legal taking of game/sport fish
#21 Guest_Slasher_*
Posted 27 February 2007 - 03:03 AM
But I think it would actually take a long while though to start off an all PA brook trout strain in hatcheries. We don't have THAT many, due to over fishing and exotic trout. I forget where I read it, but somewhere it said that brown trout are actually getting into native brook trout streams, out competing them, naturally reproducing on their own, and basically kicking them out.
Our native trout are beautiful. I have caught a few juveniles before on rod and reel and while seining, and they're just amazing. And as you said, they are our state fish. You think more would go into protecting them, stocking them, and having our streams known as great brook trout fishing to draw in the money. Now they're starting off a program of stocking along the lines of larger, but fewer. I don't know what's worse...a bigger trout with a bigger appetite, or many, smaller trout with an appetite.
Also while trout fishing, I've seen many anglers actually get frustrated catching suckers and creek chubs, that they just casually kill them everytime they catch them. Yeah, like that's going to help.
Before I was a teenager, I went to a friends house about an hour away, and we got the great idea to stock the local trout stream with bluegill, bass, perch, catfish, and anything else we could catch in a farm pond. Now I know that was a pretty bad idea, but at the time it seemed fun. They're native, and more fun to catch than trout. The opening day of trout, people were catching bluegills left and right, and they were all discouraged and left. Random story, but it shows how much people want to catch trout, not just go fishing for the simple fun and enjoyment. I guess until the day people don't want to trout fish, they're always going to be stocking exotics.
Although, a few years ago there was something like a mercury break out in hatchery raised fish, and a lot of people stopped fishing for them. I know I did. Maybe we should start a fake scare just to get people to stop...
I've read through the booklet about fishing laws they give you every year about 100 times. They don't seem that hard to follow. What does bother me though is every watershed has different regulations. Are their other laws written somewhere else or something?
#22 Guest_smbass_*
Posted 27 February 2007 - 03:07 AM
#24 Guest_teleost_*
Posted 27 February 2007 - 09:15 AM
Oh, and Teleost, I'm sorry for contributing to the derailing of your thread. Maybe you could work some admin magic and split the thread into two or something along those lines.
Thank you for your concerns Slasher but tangents are a natural in conversations. I see good derails and bad derails....This is a good one. I might suggest a new topic on non native trout but it's not all that important.
I'll add to the derail also.....I don't think states should participate in any stocking of any fish ever. If a fish is in trouble, they could easily spend money they would usually allocate for stocking on closing areas to sport fishing for a period of time or better yet, place site specific rules not allowing possession of that particular fish from that body of water. If anglers love stocked LMB & trout so much, they should make giant concrete reservoirs with 12' high walls for pay lakes.
#25 Guest_edbihary_*
Posted 27 February 2007 - 06:45 PM
That is a major part of my point. It's not like there are a couple of special streams or lakes, like in Ohio, but nearly every doggone stream in Pennsylvania is regulated differently. It's so @#$@^$# confusing. It makes it preferable to drive to Ohio to fish.What does bother me though is every watershed has different regulations.
That is how we got the undecipherable, myriad of complexities, laws in Pennsylvania in the first place. It's nuts! There's got to be a better way. Protecting endangered species should not mean that every stream, or even different reaches of the same stream, should have its own laws. Just protect the species and punish violators.If a fish is in trouble, they could easily spend money they would usually allocate for stocking on closing areas to sport fishing for a period of time or better yet, place site specific rules not allowing possession of that particular fish from that body of water.
#26 Guest_teleost_*
Posted 27 February 2007 - 10:15 PM
That is how we got the undecipherable, myriad of complexities, laws in Pennsylvania in the first place. It's nuts! There's got to be a better way. Protecting endangered species should not mean that every stream, or even different reaches of the same stream, should have its own laws. Just protect the species and punish violators
The rules become complex due to good management. When officials get lazy they just put blanket law for the entire state. If one fish becomes threatened in one stream do you suggest that species should be off limits statewide to make it easy to understand the rules?
#27 Guest_Slasher_*
Posted 27 February 2007 - 11:18 PM
I agree with the makings of new lakes and what not for just those fish. They should just be spring fed and have no possible way of coming in contact with other streams. Yeah, and just load it up with some goldfish and golden shiners to keep a baitfish population. But I think if a fish does need a little help with stocking, hell why not. It's just not necessary to pay all the money they do for the trout and bass.
#28 Guest_edbihary_*
Posted 28 February 2007 - 05:55 PM
Uland, I can't disagree with you. But when the laws become so complex as to be impossible to understand, they become meaningless. We have nearly reached that point, and yet they keep adding more laws.The rules become complex due to good management. When officials get lazy they just put blanket law for the entire state. If one fish becomes threatened in one stream do you suggest that species should be off limits statewide to make it easy to understand the rules?
#29 Guest_edbihary_*
Posted 10 March 2007 - 10:59 AM
http://sites.state.p..._Boat/stock.htm
Summary for 2007
Brook = 559,100
Brown = 921,240
Rainbow = 1,939,260 (inc. 8,900 trophy golden)
PFBC Total = 3,296,100
Contracted = 123,500
Coop. Nurs. = 1,067,000
Total to be Stocked = 4,486,600
That's right, nearly four and a half million trout! And yes, a small fraction will be native brook trout. But the overwhelming majority will be exotic trout species. Fortunately, most will be fished out in a short time and won't remain in the streams and lakes.
#30 Guest_Slasher_*
Posted 16 March 2007 - 11:45 PM
#31 Guest_nativecajun_*
Posted 17 March 2007 - 04:42 AM
Those "Golden Trout" won't last long, even shorter than the regular rainbow. I've been thinking about taking my limit in trout everyday possible just to cut down the population, but I don't care for the taste of them.
About that taste. Telico river in Tennessee. Stocked and fished heavily. Purina Trout chow. I like fish that taste like fish, not dogs. Although I cant say I have ever eaten a dog to compare. Those fish taste so terrible I just quit going there. Native Brookies I used to catch in Canada fight inch for inch ten times better than stocked rainbows which is like reeling in a piece of 2x4. And the taste. Well on the bank of the stream, camp stove, frying pan, oil, with a little salt and pepper man if you never hadum you are missing a treat. So ya I agree on the taste thing. I think it applies to all fish that are stocked heavily and weekly like the Telico River in the area where you have to buy a daily permit on top of your regular trout stamp on top of you regular fishing liscence. THEY CAN HAVE THEIR PURINA TROUT, YUCK.
#32 Guest_Skipjack_*
Posted 17 March 2007 - 04:37 PM
Streambred trout are fantastic tasting in my opinion, and a worthy gamefish.
Reply to this topic
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users