Fall trout regulations

Tom, thats the one thing the WCOs I have talked to have been consistent on is that the only "closed" season is from March 1 till opening day on approved trout waters. By "closed" the regs say can you cannot even have fishing equipment near the river.

Quote from the regs:

These waters are closed to all fishing (including taking of minnows) from March 1 to 8 a.m. on the opening day of the trout season. Some of these waters have been included in the Early Season Trout-Stocked Waters Program and are open from March 1 through March 31. A person shall be deemed to be fishing if he or she has in possession any fishing line, rod, or other device that can be used for fishing while on or in any water or on the banks within 25 feet of any water where fishing is prohibited.



This was the rational when the WCO I talked to said there was "no closed season" on non-approved trout waters - if there was a closed season on non-ATW, no fishing at all would be allowed at all on non-ATW during some time during the year, and fishing is indeed allowed year around on non-ATW. This was his logic in saying that the term "closed season" refers to the act of fishing, not creeling.

When the regs say that ATW are the only waters have an "extended trout season" in seems to imply that there are waters that exist that allow creeling during the general season that don't allow creeling during the regular trout season. I have found no place that explicitly say that creeling is allowed on non-ATW and whenever I read about creel limits, ATWs are referenced.

In fact, from the above link the following is said:

The traditional trout season and creel limits are in place for "Approved Trout Waters," which basically means the water is stocked by the Commission or one of its Cooperative Nursery partners.



So when the WCO I talked to this spring said that no creeling is allowed from non-ATW at anytime, I can't find anywhere in the regs that says he is wrong. I can't find anything that says he is right either. I can also reach either conclusion through a logical extrapolation of what is implicitly said in other parts of the regs.

Explicit clarification is needed for us "bushwackers"........until then, I'll keep calling the WCOs.
 
If a WCO confronts me on a non Special Regs, non-ATW or downstream area between Labor Day and Opening Day of trout and asks what I am "fishing for," I plan to tell him "chubs." I'll let you know what happens.
 
OhioOutdoorsman wrote:
I would advise you to call your local PFBC office like I did. My experience with PFBC officers is that they sometimes interpret the same regs differently and that their opinion is the only one that counts, really.

The area that is most confusing is the non-ATW waters. This includes wilderness trout streams that are not otherwise regulated.

The way it was explained to me is that regulated ATW (including special reg areas) are the only waters that the PFBC specifically defines an open and closed season and specifically endorses a creel. He then explained that the default on other "unregulated" waters is that that there is neither an open or closed season to fishing (even March 1 to opening day and I specifically asked him on that) nor is there an endorsed creel and that keeping or possesion of trout is illegal on these waters ALL YEAR ROUND. However, he said the most practical point is that these waters are not patrolled for fishing purposes unless a specific complaint has been made, so the potential for poaching exists to a greater extent.

He said that this has been a matter of debate for years and only recently clarified. He said the two biggest misconceptions were that non-ATW waters were closed from March 1 till opening day and that you were allowed to keep fish from non-ATW waters during regular trout season. He emphasized that non-ATW waters were never closed to fishing (exception being waters downstream of ATW) or open to creeling of trout.
Click to expand...

Ohio,

Either you misunderstood the WCO, or he is just plain wrong.

It is true that non ATWs are never closed to fishing at any time during the year by regulation. that was the first misconception that you said he pointed out. However, you are allowed to harvest from non-ATWs during the regular trout season (the second misconception). The misconception only applies to the extended season. Extended season regulations only apply to the ATWs. You are not allowed harvest trout from non-ATWs during the extended season.

Think about it. If all wild trout streams (which is a subset of non-ATWs) were closed to all harvest, then why would the even need special C&R regulations?
 
OhioOutdoorsman wrote:


In fact, from the above link the following is said:

The traditional trout season and creel limits are in place for "Approved Trout Waters," which basically means the water is stocked by the Commission or one of its Cooperative Nursery partners.



So when the WCO I talked to this spring said that no creeling is allowed from non-ATW at anytime, I can't find anywhere in the regs that says he is wrong. I can't find anything that says he is right either. I can also reach either conclusion through a logical extrapolation of what is implicitly said in other parts of the regs.

Explicit clarification is needed for us "bushwackers"........until then, I'll keep calling the WCOs.
Click to expand...

Ohio, this info can be found in a few places, and you don't have to look any further than the link provided. Look at it a little closer.

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/images/pages/qa/trout/year_round.htm

First paragraph of the answer is this.

"It is legal* to fish for trout in Class A trout streams year-round, with no kill beginning the day after Labor Day through the opening day of trout season the following year. The same holds true for wilderness trout streams. Of course, all other fishing regulations still apply. "

Notice the asterix where it says "It is legal*?" I did not add it. It is in the original information and is a footnote.

Now look at the footnote at the very bottom of the page that starts with an asterix.

"* Those with a particular interest in regulatory interpretation may want a further explanation. Here it is: The season for taking trout from waters other than approved trout waters extends from opening day in April to midnight on Labor Day. During other times of the year, there is no season for trout on waters other than approved trout waters, certain special regulation waters and private waters that apply for and are made subject to the extended trout season under PFBC regulations (58 Pa. Code 65.26). The regulations establishing seasons, sizes and creel limits state that a fish taken out of season from waters where other fishing is lawful is not considered a violation if the fish is "immediately returned unharmed to the water from which it was taken." Thus, it is not a per se violation to catch a trout out of season on Class A wild trout waters as long strict catch-and-release fishing is practiced. "

So there ya go. If it was a snake, it would have bit you. :-D But hey, it is always best to throw back the native trout, but it is not always required.

One thing you said is great advice. It is always best to contact your WCO. These laws were deliberately written to allow interpretation by the WCO.
 
FarmerDave wrote:

Think about it. If all wild trout streams (which is a subset of non-ATWs) were closed to all harvest, then why would the even need special C&R regulations?
Click to expand...

I have been thinking about this statement or sentiment since this started. To be more clear...if all non ATW's (wild trout streams) were closed to harvest year round, we wouldn't need to argue for lesser creel lmits and/or larger size limits on wild trout streams.

C&R Regs through the merge of Heritage waters (non stocked) and DHFFO (stocked) are largely stocked waters.
 
And another thing.

Look at the creel limits in your regulations book. Here is a link to an electronic copy.

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/fishpub/summary/00complete.pdf

Top of page 6.

Table covers Commonwealth inland waters, not just "approved trout waters." Look at the creel limit for trout during the "regular season." Note no reference to ATWs here, either. Now look at the creel limits for the "Extended Season" It clearly states which streams this applies to which is a subset of Commonwealth Inland Waters. Only applies to approved waters... There put it here, but why not on the regular season?

Regular season clearly applies to all Commonwealth waters (except special regulations). Extended season applies to ATWs and downstream of ATWs. that is pretty clear.

There is more supporting information on page 11 which is referenced.

Maurice, I'm not sure which point you are trying to make. I agree with the first part. Second part? The merger did muddy things a little bit, and they may "largely" stocked streams, but the truth is, they are still not all stocked streams. I was clearly talking about the unstocked streams.

This was the first time I ever heard of anyone interpreting the regs as you can't harvest trout at any time in the non-approved streams. the regs just simply do not support this. I have to admit I can't find anywhere regulations where it specifically says you can harvest in those streams, but I can't find any regs that say you can't other than outside of the regular season.
 
Its easy, don't fish in anything except delayed harvest,fly fish only , and your good to go all year long and you'll probably see more wildlife than in the bait streams as i call them.. If the object of our affliction is to catch fish then we should sell what we have for what we can get and go to Wally Mart spend $29.95 and another 2 bucks for worms and be satisfied with what we catch, if we eat what we catch and i have doubts that most do. I think we should have a few streams that you can keep fish and most that you cant, its about being there not catching fish. We can must teach the younger generation this ,then may be they can fix the greed/ ego regulations we now are burdened with. Im off my soap box now and im going to fish and enjoy nature as she reaveals it to me. B.A.
 
brookieaddict wrote:
Its easy, don't fish in anything except delayed harvest,fly fish only , and your good to go all year long and you'll probably see more wildlife than in the bait streams as i call them.. If the object of our affliction is to catch fish then we should sell what we have for what we can get and go to Wally Mart spend $29.95 and another 2 bucks for worms and be satisfied with what we catch, if we eat what we catch and i have doubts that most do. I think we should have a few streams that you can keep fish and most that you cant, its about being there not catching fish. We can must teach the younger generation this ,then may be they can fix the greed/ ego regulations we now are burdened with. Im off my soap box now and im going to fish and enjoy nature as she reaveals it to me. B.A.
Click to expand...

Well brookieaddict. With a name like that, I will assume you are being somewhat sarcastic about the special regs waters, so I will leave that part alone. I think everyone else should fish the special regulations waters, too. ;-)

I pretty much agree with everything else you said except for one thing. I agree that we need to teach the young about the sport, to respect nature, and the benefits of C&R, but I don’t agree that most of the wild streams should be regulated as C&R. We need to teach, and lead by example. The regulations are management tools and nothing more. It should stay that way.

But this part should be a separate thread. This one was simply about what the current regulations are, and I don't want to hijack it.
 
It is not, in any way, shape or form, neccessary to teach our children to practice strict catch-and-release on Pennsylvania wild trout streams. There is a reasonable amount of harvest that is not harmful in the least on a great majority of our wild trout streams, and it is not irresponsible to educate our children to that reality. There, I have said it.
 
I am going to have to say that I agree with Jack. One of the best things we can do is teach our kids to harvest responsibly. This goes for hunting and fishing. I think this allows people to become closer to the sport. By eating your catch you have inserted yourself and your kids into the food chain in a way that teaches the value of the resource. One they have learned the value of the resource they also will feel responsible for protecting it.

I would go a step farther and say that you should also teach the kids how to prepare the catch as well. I recently have begun to teach my three year old to cook. ( he makes a mean scrabbled egg and stiry fry) When he helps prepare the meals I find he is better behaved at the table, exhibits a sense of pride and eats a heck of a lot more. I am planning on teaching him how to cook a trout on the fire next time we go to camp. I myself can remember vividly the first time I brought home a fish and my mother cooking it for me.

Anyway my .02
 
Bruno wrote:
I recently have begun to teach my three year old to cook. ( he makes a mean scrabbled egg and stiry fry) When he helps prepare the meals I find he is better behaved at the table, ...
Click to expand...

Next time he misbehaves in Church, tell the priest/preacher/rabbi to let him write part of the sermon!

:-o
 
I also agree, and and sounds like you are doing a great job Bruno.

When I said teach the young about the sport, to respect nature, and the benefits of C&R, I didn't mean that we should teach them that they should strictly follow C&R. There is benefit in C&R at least in some cases, but certainly not necessary. there is also value in teaching them to clean and cook what they catch. It was a poor choice of words on my part. All I meant is we should be respectful to nature, and never take more than we can use. However, if a parent wants to teach their kid to practice strict C&R, that is up to the parent, but I agree that it isn't necessary.

I had typed more that would have better explained it, but I deleted it. Some of my fondest memories as a kid involved fishing and cooking and eating what i caught. But even back then I didn't keep all that I caught. Just enough for a meal.

Have you ever tried bullheads or bluegills and scrambled eggs for breakfast? I can't really imagine it now, but I remember it being pretty good back then.
 
Reading back over it, I think I read too much into the post by Brookieaddict, which is who I thought I was responding to with my comments. Nonetheless, now having read more carefully, I can still see disagreement with him on whether harvest should be prohibited on "most" of the wild trout streams. Bruno's comments are probably more to the issue than mine.
 
Not a problem Jack. I kind of thought you were responding to Brookieadict, because I think you already knew that my personal opinion on this is similar to your's. I re-read my own and felt I was not making myself clear. You guys said it much better than I did, so I expressed agreement and tried to clarify my earlier remark.

Maybe i am just trying to be too agreeable. :-D

I may practice C&R on wild streams, but I am not a fanatic. I don't feel it should be a law. Absolutely nothing wrong with a little "responsible harvest" IMHO (barrowing Bruno's words). Some day I may get the urge again to eat some wild trout.
 
Jack,Farmer Dave and who ever else read between the lines regarding my post did just that and nothing else. First I.M.O. OUR wild trout streams cannot support catch and keep for the most part . They will turn into an i used to fish here streams when they when it had fish in it kinda thing. Maybe in the west or somewhere else will suport taking of fish but we dont have the population of true wild trout unless there is a honey stream no one has fished or reported on. Second i was a bit sarcastic regarding our regs that will confuse the best of us . Thirdly, I stand behind my less keep streams and more letem go streams if we want to keep fish after the baiters get done. I guess all of our posts should start with I.MO. so some of us dont get bent out of shape over an opinion. I love this forum it keeps me thinking, and all of us are good people if we just understand other people have opinions some of them based on several decades of experience. B.A.
 
Dave,

I interpret things the way you interpret them and have always interpreted them that way but still think its clear as mud.

Are special regs considered ATW? I think they are. Then we need special regs that specifically allow year-round fishing on ATWs. Note the year round fishing question is regarding class A streams, NOT non-ATW streams. Thats why we need C and R regs, for the ATW where fishing is allowed year around.

The alternative stance is that you are never allowed to target trout on non-ATW. If you happen to catch some while chub-fishing, you must immedaiately release them unharmed. Again, the terms "immediate" and "unharmed" are areas of uncertainty.

Why does it clearly say year around fishing is allowed on special regs waters while there is this whole "immediate release and possibility of liability" song and dance with C and R practiced on non-ATW?

I think there is room for other interpretations......as silly and backwardly illogical as they seem.

It is my feeling that the regs are intentionally left vague regarding non-ATW by the PFBC because it discourages people from fishing them and if they clarified the regs it would promote fishing on these streams which they don't want to do for a variety of reasons.

Dave, you have me convinced. I don't and didn't need convincing. A few WCOs might upon occasion and thats a risk I'm willing to take.
 
From the first Saturday after April 11 to midnight Labor Day, an angler with a valid license and trout permit may fish and keep up to 5 trout over 7 inches from any Commonwealth Inland Water unless it has special regulations restricting harvest or method of fishing. This includes non-special-regs wild trout waters, Class A, Wilderness Trout Streams or whatever. There is no ambiguity in the statutes and regulations about this and any WCO that says differently is badly misinformed or a liar. If anyone receives a citation for following this advice, I will travel to any part of the Commonwealth to defend them.
 
brookieaddict wrote:
Jack,Farmer Dave and who ever else read between the lines regarding my post did just that and nothing else. First I.M.O. OUR wild trout streams cannot support catch and keep for the most part . They will turn into an i used to fish here streams when they when it had fish in it kinda thing. Maybe in the west or somewhere else will suport taking of fish but we dont have the population of true wild trout unless there is a honey stream no one has fished or reported on. Second i was a bit sarcastic regarding our regs that will confuse the best of us . Thirdly, I stand behind my less keep streams and more letem go streams if we want to keep fish after the baiters get done. I guess all of our posts should start with I.MO. so some of us dont get bent out of shape over an opinion. I love this forum it keeps me thinking, and all of us are good people if we just understand other people have opinions some of them based on several decades of experience. B.A.
Click to expand...

Actually brookieaddict, I didn't read between the lines. In fact, that is exactly the way I read your original message (those parts of it). The only place where i thought maybe you were being sarcastic is when you were steering everyone to the special regs streams, and downgraded all else as bait streams. Also where you talked about more wildlife at the special regs. I chose to leave that part alone and even stated that. So who is actually reading between lines here? It isn't me. I even supported much of what you said, yet you still chose to mention me by name. The only part where i actually expressed disagrement was where you said that most of the wild streams should be regulated C&R only. and even then I supported your right to that opinion and the right to pass that on to your children. for Pete sake, I C&R by choice on the wild streams. I just don't feel that it should be done through regulation. C&R regulation is a management tool, and the studies have shown that it is not necessary in most cases, partually because most people who fish those streams already practice C&R. It is actually OK if we disagree on that if it is based on opinion. I'm not trying to change your opinion, and you certainly won't change mine. I do have mixed feelings on this, because I know on some streams it doesn't take much to crop a population for the year. But right now, I don't think we need more special regs on those streams. Besides, those special regs only increase fishing pressure and damage the natural experience.

But since you brought it up again... In my opinion, a true brookie addict should not feel the way you do about the wild streams being bait holes and not worthy of fishing. That is why i thought you were being sarcastic. Sorry dude, the signs alone screw up the experience of fishing a special regs. And the wildlife??? You may see more animals, because they are more used to human presence, but you can get that at a zoo. To a country boy like myelf, that isn't a very wild experience. Still pretty cool, but give me a mountain freestone anyday. Please noe that I am trying not to be insulting. Some people actually think the only place to fish is the special regs. More power to them, but I don't feel that way. They are actually quie low on my list. If all you are interested in is the perception of more fish to fish over, then I suppose the special regs are the place to be, but that isn't me, and i am a big brook trout fan. If you ask me, those people are still chasing the white trucks for the most part, just like the opening day crowd. The typical special regs stream doesn't have many native brookies. Several have wild browns, but the native brookies are more scarce in those streams. Give me a mountain freestone anyday over a DH anything. Even a tiny class C or D is a better experience for me, but I am still open to any fishing.

To reiterate: Would I like to see the limits changed so the wild stream harvest is lower than the stocked streams, making the stocked streams more attractive to the feezer fillers? Absolutely. However, zero is not required in MOST cases. I'm entitled to that, and stand by that.

this is quite a tangent from the original thread, so if you wish to continue this discussion (which is fine by me), I only suggested that maybe we should start a new thread.
 
OhioOutdoorsman wrote:

Are special regs considered ATW? I think they are. Then we need special regs that specifically allow year-round fishing on ATWs. Note the year round fishing question is regarding class A streams, NOT non-ATW streams. Thats why we need C and R regs, for the ATW where fishing is allowed year around.

[color=0000CC]OK, now I'm confused. ATW is Approved Trout Waters. They do have a list of ATWs that are listed as open year round to fishing, AND from March 1 to opening day they are regulated as C&R.[/color]

The alternative stance is that you are never allowed to target trout on non-ATW. If you happen to catch some while chub-fishing, you must immedaiately release them unharmed. Again, the terms "immediate" and "unharmed" are areas of uncertainty.

[color=0000CC]That is only true outside of the regular season. you are allowed to target, and harvest trout from non-ATW streams during the regular season. Again, I agree the "unharmed", etc. wording is vague, and I personally believe that is intentional. they don't want to encourage fishing those streams outside of the regular season. It also give the WCO some leway to write citations for beoeple who they feel are abusing the privelege[/color]

Why does it clearly say year around fishing is allowed on special regs waters while there is this whole "immediate release and possibility of liability" song and dance with C and R practiced on non-ATW?

[color=0000CC]May answer to this is pure speculation. See above.[/color]

I think there is room for other interpretations......as silly and backwardly illogical as they seem.

[color=0000CC]Absolutely, but i am not holding my breath.[/color]

It is my feeling that the regs are intentionally left vague regarding non-ATW by the PFBC because it discourages people from fishing them and if they clarified the regs it would promote fishing on these streams which they don't want to do for a variety of reasons.

[color=0000CC]Well, i guess i didn't need to answer the above, but I'm not going to delete it now. We agree.[/color]

Dave, you have me convinced. I don't and didn't need convincing. A few WCOs might upon occasion and thats a risk I'm willing to take.

[color=0000CC]Agree. By the way, I have a first cousin who is a fish cop, but I haven't had this discussion with him yet. :-D [/color]
Click to expand...
 
I was answering the original question when set upon by hungry Pike. I yield the stream to you sir. :-D B.A.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top