More good fishing lost in PA


I am willing to pay an increase to the annual fee to support repairs to dams for ponds like these.

As a resident of NEPA and someone who spent quite a bit of time fishing both Miller's and White Oak ponds, I was saddened by the news of the drain-downs. We've lost other local waters to draw-downs, (Lower Woods, Reining's Pond). Just like the effect on posting access to trout streams, losing these waters will mean more crowding on the remaining ponds and lakes,

Can't speak to Miller's, but White Oak's out-flow did provide cool water to a trout stream. Will be interesting to see the effect on that body of water.

While I love fly-fishing for trout, I switch over to the bass boat and other tackle for the summer months. Love getting out on the water and seeing kids out with their parents and grandparents. Had a chance to take our grand-children out on a local pond in August and had a ball getting them fishing.

I guess my point is we need to support all forms of fishing, not just fly-fishing and be willing to pay a little more for the privilege of fishing. Took a long time to get there, didn't I ?
 
I live near these 2 ponds (about 10 minutes from White Oak).

White Oak is a good crappie and bass fishery. It also has the biggest snapping turtles I've ever seen. It was drained for dam repair in the 80s. When it was drained in the 80s dinner plate size crappies were relocated to other ponds.

I don't remember Miller ever being drained but I don't go there much anymore though it used to be my favorite pond. Its more or less been taken over by pickerel.

White Oak outflow flows into a small creek and then the west branch of the Lackawaxen.
 
I, for one, am not willing to pay more when I know that money will go to create artificial fisheries, often at the cost of natural ones.
 
Well put Sasquatch, I agree.
 
>>I, for one, am not willing to pay more when I know that money will go to create artificial fisheries, often at the cost of natural ones. >>

That's fine... Bear in mind though that some portion of the extra that you are not willing to pay would have also gone towards Commission efforts and programs to serve the fisheries that you do approve of and care about.

It is my view that at some point, we need to (without losing or compromising our advocacy for wild trout) wake up enough to look at the Commission's wild trout management track record here in Pennsylvania comparatively with that of other states with similar wild trout resources and potential. When viewed in this way, I think we have it pretty good.

This is something I think worth remembering whenever the rhetoric gets cranked up to the point where we begin to threaten to sit on our wallets until they do it "our way".

Given all this, I am willing got pay more.

Just a viewpoint and no offense intended to anybody here, etc.
 
Sasquatch and BrookieChaser:

With all due respect, Why assume that any license fee increase would go to stocking (which I may be wrong in assuming your objection)?

i do not assume that a fee increase will automatically go to fixing dam structures, but I would make my voice heard regarding a significant portion going in that direction. As much as we need cold water fishery improvement, so too do we need more warm water access.

Just my 2 cents.
 
The_Sasquatch wrote:
I, for one, am not willing to pay more when I know that money will go to create artificial fisheries, often at the cost of natural ones.
Click to expand...

I'm no fan of the stocking program either, but not paying more for a license isn't an avenue to the end of the stocking program.

If there is one, it is getting involved. Organizing. Communicating. Voting.

Montana didn't go wild without money to fund the process of doing so.
 
Djs, look at the average angler in PA. They either care about pelletheads or bass. 2% of anglers care about wild trout.

Cold water is at a minimum. Warm water is everywhere. Now, I'm not saying ignore warm water species, but don't create warm water at the expense of cold water.
 
BrookieChaser wrote:
Djs, look at the average angler in PA. They either care about pelletheads or bass. 2% of anglers care about wild trout.

Cold water is at a minimum. Warm water is everywhere. Now, I'm not saying ignore warm water species, but don't create warm water at the expense of cold water.
Click to expand...

I do not believe that accessible quality warm water is that much easier to find than cold water. In this neck of the woods either can be crowded or not accessible.

Loss of either warm or cold water habitat and/or access just plain sucks. I don't want to see either ignored and would rather pay more per year for a license than face continuous loss on either side of the equation.

 
Djs, I'm not arguing access with you as that would vary by region. Honestly, worrying about access is putting yourself ahead of a resource. In PA everyone wants an instant fishery, of their choosing, outside their door. Hence the stocking program. No one is willing to except other regions are better for certain fisheries. Hell, I've driven to OH to fly fish for carp that are not shot at constantly. But, if you really want to talk warm water access, look at the Susquehanna, it's miles upon miles of a warm water fishery with public access. Almost any large stream in PA will be a warm water stream within its stretch. There's no reason to inhibit cold water species to warm water for species that survive in a wider natural niche.

What I'm mainly concerned about is survival of the species that require each aquatic environment. Regardless if I interact with them or not.
 
afishinado wrote:
I that it's time more anglers in PA to begin looking at the big picture and put aside their parochial interests with respect to fishing in PA.

No matter what species you pursue or what tackle you use, the present is bleak and the future looks even worse in PA.

Everything is being cut in the current and future budget.

There is less and less money available for enhancing or preserving coldwater streams, easements or land purchases for access to all kinds of fishing, surveys and studies to improve fishing, maintenance of state operated lakes, law enforcement to prevent poaching, coldwater and warmwater stocking programs, and on and on.

We're not talking about some gloom and doom thing that may happen sometime in the future; this is all happening now, right before our eyes.

Every type of angler has a reason to support the PA Fish & Boat Commission's plea for funds.
Click to expand...

Trout (and I imagine bass and muskies and crappies and panfish and catfish, and others, too), don't really worry about budgets. They survived long before this commonwealth was settled (although our budgets allowed species to be moved to drainages where they were not native and create impoundments for them to live behind) and created all kinds of dastardly "management" plans.

The budget crunch definitely creates a real issue for the PFBC. And it is difficult to juggle and balance the special interests of all the special interest groups the PFBC has as its constituents. But I disagree with your doom and gloom outlook. The past five years have been my five personal best years of trout fishing (NB, that my personal experience is simply anecdotal and should not be construed as representative of all anglers in the commonwealth). Those trout (the vast majority of them wild) seem to be doing quite fine. Doesn't mean there aren't threats to their habitat, or access issues, or whatnot. But to decry the temporary loss of two manmade impoundments, when there are hundreds, if not thousands of other publicly accessible manmade impoundments across the state, does not a crisis make. The PFBC will have to evolve somehow, but I predict that fish as a class of animals will not be going extinct anytime soon.

From a non-angler perspective (especially if I lived downstream from one of these impoundments), I'd much rather they be drained if they are indeed unsafe, than feed the desires of anglers (whatever species they pursue).
 
imho, rip out the dams, let nature run her course. After all, we're just one small piece in the big picture....if you're dumb enough to build on/inhabit the flood plain, deal with it.
 
In advance, I'll say "sorry to ruffle some hackle feathers", but many on here remind me a lot of the Tea Party with a very single-minded, narrow-minded view on issues. The TPers are obstructionists with a strategy of holding things up and holding things hostage blocking any type of spending or revenue proposals in Congress to more forward their goal of reducing government and taxes.

It seems that view prevails by some on here, if the FBC is starved, the less damage they will inflict on the wild trout and the wild trout angler by stocking or maintaining or (God forbid) creating angling opportunities for fish other than wild trout.

I love wild trout, wild trout streams and fly-fishing for wild trout. But I do fish for many types of fish and realize that there are many of anglers out there that use other tackle and pursue other fish.

There are over a million people that fish in PA when you include youth anglers that are not required to purchase a license. Every adult angler in PA spends money to buy a fishing license. Those monies are allocated to satisfy the wants and needs of all anglers that purchase these licenses.

I will be first to agree the PFBC spends an inordinate amount of funds on the trout stocking program. And I would like to see that cut to some degree in favor of more spending for other things including enhancing or preserving cold water streams. Also the imperative of purchasing of land to be preserved and creating increased access for anglers is another area being shortchanged.

Do not forget, budget shortfalls reduce or eliminate wild trout programs too. In fact, one might argue that wild trout anglers, given their small numbers, may be shortchanged more than most other types of anglers.

One of the best solutions I've read to fund the PFBC was proposed by Executive Director John Arway. He proposed the State allocate a small percentage of sales tax dollars collected for all fishing and boating equipment to the PFBC to enhance angling.

This proposal is similar to the Federal Dingell Johnson program where tax dollars for fishing related equipment are collected and allocated to states based on the number of fishing licenses sold. The difference with Mr. Arway's proposal is there is no tax increase or new taxes levied. The sales taxes already collected are allocated to the source of the revenue...the angler (and boater).

The above proposal along with a modest increase in fishing license fees should be enough to get the PFBC back on track.

At least there will actual dollars in the coffers to fight for...to preserve or enhance cold-water streams. :roll:
 
A fish

Well said.
 
My post opposing the rebuilding of dams on trout streams was only about that topic.

I'm not opposed to a license increase.

The two topics were linked in the OP, so it should not be a surprise that some who oppose rebuilding of dams on trout streams also linked the two topics.

But I see the two topics as different, separate.



 
troutbert wrote:
My post opposing the rebuilding of dams on trout streams was only about that topic.

I'm not opposed to a license increase.

The two topics were linked in the OP, so it should not be a surprise that some who oppose rebuilding of dams on trout streams also linked the two topics.

But I see the two topics as different, separate.
Click to expand...


^ understood. I wrote the OP to show the cause and effect of the budget crunch facing the PFBC. (But, not to minimize my dismay for the loss of some really good fishing spots.)
 
Afish, I laughed because your political analogy truely works. As was pointed out by Steno, in this thread, your view of "make me more fishing areas" creates dependence on the PFBC.

The stocking program is their welfare program for you, their manmade lakes the free housing.
 
I wonder if a license increase would be necessary if less money was spent on the trout hatcheries. I really don't know. I'm speculating out loud. But I can't help but think that. Tight for money? Fine. Stop wasting money on raising on those stocked troutz.
 
As far as obstructionism, it's only obstructionism if something like, "Don't spend more money than what you make" is not solid advice. It's only obstructionism if "stop spending money on wasteful programs and use that money towards effective programs and policies" is not logical. Actually, I should say, it's only obstructionism if it is solid advice, logical, and yet the majority refuse to listen to it even though they know its right (Now I guess its more like Greece. "You're bankrupt because your welfare state is out of control....NO THAT'S RIDICULOUS GIMME GIMME GIMME!")

 
I looked at some interviews of people that live around those lakes, and they are devastated. Imagine you saved your whole life to get a nice place on a lake where you could retire and fish. Suddenly that get's yanked out from under you with not even a time frame for resolution. A lot of guys on an ice fishing site I frequent are also pretty upset as those are apparently two pretty good pan fish lakes.
BTW I'd be more than happy to contribute a little more if the PFBC wanted to impose; say, an ice fishing stamp.
 
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