ASHAMED!

[BrookieChaser]

maxima12 wrote:

And another thing, where are the Women Flyfishers? If your out there help old Maxima12. This is not a mans game anymore! At least log on and say, We love you Maxima12!

you got it, Maxima12

You might want to check out Instagram. There's some hot fly fisherwomen on there. Most of them are out West or down south in the salt.

 

[maxima12]

yea, brookie , I know it, womens flyfishing intnl, joan wulff, Livingston manor, Alaska flyfishers, texas flyfishers, list goes on and stops, no pa.

ORVIS WANTS THEM IN A HUGE WAY! Maybe you have not seen! I guess sooner or later they will find the Maxima12.

Guess who, M12

 

[maxima12]

Oldlefty, you stated no kids in our remarks. How in the world can we go on if youth is not involved! I wonder,

Maxima12

 

[tomgamber]

BrookieChaser wrote:

maxima12 wrote:

And another thing, where are the Women Flyfishers? If your out there help old Maxima12. This is not a mans game anymore! At least log on and say, We love you Maxima12!

you got it, Maxima12

You might want to check out Instagram. There's some hot fly fisherwomen on there. Most of them are out West or down south in the salt.

There was a wholepage full about a fly fishing woman in the Greensburg paper last sunday.

https://triblive.com/local/westmoreland/ligonier-native-spends-summers-in-yellowstone-national-park/

 

[FarmerDave]

maxima12 wrote:
yea, brookie , I know it, womens flyfishing intnl, joan wulff, Livingston manor, Alaska flyfishers, texas flyfishers, list goes on and stops, no pa.

ORVIS WANTS THEM IN A HUGE WAY! Maybe you have not seen! I guess sooner or later they will find the Maxima12.

Guess who, M12

Funny you mentioned Texas.

Years ago I sold a vintage Shakespeare Wonderrod on Ebay. It had been in a bundle of rods that I picked up at an estate auction for almost nothing. A guy from Texas won the auction and was very excited to get it. He got it cheap, but not as cheap as I got it. But that is another story.

Then he send me a picture explaining why he liked it so much. It was a picture of his very attractive girlfriend wearing a classy sun dress and reeling in a fish with that Wonderrod.

How cool is that! Forget the fact that it was a channel catfish.

 

[OldLefty]

2 points and then I'm done. Oh, how much more I could say; however, this is not the format to do that.

1) Someone voices an opinion negative in scope and it's ASHAMED?? Yet, when I'm put down in a public meeting that's o.k. Double standard, clear and simple. Perhaps the reasoning here is that you don' agree with my position but agree with the person who put me down in public. Hey, I'm old and I can take it.

2) You took my "no kids" thing wwwaaayyy out of context. I said please don't use the argument kids can't fish. They can, just do it within the scope of the regulations. Why people argue they can't fish is beyond me when all they have to do is use the permitted tackle. It's that they don't want to fish because they can't fish the way they want. Besides, artificial lures only is NOT fly fishing only. This is all about choice, not prohibition.

I can't end this without saying that unfortunately the conservation minded are, in fact, in the minority. Sad fact, indeed.

 

[Swattie87]

OldLefty wrote:
I can't end this without saying that unfortunately the conservation minded are, in fact, in the minority. Sad fact, indeed.

Conservation is overrated.

I've recently heard that receding sea ice in the Arctic will enable access to previously undiscoverable caches of additional fossil fuels! The more ice that melts, the more fuel we have access to! The more fuel we have access to, the more the ice melts! Win/win!

We are morons.

 

[FarmerDave]

OldLefty wrote:


2) You took my "no kids" thing wwwaaayyy out of context. I said please don't use the argument kids can't fish. They can, just do it within the scope of the regulations. Why people argue they can't fish is beyond me when all they have to do is use the permitted tackle. It's that they don't want to fish because they can't fish the way they want. Besides, artificial lures only is NOT fly fishing only. This is all about choice, not prohibition.

I can't end this without saying that unfortunately the conservation minded are, in fact, in the minority. Sad fact, indeed.

Lefty, I have a lot of respect for you, and it is OK if we disagree.

About what I quoted above...

Here is the way I see it, and I am just talking about the tackle restrictions. We are likely in agreement as far as stocking.

Do ALO regulations prevent anyone from fishing there? Legally it does not, but in reality, it likely does, especially kids.

Not all of us learned fishing with AL from the start. Not all of us had relatives (when we were kids) that fly fished. I'd argue that most did not. My dad didn't fish much, and when he did, he fished with bait. I'm not sure he would have fished at all if not for having kids that would pester him to take them fishing. So, we used bait. Very rarely did we fish for trout. Dad was smart enough to take us fishing for panfish to get us "hooked."

My uncle was an avid trout angler. He would take me along when I was in my early to mid teens. We usually used bait. I had to teach myself how to fish with hardware and flies. So yes, the reg would have prevented me from fishing there when I was a kid, and I seriously doubt I am that unique.

I never was a fan of tackle restrictions and that is only one of the reasons. They also perpetuate the us vs them mentality. In the vast majority of cases, ALO and FFO regs are simply not needed as a conservation tool. It's more of a social thing and not necessarily in a good way for all. We can use the mortality argument to sell a position as a conservation thing, but in reality, that boat simply doesn't float in most cases.

And what better way to teach a young person about fly fishing than to fish near them while they are fishing bait.

As far as stocking trout goes, too many streams are stocked. Stocking adult trout has nothing to do conservation. As far as Penns, I'm with pcray. Shouldn't be stocked, anywhere.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

If you can fish a wax work, you can fish a trout magnet. If you can fish a minnow, you can fish a stick bait or a spinner. It really comes down to choice. I think we all here are on the same terms with stocking over significant WT populations.

 

[OldLefty]

FarmerDave, I appreciate what you're saying. Since we have somewhere slightly more than a couple percent of our trout stream miles under special regulations of any kind, I have to ask the question: Has any youth's journey in this great world full of fishing adventures ever been negatively impacted by not being able to fish bait in any of these areas, specifically? With all of the stream miles under general regulations, and even with a number of stream sections regulated as all tackle C&R, there's an incredible amount of options to introduce a young angler to trout fishing. I'm still looking for a valid argument in favor of the position that a young angler would be negatively impacted by having been prohibited from fishing bait in a specific stream section.

Now, to this some may respond with something like this: "But the stream right behind the house (or cabin) is restricted so this youth can't fish [with bait] there. To this the reply would be yes, that's true; however, a short distance up or downstream he or she can fish. Walking, riding bike or having someone transport that youth would provide the remedy. Minor inconvenience, simple remedy.

 

[FarmerDave]

OldLefty wrote:
FarmerDave, I appreciate what you're saying. Since we have somewhere slightly more than a couple percent of our trout stream miles under special regulations of any kind, I have to ask the question: Has any youth's journey in this great world full of fishing adventures ever been negatively impacted by not being able to fish bait in any of these areas, specifically? With all of the stream miles under general regulations, and even with a number of stream sections regulated as all tackle C&R, there's an incredible amount of options to introduce a young angler to trout fishing. I'm still looking for a valid argument in favor of the position that a young angler would be negatively impacted by having been prohibited from fishing bait in a specific stream section.

Now, to this some may respond with something like this: "But the stream right behind the house (or cabin) is restricted so this youth can't fish [with bait] there. To this the reply would be yes, that's true; however, a short distance up or downstream he or she can fish. Walking, riding bike or having someone transport that youth would provide the remedy. Minor inconvenience, simple remedy.

I noticed that you are avoiding the other points.

One point was that ALO or FFO RARELY have anything to do with conservation. You argued that it does.

It doesn't because the increase of trout mortality when bait fishing is almost always insignificant when considering natural mortality.

Another was, ALO and especially FFO promote the us versus them mentality. No comment on that?

Look...

I never had kids. When it comes to trout I almost exclusively flyfish simply because I enjoy it more. Haven't harvested a wild trout in over 30 years.

How could I be against FFO, ALO, and C$R regs? I just haven't lost the ability to empathize. Not saying that you have. We obviously came from different worlds.

I'm not against these regs in all cases though, just most. I'm entitled to that.

They might even make sense in the stream section you are talking about. I'm OK with that.

But arguing that tackle restriction are a conservation thing is flawed in most cases.

No?

Peta just called and said that outlawing fishing causes even less fish mortality than fly fishing.

No matter how you slice it, fishing is a blood sport. Pass the lemon.

 

[Swattie87]

FarmerDave wrote:
I'm entitled

Perhaps hearing PALongbow's thoughts on entitlement again will help you understand better here FD.

Sincerely,

Swattie "Spincaster" 87

 

[Fly-Swatter]

I did not read every post on this thread (shame on me), but here are my thoughts on special regs:

1. they only make sense in the case of over harvest and less than optimal resource management.

2. They are a neon sign saying "FISH AN POACH HERE!"

3. PAFBC resources would be better used for biologists studies, resource improvement (habitat, access), and public education related to how clean waterways benefit all PA citizens. Take whatever manpower, costs, etc. devoted to special regs and put them into more efficient activities to enhance watersheds.

Now, I'm sure special regs sell licenses to some segment of anglers. However, to repeat a sentiment from a previous post, special regs waters can engender an "us vs. them" culture.

Selfish caveat to my thoughts: I do like the heritage waters like Little Lehigh and Fisherman's Paradise. They are less than a drop in the bucket compared to the available good trout fishing stream miles. It seems to me a token like these would be better tolerated by those whose feathers are ruffles over ALO waters.

Maybe not.

 

[troutbert]

The title says ASHAMED.

But what is Maxima ashamed of?

What did he do wrong?

 

[Acristickid]

I used to love Skynard when I was 12-15. I like’em still but doesn’t listen to them much.

My favs are Whiskey Rock and Roller and I’m on the Hunt.

Maybe this thread will be moved to toughest to wade. America.

Rock me mamma like the wind and the rain mamma rock me like a southbound train.

 

[OldLefty]

Please note that I never mentioned FFO. There are numerous studies that indicate bait fishing mortality is significantly higher that lure and fly fishing...with the understanding that all fish are handled carefully. Simply stated, ALO, catch and release regulations are the highest form of angler conservation. While I almost exclusively fly-fish, if I had my way there would be no FFO regs. Now, I won't deny that studies can be skewered to support one way over the other and I know instances when it has happened. I firmly believe that supporting ALO removes the "us vs. them" in that argument.

Surprisingly, during the Penns Creek section 5 debacle even the biologists stated that ALO regulations are a form of protecting a trout population.

It might be the time to point out that, having spoken to some folks who have conducted angler surveys, the response from a number of anglers indicated more trout should be stocked and more water currently under special regulations should be changed to provide more angling opportunities; yet, none of those anglers had any youth in tow. It is a shame that adults sometimes try to use the youth argument for promoting their own desires.

 

[FarmerDave]

Lefty, In this discussion, my arguments are more to stimulate intelligent civil discussion and thought. I appreciate your responses.

And I am not ashamed, either.;-)

Just a couple comments which you will likely find agreeable.

OldLefty wrote:
Please note that I never mentioned FFO.

I apologize for expanding this to tackle restrictions in general. It seems we are in agreement on FFO, and I also find ALO to be a reasonable and acceptable compromise but only where additional protection is needed.

There are numerous studies that indicate bait fishing mortality is significantly higher than lure and fly fishing...with the understanding that all fish are handled carefully.

True, but there are also numerous studies that show this increase in mortality when bait angling (versus ALO) usually has very little if any impact on overall mortality which includes natural mortality. In a way, that is a tangent.

Simply stated, ALO, catch and release regulations are the highest form of angler conservation.

Was going to argue with that, but I couldn't keep a straight face anymore.;-)

From angler perspective, I have to agree. But again...For me it boils down to, if it is needed.

Keeping it in context with section 5? For the record, I don't know if it is needed, but I likely would have supported it. I certainly would not have argued against it. I may have fished that section once and that was probably 20 years ago. I do remember a discussion about it being stocked. I scratched my head over that. My limited experience with that entire stream is, it shouldn't be stocked, and bait angling should at least be discouraged. Afterall, it is a destination stream.

There is a whole lot involved.

If I had lived on a trout stream with special regulations when I was a kid, I would have figured out a way to fish it, even if it meant tying a panther martin on the end of the string, tied to the end of a stick. Or even if it meant fishing when nobody else was looking. ;-)

Peace be with you.

I bet nobody saw that coming.

 

[afishinado]

Here is report from Penns Creek Angler about the extension of trout fishing to the lower section of Penns Creek>

With the addition of the new water down stream of RT235 we will get an extra week of the Drake on the lower end, that will be three weeks of the drake below Weikert. The hatch will be here before you know it!. I'd do some scouting of the lower water in advance of the Drake Hatch!. The March Browns & Grey Fox are going pretty good on the lower water.

And think about the kids!! They never were able to trout fish and now have trout to fish for right behind their cabins!!

 

[CB772]

I'll add this,

I live five minutes away from Penns approved trout water, ten minutes from Section 5. I also have a wife and six year old son who fish. Penns isn't a vacation or a place we visit a few times a year, during the height of the season we are on Penns or her tributaries four to seven days a week. Regardless of specific feelings on Section 5 regs, for me it really boils down to this. Have the fishing opportunity's for me and my family been diminished in any way? The answer is absolutely not. I can take my son and soak bait for stockies in the morning, blue line native brookies in the afternoon, and then me and my wife can enjoy dry fly fishing for wild browns in the evening all within twenty minutes from my home. The idea that my son is apparently too stupid to fish for wild trout is ridiculous and offensive, he's already caught wild trout on artificials. Last year he landed his first trout on a dry fly. Sure I wish the state would have done some things differently but at the end of the day me and my family live in a trout fishing paradise and nothing in the last year has changed that in any way, period.

 

[silverfox]

On a more general note, my experience with taking my daughters fishing, is that they much prefer fly fishing or artificials to bait. When they were little I took them bait fishing and they thought it was cool for the first fish. After that it was boring. Later, when they were a little older I would take them bait fishing and they were pretty much bored right away.

When they were big enough to wade and cast, I got them into fly fishing. It was a revelation for them. Now my youngest one (10 years old) begs me to go. My older daughter (14 years old) is more interested in iphones and friends. She never was the outdoorsy type no matter how hard we tried. She still likes to go occasionally and spin fishes. Neither of them want to fish bait anymore and they're still very young.

In reflecting on this, it's pretty much the same trajectory I had. My dad started me on worms when I was a toddler and moved me to flies when I was maybe 10 or so. So for bait fishing at the very early ages, take them to a farm pond for bluegill with worms. It's faster action and they don't care about the difference between a bluegill and a trout. Once they can wade, or at least get in the water a few feet, get them into artificials. Fly fishing preferred They'll much prefer the constant action, motion, activity over lawn chair worm swimming.

So the "equipment regulations take fishing opportunities from kids" holds zero weight in my book.