The Assault Continues...

I live nearly on Spring Creek and drive along it everyday. I honestly don't know about the Benner Springs sections, but from the Paradise down I find it hard to believe that anywhere near 38% of the anglers are fishing bait. The vast majority of the bait fishing pressure I see is either preseason or in the heat of the summer.

Pcray, I know of the old gentleman you are talking about. He's a fixture on the stream. I've always wanted to stop by and talk to him and find out what his story is.
 
The Sasquatch wrote:

"Did someone actually try to argue FOR all tackle on the heritage sections of the CV streams? Come on."


salvelinusfontinalis replied:

"Yes, because we can't have any water at all.
In total special reg areas make up less than 2% of all total water in pa and fly only areas make up less than 1%. Yet lets cave to the entitlement anglers the PFBC has so willing caved in for before so many times. I'm sorry Frank but but some places SHOULD remain C&R FFO. CV is one of them. Heaven forbid we allow a fraction of a fraction of a percent of fly areas to celebrate heritage. Modern day American Fly-Fishing boomed because of CV. I'm all for more C&R all tackle streams but seriously...."

FrankTroutAngler's response:

I never argued for all-tackle regulations on the heritage sections of the CV streams.

In post #48 I was responding to troutbert's post #47 where he said that there was no gain "If the proposal is simply to add a new user group to already over-crowded, limited mileage special regs areas, then there is no incentive for current users of these regs areas to support it."

I used the Heritage section of the Letort in an extreme hypothetical example to make the point that if FFO areas were to be opened to bait fishing that the gain could well be the conversion of a bait angler to fly fishing -- someone who might become a steward of wild trout and the streams they inhabit.

On a side note unrelated to what I wrote above, I think you are confused as to exactly who are the entitlement anglers. You imply that bait anglers are the entitlement anglers when you wrote, "Yet lets cave to the entitlement anglers the PFBC has so willing caved in for before so many times" and then you go on to basically say that fly anglers are entitled to have the FFO areas in the CV because modern-day fly fishing boomed because of the CV. That makes a lot of sense.
 
If the PFBC proposed managing Kish Creek and lower Bald Eagle Creek and Fishing Creek in the Salona/Mill Hall area in the same way as Spring Creek, many flyfishers (and some artificial lure users) would support it.

Because this would offer us some benefit. Large increases in the trout populations in those stream stretches.

If the PFBC proposed changing the C&R area on Penns Creek to all tackle, current users would oppose it, because it offers them no benefit.

Only the negative of increased crowding by adding another user group. So of course they would oppose it.

If you offer any group of people a proposal that offers them no benefits, only negatives, they are extremely unlikely to support it.
 
Here's another example:

First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek has a 2.1 mile long, delayed harvest, artificial lures only special regulation area.

This section is very busy during the main spring fishing season. It's common to see 10 or more people in one pool. While at the same time you can drive along miles of the First Fork and see hardly anyone fishing.

The reason that it's busy is because the trout are being released, so there are a lot of trout there, even after most of the trout have been removed from the rest of the creek.

So suppose the PFBC would like to see bait anglers experience this type of fishing. They could make several different proposals:

1) Propose to simply change the regs to all tackle, with no other changes.

2) Propose changing the regs to all tackle, AND double the length of the regs area, to accomodate the new angler group, and to relieve crowding.

3) Leave the current regs area as is, and create a NEW DH regs area on the First Fork that is DH All Tackle.

If they propose #1, the current users will oppose it. That's obvious, or should be. Because it offers them no benefits, only the negative of increasing the crowding on an already crowded stretch.

But proposals #2 and #3 would be more likely to draw support from the current users of the DH area. Because it offers them some benefit.

 
troutbert wrote:
Here's another example:

First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek has a 2.1 mile long, delayed harvest, artificial lures only special regulation area.

This section is very busy during the main spring fishing season. It's common to see 10 or more people in one pool. While at the same time you can drive along miles of the First Fork and see hardly anyone fishing.

The reason that it's busy is because the trout are being released, so there are a lot of trout there, even after most of the trout have been removed from the rest of the creek.

So suppose the PFBC would like to see bait anglers experience this type of fishing. They could make several different proposals:

1) Propose to simply change the regs to all tackle, with no other changes.

2) Propose changing the regs to all tackle, AND double the length of the regs area, to accomodate the new angler group, and to relieve crowding.

3) Leave the current regs area as is, and create a NEW DH regs area on the First Fork that is DH All Tackle.

If they propose #1, the current users will oppose it. That's obvious, or should be. Because it offers them no benefits, only the negative of increasing the crowding on an already crowded stretch.

But proposals #2 and #3 would be more likely to draw support from the current users of the DH area. Because it offers them some benefit.
Click to expand...

I generally agree with your premise but let me ask this; is there an advocacy group for C&R with non-fly tackle?

It seems to me there are primarily two advocacy groups.
The fly fishing organizations which tend to promote C&R and non-stocking over wild trout.
And the sportsmen's clubs which tend to promote stocking and all tackle equipment.
 
incorrect frank.

First off anytime you have to use an "extreme hypothetical" example, you can pretty much toss out any point being made as BS.
Secondly, yes the general bait angling public DEMANDS stocking, harvest etcetc... If they don't get it they threaten to pull their user ship and threaten the PFBC with political representatives. I'm simpily stating that pulling fly regs on the Letort would be a travesty. I never said we were entitled to it.

Why not build a mall where Stonehenge sits too and tell me who is the entitled group here...



 
And there are these gents.
http://www.tap-pa.org/aboutus.htm
 
I would bet 10 years income that if you open up those streams in the CV to all-tackle, they'd no longer be the destination streams they are now...
 
Salvelinusfontinalis wrote:

"incorrect frank.

First off anytime you have to use an "extreme hypothetical" example, you can pretty much toss out any point being made as BS.
Secondly, yes the general bait angling public DEMANDS stocking, harvest etcetc... If they don't get it they threaten to pull their user ship and threaten the PFBC with political representatives. I'm simpily stating that pulling fly regs on the Letort would be a travesty. I never said we were entitled to it.

Why not build a mall where Stonehenge sits too and tell me who is the entitled group here..."

FrankTroutAngler's response:

I actually think my hypothetical example was quite good. There's no doubt in my mind that if FFO areas were opened to bait fishing that some bait anglers would convert to fly fishing. Some would likely become stewards of wild trout and the streams they inhabit. Of course, given the dynamics of a fly fishing website, I never expected you or any fly fishermen to agree with me. I made my point.

As far as the entitlement issue, I apologize. I guess I just didn't understand your logic. Now I do. Your logic is that you don't believe fly fishermen are entitled to the FFO areas in the LV, but you believe they deserve to have those FFO areas all to themselves.
 
Now you are just being ridiculous Frank. You hardly made a point with your example. I would think after all the years of poaching FFO areas that some of those poachers would have converted to FF. I mean access to the stream is all it takes by your logic Amirite?

I don't believe FF are entitled to FFO areas in CV , LV or any valley for that matter. Again I never said those things but you sure are trying to force those words in my mouth. I do believe however that people like yourself are so busy trying to gain access to special reg waters that you have little forethought into history and heritage, nor do you likely care. Has the thought ever occurred to you that opening up a FFO area, like the Letort, to bait angling might close down the water entirely?

What I find particularly funny is I agree with you on a large part of this but you have always had a bit of angst against fly-fisherman so I'm not suprised at all by your blind ignorance to this fact. I'm sorry but given the amount of scientific data, angler wants ( yes PFBC data shows more anglers want special reg areas and 90+ percent practice catch and release) and basic common sense all go against what you want and your study. Sucks to be in your position I guess, but you can chuck your spinner in 99 percent of the states waterways. I fail to see why this is such an issue. Do you feel entitled to 100% maybe?

Yes a lot more C&R all tackle needs opened up. I think the Lackawanna River would be a good candidate for this. Along with a slew of other streams.
 
I would like to see the fish commission consider the following as a way to address this situation.

1. No closed season, you can fish year round.
2. Trout are stocked in the fall, winter, and early spring in ATW.
3. The season for killing fish on Approved trout waters begins on Memorial Day weekend and ends on Labor day weekend.

This would allow a long period of C&R all tackle fishing in a large number of streams. In addition, the stocked fish would have time to acclimate, spread out, and adopt at least some degree of wild behavior. All of this significantly increasing the recreational trout fishing opportunities for everyone: bait, hardware, and flies. ATW's would still open for harvest when the waters become marginal in the summer and anglers wishing to take fish would be able to do so then. It also gets rid of the silly closed season when you can't make good use of the approved trout waters.
 
salvelinusfontinalis wrote:

"Now you are just being ridiculous Frank. You hardly made a point with your example. I would think after all the years of poaching FFO areas that some of those poachers would have converted to FF. I mean access to the stream is all it takes by your logic Amirite?

I don't believe FF are entitled to FFO areas in CV , LV or any valley for that matter. Again I never said those things but you sure are trying to force those words in my mouth. I do believe however that people like yourself are so busy trying to gain access to special reg waters that you have little forethought into history and heritage, nor do you likely care. Has the thought ever occurred to you that opening up a FFO area, like the Letort, to bait angling might close down the water entirely?

What I find particularly funny is I agree with you on a large part of this but you have always had a bit of angst against fly-fisherman so I'm not suprised at all by your blind ignorance to this fact. I'm sorry but given the amount of scientific data, angler wants ( yes PFBC data shows more anglers want special reg areas and 90+ percent practice catch and release) and basic common sense all go against what you want and your study. Sucks to be in your position I guess, but you can chuck your spinner in 99 percent of the states waterways. I fail to see why this is such an issue. Do you feel entitled to 100% maybe?

Yes a lot more C&R all tackle needs opened up. I think the Lackawanna River would be a good candidate for this. Along with a slew of other streams."

FrankTroutAngler's response:

I can understand why you would think I didn't make my point with my hypothetical example if you think my logic is that access to the stream is all it takes to convert a bait fisherman to fly fishing. Go back and read my example. Try to comprehend it. You'll see that in addition to having access, which brought the bait angler to the watercress-lined stream, the bait angler also watched the fly fisherman gracefully cast a fly rod and catch multiple wild trout. He also had a conversation with the knowledgeable fly angler, a conversation apparently thorough enough that the bait angler even knew the proper fly fishing equipment to order the next day.

As far as the entitlement issue, I already made my point there, too. Restating that you never said those things doesn't change the fact that you said them. As I said above, I understand your logic.

One could argue that bait fishing has more history and heritage than fly fishing in Pennsylvania.

For the record, I had nothing to do with the hooking mortality study mentioned at the beginning of this topic. I've never fished in the Bald Eagle Creek Trout Tournament. It's done for a good cause though and I think it is a good annual event. It draws in some competitive fly fishermen, too.

I never argued in favor of opening up the heritage section of the Letort to bait angling. I just used that particular stream in my hypothetical example to make my point. I could easily just as well have used a DHALO stream section.

I certainly don't think that it sucks to be in my position, you know, "chucking" spinners as you call it. I have nearly unlimited streams to fish and I'm able to fool trout on terminal tackle that doesn't even imitate anything a trout ever sees naturally.
 
Special regs areas are kind of like ghettos.

You people who like to RELEASE trout can cram into your own little place over here to do your "special" thing, 1.47 miles long...

:-o

 
I stop reading your reply after the entitlement issue.
You example happens on approved trout waters all the time. Glad we don't need to open up FFO areas to bait just for inter tackle relationships and conversation.

Obviously someone needs to go back and re read.
Happy trolling
 
I just wanted to add that troutbert has a very firm grasp on what and why people would reject or accept certain regulations.
Obviously only One segment of anglers in the state want bait is special reg areas, the rest spin and fly do not.

Gonna be a hard sell, especially when it's been proposed and discussed in this fashion. Thank god for small favors.
 
salvelinusfontinalis wrote:

"I stop reading your reply after the entitlement issue.
You example happens on approved trout waters all the time. Glad we don't need to open up FFO areas to bait just for inter tackle relationships and conversation.

Obviously someone needs to go back and re read.
Happy trolling"

FrankTroutAngler's response:

My guess is that you actually read my entire response and that you're just saying that you didn't because you have no valid response.

And when your only defense is to accuse me of trolling then I can be sure I was correct.
 
Frank,

This is why I'm done talking with you on this. You can't take what I say as truthful or face value. I didn't read your response because the words, a series or combination of words, or any of the like said that we are entitled to FFO areas. All I'm hearing from you and others that oppose AFLO regulations is that it excludes a portion of the angling community. Sounds like more entitlement, I need to fish there because we took all the fish here garbage. Really amusing you take so much offense to the entitlement part.... True perhaps?

If you bothered to address my concerns of opening up special regs to bait and posting the posting to follow then we might have a conversation. As it stands now all we have is you said this and I said that....

On that note, assume you were right I guess since that's all that seams important to you.
Just remember what they say about assuming.
 
Frank, we have butted heads in the past and I am not interested in renewing that situation, but, in 70 words or less, what is wrong about the very small set-asides for FFO or "DHALOs?"
 
Fish a san juan worm or an actual squirming red-worm? I am 99% certain you will critically injure that trout more often with the real squiggly worm. Just musing.
 
FrankTroutAngler wrote:
salvelinusfontinalis wrote:

"I stop reading your reply after the entitlement issue.
You example happens on approved trout waters all the time. Glad we don't need to open up FFO areas to bait just for inter tackle relationships and conversation.

Obviously someone needs to go back and re read.
Happy trolling"

FrankTroutAngler's response:

My guess is that you actually read my entire response and that you're just saying that you didn't because you have no valid response.

And when your only defense is to accuse me of trolling then I can be sure I was correct.
Click to expand...
as long as you're trolling with flies and not bait or spinning lures--no harm,no foul.
 
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