FarmerDave wrote:
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,
If I saw you fly fishing on a stream open to general fishing I would not call you privileged. If I saw you fly fishing on Slate Run/Francis Branch, where only fly fishermen are allowed to fish, I would call you privileged.
When I fish the Catch-and-Release Artificial Lures Only section of Penns Creek with spinners I feel privileged because I can fish there and bait anglers cannot fish there.
Remember, when I used the word “privileged” in my opening question I was talking specifically in the context of fly fishing on Slate Run/Francis Branch. I certainly don’t consider fly fishermen in general to be “privileged”. Never did. I consider them “privileged” when they get special considerations on trout streams.
As far as my comparison with what the Spring Ridge Club tried to do on the Little Juniata River versus what the PFBC has done on Slate Run, I stand by the validity of my comparison.
The question really boils down to this: The Spring Ridge Club (and to not further confuse things, it could have been Farmer Jim (no relation to you) instead of the SRC – who it was doesn’t matter) got sued for trying to exclude all general-public fishermen from fishing public water (the Little Juniata River in the Rothrock State Forest). They lost in court because they had no right to exclude people from fishing on public land. So what right does the PFBC have in excluding non-fly fishermen from a stream, Slate Run/Francis Branch, located on public land in the Tiadaghton State Forest? That’s my comparison – one entity couldn’t exclude people – they lost in court - yet the other entity gets away with excluding people. I consider this a valid comparison.
Of course, the first argument is always that non-fly fishermen really aren’t excluded because they can always pick up a fly rod. True, nothing new to that argument, but how many non-fly fishermen are going to fly fish? The answer is close to zero, so for all intents and purposes, non-fly fishermen are excluded. If Slate Run/Francis Branch was Bait Fishing Only, I would bet that virtually all fly fishermen would feel excluded, though on a fly fishing website such as this one I would not expect them to admit it publicly.
There is no fisheries-based reason why Slate Run/Francis Branch couldn’t be opened to all anglers. The reason it is FFO is strictly for social reasons, nothing more, and I don’t consider this a legitimate reason when it’s on public land. If Slate Run/Francis Branch was changed to Catch-and-Release All Tackle the only noticeable difference that anglers would see is that they’d likely run into other anglers more often.
I highly doubt the trout population would change noticeably. Remember, there are lots of Class A wild trout streams that are managed under general regulations that have robust trout populations despite the regulations – even when creeling five trout per day is permitted.
Additionally, the hooking mortality study done during the Bald Eagle Trout Tournament, overseen by a well-respected PhD, showed very low hooking mortality with bait.
Also remember that at the Wild Trout Summit, Mike Kaufmann, Area 6 Fisheries Manager with the PFBC, 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. Therefore, even in the extreme, if Slate Run/Francis Branch were opened to creeling, which I’m not advocating here, there would likely be no noticeable difference in the trout population.
Let’s take this a step farther. Would the PFBC have the right to post Slate Run/Francis Branch “No Trespassing” if they chose to, again without any fisheries-based reason? Would they be legally allowed to keep all anglers off of public land without a fisheries-based reason – only a social reason? For example, what if they posted it “No Trespassing” just to study the reaction from fly fishermen – again a social reason?
I know this is an extreme example, but in effect that’s what they are doing to non-fly fishermen right now. As DriftingDunn mentioned in his contribution to this topic, it would be interesting to see what would happen if the PFBC got sued to open Slate Run/Francis Branch to all anglers like the Spring Ridge Club did on the LJR.
By the way, I never expected my question to get chosen at the Wild Trout Summit.
