Regulations For Browns Need To Change!

[mic]

Gavin, I understand the frustration but a trout park is the perfect example of (put n take) peopel go there purely for eating trout, or at least the average person. Fish swim and go where they will, just like ducks going to a closed zone are safe but come out and i will be happy to shoot them. A solution is not tighening the regs in this case but simply building a dam that they can escape out of the park but not get back in. Above the dam keep the park regs, below it enforce a 20'' or larger. Its a simple solution that should keep all happy.

Let them eat bows. Save the Browns for sport.

[northernranger]

Please inform me why it should be 1 over 18'' ?

Keep in mind the arguement will be that Brown Trout as with all stocked trout are part of the (Put n Take) program and as such should be eligable for them to kept at the current regulated size and bag limits. These are NOT naturally occurring fish and it is the tax dollars or license dollars for you pc freaks that pay for them and the general public who goes to catch a fish doesnt care if its brown, rainbow or a neon pink trout so long as they can catch and keep it for dinner.

I would like to see it at 22' 1 fish with closed season to keeping durring October and November myself, but I like many here are probably not your weekend warrior type who just want to catch fish to eat.

There are plenty of rainbows stocked for everyone's dinner plate, thanks to our tax dollars, but i would like to see some of my tax money handled with a little more care. If a limited amount of browns are stocked and managed, then why not ensure the best results we can get. My dollars that are invested should be taken with care, and my opinion should matter too. We are already taking care of the people who are harvesting fish, so why not the ones who fish it for sport and spirit. Lets allow fish to reach a more trophy size.

[BruteFish83]

I'm no fisheries biologist, but after doing some reading, I think I can shed some light on the MDC's stocking strategy.

The park and upper section comprise a healthy spring creek rather than a river. The food source and prime holding water is limited. Studies show that brown trout are aggressively territorial and that social hierarchies are even formed where the more dominant fish reside in the better water.

Now look at this way, you have 3 18" browns eventually sharing one pocket of nice water, all the while, they're killing each other over the best food and water.

A limit of one 20" fish would not help this. You figure, with the current 18" limit, one of those fish would be taken out and the other two would likely be able to grow to a trophy size. Just trying to convey a thought here.

[stlfisher]

I am for the 1 brown trout over 20, but 1 over 18 would make me happy too. I am baffled by those that think brown trout are managed strictly as a put and take fishery. Brown's are manged much differently for good reason....they have the ability to grow much larger and they are stocked at a much lower rate. IMO they are managed as a put and grow fishery that has a serious flaws at the end of Montauk and the start of the Blue Ribbon area. The Current is a unique situation with the ability to grow trophy size fish. Allowing 4 browns to be harvested in the park is actually preventing the management goal for Blue Ribbon area from reaching its full potential. As Gavin said it makes no sense and is a serious oversight IMO. If you want to harvest 4 brown's in the park then they should be stocked that way....which they are not.

[mic]

I'm no fisheries biologist, but after doing some reading, I think I can shed some light on the MDC's stocking strategy.

I could even live with the parks, but can't we have one stretch of water where we take no browns. Why would you need to eat a 21" brown, when there are bows in the same water. Put 'em back.

[northernranger]

Gavin, again you are talking parks and those are where the "general public" will spend their time and money and want to catch fish {doesnt matter type or color} they are there to catch fish.

So far there noone has answered the question i posed with any logic that cannot be rebuffed by the MDC as anything more than "I want to catch a trophy brown trout"!

The arguement will have to be made as to ( why the limit needs to be increased and how will it benifit all anglers ) If MDC science has shown its is not needed, then those wishing for it to be changed will need to show why and be able to back it up with something more than { I want }. The I want arguement of those of us who would like to have the size limit and increased and bag limit decreased has to out weigh the arguement that the greater majority of people will come back with, which simpy is "Our tax and license dollars pay for these fish and we want to catch and keep and eat them!" That arguement hold far more weight with MDC then the want for a few who want to catch a trophy.

I seriously doubt that anyone will get regs inside the parks changed! However if you can use justification for outside the park to be raised then there is a possibility MDC will listen. One option as I pointed out would be construction of a dam allowing fish to escape the park but not return to it. You need to think of not only our wishes for trophy trout but also the general public who's voices far out weigh ours.

Other then "I want to catch bigger fish", I would like to see a healthier and more mature river. Everyone knows that they are not natural, but they are there and are going to stay there. Lots of things would benefit from an actual trophy river like tourism, local business, funds for future conservation, and a little conservation ethics. Maybe instead of taking little Timmy fishing we wouldn't teach him that its cool to walk around looking for big fish with lunker patches covering your backside, but that its good practice to take care of nature and enjoy it. Meaning releasing something that is beautiful and others cherish for there own sanity. Not to just harvest it because we want to take it home for dinner, there are plenty of stocked rainbows for that.

I do "want" my piece of the pie to take care of my needs too. So far the put and take fisherman are more then happy. If others and I share the same opinion it should be recognized. If others have respectable opinions for the services out there that i do not use, I would love for them to be heard. Especially if it makes logical sense. With a healthier brown trout fishery we could possibly eventually cut the stockings amount down. Which would mean more funds to be used else where and happy outdoors men who can see the true balance in conservation and sport.

[BruteFish83]

I could even live with the parks, but can't we have one stretch of water where we take no browns. Why would you need to eat a 21" brown, when there are bows in the same water. Put 'em back.

Again, I don't think that's the answer. We'd have too many smaller browns competing and not being able to reach trophy sizes. Given the stocking numbers, we need fish to be taken out.

[fishinwrench]

Just curious, when and why did Browns become so much more "special" than Rainbows?

[northernranger]

I'm no fisheries biologist, but after doing some reading, I think I can shed some light on the MDC's stocking strategy.

The park and upper section comprise a healthy spring creek rather than a river. The food source and prime holding water is limited. Studies show that brown trout are aggressively territorial and that social hierarchies are even formed where the more dominant fish reside in the better water.

Now look at this way, you have 3 18" browns eventually sharing one pocket of nice water, all the while, they're killing each other over the best food and water.

A limit of one 20" fish would not help this. You figure, with the current 18" limit, one of those fish would be taken out and the other two would likely be able to grow to a trophy size. Just trying to convey a thought here.

Some of these browns will still be harvested, just not as many. The upper Current is not much bigger, if at all, then the park. So if it works in the blue ribbon then the park will be fine. There are just not enough browns in any given hole to sample your hypothesis anyways. Lowering the limit would help spread those few extra fish in those pockets and holes.

[Feathers and Fins]

Northern and Brute, you guys are giving me the answers that could be used to sway MDC. let me throw another wrinkle in it.

Other then "I want to catch bigger fish", I would like to see a healthier and more mature river. Everyone knows that they are not natural, but they are there and are going to stay there. Lots of things would benefit from an actual trophy river like tourism, local business, funds for future conservation, and a little conservation ethics. Maybe instead of taking little Timmy fishing we wouldn't teach him that its cool to walk around looking for big fish with lunker patches covering your backside, but that its good practice to take care of nature and enjoy it. Meaning releasing something that is beautiful and others cherish for there own sanity.

Studies show that brown trout are aggressively territorial and that social hierarchies are even formed where the more dominant fish reside in the better water.

Now look at this way, you have 3 18" browns eventually sharing one pocket of nice water, all the while, they're killing each other over the best food and water.

A limit of one 20" fish would not help this. You figure, with the current 18" limit, one of those fish would be taken out and the other two would likely be able to grow to a trophy size. Just trying to convey a thought here.

On those notes how would you draft a letter to anglers groups to try anf get their support behind you and then through the voices of a larger group be able to draft a letter to MDC with many signatures backing it and showing up at mettings.