Minimum size raised on Pa trout

[wildtrout2]

Looks like we're going from 7" to a 9" minimum for trout harvest effective Jan 1, 2027.
IMO It's the best change they've made since they went from a daily creel limit of 8 trout down to 5.

 

[troutbert]

This is good news.

But how much difference do you think it will make in brook trout populations?

On unstocked streams with brookie populations?

On stocked streams with brookie populations?

 

[wildtrout2]

This is good news.

But how much difference do you think it will make in brook trout populations?

On unstocked streams with brookie populations?

On stocked streams with brookie populations?

No way of telling how much difference it'll make, but it has to make at least some difference. I give credit where it's due.

 

[Swattie87]

Mhmmmmm. Tasty stockies.

 

[wildtrout2]

Mhmmmmm. Mushy stockies.

Fixed it. 😆

 

[TimMurphy]

This is good news.

But how much difference do you think it will make in brook trout populations?

On unstocked streams with brookie populations?

On stocked streams with brookie populations?

Dear troubert,

It depends on two things

1) how well the rule is enforced

2) how many fish are mishandled and killed during the extraction of a # 10 Eagle Claw baitholder.

Regards,

Tim Murphy 🙂

 

[FisherOfMen]

This is good news.

But how much difference do you think it will make in brook trout populations?

On unstocked streams with brookie populations?

On stocked streams with brookie populations?

I really depends on the stream.

For a few I know of, it should make a good difference.
For most, you wont see a difference. That is provided they aren't unstocked streams that get fished hard in the beginning of the season, in that case, you may see a difference. (You have noted that trend in the past and I have witnessed it myself on First Day.) In those streams the difference would be more 7" fish than you see now but you wont see more 10" fish.

I still believe this is a good move, but be careful. Its more likely to benefit our wild brown trout population over our wild brook trout population.

Wild brown trout growth in Pennsylvania typically reaches 7.0 to 8.5 inches by the end of their second growing season.

• Second Year (Age II): Studies of wild populations in PA show average total lengths of 7.0 to 8.5 inches after two complete growing seasons.
• Sexual Maturity: Most wild brown trout reach maturity in 2 to 3 years, ready to spawn in the fall (late October through December).

This means you could have a lot more sexually mature brown trout reaching the spawning areas than you do in some of the streams now, because they cant be harvested until the 3rd season (likely in the late spring they will reach 9") In streams with a mixed population, it could be the final nail in the coffin for brook trout.

 

[LLR]

Good move

 

[riverwhy]

I really depends on the stream.

For a few I know of, it should make a good difference.
For most, you wont see a difference. That is provided they aren't unstocked streams that get fished hard in the beginning of the season, in that case, you may see a difference. (You have noted that trend in the past and I have witnessed it myself on First Day.) In those streams the difference would be more 7" fish than you see now but you wont see more 10" fish.

I still believe this is a good move, but be careful. Its more likely to benefit our wild brown trout population over our wild brook trout population.

Wild brown trout growth in Pennsylvania typically reaches 7.0 to 8.5 inches by the end of their second growing season.

• Second Year (Age II): Studies of wild populations in PA show average total lengths of 7.0 to 8.5 inches after two complete growing seasons.
• Sexual Maturity: Most wild brown trout reach maturity in 2 to 3 years, ready to spawn in the fall (late October through December).

This means you could have a lot more sexually mature brown trout reaching the spawning areas than you do in some of the streams now, because they cant be harvested until the 3rd season (likely in the late spring they will reach 9") In streams with a mixed population, it could be the final nail in the coffin for brook trout.

3 years is also the age when brown trout start eating small brook trout. Once
Again the commission fails to attach any significance our native char. I guess a wild trout/char is a wild trout/char is a wild trout/char.

 

[Swattie87]

IMO this is where we lose traction as conservation minded anglers. This is a net positive in the direction of protecting wild Brook Trout and their conservation, and should be celebrated as such.

We tend to get lost in the minutia of “it would be better if”. Yeah, this probably isn’t the end all that wild Brook Trout fans would have wanted, but it’s a step in the right direction. And it doesn’t mean that this is the final answer…it’s a net move in the right direction and hopefully the effect starts to take hold and snowball amongst PA Trout anglers. Baby steps. Keep in mind there is still another school of thought still well embedded in the Trout angling public in PA who likely opposed this. And historically, they’re better at presenting a united front than the conservation minded side of things because their position is simpler, and easier to unite behind. “Stock em’, stock lots of them, and put them in places easy to catch them.” We need to be consistent that this is a win IMO, and not go down the road of “well, I woulda preferred this.” We need to be content with getting on base, moving runners, and manufacturing victories. When you swing for the fence all the time, you end up striking out a lot.

 

[nd1001]

IMO this is where we lose traction as conservation minded anglers. This is a net positive in the direction of protecting wild Brook Trout and their conservation, and should be celebrated as such.

We tend to get lost in the minutia of “it would be better if”. Yeah, this probably isn’t the end all that wild Brook Trout fans would have wanted, but it’s a step in the right direction. And it doesn’t mean that this is the final answer…it’s a net move in the right direction and hopefully the effect starts to take hold and snowball amongst PA Trout anglers. Baby steps. Keep in mind there is still another school of thought still well embedded in the Trout angling public in PA who likely opposed this. And historically, they’re better at presenting a united front than the conservation minded side of things because their position is simpler, and easier to unite behind. “Stock em’, stock lots of them, and put them in places easy to catch them.” We need to be consistent that this is a win IMO, and not go down the road of “well, I woulda preferred this.” We need to be content with getting on base, moving runners, and manufacturing victories. When you swing for the fence all the time, you end up striking out a lot.

Well said, Swattie. I’m happy to see this go through, and especially encouraged that PFBC promoted the concept of protecting our brook trout.

 

[Bamboozle]

I would assume this means bigger (meaning legally harvest-able) fish need to be raised which costs more.

If the creel limit stays the same and the number of fish stocked stays the same to satisfy those who measure sucess by "limiting out" or catching & releasing many fish...

Won't the end result be even more money allocated to the trout stocking program???

 

[TimB]

It's a step. A symbolic one that likely won't have much effect on wild brook trout populations. But it starts the conversation and raises public awareness. I see that as a positive. The next step would be some real changes to regulations that protect certain waters and eliminate wasteful stocking on top of viable native fish populations.

 

[riverwhy]

IMO this is where we lose traction as conservation minded anglers. This is a net positive in the direction of protecting wild Brook Trout and their conservation, and should be celebrated as such.

We tend to get lost in the minutia of “it would be better if”. Yeah, this probably isn’t the end all that wild Brook Trout fans would have wanted, but it’s a step in the right direction. And it doesn’t mean that this is the final answer…it’s a net move in the right direction and hopefully the effect starts to take hold and snowball amongst PA Trout anglers. Baby steps. Keep in mind there is still another school of thought still well embedded in the Trout angling public in PA who likely opposed this. And historically, they’re better at presenting a united front than the conservation minded side of things because their position is simpler, and easier to unite behind. “Stock em’, stock lots of them, and put them in places easy to catch them.” We need to be consistent that this is a win IMO, and not go down the road of “well, I woulda preferred this.” We need to be content with getting on base, moving runners, and manufacturing victories. When you swing for the fence all the time, you end up striking out a lot.

Sorry I am just not content to continually have our state lag virtually all others in protection of Brook Trout. This measure is an attempt to placate those who want more protections. I am not sure this is even a bandaid measure. It could actually make things worse as
It means less brown trout are harvested that are on the verge of entering both their reproductive and fish-eating life phases. How many Brookies in the 7-8
Inch range are there in most streams much less being harvested?
We need some form of species specific protections.
With this new measure we will be told that we need to wait and wait to see what the results are and meanwhile all other efforts will sputter while meanwhile Rome burns.

 

[RLeep2]

I would assume this means bigger (meaning legally harvest-able) fish need to be raised which costs more.

If the creel limit stays the same and the number of fish stocked stays the same to satisfy those who measure sucess by "limiting out" or catching & releasing many fish...

Won't the end result be even more money allocated to the trout stocking program???

I don't think this necessarily follows.. Here, courtesy of the Google AI Brainiac, is what PFBC says about the size of trout they stock:

Stocking Breakdown by Size

• • 11 to 13.9 inches: Makes up about 92% of the total adult trout stocked.
  • 9 to 10.9 inches: Makes up about 5% of the total adult trout stocked.
  • 14 inches and greater (Trophy/Brood stock): Makes up about 3% of the state-stocked fish, which includes special golden rainbow trout averaging 1.5 pounds and 14 inches. [1, 2]

 

[RLeep2]

I think this announcement is good news and a reasonable step given that wild fish advocates remain in the minority among PA trout anglers. I think Mr. Swattie is correct that as a group, conservation-minded wild trout anglers should be pleased with this change, without sacrificing their agency to hope more is coming. But for now as with all things subject to public opinion, it is progress not perfection that matters. To that end, in my view, intransigent ideologues mostly are not helping. Sorry if that seems a little blunt..🙂

 

[dudemanspecial]

I would assume this means bigger (meaning legally harvest-able) fish need to be raised which costs more.

If the creel limit stays the same and the number of fish stocked stays the same to satisfy those who measure sucess by "limiting out" or catching & releasing many fish...

Won't the end result be even more money allocated to the trout stocking program???

I ocassionally fish for stocked trout (the horrors, I know) and can't say I catch many, if any, fish under 9".

 

[troutbert]

I think this could help brookies populations quite a bit on unstocked streams.

Where hatchery trout are stocked over native brook trout, I don't think it will help very much.

 

[beadhead2]

I think the meat eaters are going to keep them any size

 

[riverwhy]

I think this could help brookies populations quite a bit on unstocked streams.

Where hatchery trout are stocked over native brook trout, I don't think it will help very much.

Unstocked Brookie stream or unstocked mixed brook and brown stream? Could help in the smaller Brookie streams if they are big enough to be targeted by the Brookie eating crew.