Penns Creek CRALO Proposed Regulations

[PennKev]

From the Nale article:

Several Fish & Boat commissioners are also fly-fishing enthusiasts. In my opinion, they sometimes overindulge their “enthusiasm” to support fly fishing when they should be thinking of the vast majority of license-buyers who prefer to fish with bait.

No they should be thinking of:

1) The health of the wild trout fishery.

2) The primary users of the resource.

Bait anglers are not organized in any meaningful way. The PFBC claims that it “doesn’t count ‘votes’ from public comment” – however, the highest number of angler letters and emails will likely come from the 15 percent who fish with flies and therefore support artificials only.

Bait fisherman aren't organized and don't participate in the surveys because after the second week of trout season they don't pay any attention to trout AT ALL.

So screw them.

I don't necessarily think there is a sound biological reason to eliminate bait fishing or even eliminate all harvest. But if a large segment of the angler population cannot be bothered to even pay attention to issues surrounding their fishing, then too freaking bad for them.

 

[PennKev]

LehighRegular wrote:
If these changes go through this will open up more "trout water" on Penns Creek and provide greater protection to wild trout resource. I have a hard time understanding who would be against this?

Good 'ol boy Pennsyltuckians who are still stuck in the past.

That's who.

 

[semperfly]

My hats off to Mark Nale's article ... he's always true to form. Unfortuantely, wild trout can't pay for a subscription to the Outdoor News. Anglers can. He stirs up the pot with his biased commentary. The old "us" and "them" program ... not the Pink Floyd song.

How in the wild world of sports can anyone be against enhancing a wild trout fishery. I find it amazing to see how far we have come and even how much further we need to go when it comes to protecting the resources.

It's funny and true... the guys out west do call us Pennsyltuckians ...
i guess i will always be with "good" company.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

Mark is a good guy, but his allegiance is to a different group. The way he shallowed the Bald eagle sportsman "bait study" hook, line and sinker (pun intended) suggests to me its about angler (some) satisfaction and not management. But hey, that's ok. Everyone needs to be represented.

one thing i reacted negatively to is the comment about FF being wealthier to explain why bait fisherman don't organize or make public comments. It costs NOTHING to comment on the website. This, I interpret, it is an us against those rich FF.

wild trout anglers have to decide how we balance the responsible regulations/management and access. The Blackmail (Mark nale's words) of landowners should be resisted. Those fish will move up and downstream.
I wonder if efforts should be directed at PFBC to purchase easements and other methods of access

 

[FarmerDave]

jifigz wrote:

semperfly wrote:
i wonder how the wild trout would vote?

If they had the cognitive capacity to weigh in I'm guessing that they would vote for a closed season all of the time and try to ban angling, especially the gruesome habit of keeping and eating a fish. Disgusting. Just my thoughts though, I can't speak for the trout.

I was going to say the same thing, but especially the habit of dragging fish around by the lip only to release so they can do it all over again. ;-)

But I try not to attach human emotion to fish.

I am not a big fan of special regulations in general. I am not voting on this, either way unless someone can show me scientific proof that this special regulation will improve the fishery. If it is just a feel good idea, then I am opposed.

The rest of this is playing devils advocate to some extent, but not entirely.

Year ago, I'd have said that it should be obvious that removing one fish means one less fish. Common sense, right? But I have learned over the years that nature doesn't work that way. There is always a significant amount of natural mortality, and in most cases some harvest and/or mortality from C&R has no measurable effect on overall mortality.

Granted, there are exceptions, but is this one of them?

Is there currently a significant amount of harvest in that section? Is it enough to have a negative effect in the grand scheme? I have my doubts.

If the landowners associated with this section want this new regulation, then I would support it.

 

[bradtheflyfisherman]

I think the Union County Sportsmen's club wants to keep stocking it? and almost all the landowners in that area are likely members, and thus influenced by what the club wants?

Not sure if that is accurate, but I'm guessing it might be.

 

[afishinado]

bradtheflyfisherman wrote:
I think the Union County Sportsmen's club wants to keep stocking it? and almost all the landowners in that area are likely members, and thus influenced by what the club wants?

Not sure if that is accurate, but I'm guessing it might be.

This was discussed on here extensively. The proposal itself was posted along with survey data, maps, the entire PFBC presentation, the letter sent to landowners, etc., etc., etc.

The PFBC sent out a written survey to the landowners along the stream section. 80% of the landowner responses were in favor of it.

The Union County Sportsmen's Club sent out another letter after the proposal was approved asking for all landowners and area residents to oppose it.

So there you have it.

Kinda crazy and assbackwards (and sad IMO) that we somehow have to prove that artificially stocking has a negative effect the wild trout that live there, instead of having the stockers prove dumping in artificially raised fish isn't hurting the wild trout that are put there by Mother Nature.

She is the Mother to all us, ya know.

 

[bradtheflyfisherman]

Ah got it - think I quickly read through all of that thread awhile back. Just makes no sense to stock over a wild trout population...its "for the kids" or "we've been doing it for years" aren't good reasons...

 

[Wild_Trouter]

I was going to stay quiet, but honestly, I hate slot limits. In my humble experience, I either see a) guys that don't give a **** and don't measure fish. If they want a particular fish, they stringer it up; b) guys that do measure fish, but have them out of the water a long time while they pinch the tail or try stretching the fish to meet the minimum size; or c) put a fish on the stringer (legal or otherwise), and then cull the smaller fish (dead) for larger fish. I have seen it on the Jackson River in Virginia and other places. I also used to think Frank Nale was decent guy seeing that he is a TU Member, and contributor to several newspapers/magazines. I found him to be quite knowledgeable on all things spinner fishing and catching wild trout, but I now think he is quite ignorant when it comes to painting with such a broad brush when you review his contentions regarding fly-fishermen in his latest Outdoor News piece. Instead of being part of the solution, this guy is an antagonist and part of the problem. It is no wonder it is so difficult to accomplish anything. Instead of respecting divergent viewpoints and trying to unite people for a common good, Frank is a divider with his own agenda.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

All,
FWIW. The Little J is managed C&R ALL tackle, including bait, from Ironville down. I can count on my two hands the number of bait fisherman I have encountered over the last 10 years (estimate 60 trips per year on the J) in the C&R section. On the other hand, the proportion of bait fisherman I see is significantly higher above the C&R section on the J. Please, I am not making value judgements here about bait fisherman. I started out this way as kid etc. What does this tell me?
One, The trout have thrived on the J and you see what we have now, even though all tackle is permitted. I interpret this as C&R is the important variable. I concede water quality improvements also play a role in the J's improvement too.
Two, those who do not practice active bait fishing tend to gravitate to sections where they can keep fish. Again, not saying C&R anglers are better people etc., just a casual observation. Therefore, I don’t think over time bait fisherman will have that much of an impact.

A history lesson. I was not involved with the organization at the time this happened, but have been told by two reliable sources “in the know”. The initial proposal was to get artificial only C&R on the J. This was a very contentious issue at the time that led to a director of the LJRA resigning and worsened relations with some locals and landowners. In the end, it was decided that this was not a fight worth fighting. C&R all tackle was a good compromise. As I wrote above, how has the J done? I think quite well.

The core issue, I think, is the stocking. Tackle regulations is a bit of a smoke screen or a tangential issue to whip people up. A compromise of all tackle C&R, but managed as wild trout, no stocking may be the best route?

 

[nymphingmaniac]

wildtrouter, I agree "stringer culling" is a major problem in harvest streams. I have seen it and even had some people tell me they did it. They honestly thought that just because they weren't bleeding, they would survive just fine.

 

[PENZZZ]

“The PFBC sent out a written survey to the landowners along the stream section. 80% of the landowner responses were in favor of it.”

Long after PFBC published its data via its presentations, they released the results of their property owner survey. Prior to that they ignored requests made for the vote sheets, including a request from the Union County State Rep. Fact: 20 out of 43 parcel owners voted for C&R. I obtained all the vote sheets by writing to Mr. Arway.

Much has happened since the original PFBC property owner survey, with many changing their minds.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

Wild_Trouter wrote:
I was going to stay quiet, but honestly, I hate slot limits. In my humble experience, I either see a) guys that don't give a **** and don't measure fish. If they want a particular fish, they stringer it up; b) guys that do measure fish, but have them out of the water a long time while they pinch the tail or try stretching the fish to meet the minimum size; or c) put a fish on the stringer (legal or otherwise), and then cull the smaller fish (dead) for larger fish. I have seen it on the Jackson River in Virginia and other places. I also used to think Frank Nale was decent guy seeing that he is a TU Member, and contributor to several newspapers/magazines. I found him to be quite knowledgeable on all things spinner fishing and catching wild trout, but I now think he is quite ignorant when it comes to painting with such a broad brush when you review his contentions regarding fly-fishermen in his latest Outdoor News piece. Instead of being part of the solution, this guy is an antagonist and part of the problem. It is no wonder it is so difficult to accomplish anything. Instead of respecting divergent viewpoints and trying to unite people for a common good, Frank is a divider with his own agenda.

For the record, you're confusing me with my brother Mark.

And by the way, Mark is a highly educated, knowledgeable, decent guy.

- Frank Nale -

 

[Wild_Trouter]

Frank-
You're right...your brother Mark did pen that imflammatory article. I stand corrected- you are both part of the problem. I've read enough of your material on this site and others (HuntingPA, etc.) to know how you truly feel about fly fisher folk too. That's both accurate and unfortunate from my perspective. If a person doesn't know better, and many don't- they simply take what you guys say at face value, when it couldn't be further from the truth...kinda like Fox News. When I read that stuff, it makes me wonder whether the Nale brothers are really for inclusiveness and working toward the common goal of protecting wild trout, or just pursuing an anti-fly fishing agenda? Fair question, Frank?

 

[lycoflyfisher]

There is a letter to the editor in the Aug 3 Pennsylvania Outdoor News voicing support for the proposed changes from a riparian owner in this section of Penns Creek. He clearly states that Mr. Klauger does not represent the cabin owners. He also claims that he has not talked to a property owner that plans on posting their property as a result of the new regulations.

 

[Outback_Yak]

I've posted some links below that address the affects of stocking over wild trout and how the state of Montana effectively addressed the situation. It seems to be that this is the core issue in terms of wild trout survival and proliferation.

Quite frankly, it makes no difference what the surrounding landowners prefer, whether it be CRALO, selective harvest, or stocking hatchery fish. They do not own the waterway. That is public domain and so are the wild fish that inhabit it. They can certainly post their property for whatever reason or choose to let the public use their property. Ultimately, what is best for the survival of wild trout should be the priority, that is outside of a fishing ban (please I am opinionated, but not insane).

In terms of CRAOL vs. all tackle, this is the only article I could find that addressed this. However, I think this argument is much more difficult to study and form an opinion on. I believe fish handling practices have much more to do with trout mortality then the method of catching them. The "Keep them wet" movement has done an excellent job at illustrating this point. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1577/1548-8659(1984)4%3C257%3AEOACRO%3E2.0.CO%3B2

http://www.mckenzietroutstudy.org/

https://nuggetnews.com/main.asp?SectionID=5&SubSectionID=5&ArticleID=27314

http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2004/DickVincent.htm


Scientific Articles on the Montana experiment

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/...nalCode=ujfm20

https://www.researchgate.net/publica..._Creek_Montana



Effects of Stocking:

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full...0.2016.1248502

https://www.wildtrout.org/sites/defa...2012_final.pdf

https://www.wildtrout.org/sites/defa...2012_final.pdf

https://www.outdoornews.com/2014/01/...from-stocking/

https://link.springer.com/chapter/10...0348-8510-2_22

 

[FarmerDave]

Outback_Yak wrote:
...

Quite frankly, it makes no difference what the surrounding landowners prefer, whether it be CRALO, selective harvest, or stocking hatchery fish. They do not own the waterway. That is public domain and so are the wild fish that inhabit it. They can certainly post their property for whatever reason or choose to let the public use their property. Ultimately, what is best for the survival of wild trout should be the priority, that is outside of a fishing ban (please I am opinionated, but not insane).

Since we are talking about navigable waterway, what you said is true from a legal standpoint. But my opinion is we should respect the landowners even in these situations. I am entitled to that opinion.

Also, I don't think many on here are in favor of stocking this section.

 

[afishinado]

FarmerDave wrote:

Outback_Yak wrote:
...

Quite frankly, it makes no difference what the surrounding landowners prefer, whether it be CRALO, selective harvest, or stocking hatchery fish. They do not own the waterway. That is public domain and so are the wild fish that inhabit it. They can certainly post their property for whatever reason or choose to let the public use their property. Ultimately, what is best for the survival of wild trout should be the priority, that is outside of a fishing ban (please I am opinionated, but not insane).

Since we are talking about navigable waterway, what you said is true from a legal standpoint. But my opinion is we should respect the landowners even in these situations. I am entitled to that opinion.

Also, I don't think many on here are in favor of stocking this section.

Dave,

The assertion that the landowners are or more precisely were against the changing of the regulation is false.

The PFBC sent out a survey to every landowner along the stream section and 83% agreed with the change in regs.

The Union County Club that stocks the section didn't like the results and sent out this letter after the survey results were released:

Penns Creek, Union County, Section 05
Your Help Is Needed. You are receiving this mailing because you own property adjacent to Penns Creek in what is known as Section 05.

Fellow Penns Creek Area Property Owner,
As your neighbor, I am seeking your input into the way our stream is regulated by the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission in Harrisburg.

In 2017 you received a mailing from the Commission asking you to vote for regulations to apply to the creek alongside your property.
Options included two proposed Special Regulations, or the option to keep existing Statewide Regulations in place. Descriptions of regulations were provided at that time.

On the attached form, please check the first box, indicating that you want Section 05 of Penns Creek regulated as it is currently – Statewide Regulations.

As a full time resident of Section 05, I would deeply appreciate your support on this important matter.

Regardless of how you voted in that survey, I am asking you to
vote again, and support keeping current regulations in place
Statewide Regulations



So now the claim is the landowners are against the change in regs. Talk about a biased survey and rigged results!!... :roll:

 

[Outback_Yak]

FarmerDave, I completely respect your opinion. I do understand its vital to have input from all sides in a situation like this. Also, to be honest, I have no idea what support there is for allowing continued stocking of hatchery fish in this section. However, at some point stocking over wild fish, especially those designated Class A, has to be taken off the table as a viable option.

I guess my post against stocking was in relation to Mr. Nale's article, in particular, the following question, which he noted as an important consideration in regards to the proposed regulations on Penn's Creek, Section 5.

"1.Should the agency acknowledge landowner preferences and at least allow the Union County Sportsmen’s Club to continue to stock trout?"

Based on the available science, the answer is a resounding "NO".

 

[FarmerDave]

afishinado wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:

Outback_Yak wrote:
...

Quite frankly, it makes no difference what the surrounding landowners prefer, whether it be CRALO, selective harvest, or stocking hatchery fish. They do not own the waterway. That is public domain and so are the wild fish that inhabit it. They can certainly post their property for whatever reason or choose to let the public use their property. Ultimately, what is best for the survival of wild trout should be the priority, that is outside of a fishing ban (please I am opinionated, but not insane).

Since we are talking about navigable waterway, what you said is true from a legal standpoint. But my opinion is we should respect the landowners even in these situations. I am entitled to that opinion.

Also, I don't think many on here are in favor of stocking this section.

Dave,

The assertion that the landowners are or more precisely were against the changing of the regulation is false.

The PFBC sent out a survey to every landowner along the stream section and 83% agreed with the change in regs.

The Union County Club that stocks the section sent out this letter after the survey results were released:

Penns Creek, Union County, Section 05
Your Help Is Needed. You are receiving this mailing because you own property adjacent to Penns Creek in what is known as Section 05.

Fellow Penns Creek Area Property Owner,
As your neighbor, I am seeking your input into the way our stream is regulated by the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission in Harrisburg.

In 2017 you received a mailing from the Commission asking you to vote for regulations to apply to the creek alongside your property.
Options included two proposed Special Regulations, or the option to keep existing Statewide Regulations in place. Descriptions of regulations were provided at that time.

On the attached form, please check the first box, indicating that you want Section 05 of Penns Creek regulated as it is currently – Statewide Regulations.

As a full time resident of Section 05, I would deeply appreciate your support on this important matter.

Regardless of how you voted in that survey, I am asking you to
vote again, and support keeping current regulations in place
Statewide Regulations



So now the claim is the landowners are against the change in regs. Talk about a biased survey and rigged results!!... :roll:

Afish, I didn't read your entire response because your first couple lines tell me you completely misunderstood me. I'm not saying you are at fault. It could be entirely my fault. It just isn't worth reviewing.

From the start, I said I am not a fan of special regs.

My initial impression was that the landowner were in favor of the change.

I can support that.

Then it was brought up that landowners changed their minds.

Whether or not the did or didn't is irrelevant to me. Either way I would side with the landowners, as far as tackle restrictions and C&R. Notice I left out the part about stocking over wild trout. I tend to be opinionated about that. ;-)