1 Brown Trout Limit on the SR????

[VTSteelheader]

When I received my Salmon Crazy hats (thanks Lil, they are great) the other day I started thinking.....which is always trouble. I started thinking about the number of dedicated fisherman on this website (and others) and all the stuff about this great fishery that we are always B*tching about (rippers, crowds, people keeping to many steelhead, etc) With this big of group (what is it up to now, 800 members?) we can realy have some input and maybe have a possitive effect on this fishery in some small way.

If you are like me, I've noticed more & more browns caught on the SR last year & this year. These tend to be bonus fish when you are fishing for Salmon or Steel, but none the less I'm stoked every time I catch one. We might be able to help the brown trout fishing in the SR & it's tribs if we reduced the limit from 3 to 1, like Steelhead.

I know on the Western Tribs alot of people make their living geting people a limit of 3 browns every day, but on the SR do you think there would be alot of people opposed to a 1 Brown limit. I just think the browns, like Steel are multi-year returners with some natural repo and should get a little extra protection. It could only help right? I mean think about your trips in Oct-Nov and what if there were more and bigger browns in the SR. Just thinking..it would be nice for this group to help with a positive change on the SR. I've been a member for a couple years and even though I don't post much I check the site just about everyday. This is definatley the best SR website and group of guys. Thanks for all the info over the past 3 years.

[keukakatch&release]

I'd be down for that....In fact, i wouldn't mind a 1 brown limit for all lake o tribs......

[Browntrout5]

Sounds good to me! You can never have too many brown trout in the rivers :D

[Lawnmower]

forget the tribs, how many are caught and kept every spring between OZ and mexico? I'm all for the one fish limit on all trout in the lake and all tribs.

[Andrew Paul]

I totally agree 1 is fine, It's nice to see the numbers increaseing and the size of Lake Ont. trib. Browns are awesome. One of my biggest complaints though is how people fishing the wall on the Oswego river treat the Browns, I've seen the long handle nets, they would unhook them then kick back in the water from way up high, treating them like garbage. I'm sure many of you all have seen those circumstances at that river. :mad:

[darkvader]

One trout limit sounds good to me. We release everything we catch now. These fish are too valueable to only catch once. Besides, steak does taste better when you get down to it.

[centrepin]

I'm cool with a 1 trout limit on browns. I have to admit I do keep browns for their eggs. That is the only time I'll keep a salmonoid, for the eggs. Although I don't think I would ever keep one out of the SR.

[gman2153]

I would sign a petition for a 1 brown limit.

But I bet you anything it will have the same result as the steelhead movement last year. The 1 fish limit may be adopted on the tribs, but it will never float on the lake.... (Spring revenue maker for charter industry).

[stackmend]

I'm sure your right on that G but ya gots ta start somewhere. Try PMing some of the sites most knowedgable guys and see if you can come up with an online petition. I'm in even if it doesn't cover the dare I say greedy b#sstards on the lake.:cool:

[Hamj]

I would sign a petition for a 1 brown limit a well!!!

[TOPGUN]

I'm in.....

[onemorecast]

You'll get my vote and the guys I fish with are all C&R I'm sure they will sign it also.

[get the net]

It will never fly like the steelhead limited on the lake. Its a put and take fishery and there's no problem with the brown trout return in fact its good as it gets or better. Dont get me wrong I still catch and release as much as any one but you still need to have something for everyone. If you educate people to why they should release fish (not in a bad way) most people will listen.

[Adrenalinerush]

You'll get my vote and the guys I fish with are all C&R I'm sure they will sign it also.


There you go talking for everyone else. I hear the guys you fish with are a bunch of salmon hauling meat mongers!LOL! Actually I would even vote for a no fish creel as you know how I feel about keeping glow in the dark, PCB and heavy metal laden fillets. But I could see where occasionally you might want to keep one for the eggs:D

[bigbear]

one is good for me
if you look to some of the world's best fisheries
they are either totally catch and release or limit to one a trip

to me there is a huge difference between salmon and the trout
the salmon are not going to make another trip (so catch and keep if you want, to maximize the resource).......but like the ads in field and stream say, it just gets better with age ;) (and when a steely or brown comes in a couple years later....it is MUCH better!!)

also the chemicals that these fish bio-accumulate in the lake are not things you want to eat much (if any) of.....'cause that stuff can kill ya :eek:

[gman2153]

Before this thread goes

SOUTH ,
Please keep in mind that:

1) Anyone who purchases a fishing license has the right to keep the
daily creel limit allowed by law.
2) The Great Lakes Charter Boat Industry is a Good Thing, allows many
people the chance to enjoy an outing on the lake, alot of good
dedicated fishermen earn a living and feed their families via this
business, and it brings in alot of tourist dollars to related businesses.

Let's not degrade the topic by calling anyone greedy... Alot of guys that will quickly jump on the bandwagon proposing a Univeral rule would think twice if it directly affected their pocketbook.

Get the Net made a valid point - there is an awful lot of brown trout in abundance during the spring months, and there seems to be an abundance of them at Oswego River each year.

From what I know, the Salmon River never really attracted the Browns in GREAT Numbers, but according to reports this year it seems to have been a banner year for browns there also.

[goat ball]

I agree with get the net. The browns are flourishing. I don't keep any, but I still don't see the need for a 1 fish limit on the brownies. The steelhead are a different story!

[get the net]

The steelhead are a different story!

Very good point, we all want the steelhead fishing to be as good as the brow trout fishing. I dont belive stocking are smolts in Niagara is the answer. Just going to help the charters out there.Mybe a different strain (Manistees)?

[Adrenalinerush]

Before this thread goes

SOUTH ,
Please keep in mind that:

1) Anyone who purchases a fishing license has the right to keep the
daily creel limit allowed by law.
2) The Great Lakes Charter Boat Industry is a Good Thing, allows many
people the chance to enjoy an outing on the lake, alot of good
dedicated fishermen earn a living and feed their families via this
business, and it brings in alot of tourist dollars to related businesses.

Let's not degrade the topic by calling anyone greedy... Alot of guys that will quickly jump on the bandwagon proposing a Univeral rule would think twice if it directly affected their pocketbook.

Get the Net made a valid point - there is an awful lot of brown trout in abundance during the spring months, and there seems to be an abundance of them at Oswego River each year.

From what I know, the Salmon River never really attracted the Browns in GREAT Numbers, but according to reports this year it seems to have been a banner year for browns there also.


I have been told, but don't know if its true that they have been stocking more browns in the salmon the last few years, hence more fish. The number of browns have been increasing in the river for the last few years, that much I know for sure. The reason the browns are abundant in the rivers in the fall is obvious, they are in to spawn. The fact that they are concentrated and appear abundant is not a true indication of the overall health of the year class or overall stock. As for anyone keeping their limit, I agree its their right. But you also have to realize its a put and take fishery. For most I believe as they become older and more experienced they keep less fish. As far as salmon are concerned, keep all you want because they are going to be crayfish bait anyway. As for the trout, the 8 pounder you keep in 2005 might just be the 20 pounder you don't get a shot at in 2007-2008. JMHO!

[stackmend]

Does anyone remember when the browns were really flourishing. Back when they considered them more than incidental(a word the DEC used to describe brownies. That is when the charter boys made a living on them. You could always find browns and lakers even when the salmon got scarce in your area.Since they could load up on 5-15 pound browns they didn't have to target steelhead. OK so maybe greedy was a little harsh but after the steelhead debaticle I'm starting to feel as if it is me verus them not a warm fuzzy.

[steeliejim]

I am all for the 1 brown limit on all Lake O tribs also.

[centrepin]

Rather than a petition to limit the trout taken on tribs, why not propose something to reduce the number creeled from the lake. That's the reel issue. If those fish were release from the Charters, I'm not sure they would survice anyway. One they get their limits, they could go inshore and fish for bass.

Just a thought.

[wulffy42]

All,

I am in favor in a perfect world to a 1 trout limit apposed in a business sense - please remember this is a business like everything else - you need $'s to fund the stocking program - They come from the following:

1. Licence revenue
2. Out of staters buying licences to catch fish
3. reducing the limit "WILL" reduce in state and out of state fisherman
4. At least 50% or more are not catch and release
5. If the one fish per man is instituted you will lose licence revenue = less $'s to fund stocking = less fish.
6. There is a fixed cost to the stocking program regardless of the numbers they stock
7. You reduce revenues too much they will shut down - the avg Joe wants fish - they can't get then - no revenue.
8. This is business and we all have to accept that
9. You will lose the fishery - it is that simple - be careful for what you wish for

Wulffman

[Andrew Paul]

Interesting point.

[centrepin]

Wulffy, I can appreciate your opinion but that's what it is an opinion or speculation. I do not agree at all with the following.

All,

3. reducing the limit "WILL" reduce in state and out of state fisherman

5. If the one fish per man is instituted you will lose licence revenue = less $'s to fund stocking = less fish.
These folks that leave would be replaced with a differnt kind of fisherman

9. You will lose the fishery - it is that simple - be careful for what you wish for

Wulffman

Would you not book a charter b/c you were only allowed to keep 4 trout instead of 5? Be honest.

It does not bother me that folks keep fish. What bothers me is the problem is not on the tribs, it's on the lake. That is were the problem needs to be addressed. That's my opinion and it's just an opinion.

[stackmend]

The limited numbers of brown trout is directly caused by the numbers stocked. A few years ago DEC made the decision to limit the browns in order to have many more kings and a few more steelhead stocked. If the lake interests won't go along we by limiting ourselves can keep more of the returning browns in the tribs longer by not killing as many. Every fish killed today is one less to be caught tomorrow. It pains me year after year to watch(don't take this personal) out of staters putting thier third limit in the trunk and then coming back next week saying stuff like GEE IT WAS PACKED WITH FISH LAST WEEK WHERE DID THEY ALL GO.

[metalslayer]

I think the increase in browns the last couple of years is due to the good early salmon fishing on the lake in the eastern end.Once salmon start showing in decent #'s, the browns get left alone.

[ecsteelheader]

Rather than a petition to limit the trout taken on tribs, why not propose something to reduce the number creeled from the lake. That's the reel issue. If those fish were release from the Charters, I'm not sure they would survice anyway. One they get their limits, they could go inshore and fish for bass.

Just a thought.


Ive done over 30 charter boat trips in my life on Lake Ontario,and not once has a Captain go inshore for bass,if he does so what there's loads of smallies in the lake as well loads of browns,only thing with browns is there not much of a river runner up there, i could see a 1 brown in the river and keep it at 3 in the lake.


The other day i was questioned by one of DEC girls or whatever she was,she asked me about 3 or 4 questions and what would be a good improvement to the river, Me and my buddy both said raise the size of a steelhead to 26".

Geeze how about we drive for a 1 salmon limit per day,,people of Pulaski would just love that. People fishing and catching fish is their $$$ source, I practice both C&R and keep a few ,but if the salmon river ever goes all C&R you'll see a ghost town with no hatchery,Trout Un-Limited would be happy because they'd just have native fish Lakers and Atlantics and cross your fingers wild trout & salmon..Just My Thoughts>))>

[ecsteelheader]

How about this propose a license like they have in Canada, 1 is a conservation license which entitles you to half a days limit of whatever species your fishing for ,and the other is a reg.fishing license.

The last time i bought a Canada fishing license i think the Conservation license was half the price as a regular. And if you got caught with more than your limit your summoned a ticket>))>

[Adrenalinerush]

All,

I am in favor in a perfect world to a 1 trout limit apposed in a business sense - please remember this is a business like everything else - you need $'s to fund the stocking program - They come from the following:

1. License revenue
2. Out of staters buying licenses to catch fish
3. reducing the limit "WILL" reduce in state and out of state fisherman
4. At least 50% or more are not catch and release
5. If the one fish per man is instituted you will lose licence revenue = less $'s to fund stocking = less fish.
6. There is a fixed cost to the stocking program regardless of the numbers they stock
7. You reduce revenues too much they will shut down - the avg Joe wants fish - they can't get then - no revenue.
8. This is business and we all have to accept that
9. You will lose the fishery - it is that simple - be careful for what you wish for

Wulffman


Thats one way to look at it. Here is another. If you reduce the amount of fish taken from a finite population there are more fish left. If there are more fish left this creates a better fishery. If you have a better fishery, which gives you the ability to catch more fish, it becomes a more attractive fishery to the recreational angler. A more attractive fishery generates more license and business revenue. I am speaking specifically about the trout fishery not the salmon fishery which is dominated by fair weather meat hungry fisherman.

[VTSteelheader]

I knew this would start something. 1st I proposed a 1 limit on tribs only (not the lake) becuase you have to start somewhere and i know alot of people make there living fishing the lake (yes they do on the river too..but not for browns on the SR). If you are keeping 3 browns from the river to eat Wow... they taste like crap but mabye you need them. I have fished with a few guides both on the lake and the river and I would still go if the limit was one 1 trophy steelhead, 1 trophy brown and 1 trophy salmon or 3 salmon. Come-on that's a lot of fish... The idea that people would stop fishing and the town would dry-up if it was a 1trout limit per day is crap. I've fished alot of places with one fish limits (like the Kenia river in Alaska, Battinkill river in VT) and trust me people still come for 1 trophy fish to take home a day. I think the high creel limits is part of the problem with the lack of respect these fish get (draged, kicked, snagged). Hell I like to keep a fish or two as well, but I don't need to come home with a 100 pounds of crappy tasting fish from a weekend fishing trip.....that's not why I go and I bet it's not why most of us on this site go. We go for a chance to catch trophy fish and if we keep 1 or 2 that great...

[the happy salmon]

I have been told, but don't know if its true that they have been stocking more browns in the salmon the last few yearsI know for sure they stocked a bunch of browns in the river lastyear because i caught a bunch of them in pineville last fall. I asked one of the dec and they told me they were recently stocked.

[stackmend]

I wonder if they were leftovers,dumped because there was no room for them in the hatchery. What size were they Happy. For years the LO stockings were being done by taking them out in the lake and barge dumping them so as to avoid the onshore preditors like pike and cormerants (sp).

[comanche]

i would support i br.tr. limit-as for stocking browns i caught 7-8 brn.tr. at pineville last yr.8-12"-i figured they were stocks-didnt keep any-i never keep any fish -other than wild brookies on occasion-have no problem with people that do-as long it with-in legal limit??