Ignorance is bliss...

[albud1962]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KcFKP8j_mFM#oTCJJfit5nM

I don't have a problem with the guy using bait to catch fish, I do have a problem with his philosophy "take your limit and take your limit often".

 

[Maurice]

That must be two of the guys Jack M keeps talking about.

 

[JackM]

I'd comment, but I can't watch youtube form work.

 

[Maurice]

JackM wrote:
I'd comment, but I can't watch youtube form work.

Well when you get home and have time watch it. It's an eye opener. I know this video was probably NOT done in PA. but it is an example of what can happen in a few short hour on a small mountain stream.

The video provides proof that they were creeling.

I wonder if they were interviewed by a creel survey team? Their ten fish limit wold skew the data sets tremendously.
Not to mention if they miss a few fish that they know are fryable, they will return again with their cute little "gizmo" to hold their red worms.

This video demonstrates what is "possible" not proof positive that it occurs here in PA streams. But what is proof positive is that the method (red worms) and the statement that. "if you are not losing hooks, yer not brook fishin' " made my stomach turn.

These two guys who are in the video and their like, are the anglers who our PF&BC manage our wild trout streams for. We C&R anglers who "allow" their ilk to succeed are a negligable factor only considered as proof positive that harvest rates are not important.

Imagine if you will...a state hatchery system with the ability to double the numbers of fish it is able to raise and in turn allow harvest on larger numbers and smaller fish. These regulations would carry over to wild trout streams. Boy how Bill and Les would love that.

Managing wild trout based on hatchery objectives is idiotic.

Sorry Albud for derailing the post...and Jack , I guess too.

Maurice

 

[JackM]

Only using your summary, I would say this isn't going to be any eye-opener to me. Poachers and people who overharvest will not be controlled by regulations, nor should we regulate law-abiding citizens because of what the law-breakers will do. These types, as you've described, are quite rare, I believe. I now have another reason to look forward to getting home from work.

 

[Maurice]

Not law breakers Jack...abiders....rare as they may be, we manage our fisheries for the exception not the rule is al I am saying.

Maurice

 

[JackM]

See, I am not sure I agree about managing for the exception. Some anglers want to go out once and catch 5 fish, then they are done for the year. The choice is, do we stop the thousands who want to do this because a dozen or so will take 5 fish 3 times a week all season? I'm just throwing the numbers out to make the point. If we set a limit of 3 fish just because some people will take more than their "fair share" we deprive the more casual harvester the ability to bring home a family meal.

 

[albud1962]

I think there is a place for hatchery fish. And I would be lying if I would say that I don't enjoy catching them from time to time. The issues are creeling wild fish and stocking over wild fish.

These idiots responded to my comments and showed what slobs they really were. They were fishing streams in Ma. and claimed they saw no problem in what they were doing.

 

[JackM]

I found the little film as funny as some people find lawyer jokes. Anyhow, they looked like they were having a good old time. That's how some people have fun fishing. I really believe that you guys both overestimate the extent to which this happens and the damage it causes to the fishery as a whole, but I don't feel the need to argue about it.

 

[albud1962]

I guess I am a little jaded because of my experiences here in pa. I think there are alot of streams that could have bigger trout, but they are culled off. I understand the piece was supposed to be humorous. Like you said its not worth arguing over, just shows how people aren't aware of how stressed some of our wild streams really are.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

yeah really and then read the comments below the video. he basically insults the person for trying to educate him by asking him to go the the WBTJV website. no matter what ur philosophy whats the harm in giving it a look. IMO, what a moron :roll:

also jack i agree that it isnt worth arguing over but....

If we set a limit of 3 fish just because some people will take more than their "fair share" we deprive the more casual harvester the ability to bring home a family meal.

ok so if the limit is 5 and at 7 inches thats is 35 inches of trout of which probably 20 inches is able to be eaten. how many families of 3-4 people can eat a good meal on that.? brook trout arent really good for eating because u cant get enough meat out of them. just a thought......of which making the creel limit higher isnt an answer. if we are going to raise hatchery trout for the harvesting angler to catch i have no problem with that. then why harvest wild fish out of wild only streams? just seems to me to be plain bad management.

 

[JackM]

I think the 5 fish limit was a balance struck between allowing an angler to take home a family meal and preventing overharvest. Most of these management decisions are based on those balances and they will tend to make neither polar opposite happy, which is the mark of a good compromise. That said, on fisheries that need extra protection (and NO I don't believe it is every wild trout stream) I have no problem with more restrictive harvest limits or prohibitions.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

That said, on fisheries that need extra protection (and NO I don't believe it is every wild trout stream) I have no problem with more restrictive harvest limits or prohibitions.

i almost choked on my lasanga. did i just read this right? the guy that argued regs with me. nor have i ever said ALL wild trout streams. what i have eluded to is why half of our wild trout resource isnt more regulated. if a stream isnt class b or better.......it should have way stricter regs.
thank u jack....this whole time i thought u were against ALL reg changes. :-D

 

[JackM]

You may have thought that, but I am quite certain I never said it. Sometimes in our passion about a topic, we look for enemies. Nonetheless, we don't see eye to eye on regulations, so I can assure you there will be arguments down the road.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

wait i just quoted that from ur reply above. either way i know we dont agree on this subject and probably never will. thats ok though :-D the day IS coming when the hatchery system will fail and we will have to regulate our wild trout resource better. there will be less fisherman fishing for trout. it may not be in my lifetime, but my kids are going to have a blast :-D
p.s. im sure there wont be anymore agruements on this board about this subject :roll: ya right. at least not from me to you. i give up advocating for our most precious trout resource here. it seems there isnt enough people willing to swallow there pride or there fishing experince that they are accustomed to. i just hope that some fisheries arent lost before we really start to consider better management. :-?

 

[JackM]

When I said you "might have thought that...." I was referring to your statement: "this whole time i thought u were against ALL reg changes."