Just Greedy

[bigjohn58]

I have noticed a real downfall in the population of brown trout outside of the "narrows" section of Fishing Creek Clinton County. I caught the least amount of wild browns this past year from the stocked section of Fishing Creek since I started fishing over 20 years ago. The Mackeyville section almost seems to be barren of browns. That section has no stocking and no special regulations but is all class A waters. I was just informed this weekend by another angler that fishes Fishing Creek a lot and is a very good fly fisherman that he has experienced the same thing. He also knows an individual that kept over 150 browns from these 2 sections of stream in the past year. It is really sad that our resources get abused like they do. I also heard he wsa keeping 5 trout when you were only allowed 3. Why do people have to be so greedy? I know person who has gone to Sayers dam and kept his limit of 20 bluegills for 20 straight days, another that has kept over 150 walleyes from the West Branch Susquehanna River in the last year, and another that has kept hundreds of catfish from the West Branch Susquehanna River. What in the heck can one do with this many fish? It is really sad how one individual can ruin a fishery! Almost makes me want to start taking things into my own hands since our regulations don't seem to protect much or do anything.

 

[duckfoot]

Well, if they ate all those walleyes they'll probably die from heavy metal poisoning in a few years.

I've cleaned out a few creeks and backpockets in the Chesapeake of their perch and hardheads. Done the same with panfish in small ponds.

I justified it since they're populous fish and rebound well. Gamefish...not so much. Catch and release those guys.

 

[FarmerDave]

John, I haven't kept a wild trout in decades. But that is simply my choice. If it is legal, I won't begrudge anyone who wants to keep a few for a meal. But I am a firm believe in not keeping more than you can eat fresh. People who fill the freezer only to toss them out in the Spring to start all over again are pathetic. It's such a waste.

As far as the panfish go, I think it is a mistake to include them in this. They are so prolific, that I am accusing Duckfoot of lying when he said he fished those waterways out. It can't be done.;-)

And I didn't just say that because I prefer the taste of panfish over trout.;-)

 

[duckfoot]

Ha! There does come a size on a panfish when they're not worth the effort. Anything less than 9" just isn't worth the mess of scaling!

I am the same on trout. Wilds and natives go back, and I'll keep one or two stocked for food over the next two days.

 

[troutbert]

I agree with the OP. Fishing Creek, and many other wild trout streams, have trout populations well below their potentials, because of overharvest.

Regs of 5 trout per day are not appropriate for a stream like Fishing Creek, or any wild trout stream.

And regarding Fishing Creek, and specifically in the stretch mentioned, i.e. around Mackeyville and on down to near Salona, that section does get hit hard.

When stocking ended, there was a "window" of several years where few meatkillers fished there, because of the assumption that since it wasn't stocked, it wouldn't be worth fishing.

During this time, the wild trout population, and therefore the fishing, got very good.

But after a while they figured out that there were trout there for the taking, and they started hitting it.

So the population was knocked down to mediocre levels, well below what it had been.

 

[Maurice]

troutbert wrote:
I agree with the OP. Fishing Creek, and many other wild trout streams, have trout populations well below their potentials, because of overharvest.

Regs of 5 trout per day are not appropriate for a stream like Fishing Creek, or any wild trout stream.

And regarding Fishing Creek, and specifically in the stretch mentioned, i.e. around Mackeyville and on down to near Salona, that section does get hit hard.

When stocking ended, there was a "window" of several years where few meatkillers fished there, because of the assumption that since it wasn't stocked, it wouldn't be worth fishing.

During this time, the wild trout population, and therefore the fishing, got very good.

But after a while they figured out that there were trout there for the taking, and they started hitting it.

So the population was knocked down to mediocre levels, well below what it had been.

So wouldn't stocking it be a good idea? That would protect the wild trout to a point and also allow folks to harvest.

Stocking to help the wild trout! Now where is a concept.

And if it is unstocked, there is only a window within the Season limit...Opening day through labor day that harvest is allowed. So there is never a "3 fish limit" instead of five. Harvest is closed in fall and winter.

 

[DGC]

They would never do it in PA given the mantra to simplify regs, but that situation screams for a REVERSE delayed harvest: stock it and allow harvest in the Spring, then change to C & R in June with no further stocking the remainder of the year. This is the defacto situation for many high quality STW streams with wild trout now, though obviously without the formal requirement to C & R in late Spring.

It is the perfect compromise solution between the wild trout fans and the early season harvest fans, and may be good enough to keep streams open that may otherwise get posted without stocking.

Owens Creek in MD is run this way, though that fishery depends on stocking preseason AND after closing the harvest in June, when a stocking is done to "refresh" the standing crop of trout. But in good wild trout waters in PA, there is no need for that late Spring stocking, nor would one be wanted.

Of course, if people are going to poach and there is inadequate patrol to enforce, it makes little difference what the reg is.

 

[pcray1231]

Make it all tackle Trophy Trout, like a portion of Penns. It'd still allow bait. It'd still allow occasional harvest. But it'd knock down the freezer fillers.

That said, if the guy was taking 5 when he was only allowed to take 3. Well, he's already breaking the law so I'm not sure that more laws are the answer. And if he's truly doing this on a nearly daily basis, he's also very catchable. I think a call to the WCO is in store...

 

[FarmerDave]

troutbert wrote:

Regs of 5 trout per day are not appropriate for a stream like Fishing Creek, ...

Never fished it, but I likely agree with that.

...or any wild trout stream.

That I do not agree with. Oh sure, it makes some people feel better about themselves, but it doesn't make sense to completely eliminate harvest from ALL wild trout streams.

I have no problem with making the creel limits different during the regular trout season with lower limits on the unstocked streams (but not zero). If anything, it would be less confusing if different all year long.

Think about it...

There are special regs. After that, you have two lists in the general rules for trout, approved, and everything else. Doesn't make sense to be the same from opening day until labor day and different the rest of the year. Make them different the entire year and just maybe, more people will pay attention to the rules. Right now they are the same during the regular season, so it seems a large percentage of people think the extended season also applies to all trout streams when in fact, it doesn't.

Even the OP suggested people were creeling 5 when the limit is 3. It's never 3 on streams that are not on the approved list.

 

[bigjohn58]

Maurice wrote:

troutbert wrote:
I agree with the OP. Fishing Creek, and many other wild trout streams, have trout populations well below their potentials, because of overharvest.

Regs of 5 trout per day are not appropriate for a stream like Fishing Creek, or any wild trout stream.

And regarding Fishing Creek, and specifically in the stretch mentioned, i.e. around Mackeyville and on down to near Salona, that section does get hit hard.

When stocking ended, there was a "window" of several years where few meatkillers fished there, because of the assumption that since it wasn't stocked, it wouldn't be worth fishing.

During this time, the wild trout population, and therefore the fishing, got very good.

But after a while they figured out that there were trout there for the taking, and they started hitting it.

So the population was knocked down to mediocre levels, well below what it had been.

So wouldn't stocking it be a good idea? That would protect the wild trout to a point and also allow folks to harvest.

Stocking to help the wild trout! Now where is a concept.

And if it is unstocked, there is only a window within the Season limit...Opening day through labor day that harvest is allowed. So there is never a "3 fish limit" instead of five. Harvest is closed in fall and winter.

I've never paid attention to the regulations but there is a good chance he was breaking the law the majority of the time.

You brought up about stocking over the wild browns to protect them? I somewhat agree with that! I mean only a portion of Fishing Creek is stocked but it ALL supports wild brown trout. At least stocking allows the meat hunters to get some fish and yes the occasional brown but for the most part its just rainbows and brookies. If there were no stocking it would just be the browns disappearing. It is a big enough stream to support the stocking where they do. I just wish the regs were different where they didn't stock and it was patroled better. Can you do a stream side citizens arrest? Give me a badge and I'll protrol it! Kind of like how they have moderators on these websites...they should have stream moderators!

 

[RLeep2]

I'd be interested in how successful recruitment/spawning has been over the past 5 years or so in the portion of Fishing Creek under discussion. I suspect this may be the largest contributor to the perception of a harvest related problem with the stream.

 

[bigjohn58]

RLeep2 wrote:
I'd be interested in how successful recruitment/spawning has been over the past 5 years or so in the portion of Fishing Creek under discussion. I suspect this may be the largest contributor to the perception of a harvest related problem with the stream.

I would highly doubt this but always a possibility.

 

[troutbert]

It's getting hit. There was a window for some years after stocking ended when few people fished it because of the common assumption that if a stream isn't getting stocked, it's not worth fishing.

The fishing during that period was really excellent in that section, both in size and numbers.

But then one guy brings home a nice stringer of trout, and shows and tells his buddy, and before long it's getting hit. I was there one opening day in the Belle Springs area and it was crowded. Fishermen in every pool. And not the C&R types.

The fishing quality went down, and it has never come back to what it was.

It's a limestone spring creek and there is some nice habitat. It has all the characteristics necessary for a great fishery, but it doesn't fish nearly as well as in the past.

The regulations allow the harvest of 5 trout per day. The regs are telling people it's OK to do that. It's the regs that are wrong. It's simply an unsuitable regulation for a wild trout stream.

 

[RLeep2]

Oh, I don't necessarily disagree, guys. 5 is too many for the stream given its location and the number of harvesting anglers it probably sees. I'm just skeptical that harvest is usually the primary causal factor in situations like this and that severely reducing or eliminating harvest is likely to fix it long term.

 

[bigjohn58]

My dad just attended a meeting last night with John Arway the PAFBC executive director. He had some random excuse for everything that was brought up at the meeting. I wish I would have been there! He kept bringing up about the importance of class A waters...IF class A waters are so important then why is the majority of Fishing Creek that is ALL class A waters not protected (or more of it)?

Also the stocking anymore on Kettle Creek is a joke! They dump the majority of the fish in 5 or so holes and even some of the holes that are NOT on posted land that are EASY ACCESS to anglers that people have fished for years no longer get stocked. They claimed that they are on a time schedule yet Kettle gets 2 trucks for the upper Clinton County section. The Leidy section finishes being stocked way sooner then the truck that goes up further. They have TONS of people willing to help stock yet they don't even bother going up the dirt road side to where the rope swing is to stock that hole. I think that hole got 2 buckets if that. Why would they not stock where people fish? Why group all the fishermen up in basically 2 holes on that creek? The stocking program and the way the PAFBC views the stocking program is a complete joke! The fish they stocked in there also are a joke averaging about 8 inches. For a fish they want you to keep and take home they aren't even worth it!

 

[Shaner]

Kettle by leidy got way more then 2 buckets? there where fish everywhere rising on sat-sunday opening weekend. You could count more rising fish in a min then 2 buckets would hold

 

[bigjohn58]

Shaner wrote:
Kettle by leidy got way more then 2 buckets? there where fish everywhere rising on sat-sunday opening weekend. You could count more rising fish in a min then 2 buckets would hold

I am talking up towards Proctors in the Ludy's hole or however you spell it. Right where Weed Run dumps out.

They literally dump about 80% of the fish in right at Leidy above and below that bridge and the Hermen Hole at the curve.

 

[Hook_Jaw]

Fishing creek below the narrows has really gone down hill your right about that there's no doubt about it. Used to do well around mackeyville last few times haven't caught a trout. Only place I really have caught many is in lamar below where dry run dumps in.