Much trout fishing related info at recent PFBC meeting

I agree the choice of using the wild trout permit funds for a short public stretch of Spruce Creek isn't the best use of the resource.

But I wouldn't drop-kick the entire wild trout funding program for just disagreeing with one project.

Efforts to enhance and preserve wild trout streams and the fish are largely underfunded and need all the help they can get.

IMO, any extra help we can give them is a good thing.
 
While i half agree with afishinado's last post, if i believe my monies are better spent elsewhere then that is what i will do.

I wont be buying another until i see where future projects go and ill allocate my monies other places where i believe wild trout get a higher return.
Just my .02 cents or rather not my .02 cents.
 
Afish, it's not just one project. What this does is add to past disregard and trickery. Also this justifies some license buyer's suspicions when this "program" started.
Does the "stocking class A" public comments ring a bell to anyone? It's a history of saying they'll do one thing while kowtowing to other interests.
Wild trout are not a priority to the PFBC, they're a happy accident. The PFBC is missing the forest for the trees.
 
Thompson and Slab Cabin Run would have been much better choices for allocation of funds and stream restoration projects- especially middle/lower Thompson Run, as it could be really special with some help but I'll leave it at that.

I occasionally fish Spruce (Harvey stretch) and there are several limiting factors there that relegate it to it is what it is, and make me wonder how much more could be improved there. Someone hit the nail on the head with the Caverns stretch. If you drop 30 instream structures there, I think you wind up with an artificial fishery much like The Ditch at Big Spring...i.e. Lots of pelletheads will take up permanent residence in the Caverns stretch and push many of the wild browns out. People won't care about that because it becomes a destination stream for catching a few pigs without the pay-to-play concept.
 
BrookieChaser wrote:
Afish, it's not just one project. What this does is add to past disregard and trickery. Also this justifies some license buyer's suspicions when this "program" started.
Does the "stocking class A" public comments ring a bell to anyone? It's a history of saying they'll do one thing while kowtowing to other interests.
Wild trout are not a priority to the PFBC, they're a happy accident. The PFBC is missing the forest for the trees.
Click to expand...

The choice to participate in the program is yours.

But the fact that wild trout programs are underfunded and largely ignored by many remains a fact.

No problem with your choice if you help out the wilds in some other way with funding and/or participation with a conservancy, TU or by some other means.

In other words the important thing is to give something back.....
 
BrookieChaser wrote:
What this does is add to past disregard and trickery. Also this justifies some license buyer's suspicions when this "program" started.
Click to expand...

I'm disappointed in the decision to use the voluntary permit funds on the Indian Caverns stretch, but I think we may need to pump the brakes a little.

Spruce IS a wild trout stream. The stretch in question DOES need some help. The state has thousands of miles of wild trout water. While Spruce may seem like a joke to most die-hard wild trout enthusiast, I can only assume that the PAFBC chose a high profile stream due to the perception that those who bought the stamp would have complained if they selected some random, little known creek.

 
Afish, I agree with your opinion of help in some way. I think help is better in the form of studies and then a "hands off" approach.

Pennkev, that's a viable point. But for me, I saw enough to confirm my suspicions. It's not about wild trout, it's about "how many anglers "use" certain wild trout".
 
PennKev wrote:
BrookieChaser wrote:
What this does is add to past disregard and trickery. Also this justifies some license buyer's suspicions when this "program" started.
Click to expand...

I'm disappointed in the decision to use the voluntary permit funds on the Indian Caverns stretch, but I think we may need to pump the brakes a little.

Spruce IS a wild trout stream. The stretch in question DOES need some help. The state has thousands of miles of wild trout water. While Spruce may seem like a joke to most die-hard wild trout enthusiast, I can only assume that the PAFBC chose a high profile stream due to the perception that those who bought the stamp would have complained if they selected some random, little known creek.
Click to expand...

I guess I have to disagree with the definition of "wild trout stream" in this case. Are there wild trout in Spruce? Yes. Of course. However, as I said earlier, I'd be equally as unimpressed if they used wild trout money on a keystone select because there might be some wild trout present. I personally don't consider spruce creek a wild trout stream.

I would be upset if they used wild trout funds on the upper section of Penns too. It's one of the 13 Class A/stocked waters. Imo, using wild trout funds where there's stocking going on is a slap in the face. Somewhat OT, but I fished over by Coburn the other day and it is absolutely FULL of fingerling rainbows.

I actually just got off the harvey stretch. Fished it from bottom to top just to see what's going on. Bunch of rainbows, found 2 redds and some smaller wild browns. One "largish" wild brown. I was the only one there btw. The lack of redds was concerning but not surprising.

I do agree that the cavern section needs work, I just disagree with the funds PFBC decided to use. If WPC and Huntingdon County Conservation District want to throw money at that stream, fine, but using donations for wild trout through PFBC is a mistake imo.

 
What does $20K end up getting? In the past I've helped a couple TU projects by volunteering to put stream improvements in which required volunteer labor, railroad tie type logs, rental of a tractor to move some dirt, etc. I imagine using volunteer labor that job cost less than $2K.

But paid labor might have taken it to $6-7K I'd estimate based on things I've paid for in my personal life.

And what is the $20K of the entire amount received? Just curious if we know how much total $ that volunteer permit received in the entire state.

 
Listen Fellows, I know some choices Pa. Fish Commission makes seems a different approach. However, they are taking a stand on choices they see promising to a better future in Pa. fishing. Spruce Creek is just a little slice of "Pie". Who knows, maybe a bigger slice is coming on Spruce.

We are almost there. Best license sales in 20 years with abounding new people starting, reliving the past, getting back in, enjoying fishing for the first time, next time or last time.

I am overwhelmed with excitement what is in store for "all of us". I always thought it was good, now i am thinking this could be great!

Let's join together and turn this slice of pie into the whole pie! A lot of good people work hard trying to please all. Some say, "Commission took advantage". Well, i think it is the other way.

I sure do take advantage of what Pa. Fishing Offers and i hope you take advantage too!

Let us send a clear message here! Pa. Fish Commission, THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO!

Maxima12
 
maxima12 wrote:
Listen Fellows, I know some choices Pa. Fish Commission makes seems a different approach. However, they are taking a stand on choices they see promising to a better future in Pa. fishing. Spruce Creek is just a little slice of "Pie". Who knows, maybe a bigger slice is coming on Spruce.

We are almost there. Best license sales in 20 years with abounding new people starting, reliving the past, getting back in, enjoying fishing for the first time, next time or last time.

I am overwhelmed with excitement what is in store for "all of us". I always thought it was good, now i am thinking this could be great!

Let's join together and turn this slice of pie into the whole pie! A lot of good people work hard trying to please all. Some say, "Commission took advantage". Well, i think it is the other way.

I sure do take advantage of what Pa. Fishing Offers and i hope you take advantage too!

Let us send a clear message here! Pa. Fish Commission, THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DO!

Maxima12
Click to expand...

"maybe a bigger slice is coming on Spruce"? Do you understand the arrangements there or what is the norm of property ownership along that stream?

I was a big champion of these voluntary permits when they launched if you were paying attention. I went to bat for PAFBC on here and other places to promote these voluntary donation/permits. Don't misinterpret criticism on this one thing for a disdain for the commission. That's not the point.

You can disagree with an action while supporting the entire agency and their mission. It does no good to blindly accept everything they do and never criticize anything. Plenty of people speak up in defense of stocking. I think it's fair to speak up in opposition of it. Especially being the minority in that thinking.
 
They improved fish habitat on a newly acquired section of a popular wild trout stream. My understanding is that the property in question receives substantial angler use. Other projects were undertaken to benefit wild trout, ie culvert removals and purchasing equipment to allow for more projects placing large woody habitat in remote wild trout streams. I am not sure how Covid impacted the ability to utilize the 2nd year funds, but I would imagine they will be put to good use.

I plan on continuing to purchase the voluntary wild trout stamp.
 
I get what they're doing for a first project kick off. Very high profile location and a lot of eyes and attention will be on it. I would hesitate about being short sighted on the matter and allow things to take their course over time. I'd put money on less impactful (lesser acknowledged I mean) projects happening as time passes. They're looking to make a big splash on a night usage stream right out of the gate. Politics and I understand it.
 
Zak wrote:
I get what they're doing for a first project kick off. Very high profile location and a lot of eyes and attention will be on it. I would hesitate about being short sighted on the matter and allow things to take their course over time. I'd put money on less impactful (lesser acknowledged I mean) projects happening as time passes. They're looking to make a big splash on a night usage stream right out of the gate. Politics and I understand it.
Click to expand...

Let's ignore the fact that they're using publicly donated funds on 800 feet of public access on a stream that is almost entirely posted. It's not just posted either. There are people who can't even fish on their relative's property because of agreements between landowners and a few industrious folks. Or that this project will provide the least benefit to the fewest number of people. Especially those who donated to that program. Ignoring that...

What about the stocking of a stream that shouldn't be stocked? If you're going to call that a wild trout stream and use wild trout funds there, then stop the private stocking as a condition of the use of the funds.

To me, both points matter, but the latter more than the former.

I think most people's hesitation to donate to that wild trout program was the fear that the money would be used to somehow benefit stocking. That will happen here. It's simply a fact that the money and habitat will benefit stocked trout there. Again, I'm the one eating crow here because I couldn't imagine them using wild trout money on a stocked stream. You can't say that because the cavern section and Harvey section aren't stocked by the state that Spruce isn't a stocked stream. It's either stocked or it isn't. If it's stocked, it's not wild.
 
If you read the just released trout management plan, it mentions that PFBC intends to establish a permit for stocking any and all fish statewide. Currently it is un regulated or very difficult to regulate/ enforce depending on the situation as has been reported at the Commission Meetings. To my knowledge there is little to nothing PFBC can do in regard to private stockings they are looking to change that....

While Spruce Creek may be privately stocked, you can not deny that there are wild trout there. If you wish to do so, you may want to reconsider what you call a wild trout stream.... Fishing Creek is stocked, Penns Creek is stocked, Spring Creek is stocked, Bald Eagle Creek is stocked etc etc.

I do not understand the negativity, give it time.
 
lycoflyfisher wrote:
If you read the just released trout management plan, it mentions that PFBC intends to establish a permit for stocking any and all fish statewide. Currently it is un regulated or very difficult to regulate/ enforce depending on the situation as has been reported at the Commission Meetings. To my knowledge there is little to nothing PFBC can do in regard to private stockings they are looking to change that....

While Spruce Creek may be privately stocked, you can not deny that there are wild trout there. If you wish to do so, you may want to reconsider what you call a wild trout stream.... Fishing Creek is stocked, Penns Creek is stocked, Spring Creek is stocked, Bald Eagle Creek is stocked etc etc.

I do not understand the negativity, give it time.
Click to expand...

Believe me, I'm glad they're instituting a statewide stocking permit in 2023. It's yet to be seen whether that's going to be a rubber stamp program, enforced, or if anything will change at all in terms of how many streams are privately stocked though.

I did say earlier that I'd be equally as unimpressed if wild trout funds were used on Penns because Penns is one of the 13 stocked/class a streams. I've actually never thought of BE as a wild trout stream even though I know there are wild trout there. Like I said, if the stream is stocked, it shouldn't get wild trout funds when there are countless other unstocked wild trout streams out there that could benefit from the money. That's only my opinion.

Stocking already gets the lion's share of money from license sales. If the stream is stocked, why not used stocked trout money to carry out habitat projects?
 
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