More good fishing lost in PA

[afishinado]

Van_Cleaver wrote:
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.

The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) has scheduled a public meeting on Oct. 22 from 6-7:30 p.m. at the Forest City High School auditorium to discuss the status of Miller and White Oak ponds in Wayne County. The school is located at 100 Susquehanna Street, Forest City, PA 18421.


http://www.fish.state.pa.us/news/2015pr/wayne-drawdowns-public-meeting.html

Hopefully the PFBC, the State of PA (general fund), the Feds, the county, the township, sportsmen groups, and concerned citizens can come up with funds to repair the dams.

 

[FarmerDave]

BrookieChaser wrote:
Holy crap. Troutbert and I agree on something.

Maurice Goddard's "a park within 30 miles of every citizen" damned (yes it's intentional) a lot of trout streams.

BC, I'm going to disagree with you in Lake Wilhelm (Maurice Goddard State Park).

I have my doubts that if the dam at MG state park were removed that Big Sandy would be a "better" trout stream. The dam just increased the depth of a glacial swamp. As far as I know, none of the tributaries are listed as having natural reproduction for trout. If there are any, they would be on the east side.

It's possible that this dam actually improves Big Sandy by holding back tons of silt that would otherwise be deposited in Big Sandy.

Look at Big Sandy from just east of Sandy Lake for several miles. It's a flat mudhole. If the dame was removed, it's likely a lot more of it would look that way.

Don't take what I said as fact. Consider it just opinion. But my opinion is that the loss would greatly outweigh the gain in that case. But in general I agree with Troutbert on many others.

We could also be talking about different parks.

 

[FarmerDave]

A lot of dams actually improve fisheries above and below the dams. They tend to be on large streams though.

 

[BrookieChaser]

FD, I've never seen the stream you're referring to. In the response you quoted I was talking about the Goddard plan in general.

 

[FarmerDave]

BrookieChaser wrote:
FD, I've never seen the stream you're referring to. In the response you quoted I was talking about the Goddard plan in general.

LOL! (laughing at myself)

I just read it again. Yea, I guess you were talking about the plan, and not that park which was named after him.

Sorry about that.

 

[geebee]

these dams are just fighting nature. nature always wins.

why pay just to delay it ?

aren't there thousands of warm water ponds and streams already in PA ?

I'd rather see the funds spent on restoration of lost habitat and reconnection of our creeks and streams etc.

cheers

Mark.

 

[Chaz]

riz wrote:
I guess the PAFBC is only supposed to cater to trout fisherman, specifically flyfishers, wow how conceited.

from the website:
The mission of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission is to protect, conserve, and enhance the Commonwealth’s aquatic resources and provide fishing and boating opportunities.

Well no, but most of the LM bass were introduced in PA. While I support LM Bass and SM Bass fisheries and want them they are not native to most of PA.
PFBC, the OLD Fish Commission was formed because of the decimation of fisheries during the late 1800's, mostly focused on trout. They are supposed to be a conservation agency and independent from the legislature. They are not meant to be a stocking club, we have enough of those.
Impoundments on trout streams are not conservation though they could if properly designed, be of benefit as a constant flow could be released from them. Because these 2 lakes are on trout streams they should be drained and the design of any new dam should include a bypass of cold water into the receiving stream, this would be a win/win for both the anglers that fish the lake and the trout in the streams the lakes are on.

 

[Mike]

Not so, the Commission was formed to specifically restore American shad to the Susquehanna.

 

[djs12354]

road tripping Friday and Saturday, but hoping to be home early enough to attend the meeting in Forest City on Saturday evening.

To the best of my knowledge, neither of these small dams has a major impact on trout waters and will not contribute any significant increase in flow of water downstream.

I think the majority of people who attend this meeting will support repair/restructure of the dams and restoration of the water levels to the pre draw down levels.

Saddens me that they are not even attempting to transfer the fish to other waters, but are allowing unlimited taking of fish. Better than having them just rot, but there are lakes and ponds that would benefit from the addition of a few fish.

 

[afishinado]

djs12354 wrote:
road tripping Friday and Saturday, but hoping to be home early enough to attend the meeting in Forest City on Saturday evening.

To the best of my knowledge, neither of these small dams has a major impact on trout waters and will not contribute any significant increase in flow of water downstream.

I think the majority of people who attend this meeting will support repair/restructure of the dams and restoration of the water levels to the pre draw down levels.

Saddens me that they are not even attempting to transfer the fish to other waters, but are allowing unlimited taking of fish. Better than having them just rot, but there are lakes and ponds that would benefit from the addition of a few fish.

From the PFBC announcement in the OP:

PFBC biologists are currently devising a fish salvage plan to remove and relocate as many fish as possible. Although fish salvages generally save a large number of fish, some will also perish, added Jason Detar, Chief of the PFBC Division of Fisheries Management.

“We will collect as many fish as we can and move them to Prompton Lake, but it is impossible to capture all of them,” he said. “Fish die during any drawdown and salvage effort. Some hide around structures where we simply can’t reach them, and others become buried in the mud when they are slow to exit the lake with the remaining water. Anglers and the general public should expect to see this.”


Give us a Heads up if you learn anything from the meeting. Thanks.

 

[Bonzoso]

The_Sasquatch wrote:
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 gather you have the perfect formula for determining what are wasteful programs. In the TP eyes any program that involves spending, that their opponents propose, are wasteful. Yet those programs that continue to fill the coffers of their rich and already entitled brethren are not? I get a hoot listening to those that want no more of their money to be spent reinvigorating the big cities of this country, but let an old bridge go out, adding 20 miles to their commute from suburbia to that big city, and they're crying that no one is spending the money to fix THEIR problem. It's perspective. GIMME GIMME GIMME goes both ways. Who gets to decide what is "solid and effective". You can find so called "experts" who's loyalties fall on all points of the political spectrum, that claim their policies are solid and effective. Obstructionism, and not even attempting to find a solution, IS NO SOLUTION!

 

[djs12354]

Well, as I often tell people; it's my wife that is the smart one. Had dates totally wrong and the meeting was actually Thursday night. Which means I was not there.

This snippet is from the Fish and Boat Commission announcement on the web site:

In advance of the drawdowns and fish salvages, the PFBC has temporarily lifted all seasons, sizes and creel limits at the two waters. Anglers are encouraged to fish the ponds and keep their catch. Signs will be posted at each lake to inform anglers of the removal of the restriction limits.

The presentation from the meeting is on their web site also at this pageWhite Oak and Miller Pond Draw-down

$6.65 million to repair and replace each dam is shocking to me. And I would assume that is if contracts were locked in now.

Wish I had made the meeting and still hope thee commission can manage to fund repair/replacement of these dams and others.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Bonzoso wrote:

The_Sasquatch wrote:
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 gather you have the perfect formula for determining what are wasteful programs. In the TP eyes any program that involves spending, that their opponents propose, are wasteful. Yet those programs that continue to fill the coffers of their rich and already entitled brethren are not? I get a hoot listening to those that want no more of their money to be spent reinvigorating the big cities of this country, but let an old bridge go out, adding 20 miles to their commute from suburbia to that big city, and they're crying that no one is spending the money to fix THEIR problem. It's perspective. GIMME GIMME GIMME goes both ways. Who gets to decide what is "solid and effective". You can find so called "experts" who's loyalties fall on all points of the political spectrum, that claim their policies are solid and effective. Obstructionism, and not even attempting to find a solution, IS NO SOLUTION!

I'm not gonna get into a political bout, but I was simply responding to the idea that any opposition to a "modest increase" is obstructionism. No. I want to know how the modest increase will PROTECT THE RESOURCE, particularly wild trout.

 

[Maurice]

The_Sasquatch wrote:

I'm not gonna get into a political bout, but I was simply responding to the idea that any opposition to a "modest increase" is obstructionism. No. I want to know how the modest increase will PROTECT THE RESOURCE, particularly wild trout.

By continuing to provide law enforcement against illegal harvest and maintaining AFM staffing to pursue the surveying and protection of the resource and wild trout.

#drops mike#

 

[FarmerDave]

Apparently PF&BC is working on a salvage plan for the fish in these two lakes. If by "salvage" they mean relocate to other lakes and it appears it does, I think this is a mistake and a waste of money.

I'm not familiar with these dams, but what are we talking about? Sunfish? LM Bass" Catfish? Perch? Carp? Maybe a few larger toothy critters? Even if they contain stocked trout, it aint worth it.

Unless there is some kind of rare species in there, relocating them is not worth the effort or the risk of transporting something less desirable.

Nope, the best thing they could do is allow unlimited harvest.

Or maybe they can net them and sell them to a catfood company or a foreign country. I know two guys with fish farms in Ohio and both sell panfish by the truckload.

Just sayin...

 

[afishinado]

FarmerDave wrote:
Apparently PF&BC is working on a salvage plan for the fish in these two lakes. If by "salvage" they mean relocate to other lakes and it appears it does, I think this is a mistake and a waste of money.

I'm not familiar with these dams, but what are we talking about? Sunfish? LM Bass" Catfish? Perch? Carp? Maybe a few larger toothy critters? Even if they contain stocked trout, it aint worth it.

Unless there is some kind of rare species in there, relocating them is not worth the effort or the risk of transporting something less desirable.

Nope, the best thing they could do is allow unlimited harvest.

Or maybe they can net them and sell them to a catfood company or a foreign country. I know two guys with fish farms in Ohio and both sell panfish by the truckload.

Just sayin...

Read the OP. They are doing both:

In advance of the drawdowns and fish salvages, the PFBC has temporarily lifted all seasons, sizes and creel limits at the two waters. Anglers are encouraged to fish the ponds and keep their catch. Signs will be posted at each lake to inform anglers of the removal of the restriction limits.

PFBC biologists are currently devising a fish salvage plan to remove and relocate as many fish as possible. Although fish salvages generally save a large number of fish, some will also perish, added Jason Detar, Chief of the PFBC Division of Fisheries Management.

“We will collect as many fish as we can and move them to Prompton Lake, but it is impossible to capture all of them,” he said. “Fish die during any drawdown and salvage effort. Some hide around structures where we simply can’t reach them, and others become buried in the mud when they are slow to exit the lake with the remaining water. Anglers and the general public should expect to see this.”

 

[FarmerDave]

afishinado wrote:

Read the OP. They are doing both:

[/i]

Yea, I know. I apologize for not giving them credit for getting it half right.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Maurice wrote:

The_Sasquatch wrote:

I'm not gonna get into a political bout, but I was simply responding to the idea that any opposition to a "modest increase" is obstructionism. No. I want to know how the modest increase will PROTECT THE RESOURCE, particularly wild trout.

By continuing to provide law enforcement against illegal harvest and maintaining AFM staffing to pursue the surveying and protection of the resource and wild trout.

#drops mike#

Can't they get that money by ending other wasteful programs, such as raising stocked trout to put in streams that already have trout?

Cut waste, THEN ask people for more money if you need it.

Understand, though, that I do play devil's advocate in these threads. Mostly because I genuinely do believe in reevaluating and cutting waste before asking people to fork over more mulla. But ultimately I'll pay whatever my license costs. I even bought one of those ugly pink buttons (and the blue one last year, and will buy whatever color one is 2016).

 

[JackM]

"Can't they get that money by ending other wasteful programs, such as raising stocked trout to put in streams that already have trout?"

This is the smallest waste of PFBC money than any other endeavor. The truth is, I believe, they do a good job of managing the money, within their constraints.

Yes, some small amount can be saved by stocking less where trout populations exist, but where this occurs (rarely, I believe) a recreational need is being served for the majority of license buyers.

If an agency depends upon the financial support of users, you can expect and should accept a bias in favor of the vast majority of users. This would be those same anglers that could not tell a brook from a brown, much less a wild trout from a stocked one.

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
"Can't they get that money by ending other wasteful programs, such as raising stocked trout to put in streams that already have trout?"

This is the smallest waste of PFBC money than any other endeavor. The truth is, I believe, they do a good job of managing the money, within their constraints.

Yes, some small amount can be saved by stocking less where trout populations exist, but where this occurs (rarely, I believe) a recreational need is being served for the majority of license buyers.

If an agency depends upon the financial support of users, you can expect and should accept a bias in favor of the vast majority of users. This would be those same anglers that could not tell a brook from a brown, much less a wild trout from a stocked one.

Jack, I hate to say it, but I agree with you on this. But don't flatter yourself. I hate to agree only because of my love for wild trout.

But that was only 1 suggestion. Does anyone have any more? I don't.

Clear to me that reducing the stocking programs will mean less license sales, AT LEAST less trout stamps sold.

Raising license fees to the levels some have suggested will likely also result in an reduction in license sales. A smaller increase would be easier to swallow.

For those ready to jump down my throat for suggesting smaller might be better. Please consider I'm already paying nearly $70 for a few days of fishing in PA and likely will continue to do so, even if it is raised.

You are welcome.