Not to mess up a stream report...but

[afishinado]

Yellow Breeches, Cumberland county, 2/20/17


Time Fished: 7:30 AM – 12:30 PM
Weather: Partly cloudy, started at 45 - 55 degrees
Water: No temp taken, low and clear
Dry Flies Used: #14 Tan Caddis, #14 adams #14 Dark Caddis
Nymphs Used: #14 Hares Ear, #18 Sparkle Caddis Puppa


I have made it a yearly tradition to take a day off from work in February so that I can fish the open water on the breeches one last time before it closes in March. I'm not a big fan of the regs section.

As luck would have it, I picked a beautiful day and the fish cooperated. I started off quickly by nymphing several runs with a generic hairs ear and picking up a few.

Around 9:30 I observed what I believe to be a spotted sedge hatch. Quite a surprise for February. I'm positive they were not little black stone flies and they were a bit too light to be little black caddis flies. Sorry for not getting a picture, maybe someone who was around the area could comment.

I don't usually ever fish dries unless I observe steady risers. I dont carry any exact matches in my box so I worked through a couple of different fly selections before I found a winner. #14 dark caddis that I tied with some dark green dubbing, natural deer hair and grizzly hackle.

It turned out that I had the best dry fly fishing in recent memory. In one small stretch I landed a dozen wild browns ranging from 8"-10" Action was fast and furious and takes were down right vicious for about an hour and then it was all over. It was truly a sight to see, It reminded me of those summer sulfur nights.

Best flies of the day were # 14 dark caddis and # 18 Sparkle caddis pupa. All fish caught were wild.

As a courtesy to the OP, I really didn't want to mess up a great stream report, so I copied and pasted it here.

I fished there or near there a few weeks ago and had a similar day on the water, not many risers but plenty on nymphs.

The stream will be closed for stocking on March 1st.

I'm a gringo to that stream and area and don't wish to cast stones in the water and muck it up...but I can't help myself...my comment is...and this is stocked?!

 

[geebee]

i'll bite for fun.

fish #2 is wild.

#3 most likely is too. the red spots are very similar but the black spots look different.

 

[raftman]

I think he meant "stocked" rhetorically... as in.... why do they stock this stream? Not, are these fish wild or stocked. But, I could have misread it as well.

 

[geebee]

to be honest - I wasn't sure either !

 

[Fredrick]

I agree last time I was up there and fished that stream I only caught wild browns . I guess the Commish cant let old habits go

 

[troutbert]

Sent them a letter, send them an email. To the PFBC main office, or to the commissioner in your region. Or both.

Don't think about this as opposing something (stocking over wild trout).

Think about is as SUPPORTING something positive: 1) wild trout management to increase wild trout populations 2) increasing the number of hatchery trout available for stocking in other waters.

The number of trout would be INCREASED in BOTH types of water. As the old saying goes: More is more.

 

[troutbert]

How far down on the YB do you think it's good wild trout water, that would offer decent fishing without stocking?

BTW, some friends and I used to fish not far below the Huntsdale hatchery in the early season, back in the early 1970s. We caught stockies, but I don't recall us catching what looked like wild trout back then.

I think the change probably came from water quality improvements at the Huntsdale hatchery. If anyone has other theories about why the wild trout population has increased, let's hear them.

 

[Wild_Trouter]

I have been pissing and moaning about this for years to the PFBC. The whole section from Pine Rd./Rt. 34 crossing upstream to the hatchery should be managed as Class A, with no further stocking. As I understand it, the PFBC won't because of various sportsman's clubs in the area that do not want to break from tradition. There ain't no fish in there unless it is crammed with pelletheads...eyeroll.

I would also make a similar recommendation for part of Mountain Creek since it has a similar problem (high density of wild fish), yet still gets stocked.

 

[afishinado]

^^^^^^

The point is.....they're all wild and they're all beautiful....

Why stock such a stream? I know the answer, but I still ask the question.

And it's not about the YB, it's more of a general statement about stocking over wild trout anywhere in the state.

And I'm not against stocking at all. Most anglers that buy licenses want a good portion of their license dollars to go to stocking trout.

In a time where the FBC cannot stock enough fish to satisfy many anglers looking to catch stocked trout, why not leave that stream and many of the other PA Class A streams or stream sections alone, and use those fish to stock more fish and/or more stockings in sections that have few or no wild fish.

Any angler fishing this stream and countless others, can have a good time fishing without having the state or private club stock it.

Any angler fishing in a well-stocked stream by the state or private club can have a good time fishing with more fish stocked more times.

Or even add a stream to the stocking list that was left off the list due to the cutbacks!

Everyone can have a good time fishing. More choices, more places, less angler crowding, more fish to catch.

Sign me up!...lol.


Edit:

Troutbert wrote:
BTW, some friends and I used to fish not far below the Huntsdale hatchery in the early season, back in the early 1970s. We caught stockies, but I don't recall us catching what looked like wild trout back then.

^^^^^^how 'bout it!....I can name a dozen streams I can say the same thing about...and I bet you can name and dozens more than me from your experience writing your book.

It's kind of ironic that instead of celebrating the fact that many of our marginal streams have been cleaned up and now have a thriving population of wild trout..we keep dumping raised fish over them and some [d]anglers[/d] guys are hoping those "dinks" just go away.

 

[afishinado]

Mr. Arway (Fishtales) linked in this invitation (excerpt below) to participate in the wild trout summit.

Be respectful, but be heard. Date and location to be announced by the PFBC. Stay tuned.

.....Since kicking off their “unassessed waters” initiative — an effort to survey streams never sampled — several years ago, the commission and its partners, including Trout Unlimited, have identified more than 1,000 previously undocumented of wild trout streams. It's become routine for commissioners to add nearly 100 trout streams to the official list every quarter.

That's surprised even John Arway, executive director of the commission. Pennsylvania, he said, is “always described as a wild trout state,” but he's been pleasantly taken aback by how often they're showing up and how widely distributed they are.

That's prompted something new.

“We spend a lot of money on the recreational use stocked trout provide. But we're criticized for not doing enough for wild trout,” Arway said.

To address that, he's convening a “wild trout summit” this summer. To be held at a date and location to be determined, it will be a chance for the agency to talk about what it's doing to support the fish and seek ideas from others on how to do it better, Arway said.

Trout Unlimited hailed the summit as a positive step.

“This will be an opportunity to celebrate the commonwealth's healthy populations of naturally reproducing brook, brown, and rainbow trout and to discuss how to protect these fish going forward,” said David Kinney, the group's mid-Atlantic policy director.

Commissioner Len Lichvar of Boswell said one outcome might be that the board makes a point of regularly talking about those fisheries.

“As an outgrowth of that, we could end up putting together a wild trout committee,” he said. “We have a hatchery committee. Maybe we need a wild trout committee.”

Arway warned that “Mother Nature” has the largest impact on wild trout, courtesy of “environmental variability, floods and drought.”

There might not be a lot the commission or anglers can do compared to that, he said. But the summit will be an opportunity to “talk about how we can work together to benefit wild trout in Pennsylvania.”

 

[Dave_W]

(Sigh)

I really don't have anything new or useful to add to the longstanding debate in our forum community over stocking vs wild trout.

However, with respect to this specific stream, upper Breeches, I too agree it ought not be stocked...but I accept that such an outcome is highly unlikely. I'd even guess that hell will freeze over before such an outcome. Yellow Breeches is simply too popular, too well known, and too heavily fished by too large a consituency to expect the PFBC to drop stocking. They would get pummeled far harder than we could ever do complaining about stocking. By all means advocate for such changes on Breeches (I certainly have) but don't hold your breath.

To be perfectly frank, I think your efforts (our efforts, really) are better focused on other waters. Yellow Breeches is just too popular with too many traditional anglers. Our efforts are better focused on streams where we have a better chance at curtailing stocking. This is just about the worst fight to pick.

 

[HopBack]

I would rather the PFBC stock the stream so that the water stays open. I think that the wild browns are doing just fine with the current stocking situation. If it was marginal and the population was suffering do to stocking then it would be a different story.

 

[troutbert]

HopBack wrote:
I would rather the PFBC stock the stream so that the water stays open. I think that the wild browns are doing just fine with the current stocking situation. If it was marginal and the population was suffering do to stocking then it would be a different story.

But see where that leads to:

1) If the wild trout population is low, keep stocking.

2) If the wild trout population is high, keep stocking.

 

[troutbert]

Dave_W wrote:
To be perfectly frank, I think your efforts (our efforts, really) are better focused on other waters.

What would be some examples of these?

 

[CLSports]

It seems to me that the stream is healthy enough that stocking is not really a major issue here is it?

There are other streams like this that I can think of that get stocked over wild and the stockies are fished out early and the wild ones are there to stay. I think if a stream is healthy enough it can handle the tourist fish that invade every March and occasionally October too . . .

 

[afishinado]

Dave_W wrote:
(Sigh)

I really don't have anything new or useful to add to the longstanding debate in our forum community over stocking vs wild trout.

However, with respect to this specific stream, upper Breeches, I too agree it ought not be stocked...but I accept that such an outcome is highly unlikely. I'd even guess that hell will freeze over before such an outcome. Yellow Breeches is simply too popular, too well known, and too heavily fished by too large a consituency to expect the PFBC to drop stocking. They would get pummeled far harder than we could ever do complaining about stocking. By all means advocate for such changes (I certainly have) but don't hold your breath.

To be perfectly frank, I think your efforts (our efforts, really) are better focused on other waters. Yellow Breeches is just too popular with too many traditional anglers. Our efforts are better focused on streams where we have a better chance at curtailing stocking. This is just about the worst fight to pick.

No doubt the most important and basic lesson taught in OCS is to pick your battles, and I for one would never ask you to lead the charge of the light brigade. I trust your judgement and agree with your statement above, but it's not really about the Breeches at all. We just have too many dang trout in PA and don't know what to do!!

Before any changes in policy and thus practices, the whole concept of moving on from stocking wild trout streams must be embraced, or at the very least understood by many anglers.

The subject always seems to turn into an argument about whether stocking over wild trout is harmful to the population. Since mother nature pushes a population to the "carrying capacity" in streams, adding more fish to the population is most probably detrimental to the overall population.....more is less in this case. But let's just put that aside for moment.

It's really a mater of supply and demand. If something is in demand but is in short supply, the only logical thing to do is to cut back where the supply is adequate and use the savings to expand into places with short supply.

A class A or even a class B wild trout stream can be fished and enjoyed by any angler without the expenditure of more fish stocked into it. There are many streams that are not stocked or lightly stocked. Stocking more fish in under or unstocked stocked streams and allowing streams with fishable populations of trout to go unstocked is sound management. The end result is more streams to fish with more fish in the streams.

Simple concept, complicated to initiate.

 

[pete41]

Ah-- but did you check ancestor .com to see if they are Scots or Germans?

 

[salmonoid]

troutbert wrote:

HopBack wrote:
I would rather the PFBC stock the stream so that the water stays open. I think that the wild browns are doing just fine with the current stocking situation. If it was marginal and the population was suffering do to stocking then it would be a different story.

But see where that leads to:

1) If the wild trout population is low, keep stocking.

2) If the wild trout population is high, keep stocking.

3) Regardless of the wild population, stop stocking and lose access.

Pick your poison - some stocked fish, and a healthy wild population that you can fish for. Or wild fish and a private invitation only access situation. Or worse, a fishing club springs up and stocked even bigger pelletheads over a good wild population. And reserves the whole stretch for themselves and their paying friends.

 

[troutfanatic]

I do love all the colloquialisms in the commission propaganda.
It's starting be a common practice down here in the good ol south too. If elevation is low and water is clean (relatively), and NCWRC can get a truck in, they'll dump em.

I am working my graduation research project now and I am looking at temperature effects and diet differences and how they affect growth of an allopatric S. trutta population above and below a man made barrier (dam).

In doing my research, I have come across a trove of research studies on mixing wild and stocked fish. It makes for some interesting toilet reading.

Bottom line? Wild stream bred tends to win in all situations, but at the end of the day, every body of water has a carrying capacity. That big ol juicy caddis that the nasty discolored triploid rainbow just ate, is one less for the beautiful wild brown.

I do agree that access is maintained through stocking, but pressure is relieved through not stocking many.

So we have two streams, the DH stream or State Supported stream that is incapable of holding a year-round wild trout population- stock it till it can't handle anymore.

Then we have the wild stream, throw two buckets in and call it a day.

At least down here, elevation tends to be a limiting factor on hatchery delivery. Noobs ask me how to find wild trout, I tell them to look at stocked streams and go upstairs.

 

[moon1284]

I'd bet yb is in the top 3 streams in the state in terms of angler density on opening day. Lots of tradition there. Tough sell to end stocking. I side with the pick your battles crowd. In a perfect world, it would not be stocked.