Possible change of regulations on Penns Creek downstream of Cherry Run

Has Penns been deemed navigable in court? Guess I could google it.....
 
I would tread very lightly on any reg change, don't see how the positives outweigh the extremely negative possibilities.
 
It was stated early in the thread that the proposal to change the management came from landowners along that stretch.

Now people are saying that if the management is changed landowners along their will post their land.

So it sounds like the landowners have mixed opinions about what they want. Which is not surprising. Hopefully they will come up with a good solution that keeps people happy, and that is good for the wild trout population/fishing quality.

 
Meeting Summary

2018 -- no changes

2019

Lower boundary of section 5 will be moved up to a midstream island near end of Jolly's Grove Lane; from this island down, stocking and normal harvest will continue (there are a lot of cabins and homes on this lane)

no stocking in the "new/rezoned" section 5

83% of landowners in the new section 5 support C&R ALO, 11% didn't respond, 5% for slot limit (PFBC sent surveys by mail to landowners)

About 4 miles of additional (previously not stocked water starting at the Glenn Iron Bridge, rt 235, going down stream about 4 miles) water will be stocked in 2019 with the 2,200 fish that would have gone into section 5

All of the above is set in stone. Each person in attendance (about 150 people) was able to vote for one the following options and to write comments

1. Catch and Release Artificial Lures only

2. Slot Limit (same as section 3), 2 fish per day in season 7-12 inches, any tackle and bait

3. Current Regulations (still no stocking), 5 fish per day in open trout season, any tackle and bait
 
The Land owners who didn't want it are a majority local and the ones who wanted it changed are a majority not local land owners.
 
mtnbum wrote:
Meeting Summary

2018 -- no changes

2019

Lower boundary of section 5 will be moved up to a midstream island near end of Jolly's Grove Lane; from this island down, stocking and normal harvest will continue (there are a lot of cabins and homes on this lane)

no stocking in the "new/rezoned" section 5

83% of landowners in the new section 5 support C&R ALO, 11% didn't respond, 5% for slot limit (PFBC sent surveys by mail to landowners)

About 4 miles of additional (previously not stocked water starting at the Glenn Iron Bridge, rt 235, going down stream about 4 miles) water will be stocked in 2019 with the 2,200 fish that would have gone into section 5

All of the above is set in stone. Each person in attendance (about 150 people) was able to vote for one the following options and to write comments

1. Catch and Release Artificial Lures only

2. Slot Limit (same as section 3), 2 fish per day in season 7-12 inches, any tackle and bait

3. Current Regulations (still no stocking), 5 fish per day in open trout season, any tackle and bait
Click to expand...


Thanks for the update. All good.

The landowner's desires were (and should be) heavily weighed in for decisions about reg changes. It's great they were on board with extension of no-stocking section and CRALO regs. Also no stocking mileage was lost, just extended further downstream. Everyone wins!
 
Good compromise on all fronts it seems. Thanks for the report.
 
It's a great compromise to people who don't know the water or area. About 65-70% of the land below the 235 bridge is posted right now in that 4 mile area.
 
Swattie87 wrote:
Good compromise on all fronts it seems. Thanks for the report.
Click to expand...

Agree.
Thanks for the update. Please keep us informed.
 
Hook_Jaw wrote:

The Land owners who didn't want it are a majority local and the ones who wanted it changed are a majority not local land owners.
Click to expand...


Can you explain?

I admit, I am not local, or a landowner, though I have fished most of that area open to fishing. If this is what the "new" Section 5 landowners wanted (which it seems a strong majority of them did from the survey data provided), it seems to make sense to me. Not trying to be a wise guy...I am open to having my mind be changed, but I'll need your position explained better.

If the newly stocked section below 235 is mostly posted as you indicate, maybe a different decision should have been made about where to put those 2,200 fish, but I don't see how that effects the new Section 5 if this is what the landowners there wanted. It seems to me there was a clear difference of opinion in the old Section 5 amongst landowners at the very bottom end along Jollys Grove Ln from those further upstream. So they moved the boundary to account for that. Smart move in my book.

If I'm interpreting right, I think you're differentiating between local landowners (as in permanent residents) and non local landowners (cabin/camp/secondary homes) who are not there permanently. If I'm wrong, I'm sorry, and can you re-explain? If I'm right, I don't think there should be a distinction drawn between the two. A landowner is a landowner. Each landowner should get one vote.
 
How can you take at vote a meeting where you don't know if everyone can attend? They need to send a letter to every owner let the vote be a fair way.
 
Hook_Jaw wrote:
How can you take at vote a meeting where you don't know if everyone can attend? They need to send a letter to every owner let the vote be a fair way.
Click to expand...

Sounds like they did. Reread the summary post of the meeting. I'm assuming (possibly wrong maybe) that they counted the mailed survey responses for those who couldn't be there in person. Can anyone confirm that?
 

I should of clarified it more what I'm saying There was 2 separate letters one to the land owners of below the 235 bridge and one to the land owners of the upper section there should of been one letter stating what the full agenda was.
 
Hook_Jaw wrote:

I should of clarified it more what I'm saying There was 2 separate letters one to the land owners of below the 235 bridge and one to the land owners of the upper section there should of been one letter stating what the full agenda was.
Click to expand...

Ah. Agree with that.

Edit: Does anyone know what the landowners from 235 downstream wanted? I'm assuming the majority wanted it stocked as that's what the outcome was, but is that accurate?
 
What I am saying is your vote could of been different knowing the full information of the agenda of the meeting. I like the water in section 5 and Im fine with the changes just think the compromise is a bad one for below the 235 bridge.
 

Seeing as its already vastly posted swattie I can't see how. I think they fish commission was willing to do whatever to get that section 5 what they wanted.
 
Agreed on the access issuesin that new stocked section... does seem kind of silly.
 
So the landowners in one stretch are mad because stocking will be ended?

And the landowners in another stretch are mad because stock will begin?

It's hard to please people.
 
PFBC staff stated that they walked and scouted the section below the 235 bridge. They acknowledged that there are private sections that would not be stocked but that enough access points existed in the stretch to allow for quality stocking and angler access.

Also, the meeting was not the only time/chance to vote or share to share comments. There is a public comment period Feb 17 - March 19. Select "contact us" on the PFBC web page then look for the
PROPOSED & RECENT REGULATIONS link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top