DHALO Changes Dropped. Second Update 4/03/2015

[SBecker]

Overwhelming negative comments did not stop the Class A bullocks.

 

[lestrout]

JackM wrote:
Maybe not because of the administration change and
This

Jack - could you amplify your comment? I don't know how to interpret what you said.

 

[JackM]

During the Wolf Administration there will be appointments and it may shift the balance.

 

[Maurice]

JackM wrote:
During the Wolf Administration there will be appointments and it may shift the balance.

I read the minutes from the Jan meeting and only Bachman and Lichvar voted NEY on the Stocking of Class A's. As a measure of conservation, that'd have to be a pretty big shift.

 

[lestrout]

Jack's link is very interesting - turns out I know 2 of the commissioners. Bachman is the biologist that made the Gunpowder the trout fishery that it is, and I have seen a lot of evidence that he knows his stuff. I'll have to spend some time with the other commish that I know and sort out where his knowledge base is. Maybe I ought to take him out to Montana and let him see some of the innovations in action.

 

[blueheron]

From another perspective, the stocking program is not about fly fishing and all of it's special regulations, it needs to be self sustaining and attract new licensees. It's good to go to battle for your piece of the action but the proposal was a compromise to what exists and what is needed for the future of the program. I fish stocked waters when I don't have enough time to get to the real fishing spots but I have to say it looks a little like a NIMBY response without an alternative suggestion to the problem at hand. Frankly, if the people don't harvest
the fish, mother nature and crew do a pretty good job of clearing out the marginal waters. Just a thought

 

[Camp]

First I have read of this. Not a good idea at all. Not even one line item I would support.

 

[PennKev]

blueheron wrote:
From another perspective, the stocking program is not about fly fishing and all of it's special regulations, it needs to be self sustaining and attract new licensees.

That is the problem.

The PAFBC would rather create short term put and take fisheries for the sake of a few license sales at the expense of just about everything else.

 

[JackM]

blue heron:

what exactly is the "problem at hand?"

Most of these comments are saying that there is no "problem at hand." At least that is what mine mean.

 

[brookieaddict]

I know of 5 Sports Assoc who not only had their members send a reply to the pfgc link and on their facebook page they also called their reps and basicly told them to stop this lunacy. I am with streamerguy, ill belive it when i see it gone. Do not take the pressue off, call your rep,leave a message at the pfgc hdq, Raise such a comotion they will think twice about another idea they have'nt brought to a commitee yet. Now is the time to show them we won;t stand still for they hairbrained ideas. Baiting in dhalo today, an extra permit to fish their trout parks tommorow, who knows whats next. Until then, fish on.

 

[streamerguy]

Take a look at page 4. It's official

For now....

 

[franklin]

I think the PFBC tried to bite off too much with the proposed changes which resulted in a proposal that aggravated most parties. My biggest beef was allowing youngsters to fish with bait during the delayed season. That's just training the future of the sport that special regs should be removed.

I'd probably agreed with opening up the harvest a couple weeks earlier without the other changes. I don remember years on some of the DHALO streams where the temps were into the mid 70s by harvest time.

(Jack, that's the only potential "problem at hand" I could come up with.)

 

[Maurice]

Lets see the commish stocks 3.2 million adult trout.
Coops stock a little over 1 million

The DHALO areas comprise just over 50 streams (52?) and at an approximate 2 miles each(exagerated) would be 104 miles of streams under DHALO Regs.

Assuming each mile gets 1,000 trout per year thats 104,000 trout per year stocked in DHALO areas.

Approximately 2.4% of the trout are set aside for the DHALO program.

Total licenses sold in '14 = 827,000+ Trout Stamps = 500,000.

So with 500,000 x 2.4% = 12,000 anglers. This statistic represents the number of anglers associated with DHALO areas based on the relationship of trout stocked in DHALO areas relative to the rest of the ATWs open to bait and harvest under statewide regulations.

So the question is...does 12,000 anglers seem more or less than the reality of the number of anglers using the DHALO areas. Put multiple angler trips aside for now...

With 52 DHALO Areas, 12,000 anglers allocation that is 230 individual anglers per DHALO area.

I'd be curious to know whether the users of DHALO areas are properly represented by the number of DHALO areas available?

Maybe a survey needs to be done to demonstrate these numbers?

 

[JackM]

I would not have a problem if, during unusually warm years, the PFBC opened harvest earlier on a stream by stream basis, but the general rule at June 15 is soon enough and in many years, too soon.

 

[Camp]

This would be an idea worth discussing. Certainly some areas and seasons would merit an earlier or later harvest. Temperature is key. With technology as it is a stream temperature monitor at each end of a DHLO could be the trigger for harvest instead of a date. Could be set up for remote monitoring so labor costs would be minimal.

 

[blueheron]

I have no idea what exactly is the problem at hand. I thought the claim by the PFBC was a regulation change to spur more participation in fishing for stocked trout to help pay for stocking more trout. I have no idea where the current license and stamp sales fall in relation to previous year's sales, if falling sales are indeed the reason for the proposed changes. Stockings are down from years past , money would be the driving force I would guess, to increase or even prevent further slides in stocking would require more revenue. Isn't it always about the money? Personally, I prefer to fish non stocked water , so naturally my support would go on the conservation end and not the put and take game.
Hence a regulation change on stocked water does not send me into a tizzy, someone in charge of such things put the regulation in place at one time, so it's not beyond reason that they would modify it in the future. Chris