Pa Wild Trout Summit (Recap/Commentary)

[moon1284]

Frank,

There are FFO areas because fly fishing manfacturers (sage, orvis), and retailers, (TCO, fly fishers paradise) have formed a PAC to lobby the PFBC to ensure you cannot catch all of the fish everywhere.

 

[outsider]

"Round my trout down to the nearest 1/2-inch". Wow, hilarious. The tens of thousands of trout I caught in the past 50+ years I guesstimated within an inch. What's your point? Is it self-serving?

 

[Jessed]

I round my trout to the nearest foot! LOL

 

[Mike]

Frank requested the statistic on the avg number of wild trout harvested per stream mile in Pa during a given season...opening day to Sept
Answer: 11 per mile

The figure and its context are on about the fourth or fifth to last slide in the history of wild trout mgmt presentation. Very easy to click through three slides on the PFBC web site.

 

[outsider]

Please expound on how you handle fish to measure fish to ensure your calculations are withn 1/2".

 

[rrt]

You are right, Frank: I do not believe you. If your motivation was what you would have us believe, you would have posted your rant on another site, not this fly-fishing site.

As far as measuring your fish to the nearest half-inch, who cares? That does not speak to your honesty for your motivation for posting your diatribe here.


At any rate, if your goals were to, as I previously noted, (1) hijack this topic and (2) to upset/irritate the group of enthusiastic fly-fishermen who frequent the site, you have been very successful, which certainly is a gosh darned shame. Shame on you.

 

[k-bob]

I am kinda detached here, but going onto a group of birdwatchers, bowhunters, anything, and describing that group as a "small, priveleged group" may not be the best way to influence people ?

Frank is certainly known for catching a lot of wild trout. But people may have had the idea of how to do this for a while. In the OP presentations, it mentions that the first 1925 PA harvest limits were introduced in part because "A redistribution of harvest among anglers was necessary." Of course we are talking now about wild trout numbers caught C&R, not harvest #s, but I think I recall reading that 90+ years ago it was known that wild browns are easier to catch after a rain, and some anglers knew this and caught a lot of fish.

I have never really pursued this approach or kept records of how many fish I caught, but a guy I am aware of followed it... once ran into him on a class A after a rain and asked how the fishing was, his reply was something like "72, good." He has since wound down the record keeping aspect because he found it limiting as to where and when he fished and made fishing less enjoyable, for example, in drought years. but whatever, ... people have different goals, I guess. I like to try to new streams, even tiny ones, so I have great fishing days where catch just a few fish, and an interest in catching numbers (or big fish) would limit my stream choices. personally, I like the cliche that it's about fishing, not just catching, even 200/day or on many consecutive casts or whatever.

 

[bingsbaits]

outsider wrote:
Please expound on how you handle fish to measure fish to ensure your calculations are withn 1/2".

It isn't with a net. That is carried purely for photo ops...

Considering about a 3%(avg is 5%) mortality rate on trout caught on treble hooks I would say someone is pretty hard on the young wild trout populations.

 

[Zak]

Can you show the 5% mortality study and the perimeters in which is was attained? I'm curious.

 

[afishinado]

This subject has been a recurring theme for Frank for many years on here. Rather than retype I've cut and pasted a past post from a thread. The last paragraph expresses my sentiment back a decade or so ago, as well as today.

FYI, the link no longer works, but the following is the text from a survey done in MD and published by the Doc Fritchey TU Chapter concerning the mortality with treble hooks:


Posted on: 2009/8/15 10:22

FrankTroutAngler wrote:

I'm against FFO because it excludes spinner fishermen for no sound reason, as well as for many other reasons. Hooking mortality is similar with flies and spinners.

Afishinado wrote:
FYI, from Doc Fritchey TU on a Maryland study of trout mortality using artificial lures equipped with treble hooks:

"The artificial lures and flies used in this study were equipped with hooks small enough to be ingested deeply even by trout of less than 200 mm. Warner (1978) noted that smaller treble hooks (size 10) were more easily ingested than single hook flies and caused significantly higher mortality. We found that treble hook equipped lures were difficult to disengage from captured trout, particularly when hooked within the mouth or in the gills. This increased the time required to unhook the trout and thus the actual handling of the fish. Nuhfer and Alexander (1989) reported that the treble hook equipped Mepps spinners used in their hooking mortality study were more difficult to unhook from anatomical sites within the mouths of wild brook trout than were single hooks. We found that single hook artificial flies were generally less difficult to unhook than treble hooks and required less handling of the trout.

The spinner type artificial lures used in this study were equipped with small treble hooks that are characteristic of the sizes used by anglers on the Savage River Tailwater. An on stream angler survey conducted by Fisheries Service personnel from March through June 1994, revealed that the average hook gape of treble hook equipped lures in use was 4.7 mm (range: 4 to 8 mm, N= 23). The size 12 and 14 treble hooks on artificial lures used in this study had hook gapes of 4 and 5 mm respectively. All but two of anglers interviewed were using a spinner type lure similar to those used in the study. Flyfisherman interviewed during the survey were using single hooked flies with an average gape of 5.1 mm (range: 3 to 8 mm, N= 36), comparable to the 3 to 7 mm hook gapes found on the single hook flies used in this study. Fisherman were also asked if they carried specific tools for hook removal. Thirty five of 36 fisherman (97%) using artificial flies carried some form of forceps for hook removal while 11 of 23 fisherman (48%) using artificial lures carried forceps or pliers.

It is clear that trout caught on treble hook equipped artificial lures in this study sustained more physical trauma than those captured on single hook flies, as evidenced by the higher incidence of bleeding fish. Over half (57.4%) of trout captured on spinners were hooked in a location other than the jaw and 27.8% were bleeding when unhooked. Only 13.6% of trout captured with flies were hooked in a location other than the jaw and only 2.5% of those were bleeding when unhooked. Mongillo (1984) concluded that salmonids hooked in a non-jaw location (gills, esophagus, tongue, or eye) were four times more likely to die regardless of hook type. Although trout captured in our study were not observed for more than about 4 to 6 hours, the relatively greater physical damage and bleeding observed among trout captured with artificial lures versus flies supports the premise that a larger proportion of trout caught on lures would experience delayed mortality."

Link to source: http://www.dftu.org/Clippings/MD_mort_study.htm

Frank, I posted this just as a point of information. The reality is, the only way to eliminate trout mortality from fishing is to ban fishing altogether! I think we (and the trout) would be better off if all types of fisherman joined ranks to improve the fisheries, instead of fighting each other because of the type of tackle and lures we prefer to use.


p.s. ..and that's what the Wild Trout Summit was (supposed to be) all about.

 

[Zak]

Size 12 to 14 trebles. Ya, I would definitely believe a 5% mortality rate with hooks of that size. A size 14 treble is a pretty irresponsible hook to use IMO.

 

[krayfish2]

If mortality is at 5% for spin lures AND Frank catches over 80,000 per year...... Wouldn't Frank then be the biggest cause of mortality in the states trout populations?

Screw barbless or no treble regs...... ban Frank so the fish populations can recover.

 

[moon1284]

Rumor has it that Frank is banned from fishing in 8 states as well as the maritime provinces in Canada.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

Frank is not that far out....come on guys.

He is just asking a question and actually brings up some interesting points I think. I would certainly hate to see the regs changed on Slate and any other current FFO areas for my own reasons. I would not want to see any more areas set aside as FFO however.

You are fighting over stuff that doesn't matter in the big picture regarding trout.

If you want to get serious about saving streams there are some things we can actually do that will make a real difference. Mainly enforce current regulations and make huge improvements to wastewater treatment plants. Hearing the guy at the summit on the videos reviewing the clean water legislation it strikes me that we aren't really achieving the goals set forth years ago.....Yes things are somewhat better in places but gov't needs to do more.

 

[DriftingDunn]

I just got done reading this entire topic and as much as I hate to admit it, Frank’s comparison is in fact valid. If you look at it objectively, the Spring Ridge Club failed to achieve exactly what the PFBC has done (i.e., deny him from fishing public water). Makes me wonder what would happen if the PFBC was sued to open Slate Run to all anglers in a similar fashion as the Spring Ridge Club was sued.

Arguments against opening Slate Run to Catch-and-Release All Tackle that were brought up include:

1) Post #62 by afishinado: “CR-FFO as well as CR-ALO regs exist only because C&R bait fishing is really an oxymoron. Bait fishing kills a lot more fish and really defeats the whole purpose of C&R….releasing fish unharmed.”

I recall a topic on here within the last year or so about a hooking mortality study done during the Bald Eagle Creek Trout Tournament which showed very low mortality from bait fishing. Also, there are examples in Pennsylvania where streams are open to bait fishing on a C&R basis yet the population of trout there is thriving. Spring Creek in Centre County comes to mind, as well as the Little Juniata River. In addition, I fish many streams that are under general regulations with a creel limit of five trout and yet the wild trout populations are flourishing there as well. Therefore, C&R regulations that include bait fishing by no means automatically mean the trout populations will suffer. These are some pretty hard facts for us fly fishermen to objectively consider, unfortunately.

2) Post #63 by JackM: “…there is no justification for FFO on public land unless it is a small set-aside of the total miles of public water.”

It’s easy for us to think that a few miles of FFO water on public land is no big deal when we’re on the benefit side of the fence, but let’s face it, most of us, including me, would have a fit if the PFBC started restricting us like they have done to non-fly fishermen. I’ve fished Slate Run many times (Francis Branch is a little too small for my amateur casting ability) and it truly is a uniquely beautiful stream. I can see why Frank would want access there.

3) Post #65 by rrt: “There are so very few restricted FFO areas, and if Frank and others wanted to fish them, they could pick up fly rods…”

I can’t speak for others, but if there were streams where fly fishing was illegal I wouldn’t switch to bait or spinners because I have no interest in fishing other than with a fly rod. If I think objectively, yeah, I agree with Frank that FFO regulations exclude him. I wouldn’t want to switch my technique any more than he would.

4) Post #76 by outsider: “Slate Run is a nationally recognized treasure. And how many miles of trout streams (stocked or otherwise) exist in PA? This may sound like I consider myself to be “elite”, but I am not: Over the past 50 years I have fished AT waters, FFO waters, DH waters, and I will say that the FFO waters are largely without litter. Which leads to landowner issues, and lost waters. …”

Two points are brought up here. Assuming Slate Run is a nationally recognized treasure, if I think objectively I can’t see why that would entitle me and other fly fishermen to have exclusive access there. Can anyone think of another national treasure where only a select group of people have access?

Slate Run is on public land so the littering issue is not going to lead to landowner issues and lost water. Sure, I hate seeing the litter left behind by bait anglers, but we’re not totally innocent here either. I’ve seen quite a few beer cans and cigar butts along FFO water. I’ve also seen dead bats hanging from trees that grabbed our lost flies.

Overall, I don’t see any valid arguments rebutting the question raised by Frank. He certainly has got me thinking about my views about FFO water in general, and particularly on public land.

 

[afishinado]

I could not find any explanation concerning the reasons behind the use of special regulations in PA . In a further search, such an explanation was given by the Maine F&W Dept. on their site. I find it an interesting read and believe it holds true for PA fish management:

Why Do We Regulate?

Fisheries management is the science of balancing the impacts of habitat changes, fishing pressure for different kinds of fish, the desires of different anglers for the kind, numbers, and size of fish they would like to catch, and the biological potential of the waters to grow and support the kinds, size, and numbers of fish that anglers want to catch. Maine has nearly 6,000 lakes and ponds over one acre in size and almost 32,000 miles of rivers and streams. These waters differ remarkably in basic physical features, water chemistry, and biological potential.

The Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife's goal is to provide anglers with the most opportunities for the types of fishing they want, while ensuring that these same fish resources are going to be here for our children. To accomplish this on all of Maine's waters is a challenge!

While we can help enhance some fisheries by stocking or improving habitat, one of the most important tools that we have for fisheries conservation is controlling angler impacts on fish populations. Regulations are designed to conserve fish populations and help provide the kind of fishing experience that anglers want. This can be complicated and since many of Maine's waters are different, the same regulation on different waters may not have the same result and can affect anglers and fish populations very differently.

Where possible, we regulate fishing using a set of "General Laws" that are similar for all waters. Waters that fall outside the "General Law" category usually have special characteristics where fishing opportunity for some kinds of fish can be improved by using different regulations. These regulations were developed to try to provide the kinds of fishing opportunities that hundreds of anglers have told us they would like to see.

Changing bag limits can help distribute the catch more equally between anglers and over the season. This can also help reduce the overall catch of a species and help redirect fishing pressure to other species.

Changing length limits is one of the most effective ways of reducing the overall take of a species, while still allowing anglers to take some fish home. This regulation can also be used to protect a certain portion of the fish population that may be more vulnerable or could affect the future of the population - for example, very small fish or spawning (breeding) fish. If fishing pressure is expected to stay high, an "artificial lures only" restriction may also have to be enacted to protect released fish from dying due to wounds inflicted from swallowing baited hooks.

Terminal tackle restrictions such as artificial lures only (ALO) and Fly Fishing Only (FFO) are used to reduce hooking injuries to released fish from baited hooks in conjunction with lower bag or restrictive length limits. This regulation can also redirect fishing pressure to different waters.

Different season dates can protect fish populations when they may be particularly vulnerable, such as when they are spawning (breeding).

Catch and Release is used when fishing pressure is high on a vulnerable population and the fishery will be depleted if fish are taken. Usually "artificial lures only" regulations have to be paired with "catch and release" to protect fish from injury.

Some anglers think there are too many regulations and the regulations are too complicated. However, we need to remember that we are dealing with thousands of waters statewide and that each is different. On these waters, we are trying to give anglers a variety of quality fishing opportunities while ensuring the resource exists for our children in the future.


Link to source: http://www.maine.gov/ifw/fishing/regulations_seasons/

 

[The_Sasquatch]

I keep hearing this proposed as an access issue.
Here's the reality:

EVERYONE has access.
ANYONE can fish it (except those who are over the age of 16 who do not have the proper license/stamp).

Who is stopped from accessing the stream?

Who is being stopped from fishing it?

A person's desire to fish it with a certain tactic is NOT the state prohibiting you from fishing it. It is simply the state saying, "if you wish to fish it, you must follow these guidelines and tackle restrictions". There is a big difference. Your desire to fish it w/ tackle not permitted by the state is not the same as the state saying, "you can't fish it!"

It's you deciding to exclude yourself because you want to continue to fish in the manner to which you like. You're actually regulating yourself out of a fishing opportunity because of your preference. The state ain't doin' that!

 

[OldLefty]

As to the reasoning for ffo special regs. the key word is heritage. We need to keep in mind that anglers fished with flies long before they fished with hardware like Frank does. I believe that spin fishing came on the scene sometime just after WW2.

If you recall there was a time when the ffo's were referred as Heritage Fly Fishing sections. Most of the younger anglers most likely are not aware of this. The heritage of fishing artificials in PA didn't include fishing hardware until recently.

As for special regulations on sections of water the major thrust of this is, I've been told, is to provide an angler a reasonable expectation of catching trout over an extended period of time by protecting the population within that section of water. I would deduce from this that this is the reason these stream sections are more heavily fished than open water.

Personally, as I've said before, I'd be in favor of abandoning ffo regs. I've said this in various venues in the past. As much as I don't like to admit it the only "fair" reg. is all tackle C&R. The problem here has been repeated over and over: use of bait by most anglers results in much higher mortality rates.

My problem with Frank presenting this issue was how he presented it. He compared these ffo stream sections to private club water. Private clubs require membership and significant monetary outlay on the part of club member/angler. This is not a valid comparison and how Frank stands by his assertion that it is valid escapes me. Of course, if he believes that fly fishers are elitists, he may be able to rationalize some sort of validity. This is the implication I believe Frank is presenting. He also refers to fly fishers as a privileged group and I take this as further support for my feeling that Frank holds some resentment for our ranks.

I do not belong to any private angling clubs and I am not part of a privileged group just because I choose to use fly tackle. I consider both the comparison and the accusation at minimum offensive and at most insulting.

Again, if one is seeking allies I'd expect to see an approach quite different from what Frank presented.

While I felt the Summit was informative there was so much that wasn't addressed. There was only brief mention of wild rainbow and brown trout as well as other issues that are both relevant and important to managing wild trout in PA.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

Mike wrote:
Frank requested the statistic on the avg number of wild trout harvested per stream mile in Pa during a given season...opening day to Sept
Answer: 11 per mile

The figure and its context are on about the fourth or fifth to last slide in the history of wild trout mgmt presentation. Very easy to click through three slides on the PFBC web site.

Mike, thanks for providing the accurate number.

 

[Swattie87]

Honest question for those arguing in favor of FFO special regs on public land streams, in opposition to Frank's position:

Would your position on the matter change if there was a spin fishing only (SFO) section enacted on Cedar Run? Essentially the same type of stream as Slate, and in very close proximity, with generally a very similar fishing experience. Access on Slate is limited to FFO, access on Cedar is limited to SFO. Regardless of your response, please explain why.