find no fish in the first 1/2 mile. Why they're not using eDNA + e-fishing is beyond me. I also don't understand why they don't just do the full surveys at the same time. Mobilizing crews is the hard part. Once they're there, they should collect as much data as possible (IMO).

To be fair, I don't think the UWI results dictate population size estimates. I'm pretty sure PFBC goes back a 2nd time and does multi-pass to establish class.
Re: eDNA, guessing they can't use it to tell whether a positive result is from stocked or wild fish? It could still be used as a screening tool to find out what is worth a survey.
 
silverfox

silverfox

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
937
Re: eDNA, guessing they can't use it to tell whether a positive result is from stocked or wild fish? It could still be used as a screening tool to find out what is worth a survey.
Or to prioritize sampling efforts. i.e., sample 50 streams, get positive hits on 30, sample those 30 first. Then follow up on the remaining 20 with less urgency.
 
L

lycoflyfisher

Active member
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
959
The unassessed waters project has been re prioritized repeatedly, the vast majority of the obvious trout strongholds have more or less been documented. There is ample information available about this program and clearly it is used to determine presence/absence of a wild trout population. If survey results indicate a strong population that may reach class A the Class A survey must be done by PFBC staff following the appropriate protocols and survey length.

Think about how many unassessed streams not stream sections there were just a decade ago... Now that sample to document the presence of a wild trout population isn't enough and you want every inch of every stream surveyed?

Edna can be a valuable tool, but even if it would detect presence of trout a follow up survey to electrofish would be needed to actually document the trout population so that the stream can be properly designated. It does not take a well coordinated crew much longer to conduct an unassessed survey than it does to collect and filter an Edna sample. Plus you do not have to wait for sample processing and results.
 
silverfox

silverfox

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
937
Think about how many unassessed streams not stream sections there were just a decade ago... Now that sample to document the presence of a wild trout population isn't enough and you want every inch of every stream surveyed?

Edna can be a valuable tool, but even if it would detect presence of trout a follow up survey to electrofish would be needed to actually document the trout population so that the stream can be properly designated. It does not take a well coordinated crew much longer to conduct an unassessed survey than it does to collect and filter an Edna sample. Plus you do not have to wait for sample processing and results.
I was going to mention that at this point I don't think there's a whole lot of undocumented streams left, so it's kind of a moot point. Also, to give credit where credit is due, that whole program is the prioritization of wild trout. So I'm not being critical of the program's existence, just armchair fisheries management critiquing that prioritizing it may have expedited things.

Not at all suggesting that every inch of water be surveyed. Just pointing out that when it was done recently elsewhere it seems to indicate fewer fish overall than was previously thought by doing limited stations. I do think it might be good to do that in some places we think we have robust populations just to see if the biomass estimates carry throughout the entire section or stream.

I know some other states have been using eDNA + surveys for years. There must be something to it. The presentation I saw explained that they get really accurate +/- indicators upfront and then prioritize crews for surveys based on that pre-screening. Not to mention that you run the risk of missing fish if they're isolated where eDNA would at least give you a good idea of whether they're there at all. I've personally seen this first hand. The stream was surveyed, no fish were found, and then it turned out there was a small population in an isolated little tributary.
 
T

troutbert

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 2, 2006
Messages
9,459
All the sampling is good. And the genetics and migrations studies done by the universities are nice too.

But meanwhile, hatchery trout are stocked over native brook trout in a very large mileage of streams.

If you determine that a native trout's population (brookies, cutthroat etc.) has greatly decreased and that it's important do something about it, what is the FIRST fisheries management step you would take?

The FIRST step you'd take is to quit stocking over them.

Everything else comes after that first step.

The foundation must be built before installing the walls and roof. Or the wind chimes.
 
J

JeffP

Active member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
494
What is
Not MD. I highly doubt it's unique to that specific area though. It's also in a vast park system with pristine habitat, so it should represent the very best case scenario population-wise.

The UWI uses single-pass electrofishing and is done in Summer during low flow. Not exactly a good snapshot of population size at all. More like a pass/fail test, but it's only done in the first .5 mile of stream from the mouth up and then at the crew's discretion whether to establish a 2nd station if they find no fish in the first 1/2 mile. Why they're not using eDNA + e-fishing is beyond me. I also don't understand why they don't just do the full surveys at the same time. Mobilizing crews is the hard part. Once they're there, they should collect as much data as possible (IMO).

To be fair, I don't think the UWI results dictate population size estimates. I'm pretty sure PFBC goes back a 2nd time and does multi-pass to establish class.
What is eDNA and e-fishing?
 
silverfox

silverfox

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
937
What is

What is eDNA and e-fishing?
Environmental DNA. Basically, you can take a water sample and find out if a specific species is present in the watershed. e-fishing = electrofishing.
 
Fish Sticks

Fish Sticks

Active member
Joined
Mar 19, 2022
Messages
713
Location
Central PA
All the sampling is good. And the genetics and migrations studies done by the universities are nice too.

But meanwhile, hatchery trout are stocked over native brook trout in a very large mileage of streams.

If you determine that a native trout's population (brookies, cutthroat etc.) has greatly decreased and that it's important do something about it, what is the FIRST fisheries management step you would take?

The FIRST step you'd take is to quit stocking over them.

Everything else comes after that first step.

The foundation must be built before installing the walls and roof. Or the wind chimes.
Its not intuitive so it might not be the most straight forward to understand for folks but when i’m talking about migration, genetics, and managing at watershed level, stocking is probably one of the biggest parts of what I am actually talking about because everyone is already dialed in on the bad culverts for the most part when it comes to these issues.

I think the slide shared below presented as part of a presentation about native brook trout called “review of what we know” by Dr. David Kayzak at the STAC chesapeake bay brook trout conservation genetics conference will make this clearer for a lot of folks. It illustrates why when I point out EBTJV and brook trout experts are recommending managing at watershed level to promote movement/gene flow and better foraging/growth, i am really talking about stocked trout in a very large way. DAB05383 95D0 4A62 ADC2 9BB30E261549

Notice the pictured invasive species having the same barrier effect as the culvert. Pa fish and boat was represented/in attendance for to see/hear this conference. We are currently funding implementation of invasive/biotic barriers impeding native brook trout through the hatchery program and simultaneously funding barrier removal through grant funding. I would love to be a fly on the wall if that same presentarion was ever given at a hatcheries and fisheries committee meeting and see the reactions.

1652243067334

Check out all the presentations if you really want to learn about what some of the worlds foremost brook trout experts are trying to communicate to PA fish and boat and other fisheries managers who hold native brook trout’s futures in their hands.

Its time for the angling community to understand that there are people who have devoted their entire lives to researching native brook trout conservation, not just survey/compile contextless density data on them, and not just chat casually about them in their free time.

 
M

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
4,350
Environmental DNA. Basically, you can take a water sample and find out if a specific species is present in the watershed. e-fishing = electrofishing.
Or, you find out whether a Great Blue Heron, Green Heron, Belted Kingfisher, Osprey, Bald Eagle, or vulture dropped excrement containing trout DNA in a creek that doesn’t really harbor any trout. So you need to do the electrofishing anyway as lycoflyfisher said. The results of eDNA work only suggest that a species is present.
 
silverfox

silverfox

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
937
Or, you find out whether a Great Blue Heron, Green Heron, Belted Kingfisher, Osprey, Bald Eagle, or vulture dropped excrement containing trout DNA in a creek that doesn’t really harbor any trout. So you need to do the electrofishing anyway as lycoflyfisher said. The results of eDNA work only suggest that a species is present.
VA DWR gave a presentation on the use of eDNA to prioritize electrofishing and showed that in all cases, a positive eDNA hit resulted in positive electrofishing results. With electrofishing alone, they missed fish. I don't recall the % of misses, but it was significant. As I said, I've seen that issue (missed fish) personally.

I don't think they're taking a single sample at the mouth of a creek and calling it good. I know false positives can occur from things like you mentioned, but there's also falloff with distance and I'm not sure that little amount of material would come across as a population in testing today. It's not like you put your finger in the water a mile upstream of the sample collection site and get human dna in the result. Drift isn't infinite or constant.
 
L

lycoflyfisher

Active member
Joined
Apr 15, 2014
Messages
959
There is value in electrofishing data from the Unassessed waters program beyond just presence absence of wild trout. It provides a baseline of what other fish species may be inhabiting a stream. While many participants in the program, myself included during my 3 summers during college doing these surveys, may not be highly skilled in non game fish id; if pictures or other data indicate presence of t&e species or non game fish in general that can be very valuable data.

Right now you typically analyze Edna samples for a particular species or a small suite of species of interest. I am not discrediting Edna by any means, there is certainly value in the technology but it can not replace electrofishing at this time.
 
silverfox

silverfox

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
937
There is value in electrofishing data from the Unassessed waters program beyond just presence absence of wild trout. It provides a baseline of what other fish species may be inhabiting a stream. While many participants in the program, myself included during my 3 summers during college doing these surveys, may not be highly skilled in non game fish id; if pictures or other data indicate presence of t&e species or non game fish in general that can be very valuable data.

Right now you typically analyze Edna samples for a particular species or a small suite of species of interest. I am not discrediting Edna by any means, there is certainly value in the technology but it can not replace electrofishing at this time.
Sorry if that all came across wrong. I wasn't suggesting eDNA replace electrofishing. Not even close. Just that it could help focus or prioritize electrofishing efforts.

I know volunteers can help with eDNA sample collection, so if you partnered w/ volunteers or students to "pre-screen" a list of waters, you could theoretically come up w/ a narrowed list, or at least order priority based on eDNA results. It's not terribly expensive either. I certainly wouldn't skip or ignore a water that showed a negative for presence, but maybe kick it to the bottom of the list.

I only brought it up as a suggestion because I know other states are using it successfully and it seems like a great idea. 🤷‍♂️

Edit> one other cool thing somewhat off topic (like this whole thread) is that there's a field eDNA tester in the works. It's basically like a single use pregancy test kit. You dip it in the water and if there's brook trout present you get 2 lines. I think it's just for brook trout, but I'm sure it will get tweaked for other species.
 
Last edited:
M

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
4,350
For me the overall takeaway is beware of talking in generalities. What fits for one stream may be very, very different from another.

The brook trout enhancement program. They picked streams that were already excellent!!!! Like every one of them. From the day it was enacted I NEVER saw it as a regulation tool. Those streams were NOT overharvested or overfished, and it was clear from the get go. Almost to a T, it hurt those particular streams, and it was VERY predictable. We had a thread here about it!!! We all said it was trouble for those streams. Not bad. Not ir-recoverable. But it would be a detriment to each of them. It was obvious. You had already good, lightly fished brook trout streams, and they put signs up saying to the general public "FISH HERE". I mean, comon.

I still supported the program though. Not for any management reason on those streams, I did not see the intent as to make those particular streams better. But to me the entire point of the program was: "Hey, all you numbnuts anglers. Yeah, you guys that follow that stocking schedule and chase white trucks around. That's ok, nothing wrong with that. But many of you got into a rut. You got addicted to that crack so bad that you're completely blind to the fact that right in your back yard, we have all of these other streams that we don't even have to stock. Why is it on this small stream, there's 30 guys fishing the day after a stocking huddling around the spot where the road crosses? Yet 1 mile down the road there's a similar sized quality wild trout stream with more fish but only like 1 guy on it? You don't even know they exist because they aren't on the stocking schedule. Yeah, some of you are new. Some have kids with. But a bunch of you others here, you should be progressing to those wild streams by now. Here, we'll help. We'll publicize a few good ones in each area of the state. Put em on a list, put signs up, make it easy on you. Go fish em. Try it out. If you have fun, hopefully you'll realize a stream does not have to be on a stocking list to be good. Go find more of them on your own. Consider it a step program to get off your addiction."

Hurts that stream, absolutely. But supported it anyway because it was a worthwhile teaching tool. A minor sacrifice on those streams, C&R so it doesn't hurt too bad, but overall good for the state as it may open a few eyes to the fact we have wild trout.

So, I'm sorry, those streams were all very good BEFORE the program. They were examples of GOOD streams. Hand picked streams that didn't need any help, they already provided an "example" angling experience. I don't read much into using them to say that regs don't work.

C&R regs will not benefit the majority of brookie streams in this state. They WILL benefit some. Which ones? The easily accessible, overly pressured, generally larger ones. The ones that even if you never fished, you know about it. Household names. Big Spring. Savage. Absolutely. And also the ones that have middling wild trout populations that get stocked over and see large opening day crowds. Those streams need a teaching tool. Hey everyone, there are wild trout present. Please take care not to deep hook fish, and once caught, release the wild ones please...
Good streams or not, the reg addressed suggestion that ST were being negatively impacted statewide despite the statewide wild trout creel survey results. Furthermore, there was the suggestion that the statewide creel limit should be 2 rather than 5, plus there were even those who said the statewide reg for wild trout should be C&R.

If a reg needs to be applied statewide(need is indicated by overharvest of a population or certain length groups within a population) then that means that there is a statewide problem that needs to be addressed and it should not matter to which reasonably fishable populations of wild ST the reg is applied. The fact is that the reg was applied to multiple streams all in public waters (I think) around much of the state and when analysis of the data across streams occurred, which was a proxy for a statewide approach, the regs did not improve the numbers of adult or legal ST in year to year comparisons (pre and post reg implementation) or in comparison to the control streams under continuing statewide regs. Only when analyzed individually did Kettle Ck show a somewhat of an improvement. This is consistent with what I said long before the reg study or the angler use and harvest study…name the streams where this harvest problem is occurring and that is reflected in the existing population size structure and you know or even strongly suspect that it is because of harvest and not variable year class strengths.
 
Last edited:
pcray1231

pcray1231

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
12,629
This is consistent with what I said long before the reg study or the angler use and harvest study…name the streams where this harvest problem is occurring and that is reflected in the existing population size structure and you know or even strongly suspect that it is because of harvest and not variable year class strengths.

The streams I would name are ALL stocked.

I don't think there's an overharvest problem in general on unstocked brook trout streams. Not saying nowhere, ever. But by and large, no. The brook trout enhancement regs were all put in place on unstocked streams.

People: Harvest is hurting some wild trout streams. Can we protect the wild trout better?

PFBC: Ok, lets set the bar real high on what we consider a viable wild trout fishery, and we'll conduct a test on the really good ones and see if C&R helps them.

People: That's great, but those streams are doing just fine, they aren't the streams we're talking about.

PFBC: Which streams are you talking about?

People: The ones that have wild trout and are stocked and thus see significant harvest.

PFBC: But you said wild trout streams. Those aren't wild trout streams.

People: Do they have wild trout?

PFBC: Well, yeah..... But... There's not that many wild trout, and the ones that are there aren't over 7 inches.

People: So.... We say we think these streams are impacted by harvest. You say they can't be, because we sampled it and there are wild fish present, but not very many of harvest size? Ummmm. And for good measure, you hand pick different streams where there was never a harvest problem to begin with, throw some C&R regs on it, and find that there isn't a harvest problem. And use it to tell us, see, C&R regs don't work, we have data!

PFBC: What would you have us do?

People: Stop stocking it. Reduce the limit from 5 to 2. Make all wild trout C&R. These are just a few ideas we think would help these streams. Try something!!!

PFBC: We just tried something on streams that are not impacted by overharvest. C&R didn't work, weren't you listening?

People: We're talking about the ones that are stocked, where overharvest is a problem.

PFBC: But, those aren't wild trout streams...

I swear, it's like talking to my ex.
 
Last edited:
Fish Sticks

Fish Sticks

Active member
Joined
Mar 19, 2022
Messages
713
Location
Central PA
Good streams or not, the reg addressed suggestion that ST were being negatively impacted statewide despite the statewide wild trout creel survey results. Furthermore, there was the suggestion that the statewide creel limit should be 2 rather than 5, plus there were even those who said the statewide reg for wild trout should be C&R.

If a reg needs to be applied statewide(need is indicated by overharvest of a population or certain length groups within a population) then that means that there is a statewide problem that needs to be addressed and it should not matter to which reasonably fishable populations of wild ST the reg is applied. The fact is that the reg was applied to multiple streams all in public waters (I think) around much of the state and when analysis of the data across streams occurred, which was a proxy for a statewide approach, the regs did not improve the numbers of adult or legal ST in year to year comparisons (pre and post reg implementation) or in comparison to the control streams under continuing statewide regs. Only when analyzed individually did Kettle Ck show a somewhat of an improvement. This is consistent with what I said long before the reg study or the angler use and harvest study…name the streams where this harvest problem is occurring and that is reflected in the existing population size structure and you know or even strongly suspect that it is because of harvest and not variable year class strengths.
The out come was measured in ~ 300 m sites not at population scale abd like Pcray and petty et al 2014 said, downstream stocked waterway’s where the harvest of more mature mobile individuals doesn’t have to be a lot of harvest to be of concern to our state fish of greatest conservation need at risk of extirpation from Pa in the next century that other states bordering us already hve specific protections for citing the above.
 
silverfox

silverfox

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
937
The streams I would name are ALL stocked.

I don't think there's an overharvest problem in general on unstocked brook trout streams. Not saying nowhere, ever. But by and large, no. The brook trout enhancement regs were all put in place on unstocked streams.

People: Harvest is hurting some wild trout streams. Can we protect the wild trout better?

PFBC: Ok, lets set the bar real high on what we consider a viable wild trout fishery, and we'll conduct a test on the really good ones and see if C&R helps them.

People: That's great, but those streams are doing just fine, they aren't the streams we're talking about.

PFBC: Which streams are you talking about?

People: The ones that have wild trout and are stocked and thus see significant harvest.

PFBC: But you said wild trout streams. Those aren't wild trout streams.

People: Do they have wild trout?

PFBC: Well, yeah..... But... There's not that many wild trout, and the ones that are there aren't over 7 inches.

People: So.... We say we think these streams are impacted by harvest. You say they can't be, because we sampled it and there are wild fish present, but not very many of harvest size? Ummmm. And for good measure, you hand pick different streams where there was never a harvest problem to begin with, throw some C&R regs on it, and find that there isn't a harvest problem. And use it to tell us, see, C&R regs don't work, we have data!

PFBC: What would you have us do?

People: Stop stocking it. Reduce the limit from 5 to 2. Make all wild trout C&R. These are just a few ideas we think would help these streams. Try something!!!

PFBC: We just tried something on streams that are not impacted by overharvest. C&R didn't work, weren't you listening?

People: We're talking about the ones that are stocked, where overharvest is a problem.

PFBC: But, those aren't wild trout streams...

I swear, it's like talking to my ex.
Find the most difficult to reach tiny trickle 8miles into the woods with no trails and put C&R regs on it and see if it changes anything. Then use that to say that C&R regs don't work for brook trout. That's the way that whole experiment seems like it played out.

Incidental mortality due to anglers hitting stocked trout streams in higher numbers than the stream would ever see without stocked trout is the problem.

Exactly why MD made all stocked trout waters in the western half of the state C&R for brook trout.

Honestly, if the state made brook trout C&R in STWs and changed to only stocking rainbows or yellow wonders where ANY wild brook trout exist I'd be pretty happy. That's essentially exactly what MD did and I'm fine w/ that. I wish the west coast trout weren't there too, but C&R for brookies even with the continued rainbow stocking has still resulted in positive trends for the brook trout population, and the yellow rockets and finless baby steelhead appease the freezer stuffers, so it's pretty much a win for all.
 
pcray1231

pcray1231

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 31, 2008
Messages
12,629
To name the streams where overharvest is a problem....

Take the natural reproduction list. Cross reference it with the stocking list. Any stream section that is on both lists is one of the ones we're talking about.

Don't tell me about current wild trout densities or numbers of legal sized fish. That's the point. Many of them could be better. If you want to study it, pick a couple, stop stocking them, and make them C&R and see what happens. We all know you can't go that far due to political pressure, so, you could as silverfox suggests, pick a few heavily pressured ones, stock rainbows only, and make brookies and browns C&R. See what happens....
 
Top