Possible change of regulations on Penns Creek downstream of Cherry Run

[afishinado]

There is a link on the PFBC site to the Power Point presentation used at the meeting (gawl dang it took forever to load!! )

The Section 5 of Penns (just below Cherry Creek to Weikert) was last surveyed in 1977. It was only surveyed in one area and results were 5 kg/ha for wild brown trout.

Section 5 was surveyed in 2017 in 5 areas throughout the section and results were 45 kg/ha > making Penns a Class A wile brown trout stream in that section.

Just as a comparison, Section 4 (above Cherry Run up through Poe Paddy) was 73 kg/ha.

The section from Jolly Grove and downstream which is and will be stocked was 17 kg/ha.

It took a while (40 years between surveys) and we know the PFBC has been known not to survey a stream even if it is suspected to now be a Class A to avoid conflicts. But in this case, the whole thing with Penns was handled in the best and most fair way possible, IMO.

The survey was done, the landowners input was considered (mailing surveys is the best way to gather data, IMO) and the decision was made to extend the CRALO into the newly surveyed Class A section.

Plus stocked waters will not be eliminated, instead stocking will be extended further downstream, actually adding stream miles of stocked waters for Penns.

That's what I'm talkin' about!!.....good job by everyone.

As a side note, like many of us have experienced when fishing, Penns is loaded with quality-sized fish 11-16". And more 14" fish were surveyed up than any other size, at least in Section 4. Not many fish found > 18" though. A 20" fish in Penns is rare and a true trophy to release.

 

[Swattie87]

afishinado wrote:

The survey was done, the landowners input was considered (mailing surveys is the best way to gather data, IMO) and the decision was made to extend the CRALO into the newly surveyed Class A section.

Plus stocked waters will not be eliminated, instead stocking will be extended further downstream, actually adding stream miles of stocked waters for Penns.

That's what I'm talkin' about!!.....good job by everyone.

That's basically where I'm at with it too. And on top of that, they clearly listened and tried to accommodate different landowner preferences in different areas. As evidenced by moving the lower limit of section 5 upstream to accommodate the apparent preference of the Jolly Grove landowners to have that section stocked. Not sure what more else they could do, or should be expected to do, practically speaking.

If the folks below 235 didn't want that section stocked based on the surveys and votes in person at the meeting, I can't imagine they would have forced that on them just to put the fish somewhere else close by. My assumption is the majority there wanted it stocked. And based on the lower biomass of wild fish in that section, it makes sense that they'd want it stocked.

 

[717BrownTown]

Link to the video of the meeting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnXKRdCVJ8Q
Arway said it best Class A streams a special thing and it is our responsibility to protect and manage them for the future.
I think it is great that the Class A waters of Penn's is expanding .

I was surprised by Joe Humphreys's take on stocking the section.
The fish commission is still stocking the same amount of trout and actually expanding the amount of Penns that can be fished.
It is a better practice to put those fish in areas where there are not wild trout.

One thing that concerned me was is there data from the 2017 survey accurate Because the fish manger from the union county sportsman admitted to stocking 1000 fingerling trout after the 2016 drought.
Did those fingerling get counted as stream bred trout?

 

[Hook_Jaw]

Catching a 20 inch trout in penns is not rare in the least bit. I know the area and land owners very well below the 235 bridge and enough access points is a very questionable comment by the fish commission. I also highly doubt the fish commission walked a lot of that stretch being posted a vast majority of it more like drove most of it in their truck.

 

[barbless]

I'm neutral on the stocking. But I would like it if those doing the stocking- either PFBC or private- did a fin clip on the stockers in order to allow anglers to know the source of the fish we catch. And/or they could confine the species being stocked to rainbows, to ward off problems associated with spawning competition by stockers with the wild browns and brookies.

 

[Maurice]

I thought it took two consecutive surveys (a year apart) of class A biomass to recommend a stream section to the Commissioners for inclusion on the Class A list? At least thats how it works around these parts. Then once it receives Class A status, recommendations are made to the commissioners through a proposal of regulation change, comment period and vote at a quarterly meeting.

This whole thing seems to me to be "ram rodded" through prior to Arways term end. I mean, we hadn't even heard of the this until he was snakebit by the legislature. Had we? I know the survey was done in June... a peculiar time to do a class A survey BTW. Usually they do it in July/August/September to demonstrate 12 month residency. Maybe they only do that on the waters they DON'T WANT to go glass A. The ones they do want to go class A they pick a month weather pattern where they can potentially get the desired result.

Also, 47kg/ha with the time of year and the admission that the UCSA pres put 1000 fingerlings in that spring should throw the whole proposal into question.

Maybe they need to follow protocol and do another survey in August to confirm the biomass is indeed Class A before poking those landowners and locals who filled the meeting hall in the eye.

I know this isn't popular here but I find it hard to believe that that water had residency in August to reach Class A. That water goes well into the 70s down there.

looks like Arway wants to go out with a bang! I am having a hard time resolving this in my head. It goes against all the reasons we've ever been given as to how this works.

We have had several sections in York go this route over the last few years and it takes two surveys and usually three seasons to complete the process. Right Mike?

 

[TJones]

Interesting a stream had to have class A numbers 12 months out of the year to be considered class A? I could understand that on a small stream, but a larger flow like Penns, maybe that isn’t the best approach... those fish definitely move, but for the majority of the year it’s well above class A threshold.

 

[afishinado]

Maurice wrote:
I thought it took two consecutive surveys (a year apart) of class A biomass to recommend a stream section to the Commissioners for inclusion on the Class A list? At least thats how it works around these parts. Then once it receives Class A status, recommendations are made to the commissioners through a proposal of regulation change, comment period and vote at a quarterly meeting.

This whole thing seems to me to be "ram rodded" through prior to Arways term end. I mean, we hadn't even heard of the this until he was snakebit by the legislature. Had we? I know the survey was done in June... a peculiar time to do a class A survey BTW. Usually they do it in July/August/September to demonstrate 12 month residency. Maybe they only do that on the waters they don't WANT to go glass A. The ones they do want to go class A they pick a month weather pattern where they can potentially get the desired result.

Also, 47kg/ha with the time of year and the admission that the UCSA pres put 1000 fingerlings in that spring should throw the whole proposal into question.

Maybe they need to follow protocol and do another survey in August to confirm the biomass is indeed Class A before poking those landowners and locals who filled the meeting hall in the eye.

I know this isn't popular here but I find it hard to believe that that water had residency in August to reach Class A. That water goes well into the 70s down there.

looks like Arway wants to go out with a bang! I am having a hard time resolving this in my head. It goes against all the reasons we've ever been given as to how this works.

Interesting take ^.

I guess it depends on if one believes a stream section must go through the entire survey and confirmation process as well as a vote by the both legislatures in Harrisburg and classified as a Class A stream before any stocking policy can be changed for a stream. Are the two mutually exclusive or not? If so, we may have to wait a long time for any Class B or less population streams to be reclassified by the Harrisburg politicians before changing any stocking policies on any stream.

I actually applaud the FBC for taking the initiative after seeing an opportunity to expand a wild trout / C&R area in one of the premier stream in PA. They did it properly by conducting a stream survey of the section and mailing out a survey to and landowners in the area to get their opinion. And finally green lighting the idea after a Class A population of wild trout was found and the landowners along the section voted for the changes by a margin of 83% + 11% no votes. That's converts to 94% were in favor or not opposed to the change.....not much eye poking there! The survey was sent to the actually landowners along the stream taken from the tax records. These are the actual "locals" or at least the opinions that should be weighed in the most before any decisions should be made.

In addition, stocking numbers were not decreased, just moved downstream, expanding the amount of stream miles offering a great angling experience on Penns Creek.

As I posted earlier, "all good" and "everyone wins"...who loses?

 

[troutbert]

TJones wrote:
Interesting a stream had to have class A numbers 12 months out of the year to be considered class A? I could understand that on a small stream, but a larger flow like Penns, maybe that isn’t the best approach... those fish definitely move, but for the majority of the year it’s well above class A threshold.

I don't think that it is part of the Class A requirements that a stream has to have a Class A population 12 months of the year. And I don't think that it ever was part of the requirements.

It is true that the stream gets quite warm there. It is also true that it supports a lot of wild brown trout there. Trout move to find thermal refuge when it gets warm.

Recognizing these types of waters, and choosing surveying times accordingly, is an improvement in trout population surveying techniques. It gives a more accurate picture of the situation.

 

[Maurice]

Well I don't think it matters what anyone believes, I think it matters if it follows protocol. Or is it an Executive Order? I knows it feels good Tom...but is it really good to usurp the process to "win one?"

And it didn't appear everyone at the meeting was thrilled. The wild trout huggers certainly were.

Why isn't that stream section on either of these reclassification notices?

Class As to be voted on in April

Class As voted on at the January Meeting.

I remember when YWC was knocked down off Class A, We were told it takes two consecutive surveys to get Class A status and only one to knock it off. It was also surveyed in a drought year to knock it off and everyone here had a fit.

I know it feels good to "win one" but I am not comfortable with the circumstances here. It smells, smells real bad! Seeee.

 

[troutbert]

That section has not been put on the Class A list.

The PFBC can end stocking on stream sections that are not on the Class A list.

They've done so many times. There is no rule prohibiting that.

 

[afishinado]

Maurice wrote:
Well I don't think it matters what anyone believes, I think it matters if it follows protocol. Or is it an Executive Order? I knows it feels good Tom...but is it really good to usurp the process to "win one?"

And it didn't appear everyone at the meeting was thrilled. The wild trout huggers certainly were.

Why isn't that stream section on either of these reclassification notices?

Class As to be voted on in April

Class As voted on at the January Meeting.

I remember when YWC was knocked down off Class A, We were told it takes two consecutive surveys to get Class A status and only one to knock it off. It was also surveyed in a drought year to knock it off and everyone here had a fit.

I know it feels good to "win one" but I am not comfortable with the circumstances here. It smells, smells real bad! Seeee.

Actually, the policy that the PFBC follows is no stocking of Class A wild trout population streams. Only a directive form the ED can exempt this policy.

There is no such policy that states stocking policies or regulations can be changed only if and when a stream is reclassified to a Class A. Having to wait for a vote from Harrisburg to change stocking policies and regulations on a stream would be a major setback for the PFBC as well as the angling pubic.

In fact the PA Wild Trout Stream Map is littered with blue lines signifying stream which holds wild trout have less than a Class A and are not stocked. The Commission has the choice to stock or not stock or change fishing regulations any or all these streams for economic, biological or social reasons.

Are you saying that no stocking changes or regulation can or should be made unless a stream goes through the protocol of becoming a class A?

If the decision was made in some cigar-filled room in the dead of night, I may question it; but an actual stream survey was done to assure the population of trout was high enough and the landowner opinions were surveyed in writing. And the announcement was made at a public forum showing the data and answering questions on the decision. What more could be done? And to top it off, no stocked trout were cut from the stream, just expanded to a new area.

 

[Maurice]

No one said you need a vote from harrisburg. yer being silly.

At the meeting the fisheries staff said said its receiving regulation changes and stocking moved downstream because its Class A.

Its not class A.

That is a Lie.

They shouldn't try to manipulate the locals with untrue science inconsistant to their typical protocols to accomplish goals. if it were going in the other direction we would be there with pitchforks and torches. but because it favors us we defend it.

character counts tom.

 

[afishinado]

Maurice wrote:
No one said you need a vote from harrisburg. yer being silly.

At the meeting the fisheries staff said said its receiving regulation changes and stocking moved downstream because its Class A.

Its not class A.

That is a Lie.

They shouldn't try to manipulate the locals with untrue science inconsistant to their typical protocols to accomplish goals. if it were going in the other direction we would be there with pitchforks and torches. but because it favors us we defend it.

character counts tom.

^ no "lie" at all. I checked out the PPT presentation they used at the meeting. They surveyed the stream, gave the dates, locations and population breakdown in the slides. They found a Class A population was present during their survey. They also showed the results of the landowner survey for the changes, too. They made a decision based on the info they gathered and shared it with the group and made a policy decision based on all the info presented.

I have no clue why you advocate waiting another year for another survey, doing it during the heat of the summer and submitting it to the state legislature for approval before making any changes to stocking and regulations. Adding all those hurdes to clear for the PFBC to do their job benefits no one.

Again, the PFBc is charged with setting stocking policies and fishing regulation on our waterways without having to seek approval from Harrisburg. As long as they continue to do their due diligence and keep the public informed, as they did in this case, we should support them.

What did the PFBC do wrong? How should have they handled the situation? Is the decision to extend the CRALO stretch on Penns and extend stocking further downstream not the right thing to do?

 

[Maurice]

who said anything about the legislature...you are just making things up.

Its not class A until it gets approved by the Commissioners through a rulemaking. Its not on the Class A list. You are making stuff up.

It was only surveyed to have the biomass for Class A, and now that is suspect according to the fingerling stocking.

I am all for extending wild trout water done the right way. This was not done the right way.

Thats all...hey we got a bounce our way, I guess I should be happy. Push them stocked trout guys downstream. thats where they belong. Right?

 

[TYoung]

Maurice, A stream doesn't have to be on the class A list for stocking to stop. They surveyed that section of Penns Creek and they determined that it has a class A population of wild trout. Because of those wild trout they have decided to not stock that section any more. Just because they had one good survey doesn't mean that they are going to immediately add that section to the class A list. They still have to follow all the procedures that you have mentioned.

 

[Maurice]

Ok now I get it....nevermind.

 

[Hook_Jaw]

The fish commission should of handled the situation by leaving it alone is fine the way it is now. I was also fine with old regulations between Coburn to poe paddy it in no way needed a slot limit. If anything I catch more smaller trout then before.

 

[afishinado]

FYI, the Presentation slides from the meeting about Penns Regs from the PFBC site:

Penns Meeting Presentation Slides

 

[Hook_Jaw]

I've already seen the slides and the presentation doesn't change anything for me.