wildtrout2
Well-known member
Exactly! And Freeman Run is a classic case in point.
Lancaster County Brook Trout
- Thread starter JeffP
- Start date
I think it's well-known that the biologists don't make the decisions. Which post points to the assumption or implication that biologists make the regs? Why aren't any of us trying to become commissioners? That seems like a worthwhile endeavor if we really want our voices to be heard.
wildtrout2
Well-known member
Probably a combination of all of those.
sarce
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,664
Depending on the state, all of the above. I would say WV and VA check all of the boxes.
MD doesn't have less development pressure, but they have C&R for brook trout, no stocking of brook trout, recurring sampling and genetic analysis to study the populations, and a new program to reintroduce brook trout to suitable streams where they are currently absent.
In the Smokies they have been removing non-natives and reestablishing brookies for many years. But that may be more federal govt than state.
Imagine if PA did any of the above, the politics would bring it to a screeching halt.
Attempting to bring this back on topic - would any of the other states policies be enough to save the isolated, small brook trout pops in Lancaster County? I'm not sure it would make a difference. The only tool we have as anglers is selective harvest of browns in these streams. I've done this in two streams in MD. As one person I'm not going to make a dent but on the flip side, some of these places have single digit numbers of spawning sized brook trout, so literally every fish matters. If I remove one brown and give space for several young brook trout to survive another year, it does make a difference.
Good point. It may be completely coincidental, but one of the few Lanco streams still holding brookies is managed as C&R ALO, I think by the landowners (not PFBC).
Bamboozle
Well-known member
When I hear mention of harvesting the "undesirables" it makes me think of a couple of things...
First, I haven't harvested a trout in decades because in the decades since I gave it up, I just have no desire to carry a stinger, creel or Ziploc bag and clunk, cut and carry around my catch so I can bring fish home for dinner. When I want fish, I buy them...
IF PA ever was getting close to all of these OTHER states with perfect wild brook trout management programs and I was required to harvest brown or rainbow trout, I'd fight it tooth and nail. That experiment would effectively discourage me from fishing for trout anywhere except Stocked Trout Waters or wild streams with zero brook trout, not something I'd appreciate or particularly enjoy.
Something the "brookie uber alles" crowd could probably care less about...
And I would never toss an undesirable fish in the brush like some jerks do...
But maybe if it is REALLY about the GOOD of the fish (and not the preferred target of some), PA should just becomes Germany or Switzerland...
BTW - Is FishSticks back on PAFF in disguise as a newbie??
First, I haven't harvested a trout in decades because in the decades since I gave it up, I just have no desire to carry a stinger, creel or Ziploc bag and clunk, cut and carry around my catch so I can bring fish home for dinner. When I want fish, I buy them...
IF PA ever was getting close to all of these OTHER states with perfect wild brook trout management programs and I was required to harvest brown or rainbow trout, I'd fight it tooth and nail. That experiment would effectively discourage me from fishing for trout anywhere except Stocked Trout Waters or wild streams with zero brook trout, not something I'd appreciate or particularly enjoy.
Something the "brookie uber alles" crowd could probably care less about...
And I would never toss an undesirable fish in the brush like some jerks do...
But maybe if it is REALLY about the GOOD of the fish (and not the preferred target of some), PA should just becomes Germany or Switzerland...
BTW - Is FishSticks back on PAFF in disguise as a newbie??
caddisflyer
Well-known member
Who needs to catch those little spotted sardines anyway? If you really care about them just leave them alone and stop promoting all the places they live.
sarce
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,664
Which state requires that?
There's a difference in my mind of doing this when browns first start showing up, versus after they're well established. Where they are well established already, harvest won't do a damn thing. The places I'm talking about are very small streams, final holdouts of geographically isolated populations, that can't afford ANY shift toward browns.
I suppose we could just leave them alone in those environments...then go back for a hike in 10 years and say, "where are all the brookies?" Oops...missed the chance to stop or slow the shift. You know PFBC isn't tracking these places and isn't going to step in.
The Rodfather
Well-known member
The commonwealth certainly cares about the "little spotted sardines", as they are the state fish...🤷♂️
Correct, and that's the best time to make the attempt, particularly for species that have been documented through creel data as being somewhat difficult to catch (as opposed to ST and CT’s) .
As a parallel, Sarce, this is why I encouraged the agency to and I got support for promoting the harvest of flatheads in the lower Susquehanna when they first appeared at the base of Safe Harbor Dam. The logic was this:The lower Susquehanna smallmouth bass used to be substantially cropped off to 12-13”when there was a 12” length limit and then responded quite quickly, growing to 15” and beyond when Big Bass regs were implemented. Given that experience, there was a reasonable chance that anglers in the same water body, and where catfishing was already popular, could potentially exert enough pressure to slow and maybe limit the flathead population growth through harvest. It didn’t work, even initially, plus a little later on there was not much incentive for anglers who wanted a trophy fishery, and had good reason to believe that the flatheads would get large, to assist with that harvest endeavor.
There was readily explainable logic and experience, as twice noted above, behind the initial endeavor to attempt to limit flathead population growth, thus it was not a case of an “action bias” that is reportedly common in politics and with environmental issues, ie the often heard; “We have to do something” and “Something is better than nothing.”
Last edited:
wildtrout2
Well-known member
Sounds like you're describing Jeans. Years ago, I caught an 11" wild brown on Jeans and released it. I should have known better after I caught my first wild tiger trout there, since I hadn't caught a brown prior to that. I regret doing that.
Last edited:
Bamboozle
Well-known member
Didn't you say this in Post #105:
"In the Smokies they have been removing non-natives and reestablishing brookies for many years. But that may be more federal govt than state."
Is it just the Feds? I don't know?
In addition, more than a few folks suggested keeping legal size browns would probably be a step in the right direction which is to what I was alluding.
FisherOfMen
Member
Well, I was on this forum long before you probably were. I introduced myself in the New Member section. I left before the changeover of the site and have just recent came back with this ID, though on a very limited basis. I'm not FishSticks.
There is a big difference between discussion and advocating for a change. Your response to my post exactly made my point.
I'm only saying if we decided to do this, it would have to be on some very select watersheds and it would be near impossible.
You can brown it up bro, nothing and none one is going to deter you, it's a pipe dream.
wildtrout2
Well-known member
As they are for eight other states.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
You might want to UN-like this comment... 😉
What I meant was I don't object to the harvest of any legal sized trout where appropriate. However, as someone who prefers fishing for wild trout versus stocked, I'm NOT in favor of trying to eradicate any naturally reproducing trout in favor of brook trout.
More importantly to me, I am 1000% against mandating harvest of brown or rainbow trout for the reasons I outlined in Post #107...
I'm lazy.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
wildtrout2
Well-known member
Done. 🙂
If browns are displacing/threatening an established population of native brookies, they gotta go.
The Rodfather
Well-known member
I can appreciate you having your stance on this issue, to each their own. PFBC however, disagrees with you. They promote and encourage harvesting stocked fish as part of the "put and take" program.
****, they do a better job than what we have now. That wouldn't be too bad.
I trust Dave and the mods to monitor that, they have tools to track that rather quickly and as none of the new members have been flagged in quite some time, I presume that this is not the case.
On a side note: I do like some good fresh homemade tartar sauce with my PFBC stocked fish sticks.
Captain Wader Farts
Member
At this point, I am suspicious, anyone in here saying we should do something to help native brook trout could very well be fish sticks!
