Here is good article that appeared today in the Centre Daily Times which clearly spells out the lack of commonsense with Commissioner Hussar's Class A Wild Trout motion at the last PFBC meeting. If anyone needs additional proof of just how crazy this motion was, just look up on the internet this PFBC comprehensive scientific report on the subject titled: "Angler Use, Harvest, and Economic Assessment on Wild Trout Streams in Pennsylvania"!
Here is the Centre Daily Times article today written by Mark Nale.
Afield: Pa. Fish and Boat meeting sparks debate over wild trout stream regulations
April’s Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission meeting was significant for what almost happened, not what did happen. The big event was not mentioned in the agency’s news release. Maybe it will just fade away, although several commissioners seemed hell-bent on making a big change in wild trout management.
A motion was introduced by Commissioner Eric Hussar to make all Class A Wild Trout Streams in Pennsylvania catch-and-release, artificial-lures-only. Normally, all such motions are brought up before the Fisheries and Hatcheries committee, and if passed, presented to the full board. Hussar’s motion was quickly seconded by commissioners Charlie Charlesworth and William Brock, who represents Centre County.
All three of those commissioners are members of Trout Unlimited, a national conservation and fly-fishing organization that strongly favors catch-and-release trout fishing. Although the group claims not to favor any specific tackle types, its magazine, calendar and actions show strong fly-fishing bias. Trout magazine last had a bait fishing article in 1985.
If passed, this motion would forbid the harvest of trout and the use of any type of bait (salmon eggs, minnows, earthworms, Powerbait, wax worms, etc.) on any Class A Wild Trout Stream in Pennsylvania. Hussar said the reason for his motion was to protect wild trout.
A very lively discussion ensued. Commission President Richard Lewis then said that he could not support Hussar’s motion. “I share your concern for wild trout, but you are putting forth a motion I don’t have adequate data or any knowledge that making all these streams catch and release would guarantee that these streams will have more fish,” Lewis said. Lewis asked how many miles of stream would be impacted by this proposal, but the three commissioners didn’t have an answer.
I am sure that PFBC staff will have the details for the commissioners before their next meeting. However, I did some rough calculations to get a better understanding of the scope of Hussar’s motion.
Tucked away on the commission’s website is a list of nearly 1,000 Class A streams, totaling approximately 3,000 miles of water. These streams are located in 56 counties. Centre County has 87 streams on the list. Ninety-nine percent of these streams are not mentioned in the regulation booklet and are not marked in any way with signage.
Almost all of these streams allow bait fishing and the harvest of up to five trout per day for six months of the year. They are already catch-and-release during the other six months.
After nearly 45 minutes of discussion, Commissioner Daniel Pastore made a motion to table the issue until the next Fisheries and Hatcheries Committee meeting. His motion passed seven to three.
Following the vote to table Hussar’s motion, the discussion continued online on fly-fishing message boards.
A disappointed former commission executive director John Arway posted on paflyfish.com: “… Not only does the board lack the courage to move this forward, there wasn’t a clear comment in defense about why not.” Arway called the move to make all Class A streams catch-and-release, artificial-lures-only “a no-brainer.”
A former PFBC biologist followed with this: “The ‘no-brainer’ is that when there is minimal harvest there is no need for additional fishing-related regulations. If biologists find an individual stream population that exhibits a harvest problem, deal with it appropriately, but don’t over-regulate a statewide population that does not need it. Continue to follow the science. The commissioners got it right so far.”
The more than 70 comments that followed on the message board were mixed — some supporting the motion, others supporting catch-and-release but not artificial-lures-only, and still others opposing the entire idea.
Protecting wild trout
While Hussar said his motion was made with the intention to protect wild trout, most biologists would say the number of wild trout in a given stream is primarily controlled by the available habitat, food, floods, droughts and extremely hot summer days.
In fact, Arway even admitted this in his message board post: “Although wild trout populations are controlled by Mother Nature (primarily floods and droughts), adding a No Harvest regulation will certainly protect some trout.”
About 80 percent of all trout anglers primarily fish with bait. That 80 percent of anglers would be excluded from 3,000 of streams to protect “some trout,” if this motion would pass. Almost all Class A streams became Class A while being managed under existing regulations, which allow bait fishing and a harvest of five trout per day. Do they need extra protection, and to what end?
If Hussar’s motion were to be passed by the full commission, children living along Lick Run in Howard, for example, would not be allowed to fish with bait in their backyards. If a big trout were accidentally to be hooked in the gills with a streamer and bleed badly, the angler will have to release the trout only to watch it die and go to waste. A streamside lunch of fresh-caught fried trout would be a thing of the past.
I hope that common sense prevails at the next Fisheries and Hatcheries Committee meeting.
Mark Nale May 9, 2021
Afield #871 Centre Daily Times
