SEPTEMBER 19 DEADLINE TO COMMENT ON PROPOSED PENNS CREEK REGS CHANGE

[OldLefty]

I know this has been a hot topic discussed in numerous venues; however, I'm appealing to all those who recognize the value of wild trout and desire the highest form of protection for them.

As most of you know PFBC has designated the majority of Section 5 of Penns Creek as class A wild trout water. The surveys revealed a biomass exceeding the minimum for this designation. Further, PFBC feels that, with the similarities to Sections 3 and 4, this section could see a doubling of this biomass over time with more restrictive regulations.

I know many of you support the protection of wild trout populations and now you have an opportunity to voice that support by going on PFBC's website and commenting on this issue. We only have until 9/19. I have been told that support has been weak thus far. It only takes a few minutes to make a big difference. This isn't about fly fishing: it's about protecting wild trout while allowing anglers to pursue them with artificials with no restrictions on tackle.

Please put aside any feelings you may have regarding individuals or the agency and concentrate on what we value most: TROUT! Since they can't speak for themselves we can now speak for them...and we can feel good about doing it, too.


Dave Rothrock

 

[afishinado]

There have been numerous threads about the Penns Creek Reg changes.

Here is a link directly to the PFBC Penns Creek CRALO proposal comments page:

Penns Creek Comments Page PFBC

Everyone is encouraged to voice their opinion.

 

[Mike]

What do you mean by "protection" in the context in which you, the op, use the word and from what are you looking to "protect" wild trout in this context?

 

[Dave_W]

I sent in an old-school letter in the snail mail voicing my opinion on this matter.

Afishinado's link in the post above this one takes you right to the comments page for PFBC. Considering how much discussion this topic has produced here over the months, I would expect a pretty good turn out of comments from the PAFF community.

Send in your comments to the PFBC and let them know what you think. Such direct efforts matter and are better than grumbling about things here.

 

[troutbert]

I sent in my comments. Thanks for the reminder.

While you are on the PFBC website, you might also consider supporting two other proposals.

1) A proposal to add some streams to the Class A list.

2) A proposal to add some streams to the wild trout list.

The lists of streams are shown on the website.

Some of the streams on the proposed Class A additions list are currently stocked. Ending stocking of these streams would likely benefit their wild trout populations.

 

[Swattie87]

tb - Where on the site are those proposals? Couldn’t find them.

Edit: Nevermind, found them.

 

[Maurice]

For your perusal, here is my comment. Not to dredge up a new debate but consider these points before jumping on the band wagon.

Dear Commission,

Normally I would support a harvest restriction on wild trout and the elimination of bait as a tool to provide an extend the fly angling opportunities over greater trout populations well into summer However, My understanding of the trigger of this particular regulation change on section five of Penns Creek stems from a survey classifying it as having a Class A biomass. This survey has been brought into question by members of the Union County Sportsman’s Club stating they had stocked the section with fingerlings prior to the survey. This new information brings into question the validity of the survey.

I feel strongly that it is the responsibility of the PF&BC to nullify the Class A regulation change and resurvey the section at a later date . Similar to the previous requirement of the Commission to have Two surveys above Class A to recommend a change. This would eliminate a skewed survey recommending the class A change .

Additionally, it is also my understanding the there is some question as to the validity of the landowner survey conducted by the commission as to the regulation change and resource use. It would be a shame to rush this harvest regulation and tackle restriction based on faulty trout population and landowner approval surveys only to wind up with more posted land and restricted resource use. It is stated on the Class A designation that the estimated total public land is 1.4%. That is potentially a lot to lose

While I like the idea of the change based on realistic and legitimate surveys, I feel the commission has tailored the results to meet an agenda for increasing the length of tackle restrictions prior to the Executive Directors retirement.

Please consider re-examining section 5 of Penns Creek with a second survey to validate its change to Class A which appears to be the driving force for the tackle and harvest restrictions. And, reevaluate the landowner approval survey as well. Otherwise the results are tarnished and shameful for a public agency based on science to execute.

Yours in conservation,

Maurice Chioda

 

[afishinado]

Maurice wrote:
For your perusal, here is my comment. Not to dredge up a new debate but consider these points before jumping on the band wagon.

Dear Commission,

Normally I would support a harvest restriction on wild trout and the elimination of bait as a tool to provide an extend the fly angling opportunities over greater trout populations well into summer However, My understanding of the trigger of this particular regulation change on section five of Penns Creek stems from a survey classifying it as having a Class A biomass. This survey has been brought into question by members of the Union County Sportsman’s Club stating they had stocked the section with fingerlings prior to the survey. This new information brings into question the validity of the survey.

I feel strongly that it is the responsibility of the PF&BC to nullify the Class A regulation change and resurvey the section at a later date . Similar to the previous requirement of the Commission to have Two surveys above Class A to recommend a change. This would eliminate a skewed survey recommending the class A change .

Additionally, it is also my understanding the there is some question as to the validity of the landowner survey conducted by the commission as to the regulation change and resource use. It would be a shame to rush this harvest regulation and tackle restriction based on faulty trout population and landowner approval surveys only to wind up with more posted land and restricted resource use. It is stated on the Class A designation that the estimated total public land is 1.4%. That is potentially a lot to lose

While I like the idea of the change based on realistic and legitimate surveys, I feel the commission has tailored the results to meet an agenda for increasing the length of tackle restrictions prior to the Executive Directors retirement.

Please consider re-examining section 5 of Penns Creek with a second survey to validate its change to Class A which appears to be the driving force for the tackle and harvest restrictions. And, reevaluate the landowner approval survey as well. Otherwise the results are tarnished and shameful for a public agency based on science to execute.

Yours in conservation,

Maurice Chioda

We have discussed this many times on here.

Again, to clarify for all readers:

Maurice wrote:
I feel strongly that it is the responsibility of the PF&BC to nullify the Class A regulation change and resurvey the section at a later date . Similar to the previous requirement of the Commission to have Two surveys above Class A to recommend a change. This would eliminate a skewed survey recommending the class A change .

The Penns Creek proposal as written and presented by the PFBC is not a proposed classification change, it is a proposal for a change of regulations. In fact, I would hate to not allow any flexibility and add red tape by requiring a classification change for the PFBC to change any regulation on streams.

Maurice wrote:
Additionally, it is also my understanding the there is some question as to the validity of the landowner survey conducted by the commission as to the regulation change and resource use. It would be a shame to rush this harvest regulation and tackle restriction based on faulty trout population and landowner approval surveys only to wind up with more posted land and restricted resource use. It is stated on the Class A designation that the estimated total public land is 1.4%. That is potentially a lot to lose.

As far as there being some question to the validity of the survey; the PFBC sent a written survey via registered mail (I believe) to all landowners along the stream section in question. 83% of the landowners sent back the survey approving the new regulation proposal and 11% did not respond. Later, after the results of the survey was published by the PFBC, the Union County Sportsman Club, the club that stocks Penns in the section, sent another "survey" which asked the landowners to reconsider their decision.

There you have it. The decision to support or reject the Penns regulation proposal and comment on it is up to you.

 

[Maurice]

Well then what’s the reason for the regulation change? Is it solely based on the landowner survey that was called into question?

 

[PENZZZ]

"83% of the landowners sent back the survey approving the new regulation proposal and 11% did not respond."

The 83% figure has been promulgated by PFBC since their presentation in Mifflinburg. Leading up to that time they had refused several requests for the actual survey responses. Late Spring I made a request for the details directly to Mr. Arway, who approved and forwarded my request. PFBC released the survey responses and the attached summary. The newly defined Section 05 has 50 parcels on the north side of the creek, owned by 43 property owners. In the attached PFBC summary you will see that 20 individual property owners voted for Catch & Release regulations. The 83% figure is a "riparian", or stream side, footage ownership value. So if your property is very large, your vote counts for more. Two property owners own about a third of the north side of Section 05. Both voted for C&R. The owner of a half mile length parcel lives in California and wasn't reached by the PFBC survey. This owner is dead set against special regulations and has communicated this directly to Mr. Arway and PFBC. PFBC still continues to use the 83% of landowners figure. Completely dishonest!

It is a false statement to say 83% of landowners voted for C&R regulations. Please stop making this statement.

 

[Swattie87]

I agree with the PFBC logic of weighting the vote by the stream frontage a given landowner owns. Nonetheless, even if going off the raw unweighted votes (and throwing out those who chose not to participate or didn’t have an opinion), C&R still holds a clear majority:

C&R - 20/31 (64.5%)
Slot - 6/31 (19.4%)
Statewide - 4/31 (12.9%)
Other - 1/31 (3.2%)

There’s a sentiment that the survey was framed to lead toward the C&R response, and as Maurice notes there are questions being raised about the validity of fish biomass numbers. But the landowner survey data as presented is in favor of C&R no matter how you slice it.

 

[Dave_W]

If I'm following... 83% of the land owned along the proposed section is owned by folks responding to the PFBC survey(?).

While this may not be the majority of land owners, since this group owns most of the land and would have the decision to allow public access, their opinion should carry more weight than those who own very small tracts.

I realize the issue of landowner opinion is complicated, but the 83% claim seems like a sound talking point from the standpoint PFBC survey methodology.

 

[Swattie87]

Dave_W wrote:
If I'm following... 83% of the land owned along the proposed section is owned by folks responding to the PFBC survey(?).

83% of the land is owned by those who responded in favor of C&R. They represent 65% of those who responsed to the survey. Either way you do the math C&R carries the majority.

 

[Dave_W]

Swattie87 wrote:

Dave_W wrote:
If I'm following... 83% of the land owned along the proposed section is owned by folks responding to the PFBC survey(?).

83% of the land is owned by those who responded in favor of C&R. They represent 65% of those who responsed to the survey.

Okay, gotcha.
Looks like a strong case for the PFBC's position.

 

[Maurice]

In my region and others special regulations are considered to be proportional to angler use. In other words, if it is believed there are too few, they will look for waters whereby they can expand the program. I am sure Mike will agree as he has expressed this with me. And has considered opening others in exchange for closing another.

Penns is special regulation heavy as it is. One of the driving points was the questionable class A designation followed by the landowner survey. (Also dubious).

So what’s the motive? As I said I am usually for special regs that cater to my style of fishing. But in this case it smells fishy...real fishy.

Where is the parking for this four mile stretch gonna come from? Parking in the 83% driveways?

As I recall that road is narrow and lacks any real parking until you get to the Cherry Run lot.

There are more questions than answers with this.

 

[Swattie87]

Dave_W wrote:
Okay, gotcha.
Looks like a strong case for the PFBC's position.

Unless the fish population data is skewed by the club’s stockings, or if the PFBC landowner survey was framed in such a way to be slanted toward C&R, yeah.

 

[PENZZZ]

Full Disclosure: Following the PFBC presentation in Mifflinburg I was contacted by friends who own properties on or near Section 05. These property owners were not in agreement with what was about to happen and requested organizational, operational, and consultation services. They held discussions amongst themselves and sought to better understand what all 43 property owners felt following Mifflinburg.

Together we were able to do a much better job of locating stream side property owners than was accomplished by PFBC. A survey was prepared and distributed. Yes, the survey was biased toward selection of Statewide Regulations. Property owners were informed that all fishermen and women not accessing Section 05 via Jolly’s Grove lane in Weikert, or hiking downstream from the parking lot in the middle of Section 04, would be parking on their private properties. This is a true statement – there is no public parking along Section 05. PFBC was contacted and they confirmed there would be no public parking lots added along Section 05. At the time of the private survey in late Spring, owners of 35 of the 50 parcels in Section 05 voted to keep Statewide Regulations. Recently though, I was contacted by the largest stream side property owner who now has changed the family position back to Catch & Release.

PFBC has taken the position that only their survey has merit. Based upon their use of riparian ownership PFBC is stating the more property you own, the more important your vote is. Fact: Six property owners own 65% of Section 05. PFBC’s position isn’t sitting well with some of the smaller property owners, and thus the reaction by some property owners to deny access through numerous common access points to Section 05.

 

[Swattie87]

The parking situation (other than the lot at Jolly Grove Lane, not very good) is the same for section #5 regardless of the regs right? If so, I’m not sure leveraging fear about C&R anglers parking on folks property is the correct way to get to their real opinion on the matter.

They could still have parking issues on their property under the current general regs. I’m not saying the PFBC survey was perfect - I haven’t seen it. But the methodology of the survey just described is clearly flawed and designed to influence people to a certain conclusion by appealing to an irrational perspective that isn’t based in fact or logic.

Loss of access in Section 5 to posting is the big thing the PFBC needs to avoid with this. The parking is the same though, and that shouldn’t be the basis on how the landowners make up their minds. Regardless of the regs if a landowner doesn’t want folks parking on their property, they should put up the appropriate signs and enforce it. Walk in only, etc.

Whatever the landowners true wishes are, that’s what I support happening. I’m not sure we’ve actually flushed that out yet.

 

[afishinado]

Everyone has their own opinion concerning the proposed Penns regulations and should voice it to the PFBC in the link above.

One very important point going forward for all PA stream policy, is we should guard against setting a precedent insisting it be required that stream regulations or stocking policy should only be changed when/if the stream classification is officially approved and changed.

Strictly tying stream classifications to policy would stymie any future changes in regs and stocking and could be used by any group to delay or defeat positive steps taken by the PFBC to improve fishing in PA.

 

[PENZZZ]

Yes, stream classification and stream regulations should always be independent decisions. This is even a concern of property owners in support of Special Regulations on Section 05.

There is concern PFBC is attempting to regulate Section 05 based upon a trout population metric that was tested for and met only one time (unscientific IMHO). PFBC seems to be in favor of C&R regulations because it believes the wild trout population will increase significantly if harvest is eliminated.

But what if this single shocking was flawed/in error? What if the population is currently below Class A requirements, or it falls in the near future? Section 05 could be stuck with C&R regulations and a low/stable/falling population of wild trout. Where is the PFBC forward looking plan? There is concern that once special regulations are in place, unwinding the situation could be difficult.

In April, one camp at Buick Blvd had 22 cars for opening day. Per the owners of the camp, six trout were caught. UCSC hadn't stocked the creek yet.