Gas prices are going to hurt, took a ride along the Little Juniata this afternoon, beautiful day, not one fisherman on 3 miles of beautiful water. 24" ain't gonna work either, guy owns a nice stretch of the regulated water, guys kid catches a 23 inch trout, bigger than dad, granddad or great grandad ever caught, kid bonks the fish over the head and the WCO walks up, What happens?
[This message has been edited by Little Juniata33 (edited 18 March 2005).]
Whoa, Penn Kev!
Conflicting reports about barbless vs barbed hooks?!
This will settle the issue for you;
IF you took two #10 hooks, one barbed and one barbless, shoved them through the skin on YOUR forearm up to the bend, then got your forceps and pulled them out backwards,
which one would do more tissue damage?
Also wading in streams where trout naturally reproduce DOES mateer. Have you ever even seen a trout over a redd full of eggs? They have enough problems from raccoons, herrons,weather, etc. They don't need your studded Aqua-soled feet crushing the next generation of trout into oblivion. People, just stay outta the streams between Oct. and Dec.
As far as Pa TU goes, can you remember back one year ago when they took NO POSITION at all over the baitfishing in delayed harvest water? That showed me they have no guts. The PFBC doesn't need to change anything. There's nothing wrong with things the way they are. They keep trying to justify their independent (from the game comiss) existence by constantly changing things.
compromise= a fancy word for sell out,,preach long enough that barbless hooks save fish then all of a sudden if the PF&BC says its ok, then it must be ok,,, this old boy will speak with his wallet.
------------------
make a rod, catch a fish
kbobb,
First, your example of hooking your finger proves nothing other than the fact that hooks hurt when you jam them into your skin. It does not prove that barbed hooks cause a significant loss of fish. By significant I mean more than 5% greater than C&R without barless hooks. Even a 5% difference in mortality can be attributed to inconsistencies between how, when, and where the cases were studied.
TU realizes that the best way to ensure the conservation of trout is more C&R, lower dayly limits, and higher minimum sizes. I think TU realizes that barbless is a regulation that further enhances C&R rather than being a regulation that saves a significant number of trout by itself. We need more C&R waters first before we finely tune the regulations.
I do agree that wading over redds is problem, but current wading restriction are only in place on a few relativley small stretches of stream. If they must ban wading, do it on large stretches of many streams where it will make a significant difference based on solid scientific study, not just here, there, and anywhere. No wading could be a great reg to protect fragile trout populations but it is my opinion that the current regulation is misused and under utilized. Thus, I support TU when they agree to let it be eliminated.
The PAFBC may not "need" to change things. But remember, they have proposed these rules on their own with no direct influence from TU. The new regs increase C&R areas and reduce the harvest of fish on other waters. TU sees this as a golden opprotunity and supports it as much as possible.
To put it bluntly, which would you rather have: More C&R and stricter harvest or More barbless and no wading? For me it is an easy choice and I don't think you can have more of both at the same time.
I think TU wants to do as little as possible to gum up the works. TU can see the forest through the trees, so to speak. TU needs to nudge and direct the PAFBC, not fight them at every turn, especially when the changes favor C&R in general. This is as much politics as it is trout management.
As for fighting the proposed summer bait regulation on DHALO. What does it matter to TU? They would gain almost nothing for the conservation of wild trout. Additionally, many members of the PAFBC did not even support this change. The proposal was made to appease a backwards and half-@ssed organiztion, Traditional Anglers of PA.
The public outcry squashed that proposed change handily. That said, I would not be surpised if public opinion torpedoes the newly proposed 24" size limit on tropy trout waters. I don't know how likely it is, but I wouldn't be surpised if it happens.
BR,
Sell out? Maybe, but remember that TU is mostly ff'ers and we are in an incredibily small minority. We cannot stronge arm the PAFBC. This goes back to politics.
Kev
Penn. Kev, would you care to post your connection to PaTU so that we might understand your defense of this organization. every one is entitled to a opinion .me I'm just a old coot that fished pa. trout for 50 years,belong to TU,but don't buy into can see the forest for the trees deal. Thank You
------------------
make a rod, catch a fish
Everyone is indeed entitled to their opinion. You, yourself, have asked for it and I have given it. Nothing more, nothing less.
I support my local TU whenever I can with stocking projects, small donations, purchasing raffle tickets, etc. I have no contacts with TU officals at the state level.
I do feel vary strongly that this is a good move on TU's part regardless of the motivation behind it. In my eyes, what is gained will be more valuable than what is given up.
Kev
[This message has been edited by Penn. Kev (edited 20 March 2005).]
Penn. Kev, I value your opinion,guess thats why i am frank with my questions to you. need all sides to form a opinion on this subject. you spell out your thoughts , i may not agree with you but i respect your answers. thanks again
------------------
make a rod, catch a fish
Cool.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote