I've never been convinced that disturbing spawning fish actually harms the population. That seems to be one of those things about which some conservation-minded anglers worry themselves too much, and those worries are reinforced by the antiquated idea of closed seasons.
I doubt that a fish disturbed while spawning (spooked or caught) will not eventually resume and finish its job. If it's fatally injured or kept, of course, it won't spawn, but the effect of that is no different from that of killing the same fish at any other time of the year. Half the fish disturbed will be males, anyway, and I'm pretty sure if one of them is taken out of action another will happily replace him.
As far as egg survival goes, I'm pretty sure that the influence of angler foot traffic is dwarfed by routine fluctuations in factors like water level, water temperature, dissolved oxygen, substrate quality, sediment shifting, etc. It would be next to impossible to put a number on it, but if we did I bet it would be several digits past the decimal point.
And I think in most cases the fluctuations in egg survival don't matter much, because the adult spawners produce more fry than can be supported as adults or even juveniles by the stream's habitat and food supply. I don't know what the typical number of eggs per mile would be exactly, but it seems like it would usually be in the tens of thousands to millions, whereas the number of adults the stream can support is usually in the hundreds or very low thousands per mile. It's like filling a jar with jelly beans: if the jar can only hold 500 beans, it doesn't matter if you start out with 20,000 beans or 20,100 beans: you're still only going to fit 500.
If the population is very low, then egg production might indeed be a bottleneck, but if there are so few fish it's that much less likely that you'll accidentally step on the eggs. Unless you like dancing on gravel bars in a bull trout stream, I doubt this is a very common scenario.
I'm not saying to be reckless -- it's just common sense to try not to stomp around in the redds. But almost anything we do in the stream can have some negative influence. For example, every step you take in the spring might squish several nymphs between the rocks, robbing the trout of how many eventual meals? And how much beneficial vegetation might you accidentally uproot when you have to wade through a patch of it? There are all kinds of small harms we might inflict, yet none of them keep us off the stream because their effects are so minor. I just don't see why this should be any different.
Perhaps DMM can correct me if there are any studies showing that angler activity during spawning causes statistically significant damage to the population. I haven't heard of any.
Jason Neuswanger, Ph.D.
Troutnut and salmonid ecologist