Yes, cut line close and release. The hook will rust free in time.

Bass closed during the spawn ,now that would be an interesting debate. LOL

I still like the idea of making these lakes catch and relase only year round for Brown trout.

These new regs will seem to only effect the meat hunters.So I am neither for or against them.


Start stocking some brood stock salmon in these lakes to supplement the lack of big fish,it would be instant gratification to the anglers and take the pressure of the brown trout until the numbers of big fish gets to a point the state is happy with.

Keith G. and all,
Obviously, we have alot of strong opinions on this. The fact that I said it is something that the Inland Fisheries Div. is "considering" and that we would not institute it before 2007 is not contradictory. The regulation process requires greater than one year to complete. Any regulation change needs to be evaluated, discussed, and then written up for internal and external review. It is a very lengthy process. However, in order to even begin the process the regulation change must first be written up and passed through numerous reviews by our agency, the Attorney General's office and Legislative review and then it goes to public hearings. All of this takes time. This regulation is by no means a "done deal". The earlier everyone knows about potential changes that we are considering, the better the opportunity for dialogue and an exchange of ideas.
One or two other points that I wanted to comment on. First, are there other changes occurring in these locations (weed tratments,reduced forage, introduced exotic species, i.e. zebra mussels in East Twin)? Absolutely, yes. Are they responsible for the lack of holdover trout? I don't believe so, but that is only my opinion. On mortality, Dusty makes a very valid point. The observed, immediate mortality in fish is only the tip of the iceberg. These are the "easy ones" to document, because they are most easily observed. However, for every fish that dies next to the boat, several swim away and die hours to days later. Most fish mortality is due to an accumulation of stress factors. Finding food,avoiding predators, high water temperatures, capture and release, disease etc. all cause stress. The more stress factors that fish are subjected to, over a shorter period of time,
the greater the mortality. Believe me that I am the last person that ever wants to reduce people's ability to go fishing (aside from not being in my best interest professionally, I am also an avid angler)! But, as a fisheries biologist I also consider it my obligation to help educate anglers. If we know stress kills fish and we know (at least in this case) when the greatest amout of stress occurs, than why not try to do something to reduce it? Does it hurt some anglers? Absolutely. It is better for the fish and does it have the potential to make fishing better for everyone...I believe it does. Are anglers willing to make the necessary sacrifices in order to potentially see better angling opportunity for big fish? That part is up to you!

Timb,

There seems to be some concern that people posting how many fish they catch on a message board is being used by managers to help in decision making. I see that you said in your fisrt post that CTDEP has collected creel data. Does the creel data actually reflect what people are saying here on the boards? I'd be interested to see the estimates from your creel data. Also, do you have actual mortality data for these lakes in the summer or just mortality estimates from catch curves you've derived from ALK's, and if thats the case are you doing them every year?

I'm not questioning the proposed regulations, and I will readily admit I've never fished the lakes in question. However, from the sounds of the discussion here there are many other times of year where the fish might be better protected from fishermen to ensure survival (i.e., fishing when trout are congregating in the streams and easy targets). No doubt mortality is higher in the summer, but the higher summer mortality may not be as large a factor as the fish being hammered when they're congregating.

With regards to regulation changes, you're in the worst possible spot. You have to make potentially unpopular decisions based on what information you may or may not have, yet you want to keep fishermen happy and be able to fish yourself. I know how it feels and I don't envy your position. However, I do have a suggestion.

Perhaps someone could take the time to cut and paste or write up a detailed explaination specifically for this proposed regulation change. The information must exist in a report or a group or reports. It would be very interesting and informative to see what the data are saying that drive managers to make decisions. I'm sure to even think about drafting regulation changes, there has to be substantial justification backed by real data.

WE ALL HAVE JOBS THAT WE GO TO EVERYDAY. TIM B HAPPENS TO BE A FISHERIES BIOLOGIST AND HIS JOB IS TO MANAGE THE STATE'S FISHERIES. LET HIM AND HIS FELLOW BIOLOGIST DO THEIR JOB. IF I WAS A PLUMBER AND EXPALINED HOW I WOULD FIX A LEAKY FAUCET ON THIS SITE SOME OF YOU WOULD CORRECT ME AND GIVE ME YOUR TWO CENTS. LET THE BIOLOGIST BE A BIOLOGIST! GOOD JOB TIM!