The Assault Continues...

[foxtrapper1972]

"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."
--------------------------------------------------------------
I think you are correct judging by how fast the little Brook Trout were able to spit out my Adams, my San Juan and my mini wooly bugger today.
I was tempted to dig in the bank for a real worm to catch the tricky trout. I bet they would've sucked a real worm down.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I watch some fine examples of tight line bait fishing in Lititz today. While sitting in chairs one guy "thought" he had a fish so picked up his rod. Reeled it in a ripped the hook out fast by pulling on the line super hard and fast. Then tossed the small trout back and said "too small."
It was floating.

My favorite though we're the 3 guys fishing by the co-op nursery. One guy had his chair literally between 2 trees with posted signs and was tossing upstream with a bobber while facing 20 trees with similar signs. When I commented on you can't fish here they got very aggressive. I thought about pulling out my fly rod and letting them watch me fish the legal area. Maybe I could have converted them.

Just the type I want on special regulation wild trout waters around the state.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

JackM wrote:

"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?'"

FrankTroutAngler's Response:

JackM, if you grant me more than 70 words I will respectfully comply with your request.

 

[JackM]

FrankTroutAngler wrote:
JackM wrote:

"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?'"

FrankTroutAngler's Response:

JackM, if you grant me more than 70 words I will respectfully comply with your request.

Sorry, I can't do that.

 

[Zak]

Hahahaha...this thead has definitely entered the realm of ridiculous haha.

 

[pete41]

well--some have noted big kids chasing little pea brains is the above--so we are on Target..or should that be Tarjay ?

 

[pcray1231]

Sal,

To be fair, Frank is arguing to allow bait anglers, while not being a bait angler himself. He already has access to the vast majority of special reg sections in the state.

FFO's are a considerable minority of special reg waters. And personally, I don't really believe they are FFO for fishery management needs, but rather as a nod to the historical significance of such places to the FF culture. Like a living museum, rather than needing to be FFO for the nuts and bolts of having enough fish to support a fishery. Not that there's anything wrong with that, and I'm not suggesting it needs to be changed. It's just to say the purpose is different.

If, say, hypothetically (without suggesting we should actually do it), you switched the Letort from FFO to ALO C&R, I don't think the numbers of fish present would be drastically reduced. If you switched it to AT C&R, I'm not sure specifically in regards to the Letort, but I do think there are plenty of ALO stretches around the state that would not be harmed by such a change. And there are some that would, and should stay ALO.

Case by case basis on whether AT is acceptable, but in more cases than not, probably yes. But I don't think, based on fishery needs, that you can ever successfully argue that FFO gains the fishery anything over ALO. The rationale for FFO has to be some sort of historical context. The Letort certainly fits. As does the Paradise stretch of Spring Creek, and Breeches at Allenberry. Places where FF lore is so ingrained as to be inseparable.

As for Troutbert's example of the 1st Fork. I wholeheartedly agree with him on what the board's reaction would be. As for me personally, trying to speak from as non-selfish a point of view as possible.

1. If they changed the ALO C&R to AT C&R. I wouldn't really oppose it as I don't think it'd hurt me or the stream. But I wouldn't necessarily support it either because I don't think it'd help me or the stream. Just kind of indifferent. I guess mild support, in that I don't believe ALO is necessary and that regs should only be as restrictive as necessary.

2. Changed it to AT C&R and doubled the distance. Wholeheartedly support. Checks all boxes by allowing everyone while also improving the fishery.

3. Kept it as it is, but added a separate AT C&R section. Wholeheartedly support. That said, if given the choice I would probably lean towards #2.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

To be fair, Frank is arguing to allow bait anglers, while not being a bait angler himself. He already has access to the vast majority of special reg sections in the state. FFO's are a considerable minority of special reg waters. And personally, I don't really believe they are FFO for fishery management needs, but rather as a nod to the historical significance of such places to the FF culture. Like a living museum, rather than needing to be FFO for the nuts and bolts of having enough fish to support a fishery. Not that there's anything wrong with that, and I'm not suggesting it needs to be changed. It's just to say the purpose is differen

I got ya Pat. That is why I said he is excluded from 1% because FFO areas make up about that. I also agree that in all cases AFLO would be plenty for biological management.

If, say, hypothetically (without suggesting we should actually do it), you switched the Letort from FFO to ALO C&R, I don't think the numbers of fish present would be drastically reduced. If you switched it to AT C&R, I'm not sure specifically in regards to the Letort, but I do think there are plenty of ALO stretches around the state that would not be harmed by such a change. And there are some that would, and should stay ALO. Case by case basis on whether AT is acceptable, but in more cases than not, probably yes. But I don't think, based on fishery needs, that you can ever successfully argue that FFO gains the fishery anything over ALO. The rationale for FFO has to be some sort of historical context. The Letort certainly fits. As does the Paradise stretch of Spring Creek, and Breeches at Allenberry. Places where FF lore is so ingrained as to be inseparable.

And thank you for stating my point so perfectly. I'm not even suggesting that tight line bait fishing couldn't be done on the Letort with minimal damage. Still, that study DOES NOT account for actual fishing situations. So bait should not be considered for C&R Areas, it's just not work the risk. I am all for extending new mileage for all tackle catch and release on big wild trout rivers. Perfect do it! We all want it!!! I'm fine with more DH areas. I'm fine with making a few BO bait only sections.I'm fine with making the lower Letort C&R All tackle.
But for the love of God, to remove FF only regs from the CV would be, I'm sorry to say, retarded. There is so much FF history and PA was center stage. It's very cool and we get to fish that living museum here in PA as residents.

I guess that's something some people can't accept.
Not Frank even but these open special regs to bait yahoos.

 

[salmonoid]

I'd agree with keeping some FFO sections as a nod to history, but unless there is a historical aspect (ala FFP on Spring Creek, the Letort, etc.), all other FFO are a result of FF lobbying and could just as easily be (or should be?) ALO.

The challenge is that any change, regardless if it is founded, based in science, or even if it is in response to political pressure (which is also a reality), is met by the FF community with a visceral response. Extreme hypothetical situations get trumped up as reality and we devolve into these shouting matches, lobbing darts at the "other" anglers who choose to fish via different but perfectly legal and effective methods. And some people get a rise out of others taking the bait for their arguments (see how I mixed two camps there???). Anglers as a whole seem to be pretty myopic to their own style of angling and have a hard time being empathetic to those that choose to angle with a different method.

I started out FFing in the first place so that I could gain access to a couple of streams in my county that got fish earlier in their FFO (non-heritage) sections. Prior to that, I fished primarily minnows, salmon eggs and spinners, and as a kid, it was the whole gamut of bait (worms, Powerbait, meal worms, eggs, corn, etc.). I don't identify myself with any one group of anglers - I am a trout angler first and foremost. I will adapt my fishing method to one of two things: a) what I feel like fishing on a given day, or b) what method has proven to be most effective in the past, given the current conditions.

Using any available methodology, there is not a single inch of water that is open to the angling public that I can't fish in PA. And by the grace of landowners, there is a lot of private water that is open too. And if a landowner permits fishing via a certain methodology only, I've got that covered too and can adapt.

We talk about conservation and C&R and conservation ethics, and put a lot of time into arguing about them. Some of it is because I think some folks just like to argue and some of it is because of the emotional attachment to a particular type of angling. Hopefully we put a fraction of that time and energy and money into actually doing something about conservation.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

Let me play devil's advocate for a moment since I'm a little bored at the moment.

Let's use the 1.2 mile FFO section of Fly Fishermens Paradise on Spring Creek in Centre County as an example since it is owned by the PFBC, which should eliminate some tangents to any answers to my question.

Here's what I'd like to know:

How does giving spinner fishermen access there take away from the historical signifcance of the place? Seems to me a fly angler could still fish there, just like before. What exactly has changed? Heck, many days there probably wouldn't even be a spinner fisherman there. Do you pull into the parking lot at noon and say to yourself, "Dang, there's a spinner fisherman. I guess fishing here won't have any historical significance for me today. I'll have to find somewhere else to fish?"

 

[salmonoid]

FrankTroutAngler wrote:
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment since I'm a little bored at the moment.

Let's use the 1.2 mile FFO section of Fly Fishermens Paradise on Spring Creek in Centre County as an example since it is owned by the PFBC, which should eliminate some tangents to any answers to my question.

Here's what I'd like to know:

How does giving spinner fishermen access there take away from the historical signifcance of the place? Seems to me a fly angler could still fish there, just like before. What exactly has changed? Heck, many days there probably wouldn't even be a spinner fisherman there. Do you pull into the parking lot at noon and say to yourself, "Dang, there's a spinner fisherman. I guess fishing here today won't have any historical significance for me today? I'll have to find somewhere else to fish."

Because there is only one "first" FFO C&R section of stream in the United States and it happens to be right here in PA. And preserving that single stretch of stream for FFers sake is worthwhile (and I am speaking as a trout angler, not a flyfisherperson). It is a stretch of stream that has some historical value, which is why it has been preserved as FFO. It is the same reason that certain items that have historical, cultural, or natural significance are preserved. Why are wilderness areas closed to new development and motorized vehicles? Why shouldn't all historical buildings and battlefields be torn down and developed over?

The preservation of anything excludes some group from using that anything for whatever their end game might be.

How does not giving spinning or baitfishing anglers access to that stretch take away from the significance of angling in the entire rest of the state for those groups? Does this whole argument come down to a jealousy of what a particular camp does not have, instead of everything they already do have? And while we're debating it, someone sneaks in and takes access away and then NO group can fish it. Or a corporation buys and degrades the headwaters and a stream with a once vibrant wild trout ecosystem dies a slow death. And then you can go toss bait, spinners, or flies and you'll end up with the same non-opportunity to catch a trout..

Have I ever wondered what it would be like to run a spinner through FFP? Absolutely. Has it ever bothered me that I can't? No, because there are 24.0 other miles of Spring Creek I could fish with a spinner if I wanted to.

Just for the record, I'm ok with the fact that there is a small stretch where wading is not permitted too

 

[franklin]

FrankTroutAngler wrote:
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment since I'm a little bored at the moment.

Let's use the 1.2 mile FFO section of Fly Fishermens Paradise on Spring Creek in Centre County as an example since it is owned by the PFBC, which should eliminate some tangents to any answers to my question.

Here's what I'd like to know:

How does giving spinner fishermen access there take away from the historical signifcance of the place? Seems to me a fly angler could still fish there, just like before. What exactly has changed? Heck, many days there probably wouldn't even be a spinner fisherman there. Do you pull into the parking lot at noon and say to yourself, "Dang, there's a spinner fisherman. I guess fishing here won't have any historical significance for me today. I'll have to find somewhere else to fish?"

I'd be less likely to go there in the first place and if I did I'd be thinking that it's a shame they don't recognize the history of this place.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

"I started out FFing in the first place so that I could gain access to a couple of streams in my county that got fish earlier in their FFO (non-heritage) sections."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Me too. Would guess many bait/spin fishermen were drawn to flyfishing for this reason. I can't see any reason to make a fuss about a few measly miles in the whole state set aside for fly fishing only. Especially those few sections set aside because of historical significance in the sport. There is something special that our state should be proud of and celebrate and honor the flyfishing pioneers. Perhaps a Frank the Troutfisherman Spinners Only Section could also be added to appease you Frank. Just kidding. Enjoying the discussion.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

SCO - Spinner Chuckin Only

 

[krayfish2]

How about the 1.2 mile section of Fisherman's Paradise be made into a all tackle section and the remainder of the stream be made fly fishing only?

I took my golf clubs to the local park today and began hitting my driver in the tennis court area. Next thing you know, these entitled 1% tennis honks come over and start yelling. They can hit a tennis ball anywhere. Why should I be excluded from using that piece of land? It's public property. Then I remembered that thing they call rules. Rules were put in place to allow the filthy tennis folk to enjoy their sport with other filthy tennis folk. Guess it makes sense that there's a place for those dirtbags to go. Hell, I guess I'll have to use one of those golf course places to practice and they are everywhere.

Nobody is excluding bait guys from using the fly areas....just go buy the required gear. A starter outfit can be had for $50 or less. Put the butter worms back in the fridge and fly fish. It's not that difficult.

 

[Swattie87]

kray - Let me preface this with saying I'm being 100% serious with this post...all Tacoma, no Mini on this one. ^That was the best line of reasoning through an example I've ever seen laid out on this debate. Agree 100%.

I'm a spinner fisherman (FTA style, but nowhere near as proficient) that tried, and enjoyed FFing too. Sometimes, conditions wise, one method is clearly more effective than the other and it's nice to be able to have the skill set to fish both. I do legitimately still enjoy chasing freestone wild Browns with an UL spin rod and an inline spinner the morning after a Summer Tstorm a few times each year. I simply don't do it on FFO areas...if I wanna fish there I take the fly rod. As you said, no one's being excluded from FFO's. They don't say you can't fish there if you own spin rods and aren't a FFing purist, you just have to use fly gear there. If you want to experience that stretch of water, fish it with fly gear like the rest of us. If not, fish somewhere else with your spin gear. Who cares.

They don't say you can't use the tennis courts if you enjoy golf and own golf equipment too...you just gotta use tennis gear there.

 

[Swattie87]

This post in turn should not be taken seriously, at all...

But this thread gets my vote for Thread of the Year 2016 so far. It had it all...what more could you ask for...

FTA Hijinx.
Sal(velinusfontinalis) taking his tippet and going home.
Sal(monoid) being the philosophical voice of reason.
pcray well, pcrayin'.
kray biding his time then dropping a whopper of a post.
Me mentioning my Mini. (That doesn't exist.)

All we left out is someone throwing a chub at Squatch, and Becker's cat eating a Gemmie.

Doesn't get better than this folks.

 

[Cold]

How does not giving spinning or baitfishing anglers access to that stretch take away from the significance of angling in the entire rest of the state for those groups?

If that's the rationale, then for every mile of water designated FFO, there should be an equal length of similar quality waterway nearby designated as open to fishing for everyone except fly fishermen.

All of the same arguments would apply with just as much validity.

 

[pete41]

So the bottom line [the pits] is
Why should elites be allowed to control sections of public water ?
good question---
sad but it is discrimination ....doesn't seem fair but those master baiters and spinner know[think] there are more fish in the weenie's sections.
On heavily fished waters the three styles don't really compliment each other but it's democracy in action.
bah,humbug.

 

[RyanR]

Wow, I can't believe this thing is still drumming on.

Pcray, in one fashion or another pretty much all that you wrote below is about conservation of one sort or another. I guess I should have dropped the word ethic because when I said "conservation ethic" I wasn't intending to limit it to only mean "promote the idea of conservation"among anglers. I'm aware of why some of these various regulations were enacted (such as pollution) but they're still about some form of conservation although the reasons may differ. Semantics aside, we're basically on the same page I think.

pcray1231 wrote:

I do think it's a good idea to have some sort of hook regulation (either barbless or circle) for baitfishing in special reg areas because I think that is in keeping with not only the conservation ethic that special reg areas were enacted for but also with the Commission's "Resource First" supposed direction.

I never perceived "conservation ethic" as the reason for special regulation areas. In some cases, it iss based on perceived need to "conserve the resource", i.e. provide more angling opportunities over a greater period of time, but not to "promote the idea of conservation" among anglers.

In the case of DHALO, these are mostly heavily pressured stocked streams that stay relatively cool late into the spring. With the regs, you then reduce over harvest and incidental mortality, allowing you to sustain a fishery beyond the first few weeks of the season and provide opportunities later in the spring.

For wild trout streams, C&R regs or ALO are for highly pressured areas, to help prevent angler impact from causing undue harm to the fishery. Again, for conservation, but not specifically to "spread the conservation ethic".

In some cases, like the Letort and the Paradise section of Spring Creek, Breeches at Allenberry, etc. FFO was intended not due to a need for it, but as a historical nod to the importance of these places to the FF community.

And for some, like Spring Creek, Valley Creek, and the LJR, the all-tackle C&R regs originated not because there was a perceived management need to reduce mortality, but rather to protect human health interests. The streams were polluted and eating fish from there could be dangerous to your health. They stopped stocking them for the same reason, why have a put and take fishery if you can't take without poisoning yourself? And ironically, the ending of stocking and the implementation of all-tackle C&R regs resulted in all 3 becoming massively successful as wild trout fisheries, and they are kind of the examples we use to pressure the PFBC into ending stocking or implementing special regs on other streams.