Bait Fishing in Special Regs Saucon Creek

[martinlf]

The fish commission is talking about opening up the Trophy section of the Saucon to bait fishing. This very special section has produced some beautiful wild browns in the past, and though it has not been fishing as well lately, it seemed to be rebounding a bit. Opening this short section of the stream to bait would certainly result in more fish being killed. Please contact the Fish Commission to let them know what you think of this proposal.

 

[martinlf]

Here is a web address for comments to the Fish Commission. The Saucon is in Northhampton. I've submitted a message via the site, but will be sending in hard copy letters as well.

http://fishandboat.com/inform.htm

 

[martinlf]

Perhaps the most influential person to write would be

Commissioner Glade E. Squires
PA Fish and Boat Commission
1601 Elmerton Avenue
P.O. Box 67000
Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000

My letter is on its way.

 

[CRB]

Another push for bait.
Time to outlaw it state wide is my opinion. Causes trash and way for invasive's to spread. A license increase would help too.

 

[troutbert]

I heard that the proposal includes:

1) Stocking this Class A section of stream.

2) State-wide harvest regs, i.e. 5 trout per day.

And I heard that the proposal came from Commissioner Squires, not from PFBC fisheries staff.

But if anyone has the full details, please let us know.

 

[LouM]

A few years ago the PFC did a fall stocking in the Saucon at the grist mill. Of course the bait fishermen came out in droves. Beside catching all the stockies they also caught the wild Brown breeders, should I say more.

 

[KenU]

The excuse is always the same: It's for the kids. How will they ever learn to fish for trout if it isn't stocked?! Kids have short attention spans, so take them out to a nearby pond where they can catch bluegills one after another. That's what my TU chapter does. This way they first learn how to handle a fishing rod (preferably a fly rod) and then they can move on to trout.

Saucon Creek is a fine wild brown trout fishery and much of it is already stocked. The park section is an excellent urban fishery, available to those who want to take the family out for a picnic and do some wild trout fishing at the same time. It should be protected throughout the whole length that is listed as Class A, not just in the park. And now they want to take away even that.

This is just another nail in the coffin of Operation Future. Your Class A water may be next. This board of commissioners is not wild trout friendly. The Spring Creek and Monocacy Chapters and PATU have already taken a stand against this change. Please take a few minutes and contact the PFBC. Tell them that the Saucon Creek project is working fine and isn't costing a dime to operate. Leave it alone!

 

[martinlf]

Thanks for the comments. Please contact the PFBC to tell them the Trophy section of the Saucon is a special place that should be preserved as it is. I don't know of another stream this size that has the potential that it does. It has in the past produced some gorgeous big fish, and could do so in the future if it is protected. Please help this stream, even if you don't fish it; I will certainly come to the aid of your class A water if it is threatened, and others will as well.

 

[Nymph-wristed]

Message sent to the PFBC. I heard that poaching was one reason the fishing in that stretch has declined. I have seen other odd things in special regs sections in Northampton County. I wonder if the PFBC is giving up on the section or if it's fated to end up like the Bushkill special regs. I have caught stocked brookies, rainbows, AND browns in that stretch....

 

[ebroesicke]

I am the president of the Monocacy Chapter of TU and I have, what I believe to be, most of the story:

1. A letter was sent by the PFBC to the City of Bethlehem outlining several options for changing the regulations. The options included the use of bait and/ or stocking in several different scenarios. The letter was sent in response to "angler inquiries", which amounts to a group of anglers that have been trying to get this changed for years. Maybe not coincidentally they want to reopen the hatchery that was once there.

2. The City of Bethlehem has to make a request to the PFBC to change the current regulations. PFBC requested a reply by March 30, in time for the commissioners meeting. So in addition to sending a letter to PFBC, you could send a letter The mayor of Bethlehem as it wont go anywhere unless he makes the request:

Mayor Robert Donchez
City of Bethlehem
10 E. Church St.
Bethlehem PA 18018



3. I met with the Parks Director last week to outline our position, as he was asked to advise the Mayor on this subject. The meeting was productive in my view. Our position rested largely on the facts that:

a) The special regs created an amazing trout fishery that attracts anglers from across PA, NJ and elsewhere. This is supported by the PFBC biologists reports and surveys. In a weird and sort of ironic twist, the PFBC also list that section of Saucon Creek as one the "10 Best places to fish for Wild Trout".

b) The regs (Trophy Trout, Artificial lures only) only restrict the use of bait, not the type of tackle. The group pushing for this has stated time and again that the regs limit the use of the park to fly anglers, and discourages kids from fishing there. They have also claimed that listing waters as Class A do the same, even though Class A status has nothing to do with tackle restrictions.

c) there are no less than 10 opportunities to use bait for stocked fish within 5 miles of the park, including much of Saucon Creek.


If you do plan on writing a letter, I would suggest trying not to infer (or say outright) other groups cause more trash, enforcement issues etc. While we may feel that way, and may have anecdotal ( or real) proof, lobbying to exclude segments of sportsmen from a public park may prove to be counter productive.

The Monocacy Chapter and those I have consulted with feel the facts paint a compelling enough story to keep the regs as is.

I will post an update here as soon as I learn of the City's decision.

Erik Broesicke, President Monocacy Chapter TU

 

[martinlf]

Thanks, Erik. With only a few days until the 30th, I decided to email Mayor Donchez so he would get my message in time. His email address is:

rdonchez@bethlehem-pa.gov

I sent an email with my own wording based on Erik's main points, stressing that kids have plenty of places to fish, and why the wild fish in the Saucon were special. Please--it only takes a minute to share your views with him, and respectful, logical letters can get the attention of elected officials.

 

[ebroesicke]

That's great. Thank you. It will help to let the decision makers know that people are interested in this and value the stream.

 

[PhilC]

Thanks for the alert and to Erik for the info. This is the stretch I learned to fly fish on. It would be a shame to lose it.
The stocked sections above the park are failing as far as utilization goes and now they want to add to that. I know a guy who helps stock the approved water and he said they're hardly bringing trout anymore due to low usage...now they want to add to this?
I dont understand how this would get more kids involved and think that is an excuse from grown up to get some water they're bitter about not having. The park seems to be have less residents in the vicinity than the approved water...again if this is for kids, who I would assume have limited transportation, how would this benefit them?
Also, I gripe at times about the masses that flock to this stream from NJ. NJ has a lot of stocked water and guys come for the wild fish...I imagine that would result in less license sales.

 

[andre]

As one of those "masses" that comes from Jersey they would lose my license money. I consider this my home stream and have been fishing it most weekends for the past 15 years. This is a horrible idea and I would hate to see it happen.

 

[Mike]

I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I am curious about the general thoughts being expressed. What is the bigger concern here...the idea of allowing bait fishing OR is it the idea of stocking?

 

[franklin]

Mike wrote:
I don't have a dog in this hunt, but I am curious about the general thoughts being expressed. What is the bigger concern here...the idea of allowing bait fishing OR is it the idea of stocking?

From my perspective I'd say bait fishing. From what I have observed on the Monocacy I think stocked trout take some of the pressure off the wild trout. I've been there early in the season and had guys tell me they cleaned all the trout out of a given hole, showing me their limit catch of stocked fish. All the while I could see wild trout in the stream. These guys didn't recognize the darker wilds as trout.

 

[martinlf]

Stocking over wild fish disrupts them, and bait fishing kills more of them. Either would degrade this unique stretch of the stream, where wild fish have a foothold, and with adequate protection from game wardens, can produce some superb fishing for wild browns. We have thousands and thousands of miles of stocked streams where bait anglers can fish, but a very limited number of streams where wild trout can thrive. Thanks to all who have contacted the mayor of Bethlehem. We have a good chance of protecting these fish. If you haven't emailed the mayor (see above) please consider doing so.

 

[BradyS]

I also sent a letter to the mayor of Bethlehem. I will be fishing the Saucon today and hopefully I can get one or two of those wild browns!

 

[martinlf]

Thanks, Brady. Every email helps. Best of luck fishing the Saucon.

 

[pcray1231]

Mike,

No dog in this particular hunt, and lacking experience in this particular location, my comments should be taken as a more "general" opinion as opposed to tailored for this location.

From most concerning to least in places like these:

1. Stocking
2. Harvest
3. Tackle/offering type.

Basically my view is that wild trout fisheries should be favored over stocked trout put and take fisheries. That's not to say I want the latter eliminated. But you upgrade a poor stream into a stocked trout fishery, not downgrade a wild trout fishery into a stocked trout fishery.

So if you have a place capable of a strong wild trout population (given class A status, you do), the first thing to do is manage it as such. i.e. don't stock it. Promote it as a wild trout fishery. In some/many cases that's all you need, even under general regulations.

If the stream is so popular that angling impact is suppressing the wild trout fishery, the next step is to end harvest.

Generally speaking, I believe the above two steps will reduce even accidental mortality, as I believe wild trout enthusiasts, regardless of tackle type, will have lower rates of incidental mortality than the angling public as a whole. Basically, yes, mortality rates average higher with bait but I think the angler has a lot to do with it; some bait fishermen have very low mortality and others are VERY high. With bait you can reduce mortality, just by fishing a tight line and setting the hook quickly so that they don't take it deep, and lots of guys do. Likewise, with all tackle types, playing fish quickly and handling them appropriately reduces mortality as well. Wild trout anglers of all tackle choices are generally more aware and interested in the fish's survival. As such, managing it as a wild trout fishery will self-select anglers with low incidental mortality rates. In most cases, that's enough.

Though, if the pressure is so high that even low rates of incidental mortality leads to a lot of dead fish, THEN I do support tackle restrictions. With ALO preferential over FFO.

Only when those extreme measures ALL fail should the wild trout approach be given up and the stream stocked and managed as a stocked trout fishery.

The goal is always for it to be a wild trout fishery. And regulations should aim to be as restrictive as necessary to meet that goal, but not more restrictive than is necessary.