FFO and Opening Day: a solution from the past?

Also just to be clear.

I'm not saying make all those streams special reg areas. That would be over kill IMO, I'm saying pick one....there are options. Streams / Trout Season could be managed in PA so much better than we do under our current format.

I really believe doing a stocking for preseason on all ATW's then 2nd stocking them 2 weeks later on half the streams and then another stocking 2-3 weeks later on the other half would do so much for everyone's enjoyment in SEPA.
 
shhhhhhhhhhh dont let people see you say that! ;-)
 
There's only one portion I have direct experience with in that posting. You are correct. I'd like to see the LV limestoners treasured instead of plundered.
 
jdaddy wrote:
Sal, I agree with every word.
Click to expand...

Anotherwords your saying good post amirite?

Anyway, I am not so confident that anyone will provide a solution that mike hasn't considered, unfortunately. My opinion is still that a piece of hay creek would be good for special regs, but I know what the answer is. And I also have friends, family, and former neighbors that would strangle me for feeling that way.
 
Like I said, I like Wyomissing the way it is, but unlike Hay or Manny, it gets practically no pressure, and could easily be managed as a FFOC&R wild trout stream with little cost or effort by PFBC. Seems Mike is on the same page but someone shot it down for unknown reasons.
 
My guess would either be the Park because they feel it would be unfair to residents who care to fish the stream or.......

The people whom each year continue to get a permit to stock it for a "kids" trout derby. The few times I have witnessed this event there is always WAY more adults fishing this kids derby than children. They put nets in the stream to attempt to pen them in (which doesn't work and is basically illegal according to PFBC law with obstructing objects and fish in free flowing water) and they also tell out of town fisherman like myself(whom are there for the wilds and not the stockers anyways) its for Wyomissing residents only. When I called about this the PFBC told me they never put that in their permit and it is legal for me to fish it.

All in the middle of a Class A section. Makes no dang sense to me. If I had a nickle for every time I have been fishing that stream in the middle of winter and people stop to ask me if they stocked it again. They always have a confused look on their face.

Wyomissing is under utilized but that does not mean it is ok to stock a Class A section either. It should also have no bearing on making it C&R.

*Note: in my previous post to Mike where I mentioned streams- I said C&R as to mean C&R AFLO.....not FFO. I was trying to be fair to other fisherman, not that I would hate a FFO reg on streams i mentioned. Mike says its not an option so I would hope C&RAFLO would be at least considered.
 
I don't understand why they can't just use that big shallow reflecting pond or whatever it is. Where is that derby held?
 
I remember the old FFO 3 Fish Per Day regulation. We had one of those here in Adams County that went to DHFFO about 1990 and is now C&RFFO.

Broadly speaking, I don't favor adding any new FFO areas. It's too exclusive and unfair to spin guys. Make the new reg sections Artificial Lures C&R where there is cold water/wild fish... and DHALO where the waters are stocked and get warm in summer
Add more waters to special regs, but keep the regs simple.
 
In the section across from that ice skating rink. What ever road intersects right there upstream to the next road I believe are the limits.

I have caught those stocked fish past the upper road crossing about 200 yards downstream to the sewer plant.
 
Honestly, you could take Sal's post, and change a few names and it'd be straight from my fingers on the Monocacy Creek.

I assume, however, that like the Monoc things are done there because it curries favour with the powers that be in the city, and sometimes eggs must be broken.
 
Overall, I agree, ALO does fine, and I also like central PA's AT C&R and AT Trophy Trout regs.

As for opening day, its not the bait fishers we hate. It's people in general. It's true, you know that guy who steps in and fishes in your back pocket? We don't care what his tackle looks like, we hate him just the same. Even when I was a bait/spin guy, we stayed away from the zoos.

That said, there were plenty of ways to escape the crowds on opening day in NW PA. You could go to a big stream, where people can spread out and get a few hundred yards of stocked stream to themselves. Or, there were plenty of stocked streams a mile from a road, maybe they drove the truck down a gated logging road, or you just go after the fish that have drifted far from the access point they were stocked at. Here in SE PA, those places are tough to find, even the big streams are shoulder to shoulder and the small streams don't leave the access points.

Anyway, I'm in full support of adding more special reg areas in SE PA, Sal outlined possibilities very well. But special regs shouldn't be FFO, they should be ALO or else AT with harvest restrictions.
 
Make the Perkiomen from Toll Gate Road to the Reservoir DH with a June 1 harvest date. People might scream the first year, but at least the big resident trout get a chnce to move to cooler water before the harvest begins. Much of it has decent habitat and it all holds wild trout. It wouldn't have to be stocked as heavily as it is now.
 
Mike,

IMHO, given the economic challenges facing the PFBC, trout fishing for many anglers is now measured in weeks rather than months because of the cutbacks in both numbers and frequency of stocking. Many/most trout anglers of all persuasions feel that way. DH regulations would stretch out the season. Further, I’m sure you recall the PFBC angler survey of a few years ago where a vast majority of anglers were in favor of more SR areas for trout.

The solution is to enhance the self-sustaining wild trout fisheries (maybe stop stocking some promising Class B’s) and increase stocking in more marginal streams and look to create more DH areas in these stocked streams where possible. I agree that’s it’s easier said than done. What else can be done to keep the trout program viable in PA?
 
afishinado wrote:
The solution is to enhance the self-sustaining wild trout fisheries (maybe stop stocking some promising Class B’s) and increase stocking in more marginal streams and look to create more DH areas in these stocked streams where possible. I agree that’s it’s easier said than done. What else can be done to keep the trout program viable in PA?
Click to expand...

I agree. I don't understand why we need to stock every little trickle, particularly in the northern half of the state. I think those trout are better used on the larger and more heavily presured streams. I don't see the need for our more sparsely populated counties to have more than a few ATW's each. Just take the few largest streams that have no or low numbers of wild trout in a particular county and fill them up with stockies. Use whatever fish you saved from the cutbacks and increase the number of fish stocked in the SW and SE regions where most of our population is and wild trout opportunities are weak.


Kev
 
I'm hoping when Mike has time he can reply back to this thread.

I'm glad he is asking questions and thinking about our fisheries. I hate seeing reg changes and you feel like no one ever listened to your thoughts or asked how you felt.
 
Make the Perkiomen from Toll Gate Road to the Reservoir DH with a June 1 harvest date.
Click to expand...

Excellent choice Chaz. I overlooked this one.
 
Sal:
Thanks for the info on the upper Tully and the other suggestions.

Regarding ATW descriptions in the Summary Booklet, any description of the stocking limits beyond just naming the stream is up to the discretion of the AFM or WCO's. If you really want the exact stocking limit description, just check the stocking schedule on the PFBC web site. Section limits are listed. Doing the same thing in the summary booklet would take up too much space. Some section limits would most likely be considered too vague to be acceptable in legal cases so listing the entire steam in the summary booklet eliminates that legal technicality.
 
Mike,

Len confirmed at the last Tully TU board meeting that the project we applied for on the upper Tully has been approved. I will get the stream section to you. When we were speaking with the property owner he was receptive to opening the posted water with special regs. Otherwise it stays posted due to the opening day circus that would always take place on his property.
 
Thanks Mike.

Regarding the limits, that makes sense and was a question Ive always had.

If the section of the Upper Tully you guys are going to do work on is the section im hoping it is..............that would be really awesome news! Either way, it is great news. Almost that whole stream needs restored and if it ever got done, there would be something super special up there.
 
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