Pa Wild Trout Summit (Recap/Commentary)

[FarmerDave]

foxtrapper1972 wrote:
Frank-I have rifle hunted deer for years. I see archery season is many weeks long with the opportunity to hunt the prime rut period. I can either buy a bow or just keep rifle hunting. People tell me it is a unique experience to take a deer with a bow. I choose not to do it at this time. Is archery only a "management tool? I don't really know. Does it provide a unique hunt for a priviliged group?

I'm basically the same way, except I have actually "hunted" in bow season. But if I ever get the urge to shoot one, it will have to be an exceptional deer and an exceptionally easy shot.

A couple years back, I had an 8 point spend at least 10 minutes under my tree stand looking for whatever made the doe bleat. I had no intention of sticking him for a few reasons, but I definitely enjoyed the experience.

Maybe some day I will shoot one with a bow, but since I have started raising my own beef, I have had no real intentions of shooting one, even in gun season. But I usually still make it out a couple times a year. Last year was the first year since buying the farm that I didn't hunt at all.

 

[FarmerDave]

To offense Troutbert, but I am kind of glad you are not a moderator here.

I can't say I enjoyed this thread, but it certainly didn't cause me to seek out a safe space.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

Is a "joe fly" allowed in a FFO section?

I forgot the exact regs....I think they were even changed a while back.

tb--If going off on a tangent or thread jacking was forbidden I fear the forum would become a very boring place. Everyone who says something others don't like is labeled a so called troll and conversation is killed.

I did not see any so called personal attacks on this thread by lefty or rrt?

 

[Swattie87]

Good debate was had. Objective differences of opinion were voiced and explained, pretty civilly IMO. That's all it was. I know I didn't take anything personally from those who had a different opinion than me. Several of whom I've drank a beer with, or even shared a whole day fishing with. The next time I have a beer or fish with them, my thoughts certainly won't be on the contents of this thread.

Funny thing about the title of the thread...all posters on both sides of the FFO on Public Land argument have common ground in supporting the proliferation of wild Trout in PA. Again, more in common than different here folks. It's ok to disagree on stuff, and disagreement should not be discouraged, especially when it's done the right way, as this discussion largely was.

Was a separate thread the better place to have the discussion...judge's call, but probably. Not sure it matters much in the end though.

Everyone gets in a tizzy when Frank posts here. Whether or not you believe his math, or agree with his fishing methods, you cannot deny that he has a significant passion and knowledge of wild Trout fishing in PA. I would think, in the right context, that passion and knowledge would be valuable on a forum whose main focus is fly fishing for wild Trout in PA. Toss aside the type of fishing rod, and I'd argue there is much more to gain from an alliance with Frank, as opposed to an enemy. Granted, this is a two way street, and requires the same from Frank.

 

[DriftingDunn]

afishinado wrote:
I agree, this thread was intended to be about the the Wild Trout Summit, but was sent off the rails by FrankTroutAngler complaining about a fly fishing only section on this fly fishing site.

Too bad this site is not more like the special regulation, Fly-fishing only. And guys that admit they have no interest in, and have never fly-fished would have no business (except trolling) posting on here.

To me anyway, PAFF should be all about fly-fishing. That's our interest and passion. As well, Mo very eloquently expressed his view as only Mo can.

But since the can of worms is open....I'll add this as an FYI:

I found an article posted in PA Angler Magazine in 1938 about Slate Run and the special regulation.

Here is a link to the entire issue. The whole thing is fascinating to read. I pulled out the piece on page 22 about Slate Run and the "new" regulation.

Back-in-the-day, when everyone was creeling trout, our grandparents and great grandparents saw Slate Run as a special place, and thought it worthy of special treatment: 6 trout / day and only 36 /year plus barbless hooks only or artificial flies. Not much protection by today's standards, but like I said, at least they recognized the some restrictions were a good thing to conserve the stream. The season was short, mid April through the end of july, plus they actually designated "nursery waters" that were closed to fishing!


SPECIAL REGULATIONS
APPLY TO SLATE RUN
During the 1934 fishing season Slate Run,
Lycoming county, was posted under certain
rules and regulations. The experiment met
with such success that later Cedar Run and
the Right Branch of Young Woman's Creek
were placed under similar restrictions.

Fishing will be permitted on these
streams only from April 15th to July 31st,
inclusive, and between the hours of 4 A. M.
and 9 P. M. Standard Time.

All fishing limited to artificial fly, or bait
with barbless hook.

Number of trout taken in one day limited
to six.

Number of trout per man per season,
thirty-six.

Legal minimum size limit nine inches.
All tributaries closed to fishing at all
times.

SLATE RUN (Lycoming County)
Section open to Fishing—From the junction
of Cushman and Francis Branches
down to its mouth at Big Pine Creek, approximately
8 miles.

Closed Section—Partly in Potter, Tioga
and Lycoming Counties—both Head Forks,
the Cushman and Francis Branches, and all
other tributaries closed as nursery waters.
CEDAR RUN (Tioga and Lycoming Counties)

Section Open to Fishing—From junction
of Buck Run, one mile above Letonia down
to the mouth at Big Pine Creek, a distance
of approximately 7% miles.

Closed Section—Cedar Run above the
junction of Buck Run, and all tributaries
closed as nursery waters.

afishinado,

I didn’t chase the link you provided in Post #159, but from what you’ve written it reads like a prime example of how fisheries science has improved over the years and how fisheries biologists have been enlightened, resulting in fewer unnecessary restrictions to the benefit of a larger segment of the angling population:

1. The creel limit was reduced from six to zero on Slate Run.

2. The season was lengthened to year-round on Slate Run.

3. The “nursery waters” of Slate Run were opened to fishing.

4. The FFO restrictions were lifted from both Cedar Run and the Right Branch of Young Womans Creek.

5. If it weren’t for social reasons, it’s pretty obvious what the next logical step would be. The restrictive regulations on Slate Run and the lower end of Francis Branch would, at minimum, be changed to Trophy Trout Artificial Lures Only like Cedar Run, or Catch-and-Release Artificial Lures Only like the long section on the Right Branch of Young Womans Creek. Personally, after reading Frank’s arguments, I’d be willing to give up my exclusive privileges there and take it a step farther to Catch-and-Release All Tackle out of justice for all anglers.

 

[DriftingDunn]

ryansheehan wrote:

DriftingDunn wrote:
I agree that this topic should be closed or deleted, but not because of what rrt said in Post #145 or what OldLefty said in Post #148. The reason it should be closed is because of the personal attacks directed at Frank by rrt and OldLefty (among others), both of whom clearly didn’t comprehend Frank’s original question in Post #58 – and still don’t.

Frank raised an interesting, thought-provoking question. It certainly changed my mind of how I view the FFO waters that I enjoy fishing. If it were up for consideration, I’d vote in favor of changing the regulations to Catch-and-Release All Tackle on the nearly nine miles of Slate Run and lower Francis Branch out of justice for all anglers.

I'm not in favor of FFO sections either but Frank's posts are just trolling on a fly fishing chat board. If you do things like say you're privileged to fly fish you will get called on it, as it should be.

ryansheehan,

I'm no longer in favor of FFO sections either, but I didn't see Frank's posts as trolling because I comprehended his original question in Post #58. If you read everything he's written in this topic with a clear mind you'll see that he never said a person is privileged to fly fish. Therefore, he shouldn't be called on it.

 

[afishinado]

DriftingDunn wrote:

ryansheehan wrote:

DriftingDunn wrote:
I agree that this topic should be closed or deleted, but not because of what rrt said in Post #145 or what OldLefty said in Post #148. The reason it should be closed is because of the personal attacks directed at Frank by rrt and OldLefty (among others), both of whom clearly didn’t comprehend Frank’s original question in Post #58 – and still don’t.

Frank raised an interesting, thought-provoking question. It certainly changed my mind of how I view the FFO waters that I enjoy fishing. If it were up for consideration, I’d vote in favor of changing the regulations to Catch-and-Release All Tackle on the nearly nine miles of Slate Run and lower Francis Branch out of justice for all anglers.

I'm not in favor of FFO sections either but Frank's posts are just trolling on a fly fishing chat board. If you do things like say you're privileged to fly fish you will get called on it, as it should be.

ryansheehan,

I'm no longer in favor of FFO sections either, but I didn't see Frank's posts as trolling because I comprehended his original question in Post #58. If you read everything he's written in this topic with a clear mind you'll see that he never said a person is privileged to fly fish. Therefore, he shouldn't be called on it.

FrankTroutAngler wrote in Post #58

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.

I can see from Frank's above statement in post #58 how one would the interpret the words "a small privileged group"..."succeeded in making a private stream for fly fishermen" as inferring fly fishers are somehow privileged. To me, to be privileged is to be bestowed something that others cannot share in. The simple fact is, one just needs to borrow or buy a rod and flies and go fishin'. Not really a privilege, just a way to fish, the same as one could buy a bow and hunt for deer during the archery season (some see archers as being privileged by having a deer season of their own, excluding hunters that firearm hunt).

BTW, as I stated earlier, I see no compelling reason why this should be a FFO section and have no problem if the PFBC changes the regs to ALO to include more anglers.

Anyway, this entire thread has grown very tiresome for many on here, myself included. My main concern was for the original poster Mike, who started the thread to thank those that attended the meeting and to begin a dialogue about wild trout in PA. Videos of the meeting were posted and a discussion was underway. In the middle of this discussion Frank posted about his desire to eliminate FFO on Slate Run since he has never seen it and can't fish it with his spinning rod. (Frank wrote: "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.")

If Frank wanted to start a discussion about FFO regulations on a certain stream, he should have started another thread for his topic. Posting about FFO regs has little or nothing to do with wild trout (Frank's entire point!) and more about tackle choices and his own fishing preferences.

If any of you have been here for a long time, you know that Frank has posted the same thing on here many times over the years. A lively discussion always ensues as Frank well knows, which is fine, but have respect for the OP and just start another thread.

In fact, rather than post on this thread, I started another thread about common courtesy here.

 

[FarmerDave]

DriftingDunn wrote:

ryansheehan,

I'm no longer in favor of FFO sections either, but I didn't see Frank's posts as trolling because I comprehended his original question in Post #58. If you read everything he's written in this topic with a clear mind you'll see that he never said a person is privileged to fly fish. Therefore, he shouldn't be called on it.

Wait...

Isn't questioning the comprehension skills of ryan, myself, rrt, Lefty, Troutbert, and about half the people who responded, trolling?

Before you get upset, I am just making a point.

We all comprehended it, you just comprehended it differently.

Lets move on.

 

[DriftingDunn]

FarmerDave wrote:

DriftingDunn wrote:

ryansheehan,

I'm no longer in favor of FFO sections either, but I didn't see Frank's posts as trolling because I comprehended his original question in Post #58. If you read everything he's written in this topic with a clear mind you'll see that he never said a person is privileged to fly fish. Therefore, he shouldn't be called on it.

Wait...

Isn't questioning the comprehension skills of ryan, myself, rrt, Lefty, Troutbert, and about half the people who responded, trolling?

Before you get upset, I am just making a point.

We all comprehended it, you just comprehended it differently.

Lets move on.

Not when they comprehended it incorrectly.

Agreed...let's move on.

 

[OldLefty]

This is the last time I'll post on this thread and my statement is directed to DriftingDun. It could very well be you don't know me and that's fine; because, if you did, you'd know that I've been engaged in discussion of this issue many, many times before. It's an old topic. Too, you may not have caught the fact that I agree in principle with Frank's position. It is with his "presentation" I take issue.

We should note that Frank stated if he saw a ff'er fishing an FFO section he'd label that angler privileged. Again, and for further clarification, a fairly simple choice which is available to most, if not all anglers doesn't elevate one to privileged status. That choice being, of course, taking up fly gear and legally fishing in a FFO section. I believe all who read this thread have the capability to comprehend this notion.

Frank flat out hijacked this thread and we've enabled him for 12 pages already.

 

[FarmerDave]

Well, technically only 8 pages since the post in question was towards the end of page 4.;-)