Future of Savage river drainage brook trout

Tucker733

Tucker733

Member
Joined
Dec 30, 2013
Messages
132
Location
Western Maryland
http://m.times-news.com/news/md-dnr-secretary-asked-to-take-hard-look-at-brook/article_5689ba44-0490-11e5-9e05-f79cb9d5a5ff.html?mode=jqm

Mike has been writing these articles since the regulations went into effect. There seems to be a small group of bait guys that want to open the streams to catch and kill. I believe his argument is very weak and un informed. I'm ready to fight the battle for this small piece of heaven that would surely be devestated by the proposed change.

Any input from you guys up north?
 
First time poster but long time lurker - living in Cumberland (originally from Elk County, PA) and fish the lower Savage a lot.

This is a very weak argument and I will fight as well. Why would you want to do that? The brooke trout don't even get big enough to be that big of a meal anyways. They have enough places to catch and kill around here - don't ruin one of the best fisheries we have.
 
I can't wrap my mind around why. I'd love to see a catch and release regulation for all of Maryland brook trout.
 
It's all well and good to be willing to "fight" for what we believe best in these situations. What would be even better is if there is some fisheries science, as in stream and population surveys, etc. that show the current brook trout regs have clearly benefitted the fishery. Otherwise, all anybody has here is an opinion. All else being equal, in a faceoff between two opinions, the (probable)minority view (C&R) holds the weaker hand.

Hopefully, Maryland DNR has the science to back up their position...
 
I like how he just throws in mention of "10 year olds with a hooks."

My heart bleeds for the 10 year olds who have never tasted brook trout flesh.

Not.
 
How are c&r regs "restrictive"? It should be about fishing opportunities, not a cheap way to stock the freezer. Something the PFBC still fails to grasp with their flawed logic.
 
RLeep, they DO have the science to back it up, I was just reading one of their reports the other day. The science is not as strong as it could be, because natural events (extreme floods two years in a row and one bad summer drought) kept the populations low after the reg changes, but the C&R regs did cause an increase in # of larger brookies. I would post link if I wasn't on my phone... Quick google search should turn it up.

Personally, I have not fished that area.
 
Lotsa western PA buy MD licenses for Savage and N branch only.
 
Are yinz issuing an "action call" yet?

If so, please give details.
 
I'm in talks with my TU chapter and other clubs to take action. I'm atleast writing a letter back to the paper. And I believe that the Dnr had enough evidence to protect their regulations. If anyone as a good way to really burn this guy and make these attempts to change the regulationsend is appreciate hearing it.
 
I just read that article, what a horrendous plan. I spend a lot of time in western MD and that would be disastrous. There are plenty of stocked streams to bait fish and keep fish in the area.
 
It is ridiculous. I have trips planned this year to fish that area.
If it ever goes through MD would lose my money.
 
Smoky Mountains biologists opened fishing and harvest on several brook trout streams that were closed for a handful or so of years. They found no impact at all. 98% of anglers for trout that wish to harvest could not be bothered with small streams that are not stocked.

If they are sophisticated enough to find edible wild trout to harvest, their minority drops to about 0.003%.
 
I know I am new to the forum, but I respectfully disagree. Many of the good brook trout streams are easily accessible(there are some hidden gems too) around the savage. To me bait fisherman are about easy access not stream size. Bear creek which is very close to the savage is a small stream that is stocked. It gets punished very quickly. I am not against bait and spin fisherman(I started that way) but I think there are few good brook trout streams in Maryland and they need to be protected.
 
I'm sure that the MD chapters of TU will soon develop a plan to oppose this proposal. It wouldn't hurt if PA anglers and TU chapters chimed in as well (western MD depends on tourism).

I'm not sure how the MD DNR considers regulation proposal changes. In PA we're accustomed to comment periods with noted offices to whom we send out comments. I'll check the MD DNR page. . .although if someone else wants to chime in with a link, go ahead. In fact, it's not even clear that MD DNR is considering this - only that the author of the article and some local folks asked DNR to consider bait/harvest. The situation is unclear. I'm not sure the current regs are really being considered for removal.
Or we could simply write directly to the MD DNR fellow named in the article.
 
If MD TU decides to take action on this, get back to us.

I'm sure many PA flyfishers would be glad to help.
 
The 2 biologists that are in charge of the Savage river drainage will be at our TU meeting this month and I will be getting alot more information. I will definitely keep you guys up to date work everything going on.
 
It would probably be a good idea for you TUers to talk to those legislators mentioned in the article, and tell your side of the issue.

 
^already in the works. I'm thinking after the next meeting things will really start rolling
 
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