Pa Wild Trout Summit (Recap/Commentary)

[bigjohn58]

TroutTracker wrote:
I agree the harvest of 150 wild browns by one or several anglers along BFC would have little impact on the overall population for the stream but it could certainly impact the quality of fishing in particular stretch.

If guys are fishing the same stretch 100 days/year and keeping the 150 biggest wild browns they catch the population of trout and quality of fishing will suffer in that area. There are not THAT many miles of BFC or any other stream. Our resources are good but not endless.

DING DING DING! WE HAVE A WINNER!

Sounds like several others are also understanding what's going on here too now! If we can just convince someone else...

 

[bigjohn58]

streamerguy wrote:

Mike wrote:
The PFC Policy for the Conservation and Management of Fisheries Resources was described as having been approved in 1981 and the portions that most pertained to wild trout were presented as follows: 1. Manage wild trout (WT) as renewable natural resources that are to be conserved. "renewable" implied sustained yield, not necessarily C&R; "conserved" meant wisely used. 2. Stock fish where wild trout populations are inadequate to sustain fisheries at desired levels. Does not say: "do not stock over any wild trout."

I think the bolded segment is key to this whole thing, and what is prohibiting us from swaying away from stocking streams with Class B, C, or heck even some A streams. Exactly what is a "desired level"? Ask your average opening day fisherman, and then ask someone walking through the woods later in the year......you'll likely get two very different answers. To many people seeing 30 stocked fish piled up in a bridge hole on a stream you can almost jump across may be the preferred scenario, while a lone 12in wild fish(and a few smaller fish up and downstream) from the same type of spot may make someone else's day, and it's a more natural experience to that person(and many other like-minded people).

There's been a couple times when I've had a pretty satisfying day of wild trout fishing, and then I run into someone at the parking spot on the same stream rambling "arrghh this crick is fished out, fishin stinks, they ain't stockin as much as they used to, etc."

It seems the general license buying public likes large-ish fish and lots of them, and that just isn't a realistic scenario at many places, that already have "good enough"(to wild trout enthusiasts) wild populations. But ya gotta sell licenses so.......dump them buckets.

As for stocking places like BFC, it just doesn't make sense. ESPECIALLY when streams with ZERO wild trout are getting cut from the fall stockings.

See this doesn't make any sense to me...why stock a stream with trout that has no business having trout in it? No potential for hold over fish...its not a trout stream so why pretend it is? I know this is the majority of places being stocked though.

 

[streamerguy]

I totally understand what you're saying, and in the general scope of angling.....I agree. Now I sound like a hypocrite lol. But many of the current/old fall stocked streams do holdover fish to some extent. And they obviously would provide a fishery from fall through June-ish(sometimes longer).

IF the PFBC were to create trout fisheries, even seasonal, it would make sense that they devote their hatchery resources to places that have virtually no wild fish, rather than putting those fish in streams that already have plenty of trout on their own. The whole reason behind hatchery trout is to create/enhance a fishery that isn't there. BFC already has lots of fish, so put the stockies/money to raise those stockies elsewhere.

Cutting fall stockings and putting that money towards warmwater fisheries, habitat, access, etc.........I'm all on board with that if you want to cut trout stockings. But cut stockings on good wild streams too.

 

[Zak]

"To catch 150 fish in a year?"


No I was referring to the poster saying that if they caught the 150 best fish the section has to offer. That is not a realistic thought. 150 trout in a year isn't an issue. The 150 best is.

As I re-read the post I do see that he implies keeping the best 150 trout THEY catch, not neccessarily the best 150 the stretch has to offer. That opens the same can of worms though (pun intended) as you don't know what those fish will look like. 9"ers, 20"ers? Fact is that despite this guy the stretch is still Class A.

Look, What I would love to see is that every single Class A and Class B become 'special reg' streams, not just a few here and there. I'd love to see every stream in those catagories go to 2 trout per day, 10" limit, all tackle, and I mean every single one of them. Zero kill is completely unneeded and just a feel good thing for fisherman with that agenda. As for stocking over wild trout, if it keeps a stream open to public fishing I hope they stock it to till the fish are pouring out onto the banks for all I care. What good is a Class A stream that you cant fish and that is the scenario in same (and thankfully limited) cases.

 

[bigjohn58]

Zak wrote:
"To catch 150 fish in a year?"


No I was referring to the poster saying that if they caught the 150 best fish the section has to offer. That is not a realistic thought. 150 trout in a year isn't an issue. The 150 best is.

As I re-read the post I do see that he implies keeping the best 150 trout THEY catch, not neccessarily the best 150 the stretch has to offer. That opens the same can of worms though (pun intended) as you don't know what those fish will look like. 9"ers, 20"ers? Fact is that despite this guy the stretch is still Class A.

Look, What I would love to see is that every single Class A and Class B become 'special reg' streams, not just a few here and there. I'd love to see every stream in those catagories go to 2 trout per day, 10" limit, all tackle, and I mean every single one of them. Zero kill is completely unneeded and just a feel good thing for fisherman with that agenda. As for stocking over wild trout, if it keeps a stream open to public fishing I hope they stock it to till the fish are pouring out onto the banks for all I care. What good is a Class A stream that you cant fish and that is the scenario in same (and thankfully limited) cases.

I am not for zero kill either. I feel this actually leads to large numbers of small fish. Streams that have some harvest tend to have larger fish from my experience.

 

[tomitrout]

What good is a Class A stream that you cant fish and that is the scenario in same (and thankfully limited) cases.

There's plenty of good to be had from high quality trout streams whether you're allowed to fish them or not.

 

[bigjohn58]

tomitrout wrote:

What good is a Class A stream that you cant fish and that is the scenario in same (and thankfully limited) cases.

There's plenty of good to be had from high quality trout streams whether you're allowed to fish them or not.

If you have money...

 

[tomitrout]

by bigjohn58 on 2017/8/31 10:33:27

Quote:

tomitrout wrote:

Quote:
What good is a Class A stream that you cant fish and that is the scenario in same (and thankfully limited) cases.

There's plenty of good to be had from high quality trout streams whether you're allowed to fish them or not.

If you have money...

No, not really, I've spent plenty of rewarding quality time along trout streams without a fishing pole....hiking, biking, photography, contemplation, etc, etc. Not to mention the downstream benefits to the watershed as a whole, regardless of whether you're allowed to fish there or not.

 

[bigjohn58]

No, not really, I've spent plenty of rewarding quality time along trout streams without a fishing pole....hiking, biking, photography, contemplation, etc, etc. Not to mention the downstream benefits to the watershed as a whole, regardless of whether you're allowed to fish there or not.

If you can't fish it I doubt they let you on the property for other recreational purposes as well.

 

[tomitrout]

Possibly, but I can think of a few Class A's where plenty of folks find some 'good' from the stream without ever actually fishing it. Letort, Big Spring, Middle Spring, Penns, Spring Creek, Ricketts Glen...there's more to conservation than whether or not you get to fish it.

 

[Zak]

Tomitrout is correct, of course. But my point was that stocking a stream certainly isn't going to impact the water quality or riparian eye appeal. It may however keep a stream open to not only hike and dry land recreation but also to fishing. There are instances were stocking matters for that. Why would anyone in their right fishing mind choose a posted bursting at the seams Class A wild trout stream that they can't fish over a stocked 40 kg/ha trout stream that they can. I'd like option A if the stream was going to remain open to public access but I'll take B in a heartbeat if it was the only way to keep the stream public.

 

[Hook_Jaw]

Yes you have to have some harvest to get bigger trout.

 

[guidedbywire]

Presentations from this event are now available.

http://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/PennsylvaniaFishes/Trout/Pages/WildTroutSummit2017.aspx

 

[Mike]

If you click on the titles of the presentations you will be able to view each slide in each presentation.

You will find that the topics of statewide trout regs, any need for changes thereof, and stocking over wild trout were succinctly addressed in the first presentation, which is on the history of wild trout mgmt.

Another favorite topic of this group is special regs. There is a presentation fully devoted to that.

All presentations contain info that many will find interesting and all contain info that is discussed here.

 

[afishinado]

 

[wildtrout2]

Thanks for posting that afish. It's a big help to the many folks who couldn't make the summit.

 

[CRB]

Lots of good info within each presentation. It is nice to be able to go back and review the info as at time more than I could digest.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

I enjoyed the Wild Trout Summit. I thought the part about culverts blocking the upstream migration of native brook trout and limiting genetic diversity was most interesting. I do wonder why the downstream movement of native brook trout wouldn't offset some of this problem. Maybe it does? Maybe the native brook trout in the upper-most regions would have the highest odds of limited genetic diversity?

Here's the question I submitted for the Q&A session at the end of the program:

"Slate Run (7.23 miles), along with Francis Branch (1.69 miles), located entirely in the Tiadaghton State Forest in Lycoming and Tioga counties, is currently regulated as “Catch-and-Release Fly Fishing Only.” I’ve heard that this is one of the most beautiful streams in the state, but I’ve never seen it or fished it because I don’t fly fish.

Why should fly fishermen have what amounts to private club water all to themselves? I could understand it if this was on private land and the landowner demanded it, but this stream is entirely on public land, yet only a small privileged group can fish there. To me this isn’t much different than what the Spring Ridge Club attempted to do on the Little Juniata River (trying to make public land private), except that the PFBC, acting much like the Spring Ridge Club, has succeeded in making a private stream for fly fishermen on public land.

In the spirit of fairness to all anglers, would you please consider changing the regulations on Slate Run (and Francis Branch) to, at minimum, include artificial lure anglers, such as “Trophy Trout Artificial Lures Only,” or “Catch-and-Release All Tackle”?"

Obviously, this question wasn't chosen to be answered by the panel, possibly because it is somewhat off-topic but more likely because there is no defensible answer. Instead, they chose to answer a lot of questions that if the questioner had been paying attention to the program they would have already known the answer.

 

[rrt]

Geez, Frank, why would you post this on a fly-fishing site? You know you are going to incur the ire of people on here for this.

This post would be like me posting on a spinfishing site that I fished a section of creek only two days after you did and that I found six dead trout, probably from multiple-hook stress. If I then suggested that spinfishers limit themselves to single-hook spinners, I imagine that would stir up the spinfishermen. (By the way, this example is true.)

Anyhow, I think is poor taste on your part to put up this post on this fly-fishing site where you have been involved in such nasty arguments in the past.

 

[Swattie87]

^ You're clearly asking for it with that post around here, but you already know that any time you post around these parts, and you do it anyway, so that's on you. :hammer:

Looking at your argument objectively, this is the first time I've considered comparing a FFO on public land to SRC. I think the argument fits in some ways and is out of context in others, but overall I largely agree in principle. I like to fish with both fly and spinning tackle, depending on stream conditions and sometimes just my mood, and the FFO on Slate has always irked me more so than any other FFO. Sure, I could just fish it with fly fishing tackle, but when I'm up that way I nearly always opt to fish one of several other watersheds that are similar in size, remoteness, and probably, overall fishing quality. A lot of times, I'm actually FFing those other streams anyway, but something about not being able to spin fish Slate if I wanted to bothers me, so I go elsewhere.

Frank - I'm sure you're already fishing those same watersheds I'm referring to anyway, and I don't think the fishing experience would be much different on Slate than those for a given set of conditions, but still, I see your point.

I know there's the old "just buy a fly rod and fly fish it" argument, but no matter how you slice it, a FFO on public land does on some level restrict access to a publicly owned resource that a license paying angler should have equal access to. Why are there no "Spin Fishing Only" sections? Stream sections on publicly owned land should not have any type of restrictive special tackle regulations on them. C&R is fine, as along as it is open to all otherwise legal forms of angling elsewhere in PA.

Edit: To be clear, this post, and my thoughts on the subject apply only to tackle restrictions on streams on publicly owned land. Privately owned land is a completely different deal.