Voice your support to add streams to Class A designation

[JackM]

I don't see the point. Why should a select few have access to this information and not everyone? -- especially if there are tax payer dollars going into the effort.

 

[Brianh]

Does anyone have a link to the protections for a class A creek?
I just noticed that the headwaters of one of the class A's listed runs through my property and I'd like to know the rules.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Jack for example a small headwater stream may be critical for spawning success and few trout were sampled larger than 4-5 inches but due to the large numbers present the stream still meets the class A requirements. A development company may target that listing due to there not being a fishable population in that stream and therefore the regulations for an EV watershed shouldn't apply.

 

[FishTales]

Try this Brianh

http://www.fishandboat.com/Zone1/Documents/straightTalkDocs/2017-0304ma-straight.pdf

 

[Brianh]

Thanks
Now I need to look further to understand exactly what "degrading a stream" entails.

 

[JackM]

lycoflyfisher wrote:
Jack for example a small headwater stream may be critical for spawning success and few trout were sampled larger than 4-5 inches but due to the large numbers present the stream still meets the class A requirements. A development company may target that listing due to there not being a fishable population in that stream and therefore the regulations for an EV watershed shouldn't apply.

I am confused. If it is class A, it qualifies for protection. If not, are you concerned that the development interest would become interested as a result?

 

[Mike]

Class A streams receive protection under the PaDEP Chapter 93 Water Quality Standards under the designation HQ CWF...high quality coldwater fishes. Adjacent wetlands, however are designated EV, Exceptional Value, just as they are along all wild trout streams that have been identified and designated by the PFBC. A Class A stream can only also be an EV stream if PaDEP designates it as such, usually due to a high diversity of pollution sensitive macro-invertebrates that compare well with those of a similar EV reference stream. EV is a step higher than HQ with respect to the associated water quality protections provided for EV in comparison to HQ streams.

If such things interest you, then I recommend that you check Chapter 93 to see how all of your local streams and those of other interest are classified. It is a long list, covering all of Pa, including the rivers.

 

[DriftingDunn]

JackM wrote:
I don't see the point. Why should a select few have access to this information and not everyone? -- especially if there are tax payer dollars going into the effort.

The PFBC is not funded by taxpayer dollars.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Jack, I'm saying a developer or gas company may be more likely to challenge the EV status of a class A stream if they can easily find that a stream survey didn't produce a fish over 5 in. This could potentially lead to less protection of our headwater streams that are critical for spawning success of our wild trout.

 

[JackM]

Change tax payers to fee payers and you get the same result. 4 plus 4 is always 8.

 

[JackM]

lycoflyfisher wrote:
Jack, I'm saying a developer or gas company may be more likely to challenge the EV status of a class A stream if they can easily find that a stream survey didn't produce a fish over 5 in. This could potentially lead to less protection of our headwater streams that are critical for spawning success of our wild trout.

But some how, some way we paid for the study and we should be able to see the results.

 

[Maurice]

DriftingDunn wrote:

JackM wrote:
I don't see the point. Why should a select few have access to this information and not everyone? -- especially if there are tax payer dollars going into the effort.

The PFBC is not funded by taxpayer dollars.

No but it is funded by anglers license sales through a license (tax) and the stakeholders (taxpayers) are entitled to the information gained through their expenses (surveys). And to a large extent they do provide this data but not in the way Jack would like it. Perhaps he would like to see a list of streams just like those in the Trout Stocked waters by county and subsequent links to the class, protection and biomass from surveys? I dunno.

Afterall, the stocking lists only share species of trout not actual lbs or numbers.

The information is there to find, it just isn't easy.

For those interested in the protection process of wild trout streams, Mikes description above is succinct. As well Afishinados description above of the change in class A stocking policy opened up the floodgates toward increased surveying and protection while allowing the freedom of the agency to still stock some sections to maintain license sales and revenue.

 

[afishinado]

DriftingDunn wrote:

JackM wrote:
I don't see the point. Why should a select few have access to this information and not everyone? -- especially if there are tax payer dollars going into the effort.

The PFBC is not funded by taxpayer dollars.

I believe the US F&W as well as the PA DEP fund the surveys with tax dollars.

Here is info on the USFW grants to survey streams:

http://www.nfwf.org/unassessed/Pages/2017rfp.aspx

Anyway, the taxpayers get the benefit of identifying and conserving clean water, that's what they paid for...

All the info is out there for everyone to see.


Jack,
Who/where are these "select few?" Who/when/where/why were you or anyone denied access to this info? Was your phone bugged, too?! :roll:

 

[troutbert]

afishinado wrote:

All the info is out there for everyone to see.

It is?

Where can everyone see all this info?

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:

afishinado wrote:

All the info is out there for everyone to see.

It is?

Where can everyone see all this info?

The unabridged publication of the thousands of stream surveys is not available on the PFBC site, but you can make a request to have that done here.

Unless and until the info is available online, you are welcome to read it here.

 

[DriftingDunn]

Maurice wrote:

DriftingDunn wrote:

JackM wrote:
I don't see the point. Why should a select few have access to this information and not everyone? -- especially if there are tax payer dollars going into the effort.

The PFBC is not funded by taxpayer dollars.

No but it is funded by anglers license sales through a license (tax) and the stakeholders (taxpayers) are entitled to the information gained through their expenses (surveys). And to a large extent they do provide this data but not in the way Jack would like it. Perhaps he would like to see a list of streams just like those in the Trout Stocked waters by county and subsequent links to the class, protection and biomass from surveys? I dunno.

Afterall, the stocking lists only share species of trout not actual lbs or numbers.

The information is there to find, it just isn't easy.

For those interested in the protection process of wild trout streams, Mikes description above is succinct. As well Afishinados description above of the change in class A stocking policy opened up the floodgates toward increased surveying and protection while allowing the freedom of the agency to still stock some sections to maintain license sales and revenue.

Maurice,

I agree with what you are saying, except the part about a fishing license being a tax and therefore those who buy a fishing license are taxpayers. That's a real stretch, I guess to defend your fellow moderator. If this were true, then it would logically follow that the admission price to get into a concert is a "tax." Who out there really believes the price of a concert ticket is a tax?

 

[JackM]

The right to fish in a stream is a commercial property? I Think not!

 

[afishinado]

"Tax" vs "User Fee"

DEFINITION of 'User Fee'
A sum of money paid by the individual who chooses to access a service or facility. Examples of user fees include highway tolls, parking charges and national park entry fees (feeshing licenses?!). With user fees, the individual directly pays for something he wants and receives what he has paid for. In contrast, taxes must be paid by force and do not necessarily go toward a specific service or facility that an individual actually uses or benefits from.

 

[shadspoon]

I wrote my letter.

 

[tomitrout]

Jack, I'm saying a developer or gas company may be more likely to challenge the EV status of a class A stream if they can easily find that a stream survey didn't produce a fish over 5 in. This could potentially lead to less protection of our headwater streams that are critical for spawning success of our wild trout.

Doesn't, or at least shouldn't, matter.

Class A status has nothing to do with the size of the trouts or whether they are harvestable. It's based upon biomass per area of stream for the sampled reach(es).

(200) 5"fish vs (75) 8" fish/stream surface area , if the kg/ha ratio is enough to qualify it, then it's Class A, period. It's basic math/science, as much as that is being disregarded nowadays...actual size of the trouts doesn't matter, as long as they're there en masse for the size of the surveyed stream.