FFO and Opening Day: a solution from the past?

[Mike]

About the time that opening day rolls around there is usually a post on this board that deals with fly fishing and the "realities" of opening day. At least some of the comments seem to lament that there is no good place to fish for stockies with a fly on opening day if you don't want to mix it up with the spinning and bait crowds. Unless I have misinterpreted this, the suggestion to me has been that perhaps some of these individuals would like to harvest a few fish instead of strictly going C&R on that day, thus the thought of fishing with the harvest oriented crowd. Other comments have focused on fly fishing later in the day after the crowds have diminished. Clearly though, for reasons largely not expressed there has been some desire by some board participants to fish on regular (no special regs) streams.

Years ago (1970's era) there was a FFO program that was later dismantled with many of the waters going to DH-FFO and perhaps some other programs. The rules were simple: an FFO section was set up on a stocked trout stream; it was stocked at the same or similar rate as the rest of the stream; on the normal opening day the section was opened to harvest with a reduced creel limit of 3 trout per day and a size limit of 9 in. Those regs remained in effect throughout the season and the section was stocked again inseason. I am uncertain on one point. I am not sure if the FFO sections were open to C&R prior to opening day or not, but in a more modern era they would have been. Do you think this would be attractive to fly anglers today (or enough of them to make such areas worthwhile)? Why or why not?

 

[jdaddy]

No I do not. I believe the PFBC has worked to narrow, simply and reduce multiple regulations. To go back and start putting in new regulations for a vast, vast minority is a battle I don't think FF folks should engage in fighting. To say that we want C&R FFO section, then turn and say that we want that except on certain days on certain streams? No. Also this seems directly in contrast with the PFBC Trout Plan to increase wild trout stream fishing opportunities and reduce dependency upon stocking. More C&R FFO please.

 

[troutbert]

Is the proposal to convert existing flyfishing areas to that type of regulation?

Or to convert existing general regs areas to that type of regulation?

 

[tomgamber]

Because we don't have enough of a riff between ff'ers and the spin crowd. At least with c&r they don;t feel we are "steeling" their fish. If you allow much harvest on a segregated water...now then you'll have a problem. The PAFBC can't enforce the regs they have now. Why make more?

 

[jayL]

I like to see lots of very good reasons before supporting new regs. I am with tom on this one.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Expand C&R FFO, C&R ALL TACKLE and DHAFLO miles on existing sections.

Expand C&R FFO,C&R ALL TACKLE and DHAFLO programs by adding them to more streams.

These are the 3 best and simplified options the PFBC has to extend trout fishing in PA. Many streams IMO meet the criteria to support these programs as long as landowners go along with such a regulation change or additions.

I think you might be confusing the desire to fish opening day for stockies with the desire to harvest. I'm not saying some fly-fisherman have no desire to eat a few trout. Plenty do. What I'm trying to say is we all like variety and tradition. The stocking program gives us the chance to fish waters that are otherwise dead later into the season. Sometimes you see different hatches on these streams, different situational fishing than we are used to seeing and a change of pace from our bread and butter streams.

Lord knows here in Lancaster I'm surrounded by ATW's and less wild trout streams. For years, I fished opening day on Middle Creek. Still one of my favorite sections of any stream I've fished. I grew up fishing this stream and still take walks with my family along the horseshoe trail because I love the area. When I fished there in the past with my flyrod, I did not mind the crowd of bait anglers by any means. I expected it.

Opening day is tradition on PA. Almost every single fly angler in PA spent years fishing with those spin/bait crowds as one of them. I think you might be confusing desire to be alone/limited fisherman with desire to be away from spin/bait crowds. As fly anglers emerge from being a spin/bait fisherman, one thing that is common is looking for purity in the sport. Just being in a beautiful unspoiled place and not arm to arm. It has nothing to do with what kind of rod or choice of lure.

IMO if you plan on fishing a stocked fishery on opening day, stop whining about crowds or don't go. It is what it is. As a kid I used to count down the days till trout season. Now as an adult fly-fisherman....I count down the days till the closed season is over so I can fish some of my favorite wild trout waters again.
Speaking of which, one thing the PFBC should change is listing an entire stream as stocked when only small sections are. Sometimes you guys give limits like: ShouldBClassA Creek - from Rainbow Trout Road downstream to confluence with CrippledFin Run. :lol: Other times it just says: ShouldBClassA Creek. Yet the whole stream is not stocked. Why do you guys do this? It limits fishing options during the closed season for no real good reason.

I see no need to make a new reg just to make a fraction of the minority happy with opening day. Make regs to manage the fishery please. Stop the madness. ;-)

I would like to know the answer to Dwights questions though, I'm wondering why you are asking.

 

[afishinado]

Mike,

Making a FFO section with harvest of 3 fish (instead of 5) makes little sense to me and making any stream open only to fly fishing really polarizes anglers. I think the ALO rule is best.

IMO, many anglers, whether they fish with fly or spin gear, like to fish for trout for more than the couple weeks after the stocking. DH ALO areas help stretch out the season by stretching out the fish harvest. The very fact that these DH areas are the most popular sections of the stream proves this point. I can think of many ATWs where the "open" water has few or no fishermen a week or so after it's stocked, while the parking lots on special regulation sections are full.

I would be in favor of more DHALO waters for stocked streams and a lot more C&R regulations for wild trout streams. This would help spread out the pressure in the SR waters and assure that anglers have a decent place to fish most months of the year. Nearly every ATW should has a DHALO section of the stream, again, for those that fish just for fun and not food.

 

[Mike]

As I have thought through various possible options, my post represented one option in potentially trying to deal with those particular, existing, stocked FFO C&R stream sections that even some of you have agreed get too warm with predictable regularity to be in a strictly C&R program. I repeat: only those that are too warm! Note that in my original post anglers did not have to harvest, but it was an option. The three fish per day creel limit was implemented in those waters in the past to put less emphasis on harvest. As for me, I agree with Afish regarding a creel limit.

 

[Chaz]

I don't think that opening more FF water is the answer. I can't believe I'm saying this but if more special regs waters are what people want give them a DH section, but with the DH extending to ALO. for the entire season. I suppose that all DH waters could be opened to All Tackle after the 15th of June so that trout aren't going belly up, but I think that also would be a hard sell.
I don't know why they dropped the FFO waters, your description sounds correct though. Dyberry Creek used to be managed under those regs. I almost never harvest trout because there are only a couple of stocked streams that I fish, and both of those are Wild Trout streams that are stocked.

 

[afishinado]

Mike wrote:
As I have thought through various possible options, my post represented one option in potentially trying to deal with those specific FFO C&R stream sections (stocked) that even some of you have agreed get too warm with predictable regularity to be in a strictly C&R program. Note that in my original post anglers did not have to harvest, but it was an option. The three fish per day creel limit was implemented in those waters in the past to put less emphasis on harvest. As for me, I agree with Afish regarding a creel limit.

Mike,

You mentioned or asked our opinion a while back about moving up the harvest date in the DH areas to June 1st from the 15th. IF the number and/or length of the DH areas were increased, moving up the date may be a good option for those anglers that like to fish for trout and do not harvest to allow better fishing with more trout to continue.

 

[FarmerDave]

I wouldn't be interested. heck, I don't go to the FFO sections now even if I intend on C&R.

I have no problem mingling with spin and bait anglers.

If you are talking about opening up a couple of DHFFOs to earlier harvest (at a reduced rate), just open them to everybody.

 

[Fredrick]

I would rather see more streams that have year round fishing instead of closing them for opening day than you wouldnt have all the madness of opening day . Why close a stream for stocking when you don't close it off for each in season stocking or for the fall stocking . If you get rid of opening day you would see less pressure and less litter and less stream posting and all around more open water
......................Just Saying......................................

 

[Mike]

Afish: Tying the idea of changing the harvest date on DH areas to increasing the number and length of DH Areas is a rather hollow offer in SE Pa. There few, if any, DH Areas in SE Pa. that need to be lengthened, given the use that they receive, the abundance of DH areas in the immediate vicinity, and in some cases the conflicts with other anglers in traditionally stocked waters that would occur. In Chester Co and Schuylkill Co, for instance, there are enough DH Areas and there would be one more in Chester, and longer at that, if certain fly anglers had not blocked the extension of the French Ck stretch or ruined their welcome on the former W Br Brandywine stretch by taking on a landowner's young grandchildren. As for the DH areas in other SE counties, none needs to be lengthened given the existing use that they receive. An angler might argue that the Tully needs to be lengthened based on usage, but there is nothing stopping anglers from fishing below the DH area where there are plenty of fish to be caught and fishing is permitted year around. As for increasing the number of DH areas, we have discussed that before. Not one person from this board has come forward with a stream segment suggestion other than those who have mentioned Hay Ck and perhaps one person who mentioned Manatawny (without suggesting a specific stretch). Both are hard sells, given their popularity and the traditional angling that takes place there. Other than fishing in March, I am not certain what one would gain on the Manatawny. I have fished there all my life and rarely have trouble finding fish, and when I do it is primarily because I am exploring new stretches (for me) and run into unexpectedly poor habitat. I have fly anglers raving to me about how many fish they catch in May during some of the hatches there. I suspect that the W Br Octoraro would make a better DHALO area than C&R fly area based on usage and on its warm temps. I already extended it twice and it is long enough to support more usage. Where would I most like to establish a DH area without robbing other anglers of a general angler fishing hole? Delaware Co and Lancaster Co, but as mentioned above I would prefer to use the W Br Octoraro in Lancaster because of its temps. Northern Montgomery or eastern Berks would be nice, but each attempt or investigation there has failed (Swamp Ck, W Br Perk).
The right stretch on the Tully, if one exists, between the Charming Forge area and Lebanon Co would also interest me.

 

[jdaddy]

What exactly are you looking for Mike? You said that there are folks who come on this board and whine that they can't keep trout and they are too good to fish with the masses. Those people need to get over themselves. They can fly fish and harvest later in the season in the DH sections. It also appears you are limiting your discussion to you region, SE PA which was not noted in the original post. You are intimately familiar with the streams of SE PA, you know way more about the regs and requirements for regs. You ask for suggestions and Hay and Manny were cited, however you have to appease the trout stamp base and fear imposing regulations in these streams. How about Wyomissing? The whole entire thing. It's readily accessible, most of its in a park system, keeps cool temps in the Summer. Make it FFO. I mean, I personally don't want you to do it, because I am greedy and love having it to myself and special regs are a welcoming sign for pressure. But you are querying the board for recommendations on new special regs, there is a perfect one but you already know that. This again leads me to my original question of what exactly are you looking for?

 

[gfen]

Since we're on the subject of odd regs, I always wondered why there was no allowance for C&R of browns and brooks, and harvest of rainbows in the same stretch. Then, simply stock the off-record class A wild repro streams with the rainbows only.

Surely that would have some positive benefit for the wild fish, while letting the truckloads of family fun continue to roll.

 

[Mike]

Wyomissing Ck: Previous proposal by me for special regs rejected in favor of present management.

What am I looking for?
For starters: Good physical habitat, good flow through July 1 in most years, 2 miles of water, cool temps at least until July 1, no posting or willingness of landowners to allow DHALO even if presently posted, good parking, reasonable distance from parking spots, good width...not a "small" or tight stream...preferably 10 m. or more, not close to other special reg waters, good access for stocking truck and stockers, ideally no need to take a stretch from existing trout stocking program but will consider it depending upon availability of similar water in the area.

In response to your original post: New FFO waters are unnecessary and will not be established; new special reg waters will be ALO at a minimum. This has been the situation for a number of years.

 

[jdaddy]

Ok, so you are looking more for stream suggesting for DHAFO versus the initial post of changing regs for opening day.

There are limiting factors obviously. Prime open accessible water is already being stocked. Stocking points are chosen for some of the same criteria, thus finding "new" water is going to be tougher, but surely among this group a few good recommendations should spew forth.

 

[Mike]

jdaddy: No, this is not an either/or situation. We are always on the lookout for potential DH Areas and, in addition to that, the original post still stands, although your first response caused me to add one sentence for clarification. My original post should not have led you to think that I was only speaking about opening day. My mistake. Thus, the addition to that post.

We'll see about the spewing.

 

[jdaddy]

Out of curiosity what was the issue with Wyomissing?

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I said the Upper Tully when you asked this question before. The Tully in Lebanon County has certain stretches with fairly decent habitat and would make a nice project water. I also believe Tully TU is doing work up there.....sounds like the perfect place. You may want to check with them on what stretch they are restoring. IMO (and mine counts because I have fished many sections of that stream above Charming Forge) the stream holds stocked trout year round. They are just about in any section of the stream where habitat is ideal for them to hold over the summer. After that they spread out during fall and winter. Usage on the Upper Tully should not be an issue. Just downstream of Limestone Springs Hatchery (Riley Road) downstream to the Rod and Gun Club have anglers on it just about every day from the beginning of the season into late summer. People in that area like to fish and I'm sure they would utilize a DH area.

More? Ill give it ago. But I'm going to try thinking like the PFBC when I do this. I do NOT advocate stocking of wild trout water but you guys might and have. Iam going to consider multiple factors but using the new "resource 1st policy" in my mind will be paramount when considering Reg changes and stockings.

Hammer Creek in Lancaster County used to have a DH area (County Park) and could use one now. From 322 downstream to the Turnpike or even Speedwell forge road downstream to the Turnpike could support such a reg. Then again with the fact it holds wild brook trout year round....a C&R reg would be even better. The ATW also could use a reg change but we do not want to take away ATW sections. This section gets used fairly frequent late into the season. Angler usage should not be an issue. The old DH area got used very often and still does.

Conowingo Creek in Lancaster County obviously could support a DH area, but you would probably need to rob some of the ATW limits. Not sure about angler usage.

Fishing Creek Lancaster County would make an EXCELLENT special reg area. The area is beautiful and the stream is or has been enhanced by TU. Downstream a good way has some nice looking water. The ATW could also support such a reg (DH) but we dont want to change ATW limits. Not sure about angler usage.

Lititz Run Lancaster County could support C&R regs or a DH area. However landowners do not wish to have it be a public fishery and are very happy with having there own regs (C&R FFO if your not doing this you are a trespasser). Angler usage on this stream is fair to good. Not really an option for the PFBC.

Trout Run Lancaster County would be an awesome wild trout fishery for beauty alone. This would make a good C&R steam(no stocking). Again above the precious small ATW section. Fly fisherman utilize this wonderful stream.

Tucquan Creek Lancaster County would make a totally fantasic C&R stream (stocked) or DH area. Fish populations near the river are higher than the rest of the stream. Given the lack or smaller population of wild fish, it would be nice to see more trout in it. I believe the would have no problem holding over in this stream. Again, this stream is just down right beautiful and people use the place to hike. If you stock it they will come. Only issue here is landowner getting upset and closing it down. I would fish it more personally if it had a special reg on it.

Notables: Big Beaver, Little Chiques, Cocalico Creek, Middle Creek,Pequea Creek, Hammer Creek (below speedwell) are all fairly long and get warm.However with a moved up date on DH areas to allow harvest these could all be options of a revamped DH system. They are not that warm in the beginning of May. June yes. I would think a better idea for these streams would to be a preseason stocking and delay the second stocking on half the streams for 2 weeks or so. This would in essence extend their trout season. No idea on angler usage.

Lehigh County/Northampton has many streams that would excellent if stockings and regs changed. These precious limestoners need less stockings, stricter regs and enforcement. You saw how people got upset when the LL was deemed wading allowable. Just imagine messing with FFO areas. DH areas on these streams should not even be considered. TT regs should be canceled and C&R put in place. Many of these streams would become Class A if we gave them a chance. The general angling public would fight this hard, but it really needs to be done if we are trying to manage the fisheries better.

Allegheny Creek in Berks County is only stocked in-season (no limits again btw, you totally avoided or didnt read that part of my post). What section is stocked? It has wild trout and is fairly small in the headwaters. Downstream of the Lake would make a decent DH area.

Hay Creek Berks County would make a great C&R stream(stocking or none) & or DH area. Usage obviously not an issue but locals belly aching over a reg change would make this virtually impossible.

NorthKill Berks County could support a DH Area. Not sure about usage in this area....but I like the WT section and would probably utilize it myself.

Wyomissing Creek in Berks County should be C&R(not stocked) in the Class A section. Also the PFBC should stop giving permits to stock that section.

Stony Creek in Dauphin would make a nice one. Given the location near Harrisburg I'm sure it would get plenty of usage, but thats not really SEPA considered by the PFBC. Then again neither is Lebanon and the Upper Tully. A cetain landowner on that stream restored his section and asked the PFBC for special regs. He was told no and put his own in place (C&R FFO) and if you are not doing such you are trespassing (much like Lititz Run). This is a mistake by the PFBC. Stony has miles of stocked water but we dont want to take ATW mileage away from the general angling public. I see nothing wrong with taking 1 mile of that stream and making it C&R(stocked). Make it a short special reg area like the Quitte in Lebanon. I will admit the gated road is under utilized given its hard to access nature.

Rattling Creek in Dauphin could us a DH area as well. Angler usage on this stream is fairly high each time I visited it. Even this past winter.

Schuylkill has many streams new special reg areas could be created on. However, I know angler usage here is low. To name a few:Swatara should have a C&R(stocked or not) area in the headwaters & Cold Run would be an option for this reg also. Again it would rob ATW sections or sections stocked by clubs. This could cause angler angst.

York County also has many streams Special reg areas could be created on. Not sure on angler usage, Maurice would have a better handle on that than I. I suspect it is low. To name a few:
Fishing Creek (trib to Muddy), Bald Eagle Creek and Orson Run should be C&R(not stocked)given its migrating wild brown trout population. Sawmill Run and Beaver Creek could use a DH area.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that Donegal Creek and West Branch or Octo in Lancaster would make better DH areas than FFO areas. Until you give the fisherman in this county more places to fish later into the season, would not make the illusion of robbing these special reg areas from Lancaster Co. anglers.
Fish in Donegal do holdover though and do not die in the late season if they are left alone. I lived near this stream many years and never witnessed dead trout because of heat stress. However, the FFO is in bad need of restoration (to the disagreement between DTU/ me and other Lancaster County fly anglers that fish the water). It is possible if more anglers were able to utilize this water more people may care about it and it might get more work.

I also agree multiple FFO areas in SEPA could probably go DH, but again donot give the illusion that you are robbing FFer's of there water. This will not go over well. A better thing to do would be make those streams DH and make better wild trout streams C&R FFO.

I think that is fair. Others may not.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To end:

If the PA fish commission is serious about extending trout season in PA these are some options close to SEPA.

Also I understand why angler usage is important to streams that are stocked and given DH regs. On streams that are C&R angler usage should not be even in the equation. If we are expecting the fish to hold over then it is even better it is under fished. It makes the survival rate of trout high given angler behavior(as you talked about in your past thread). This would make the fishing fantastic from time to time until someone discovers it and utilizes it. Then when it dies down it would eventually return being fantastic when those anglers leave.

[color=FF0000]Again, C&R and angler usage should not even be considered together[/color]

[color=FF0033]I think even delaying the second stocking 2 to 3 weeks later than you do it now for half the streams that are second stocked would also accomplish this. In this case Special Regs would not be needed and everyone could enjoy a longer trout season, be it flyrod/spin rod or Spinner/Woolly Bugger/or Canned Corn.
[/color]


I tried to be unbiased and I tried to give my honest opinion......let the blasting begin.