State Park Closings?

[pcray1231]

Two things: The Lake at Big Poe does hold trout year round as well. And second, almost all lakes hold fish year round, maybe not trout, but fish nonetheless. I realize this is a trout centric board, but a trout is not more valuable than a bass, in the big picture. So its a manmade fishery? Yeah, well so is every bottom release dam.

Yes, it has recreational value, as do pretty much all lakes.
Yes, it contributes to thermal issues in the stream below, as well as Penns.

What it comes down to is that I'm a trout fishermen, especially a stream based wild trout fishermen, so I'd like to see the dam go. But I do recognize my own biases. As far as parks closing, again, I don't like to see it happening because parks offer a lot outside of fishing. But for fishing, it might actually improve matters.

 

[Maurice]

Thats just the DCNR being the DCUR (Department of Compromise and UNnatural Resources)

If money is tight, the first practical thing to occur should be the elimination of lakes on state parks where wild trout opportunities are available.

Its just like the stocking mantra for the PF&BC. When you can't afford to stock everything, you should cut where the fishing can be provided through not stocking first.

Same with the Dams....if the dam needs repaired, drain the lake, restore the stream and put the money into some other park.

There will be cases where due to geographical location they NEED a lake in a county or region because of the limited number of recreational opportunities but I believe they could make some better choices. But all in all, we in the State of PA have some excellent, well rounded outdoor opportunities. It shouldn't be a shock to have them make practical decisions by closing a lake in need of repair and let it go wild....but likely they'd spend the money there due to political pressure from the legislature through constituancy. Which we as a fly fishing, cold water loving voting public are.

Beware of the mole who tries to compromise your principles and YOUR values for the good of the masses. Otherwise the masses will always win.

 

[troutbert]

Maybe we should just put all the wild trout streams in pipes and bury them. Rather than catering to the special interests of flyfishers.

 

[JackM]

If Pennsylvania had too few wild trout streams, then your reductio ad absurdum argument might have some force.

 

[Maurice]

And if all fly fishers/conservationists felt like you Jack, that force would be there....but they don't thank goodness....I bet if wild trout streams were ice cubes you would feel differently. I guess in a weird twisted sort of way you are a cold water conservationist. Well frozen anyway. :-D

Bottom line is you have nothing invested in wild trout except the gas to get there so it is not surprising how you feel about the resource you exploit with no return.

To you wild trout streams are alot like kleenexes that can be tossed away after their uses....or used until no good anymore and then move onto another.

 

[afishinado]

JackM wrote:
If Pennsylvania had too few wild trout streams, then your reductio ad absurdum argument might have some force.

reductio ad absurdum

Main Entry:re·duc·tio ad ab·sur·dum
Pronunciation:\ri-ˈdək-tē-ˌō-ˌad-əb-ˈsər-dəm, -ˈdək-sē-ō-, -shē-, -ˈzər-\
Function:noun
Etymology:Late Latin, literally, reduction to the absurd
Date:1741
1 : disproof of a proposition by showing an absurdity to which it leads when carried to its logical conclusion
2 : the carrying of something to an absurd extreme


Jack, PA has way too few trout streams based on its history. We lose wild trout streams or they are diminished each and every year through development and commerial exploitation. They are to be treaured and protected for us today, and for all future generations.....IMHO. Your post has reacatido MY absurdeum...I need a Tums!

 

[JackM]

I only have two things to say to my detractors:

1. You are spoiled; and
2. You disregard the recreational interests of everyone who doesn't share your brand of recreation.

OK, three, though it is more of the same:

You probably make a big stink about kayakers/rafters on the streams you fish as well.

 

[Maurice]

JackM wrote:
I only have two things to say to my detractors:

1. You are spoiled; and
2. You disregard the recreational interests of everyone who doesn't share your brand of recreation.

OK, three, though it is more of the same:

You probably make a big stink about kayakers/rafters on the streams you fish as well.

I don't , but I wish they would become vested. I also don't resent folks who harvest trout legally and also do not resent people who fish bait where allowed. However, anyone of those who exploit the resource without respect for it by disobeying laws or discounting its value will cause me to arise and speak my mind. Especially if they have no clue as to the effort it took or takes to allow them to enjoy themselves through no effort of their own.

Perhaps next time you should share your ice unselfishly to whomever should like to enjoy it. Even those who wish to use it for boiled water.

 

[afishinado]

JackM wrote:
I only have two things to say to my detractors:

1. You are spoiled; and
2. You disregard the recreational interests of everyone who doesn't share your brand of recreation.

OK, three, though it is more of the same:

You probably make a big stink about kayakers/rafters on the streams you fish as well.

Number 1 is a matter of opinion, but reductio ad absurdum to #2. Since theme parks and amusement parks are much more popular than plain old State or Federal Parks for recreation, why not pave over them, set up the roller coasters, and put water slides on the rivers! That makes as much sense as your point #2.

The point is whether you fish cold-water, warmwater, in lakes or streams, hunt, hike, bike, bird watch, kayak, whatever, we should all strive to preserve what we have in the most natural state possible. Mother nature gave it to us, and its our job to try to preserve and protect it.

 

[JackM]

90% of the thousands of quality wild trout stream miles Pennsylvania has need no help from anyone other than to be respected. Poe Valley Lake isn't a new proposal to dam waters that have been free-flowing for years. It has been around a long time and while it certainly has some impact on lower Penns, it does not and has not had a significant enough impact to ruin the wild trout fishing downstream. On the other hand, it has provided untold hours of recreation for uncountable numbers of locals and tourists who are warm-water anglers, boaters and swimmers.

The thousands of fly anglers tromping about on Penns Creek these past few days and the few more to come probably do as much damage to the watershed and it's surroundings as the lake ever did. If not, then certainly it has when we add in the other 200 days a year it is assaulted by wading anglers. Have you stopped to consider the impact your 98.6 degree body temperature has while standing thigh deep for hours on end?

 

[JackM]

afishinado wrote:

The point is whether you fish cold-water, warmwater, in lakes or streams, hunt, hike, bike, bird watch, kayak, whatever, we should all strive to preserve what we have in the most natural state possible. Mother nature gave it to us, and its our job to try to preserve and protect it.

We alter our environment in many ways to make it more useful and pleasurable. Poe Valley Lake and all other man-made impoundments are just examples of the same. It seems to me that in deciding whether the dam should be rebuilt, the only interest you take into consideration is your own recreational interest, regardless of whether those interests are adequately served with other available resources. In that, I believe you are disregarding the interests of a lot of other people.

Sure, it makes your position sound more reasonable to claim that the waterway is naturally open and free-flowing-- in fact, that's very convenient to your position. But, it doesn't do anything for all the other citizens that enjoy the benefits of a man-made impoundment.

*PS- A quick check confirms that the dam has been in existence since 1937

 

[jayL]

I do feel that the recreation benefits of such an impoundment will not get adequate representation on this site. I didn't really expect it to.

I do think that the majority probably prefers to have the lake. If the funding for the park were to be available, this would have to be considered.

Am I for more cold water fisheries? Yes. I don't think it's in our (FFermen) best interest to move forward with a blind eye to the needs/wants of the populous. Many trout fishermen are guilty of just that.

Ask any bass fisherman what he thinks. It's arguably the most popular brand of fishing, so his opinion should be taken under consideration.

 

[troutbert]

jayL wrote:
I do feel that the recreation benefits of such an impoundment will not get adequate representation on this site. I didn't really expect it to.

I do think that the majority probably prefers to have the lake. If the funding for the park were to be available, this would have to be considered.

Am I for more cold water fisheries? Yes. I don't think it's in our (FFermen) best interest to move forward with a blind eye to the needs/wants of the populous. Many trout fishermen are guilty of just that.

If you think stream conservationists should feel guilty, then you should feel very guilty every time you fish Spring Creek. That stream would be a polluted sucker stream if it had not been for stream conservationists.

 

[jayL]

troutbert wrote:

jayL wrote:
I do feel that the recreation benefits of such an impoundment will not get adequate representation on this site. I didn't really expect it to.

I do think that the majority probably prefers to have the lake. If the funding for the park were to be available, this would have to be considered.

Am I for more cold water fisheries? Yes. I don't think it's in our (FFermen) best interest to move forward with a blind eye to the needs/wants of the populous. Many trout fishermen are guilty of just that.

If you think stream conservationists should feel guilty, then you should feel very guilty every time you fish Spring Creek. That stream would be a polluted sucker stream if it had not been for stream conservationists.

I do not appreciate your putting words in my mouth. Incorrect ones, at that.

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:
90% of the thousands of quality wild trout stream miles Pennsylvania has need no help from anyone other than to be respected.

Maybe you could explain that statement.

 

[JackM]

troutbert wrote:

JackM wrote:
90% of the thousands of quality wild trout stream miles Pennsylvania has need no help from anyone other than to be respected.

Maybe you could explain that statement.

Sure, if you are having trouble understanding. It was a response to this:

"Bottom line is you have nothing invested in wild trout except the gas to get there so it is not surprising how you feel about the resource you exploit with no return. "

As if trying to prevent other citizens from having recreational resources they can enjoy is a prerequisite to be "allowed" the privilege of enjoying streams and trout provided by Mother Nature.

 

[afishinado]

Jack wrote: “….the only interest you (Afish) take into consideration is your own recreational interest, regardless of whether those interests are adequately served with other available resources. In that, I believe you are disregarding the interests of a lot of other people.”

Not true at all Jack, my recreational interests by a large measure include warmwater fishing in the late spring through the entire summer and early fall. In recent weeks I have spent more time perusing panfish and catching an occasional bass in my kayak and wading ON A MAN-MADE LAKE IN A STATE PARK less than a 10 minute drive from my home. In addition, soon I will store my 4 and 5wt trout rods and break out my heavier bass outfits for the rest of the summer. I may occasionally trout fish during cooler weather this summer during the trike or iso hatch, but most of my recreational time will be spent warmwater fishing in lakes, rivers and streams.

The fact of the matter is that there are many warm water lakes, rivers and streams to fish here in SE PA, and very few coldwater fishing opportunities. The same could be said for where you live SW PA. And yes, Central PA is blessed with the most coldwater streams but a lot less than there used to be. I’ll stand by my belief that coldwater streams are a rare treasure in this State and should have the first priority for preservation.

Check out the map below. From an historical perspective, few coldwater streams are remaining and we should all do as much as we can to preserve them. While I realize that some of the brookie streams have been taken over by wild brown trout, you still get the idea that coldwater streams and certainly native brookie streams have declined drastically in PA and the entire NE.

Jack wrote: “If Pennsylvania had too few wild trout streams, then your reductio ad absurdum argument might have some force.”

Right back atchya……You’re contention that PA or specifically Central PA has too many or at least an over abundance of coldwater fishing is a reductio ad absurdum argument to me. You mentioned the hundreds of fly fishing anglers traipsing around the stream at Penns. The reason they are there is that many have drive several hours or more to Central PA just to find decent wild trout fishing. PA has an unbelievable amount of places to fish for warmwater species, and way too few coldwater streams, and that opinion comes from a bass, panfish, as well a trout afishinado.


Mo wrote: “Beware of the mole who tries to compromise your principles and YOUR values for the good of the masses. Otherwise the masses will always win.”

Mo wrote (to Jack): “Bottom line is you have nothing invested in wild trout except the gas to get there so it is not surprising how you feel about the resource you exploit with no return.”


Jack, I suggest you save a few dollars you spend on gas traveling around to find a wild trout stream and donate it to TU. Maybe you can help TU preserve and enhance a coldwater stream near your home and the gas savings would more than make up for your contribution. Good luck.

 

[jayL]

Good points afish. I still think that we need to consider the public stance on such issues before going to war on a debate such as the one surrounding the poe. I don't disagree that cold water resources may be the most important, but we've got to pick our battles. This may not be winnable.

That's the only point I was trying to make, troutbert. You make an absolute *** of yourself when you twist and contort statements around like that.

 

[pcray1231]

Afish,

While I agree with you that the wild trout opportunities are a fraction of what they were before white men settled the state, also keep in mind there are about 3000 wild trout streams in this state, and growing. Things are much, much better than they were, for instance, during the lumber boom.

While I too live in SE PA and enjoy traveling to Penns, its not like I can't find wild trout much, much closer to home. Penns is special because of its size, and you can group Penns, LJR, Spring, BFC, etc. into that mix. Wild trout streams OF THAT SIZE are indeed rare in this state. But wild trout streams, in general, are not rare at all. There's 50 in Berks County alone, 13 in Chester, 23 in Lancaster. Many people seem to travel to well-known places, like Penns, and ignore some really good fishing close to home. I've only lived here for 2 years, and I talk to other fishermen all the time. I'm amazed when I mention a not so secret stream and find these people had no idea it had fish in it.

I personally would like to see the dam on Big Poe go for good. But like Jay said, this is perhaps a battle we cannot win. Ignoring the majorities opinion, and taking away their recreation, in order to have a minor positive effect on our recreation is not good policy.

 

[JackM]

Unfortunately, even if I hit the Powerball for 100 Million and donated it all to TU, they would neither be interested, nor would it make much sense to spend it, in southwestern PA to improve a wild trout stream that would be capable of sustaining a recreational fishery like the Little J, Spring, Fishing or Penns Creeks (which are pretty much the only "wild" trout streams I waste gas traveling to.

I don't disagree with what you are saying about the value of coldwater streams. However, I disagree that there are too few coldwater streams in the Poe Valley and that there is no countervailing need for preserving the warmwater recreational value of Poe Lake. In addition, I stand by my original statement that many, too many, coldwater anglers disregard the recreational interests of the vast majority of citizens in order to advance their own coldwater interests.

I ignored Mo's attempts to imply that I owe something to someone for making use of these resources and I will ignore any implication in your replies as well. I treat all such waters with appropriate respect, get involved when I feel they are subject to real (not imagined or exagerated) threats, and do as much as possible to minimize my impact on them and their inhabitants when I do get an opportuinty to enjoy them.