Pa Wild Trout Summit (Recap/Commentary)

[FrankTroutAngler]

rrt wrote:
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.

In life I've found that you really find out what a person really thinks when they're involved in a heated discussion. So, you've confirmed that you think I'm a liar. I wonder what the other guys from the John Kennedy Chapter of Trout Unlimited, which I've been a member of since 1979, think about me behind my back? Maybe it's time I re-think my substantial annual donation to the chapter. The guys there probably laugh at me behind my back while accepting my donation.

Yeah, I guess initiating a discussion about FFO regulations on public property on a fly fishing website was a little inappropriate of me. I guess it would have been more appropriate on an apple pie baking website or other site.

I mentioned that I measure my trout to the nearest 1/2" as an example of my honesty. It stands to reason that if I'm this honest when I measure my trout that I was also honest in my intentions for posting my thought-provoking question. Pretty simple concept.

Why would a discussion about tackle restrictions on public property irritate a group of enthusiastic fly-fishermen - unless they see that I have a valid point and they fear they may lose their private water?

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

Swattie87 wrote:
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.

This is not really answering your question, but I would be against any regulation that excludes fly fishermen. That's because I understand fairness.

I'd be against a SFO section on Cedar Run.

 

[outsider]

What we have here is a crusader.

 

[krayfish2]

Why can't I bow fish in the run at boiling springs? Why can't I use an M80 to harvest fish from Wallenpaupack? Why can't I rip Susquehanna smallmouth off their beds during the spawn? It's called rules / regulations. Just because I do not agree with the rules doesn't mean that I'm not required to adhere to them.

Pretty simply. Anyone with a license / trout stamp is free to apply their fly fishing technique to any FFO area provided they follow other rules in place (no camping, no fires, max 18' leader, closes at 10pm, etc.)

Lets say I like riding dirt bikes. State park golf course is on land I'd like to ride on. It is on public land and near the state parks existing ATV trail (on public land). Do I follow the rules that say "no dirt bikes on the course" ....or..... do I see it as these guys with golf clubs basically have a private club for themselves and they are keeping me from using it?

 

[tomitrout]

Lets say I like riding dirt bikes. State park golf course is on land I'd like to ride on. It is on public land and near the state parks existing ATV trail (on public land). Do I follow the rules that say "no dirt bikes on the course" ....or..... do I see it as these guys with golf clubs basically have a private club for themselves and they are keeping me from using it?

brraaaaaaaaap. yeah, man.

There's a couple of those spots down here in the Meeshow. Ripping some gaps and doubles over those sweetly sculpted sand trap transitions, I feel yah.


Carry on....

 

[rrt]

For Frank: Well, Frank, you do like to go off on tangents. Other JKTU members have nothing to do with my posts. Trying to bring them into this is immature and illogical. My posts address what I believe your MOTIVATION for posting your rant on the PAFF forum really is, and it saddens me to see you behave in this manner.

Others, including Old Lefty and Sasquatch, have ably addressed your illogical comparisons and ideas, notably addressing that you have access to Slate Run if you obey the laws.

I repeat: I think you posted this here to upset/irritate fly-fishermen who enjoy this site and who enjoy fly-fishing. There are other sites that deal with outdoor topics where you could have posted it. I know you used to post on another Pennsylvania hunting and fishing site and had several loyal followers there. It was pretty silly of you to illogically state that you could have posted on a baking website, even if you were attempting to be facetious.

As others have noted, you have an obvious animosity toward the fly-fishing community for some oddball reason. Your mean-spirited posting under this thread on this website is so obviously an attempt to nastily upset fly-fishermen that I can hardly believe that you have the temerity to deny it. If you examine yourself logically, you will see that you are lying to yourself (and members of this site) about your MOTIVATION

 

[foxtrapper1972]

Old lefty mentioned the "heritage" thing. I had forgotten that being a part of the FFO areas but it totally makes sense as a justification for setting aside a few areas for just flyfishing. It is the original sporting method to catch trout. So setting aside a few areas for just this type of angling as an acknowledgement of that "sporting" mentality as opposed to catching fish to eat seems appropriate. Especially in a place like Spruce Creek. One stream per county or a few spread around the state shouldn't ruffle your feathers too much Frank. I get what you are driving at but it seems selfish and small especially in a state so blessed with good wild trout opportunities.

 

[Zak]

Does a few areas constitute 33 stream sections holding 62 total miles of PA trout water? That's what's fly only now. I know I know...' how many miles are open to all tackle lol. I get it. Whether thats enough or too little is up to the individual. They never should have gotten rid of the heritage reg. Heritage makes sense. Little Lehigh, Spring, Letort, Big Spring, Falling Spring, Breeches, and yes, Slate Run should all be deemed Heritage Fly Fishing Stretches (among a few other streams). Commemorating their historical fly fishing heritage makes a whole lot more sense than just saying 'you can fish here but only if you conform'.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

I say make Cedar a SFO stream. In 10 years, let us know how it's doing...

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

The_Sasquatch wrote:
I say make Cedar a SFO stream. In 10 years, let us know how it's doing...

I assume from your statement that you believe the trout population on Cedar Run would decline noticeably if, in a hypothetical situation, the regulations there were changed from Trophy Trout Artificial Lures Only to Spin Fishing Only, which I assume means including bait anglers with a five trout creel limit.

In Mike Kaufmann’s presentation at the Wild Trout Summit he stated that anglers who pursue wild trout generally embrace the catch-and-release philosophy and that surveys have shown that on average only eleven trout per stream mile get creeled during a trout season on a wild trout stream. I don’t think eleven trout per mile is going to be noticeable to fisherman. Heck, one great blue heron probably kills more trout than that in a week or two.

There are many mountain streams with wild trout that are currently managed under general regulations yet they have robust Class A populations. Why do you think Cedar Run would be any different?

I believe the trout population there would continue to do just fine under SFO regulations, unless there was a major drought or other environmental issue, such as a flood while the trout eggs are in the redds or the fry very young.

For the record, as stated earlier, out of fairness to all anglers I would not be in favor of making Cedar Run SFO.

I’d like you to explain specifically why you think the trout population would greatly decline.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

First ill prepared guy up through Cedar with a Rapala with treble hooks and no forceps wins!
Ready set go

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

foxtrapper1972 wrote:
Old lefty mentioned the "heritage" thing. I had forgotten that being a part of the FFO areas but it totally makes sense as a justification for setting aside a few areas for just flyfishing. It is the original sporting method to catch trout. So setting aside a few areas for just this type of angling as an acknowledgement of that "sporting" mentality as opposed to catching fish to eat seems appropriate. Especially in a place like Spruce Creek. One stream per county or a few spread around the state shouldn't ruffle your feathers too much Frank. I get what you are driving at but it seems selfish and small especially in a state so blessed with good wild trout opportunities.

So you’re saying that I seem selfish and small for advocating that about nine miles of FFO water on State Forest Land be opened to give more fishing opportunities to more anglers? Now there’s a weird twist in logic that I certainly don’t understand. That’s like being called selfish and small for asking for a couple pieces of candy to give to strangers from someone who has a pound bag full of candy in their hand.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

Except the stranger without candy is surrounded by hundreds of bags of candy

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

foxtrapper1972 wrote:
First ill prepared guy up through Cedar with a Rapala with treble hooks and no forceps wins!
Ready set go

Rapala's with treble hooks are currently legal on Cedar Run and the trout population is doing just fine. So what's your point?

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

foxtrapper1972 wrote:
Except the stranger without candy is surrounded by hundreds of bags of candy

So the person with the pound bag of candy in their hand says he's keeping all of his candy all for himself and for me to go find my own candy somewhere else.

If we were talking about two kids here with real candy I think most people would think the kid with the pound bag of candy who isn't willing to share is acting pretty selfish. At least that's how I was raised.

 

[FarmerDave]

FrankTroutAngler wrote:
...

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.

Hi Frank. I'm guessing the reason your question wasn't chosen was because of the rhetoric it contained?

I certainly can't blame them for not answering when it starts out that way.

I am an all tackle angler who simply prefers fly fishing when it comes to trout. I however, am not, nor ever was a fan of FFOs. I can probably count the number of times I fished an FFO on my toes and never by myself. It was usually because I was fishing with someone else who wanted to check it out. For one thing, they tend to be more crowded, and tweed gives me a rash.;-)

Harvest restriction is a conservation tool. Tackle restrictions are not.

Why would me choosing to fish with a fly rod equate to either of us thinking I am privileged?

It isn't that you can't fly fish, or that you can't afford to fly fish. We both know that. You just chose to not fly fish. Truth be told, your spinning gear likely cost you more than my fly gear costed me.

Your comparison to Spring Ridge Club falls apart quickly as well. Not even close, but you probably know that.

Bottom line... you and I probably agree on the main point. FFOs suck, and do exclude people who don't know how, or simply don't like fly fishing. But why would I jump on your team if you think I am an elitist simply because my rod is longer than yours. ;-) (that was a joke)

 

[FarmerDave]

Edit: Please delete this one.

Was already said.

 

[FarmerDave]

Swattie87 wrote:
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.

Would I be allowed to use spinners on my fly rod? ;-)

 

[Swattie87]

Since I’m asking others to explain their reasoning, probably only fair that I explain mine and how I came to my conclusion that in regard to the topic at hand (FFO’s on streams on PUBLIC land, more specifically Slate Run) that I agree with Frank. I get that I’ll have Chubs thrown at me for this…I’ll live and still be happy to fish again with some of you likely to throw them. Bottom line, we all, including Frank, having WAYYYYY more in common in regard to our passion for wild Trout than we do different. Important to remember when discussing relatively minor differences of opinion revolving around one watershed, and roughly 9 stream miles of angling opportunity. I’m not going to assume or conjecture on Frank’s intentions with his post, and am only speaking in regard to my opinion on the subject after reflecting upon it.

Anyway, here’s the reasoning I went through:

Suppose Angler A and Angler B are the same age and both reside in PA. Both fish exclusively C&R for Trout, and both pay the same price for an annual license, with an annual Trout stamp. The only difference between the two is that Angler A exclusively fishes by choice with fly tackle, and Angler B exclusively fishes by choice with spinning tackle.

Again, this opinion only applies to streams on PUBLIC land, where both Angler A and Angler B should in theory, have an equal opportunity to use and access the public land for legal activities. In this case of establishing FFO’s (or in turn, the hypothetical SFO) on streams on public land, why should Angler A or B have to either change the method by which they fish, or be excluded from fishing there? I get that they each can choose to fish with the required tackle, but why should they? What’s the reason for this? They shouldn’t have to in my opinion. Circling back to them paying the same price for their license, why should Angler A in this example be afforded greater fishing opportunities on PUBLIC land? Why in turn are there not an equal number of SFO sections on PUBLIC land to offset this?

If the PFBC comes out and says “Hey, FFO is better for the fish populations (and here’s the objective survey evidence to show that), so in certain areas, even on public land, we’re establishing FFO’s to better protect wild fish,” I’d be on board with that. And would be ok with the mild inherent inequality in fishing on those streams being restricted to fly tackle, given the benefit for the wild Trout population. But they’re not. FFO’s exist to cater to the special interest of fly anglers, of which admittedly, I’m one. On PUBLIC land, I don’t agree with that, and don’t agree with excluding someone else who derives their enjoyment from fishing for wild Trout, very similar to me, just using different tackle. Streams on PRIVATE land are a different deal altogether. If a landowner wishes to restrict access to stream through a FFO, or whatever, I support that they should be allowed to do that, and the PFBC should work with them as they currently do in that regard.

 

[FarmerDave]

Swattie, I agree with that.

Seriously. Other than it being too long, it made sense.

I like to fly fish for wild trout, but don't feel I need a "special" place to do that. I only need wild trout streams.

Fly Fishing Tradition? Heritage?

Maybe they should drop the tackle restriction and simply require a sport coat for those that feel they need a special place.

Now you can duck!