Possible change of regulations on Penns Creek downstream of Cherry Run

[slackleader]

I agree with Hook that the slot law in section 4 is BS!!! The old rule was and is the way it should be!
I happened to be there last year when they did the survey, that is quite a job that the PFC does to accomplish that goal. Quite impressive.

 

[Trico3]

I really don't miss seeing campers from Poe Paddy walking around with 16" - 18" trout on stringers anymore. I also haven't ran into the guy that liked to show pics on his phone of large dead trout he caught on section 3.
I like the slot limit. I don't witness near as many trout being kept as under trophy trout regs.

 

[Hook_Jaw]

I have fished the poe paddy section and all of section 3 a ridiculous number of times and had never seen people with 16-18" trout on stringers I rarely ever had seen someone with a fish they kept.

Big trout were always caught majority released by many I know some guys will always keep trout it didn't in anyway need a slot limit was the fish commissions compromise deal with the land and cabin owners who didn't want it catch and release.

 

[PENZZZ]

More discussion about Penns Creek reclassification and regulation changes. Here's an article in the Daily Item newspaper in Sunbury. Appears local residents and Section 05 property owners have met to discuss their future. They've organized and are speaking up in an attempt to convince PF&BC to rethink Class A as well as regulation changes.


http://www.dailyitem.com/opinion/columns/my-turn-fish-commission-should-revisit-findings/article_46163509-187d-5495-966b-8bb05fab0fde.html

 

[LehighRegular]

As a riparian landowner along Section 5, and having read Mr. Klauger's survey, I would say it was very persuading against any type of new regulations for this section. We did not respond to his survey as a result.

Two weekends ago, I fished a 200 yd stretch of water in Section 5. In about 2hrs of fishing, I landed 12 wild brown trout, one of which was 18" and had one bigger pop off at my feet trying to get it in my net, very close to 20". The others landed were in the 14" range. Did I mention they were ALL wild trout? Not one was a stocked fish.

In all my years fishing Penns, when the PFBC stocked this section heavily, my catch of wild trout dropped. When reductions in stocking took place, the numbers of wild trout caught increased. Go figure? I say follow the science and protect these fish. They are a precious natural resource. Secondly, as a social aspect, I have witnessed while fishing the C&R stretch that it has become increasingly over crowded. By adding more regulated water, it may help spread out anglers a bit more and free up some space. Just a thought?

 

[PENZZZ]

"Two weekends ago, I fished a 200 yd stretch of water in Section 5. In about 2hrs of fishing, I landed 12 wild brown trout, one of which was 18" and had one bigger pop off at my feet trying to get it in my net, very close to 20". The others landed were in the 14" range. Did I mention they were ALL wild trout? Not one was a stocked fish."

I can see where your end of Section 05 would yield those results. My experiences in the mid-lower portions of 05 are pretty different. Don't get me wrong, there are wild trout, but there are fewer wild trout down there. There may be a variety of reasons, including harvest and different water profile.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

You have to consider the motives behind the author of any publication in my opinion. Obviously the fish manager for the Union County Sportsmens Club would want to continue stocking fish in this section as they have for many years. Ultimately, management decisions should come down to science, however political and societal opinions typically ending up having a strong hand in the process.

 

[3wt7X]

Based on experience, I agree with PENZZZ observations wholeheartedly. Section 5 is a major transition area and could be broken up in two separate regulation section almost at the midpoint. Of course, wild fish are going to be stacked below a major cold water feeder during the summer, when I heard was when the survey was conducted. That being said, there are a lot of wild trout in the upper reaches of section 5 year round. I would say based on my experience the marginal water extends below Glen Iron, but the most abrupt transition occurs somewhere near the center of Section 5.

I think stream access and property owner rights are very important to consider on that stretch of Penns. There is a ton of private property stream access to the public down there as most of you know. A lot of those cabin owners have invested time money and effort to maintain access points, roads and clean up trash in the area to give everyone an opportunity to have an enjoyable experience. I think their voice one way or another is very important in this discussion.

 

[PENZZZ]

PF&BC has responded to Mr. Klauger's message. They seem to be saying that despite the wishes of the local Union County community, commission will go through with Class A and Special Regulations.

http://www.dailyitem.com/opinion/columns/pfbc-followed-standard-survey-methods/article_817cd2cd-12bd-5bdc-87ff-f3a83e4ac1e8.html

 

[afishinado]

PENZZZ wrote:
PF&BC has responded to Mr. Klauger's message. They seem to be saying that despite the wishes of the local Union County community, commission will go through with Class A and Special Regulations.

http://www.dailyitem.com/opinion/columns/pfbc-followed-standard-survey-methods/article_817cd2cd-12bd-5bdc-87ff-f3a83e4ac1e8.html

I think "the wishes of of the local Union County community" are certainly in question. Here is the PFBC response in part:

During fall 2017, landowners with properties along the 3.8-mile reach were sent a letter by the PFBC and asked about their preference for angling regulations to help inform future PFBC management of this stream section. Additionally, a public meeting was held in Mifflinburg on Feb. 26, 2018 to obtain additional public input regarding a potential change in angling regulations for Section 05. Landowners who own 83 percent of the property along the 3.8-mile-long Section 05 and 59 percent of public meeting attendees supported Catch-and-Release Artificial Lures Only angling regulations.

The PFBC followed standard survey methods by soliciting public opinions in a scientific, unbiased manner. However, the letter sent to landowners by Mr. Klauger as part of his subsequent survey used language to lead respondents to his position, thus biasing his results.

To confirm the above, Lehigh Regular, a member on here, is one of the property owners in section 5 that received and read the survey. He stated it was so biased he did not even respond to it. His comments were:

As a riparian landowner along Section 5, and having read Mr. Klauger's survey, I would say it was very persuading against any type of new regulations for this section. We did not respond to his survey as a result.

Finally, it's not at all surprising to anyone, Mr. Klauger, the Fish Manager of the Union County Sportsmen's Club, which stocks Penns and engineered the survey is against the Class A designation and the new C&R regs. Here are Klauger's comments, from the article:

If the commission carries out its plan, and is wrong about the wild trout population of Section 05, the quality of Section 05 as a fishery could be damaged for years to come. We can’t afford to allow the commission to gamble with the future of Penns Creek.

^ He feels not stocking Penns will damage the fishery for years to come. It's really up to the individual to measure the credibility of the source and the survey itself.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

+1

FWIW, that was my take on the "news" article. It's an op-ed piece.

 

[Swattie87]

Fly-Swatter wrote:
+1
FWIW, that was my take on the "news" article. It's an op-ed piece.

Agree. They both are. Good response from the PFBC. I'm somewhat surprised they chose to engage with a response, but glad they did.

The science is Class A biomass indicates a self sustaining, rewarding fishery. (An argument could be made that significantly less than Class A biomass does too, but not the discussion to be had here since the section being considered IS Class A.)