Vote for The Tully
- Thread starter MD_Gene
- Start date
I will not take much stock in the results of this survey because the survey is incomplete. The choices leave out or closely combine some of the options. Clearly, one item that is missing that would appear in any survey is to maintain status quo (the no change selection). Additionally, the survey should break the selections down into their component parts. One selection should be to maintain status quo except that the harvest date should be moved ahead to June 1 or Memorial Day. Furthermore, there is no explanation of the bait fishing aspect of the proposal, which to my knowledge would allow children to bait fish during the C&R period. Some anglers might not oppose that if they were given the opportunity to take a child fishing in the DH Area. Others might oppose bait fishing for any reason, but the point is that the both selections should be included. A second component of the bait fishing proposal, again as I understand it, would be to allow adults and children to bait fish once the harvest period began. Finally, the proposal being discussed includes a reduction to a 2 fish creel limit. This is also missing from the survey.
As an FYI, PFBC fingerling stockings are not cheaper than PFBC adult stockings unless there is at least a 25% survival or residency rate of the fingerlings as they grow in the stream to an average size of a PFBC adult stocked trout.
As an FYI, PFBC fingerling stockings are not cheaper than PFBC adult stockings unless there is at least a 25% survival or residency rate of the fingerlings as they grow in the stream to an average size of a PFBC adult stocked trout.
^Thanks for the additional info, Mike.
Again, not to beat a dead trout, but one would think since less and less fish are able to be raised and stocked, finding ways to add to the creel seems exactly the opposite of the way forward. Finding ways to stretch out the seasons and the fish by promoting C&R for anglers that follow to have a quality fishing experience, makes a lot more sense and saves a lot more money too!
Again, not to beat a dead trout, but one would think since less and less fish are able to be raised and stocked, finding ways to add to the creel seems exactly the opposite of the way forward. Finding ways to stretch out the seasons and the fish by promoting C&R for anglers that follow to have a quality fishing experience, makes a lot more sense and saves a lot more money too!
Afish,
I understand your interpretation, but adding to the creel is not the driving force here. Rather, the intent is to get the fish out of the streams that get too warm for survival or reduce the fish populations to levels that more closely match the summer carrying capacity of the streams or their refuges. Adding to the creel is strictly the most effective mechanism to reduced the waste of fish that up until that point have served C&R anglers well. At some point however (fish dying from warm water temps and insufficient cold refuges) the waste factor kicks in. Some of this could be avoided in theory by reducing the stocking rate in spring to a rate that more closely matches the summer carrying capacity, but if that was done, the DH Areas would not be very popular.
I am not suggesting that individuals should harvest fish with no intent to eat them or share them with friends, but if achieving more harvest at the slow rate allowed by the creel limit and the low number of harvesting anglers still fishing after June 15 can only occur by opening the streams to harvest at an earlier date, I am all for it.
I understand your interpretation, but adding to the creel is not the driving force here. Rather, the intent is to get the fish out of the streams that get too warm for survival or reduce the fish populations to levels that more closely match the summer carrying capacity of the streams or their refuges. Adding to the creel is strictly the most effective mechanism to reduced the waste of fish that up until that point have served C&R anglers well. At some point however (fish dying from warm water temps and insufficient cold refuges) the waste factor kicks in. Some of this could be avoided in theory by reducing the stocking rate in spring to a rate that more closely matches the summer carrying capacity, but if that was done, the DH Areas would not be very popular.
I am not suggesting that individuals should harvest fish with no intent to eat them or share them with friends, but if achieving more harvest at the slow rate allowed by the creel limit and the low number of harvesting anglers still fishing after June 15 can only occur by opening the streams to harvest at an earlier date, I am all for it.
Doesn't the carrying capacity vary from year to year depending on weather conditions? Perhaps your summary of this is based on the past few years (few in comparison to the existence of delayed harvest reg areas)? I've fished several DH areas this fall, and this was a good year for hold-overs. And you yourself explained there are many AT waters that hold fish at this time of year. So the anglers with a child could fish those streams and harvest fish if they chose to do so. I just don't get this rationale.
If it's a good year weather-wise, we get to enjoy catching the fish for a longer period of time. If it isn't, so it goes. Just like deer hunting. If I am correct, the game commission does not take into consideration a harsh winter when allocating antlerless licenses. And so it goes the following hunting season.
From the other thread mentioned above where the DH program's origin and intent were described.
Yes, it was innovative thinking by AFM's in the SE and SW, specifically **** Marshall and Blake Weirich, that started the DH program. It was in large part a response to anglers who wanted C&R fishing, but was a practical solution to the fact that most stocked trout waters in those regions could not support a good or any C&R program through the typical summer due to warm water temps. The DH program offered fishing over exceptionally high densities of stocked trout at the time of year when streams were cold enough to support those fish and it then allowed limited harvest to thin those populations out as water temps approached the anticipated unacceptable levels for fish health, fish survival, and reasonably good fishing. Standards were established for entry of streams into the program and one was that the streams had to stay cool until July1, which would allow at least two weeks of harvest between June 15 and July 1. Starting with Oil Ck that standard was later circumvented, and streams were placed in the program that could not meet the temp standard. Given that, and for consistency as to how the program is supposed to operate, allowing a reasonable harvest period leading into the summer by setting up an earlier harvest date is appropriate. And for streams that still meet the original standard, more harvest time would be appropriate since harvest rates have been low. Other states have recognized that too.
Yes, it was innovative thinking by AFM's in the SE and SW, specifically **** Marshall and Blake Weirich, that started the DH program. It was in large part a response to anglers who wanted C&R fishing, but was a practical solution to the fact that most stocked trout waters in those regions could not support a good or any C&R program through the typical summer due to warm water temps. The DH program offered fishing over exceptionally high densities of stocked trout at the time of year when streams were cold enough to support those fish and it then allowed limited harvest to thin those populations out as water temps approached the anticipated unacceptable levels for fish health, fish survival, and reasonably good fishing. Standards were established for entry of streams into the program and one was that the streams had to stay cool until July1, which would allow at least two weeks of harvest between June 15 and July 1. Starting with Oil Ck that standard was later circumvented, and streams were placed in the program that could not meet the temp standard. Given that, and for consistency as to how the program is supposed to operate, allowing a reasonable harvest period leading into the summer by setting up an earlier harvest date is appropriate. And for streams that still meet the original standard, more harvest time would be appropriate since harvest rates have been low. Other states have recognized that too.
"It was in large part a response to anglers who wanted C&R fishing, but was a practical solution to the fact that most stocked trout waters in those regions could not support a good or any C&R program through the typical summer due to warm water temps. The DH program offered fishing over exceptionally high densities of stocked trout at the time of year when streams were cold enough to support those fish and it then allowed limited harvest to thin those populations out as water temps approached the anticipated unacceptable levels for fish health, fish survival, and reasonably good fishing."
So how has this part changed? Does this not apply to the Tully today?
So how has this part changed? Does this not apply to the Tully today?
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,506
No one really cares if the trout die of high water temps. I think most anglers who enjoy the DHALO just want as many trout as possible to remain in the stream for as long as possible.
If a 1000 fish are stocked and 1000 fish die from water temps, that's fine. They served their purpose and up until that point there was a fishery with a high number of fish and anglers could count on that situation existing until the stream itself could not support the fish.
DHALO are popular because the harvest component is so limited in it's current form. Not everyone can have a class A with C&R stream nearby, but a lot have DHALO nearby and they don't want it to be messed up. Whether or not a regs change would actually change the fishing situation that much is debatable, but still it is a tough sell to anglers who count on their DHALO areas for good fishing into the early summer.
Kev
If a 1000 fish are stocked and 1000 fish die from water temps, that's fine. They served their purpose and up until that point there was a fishery with a high number of fish and anglers could count on that situation existing until the stream itself could not support the fish.
DHALO are popular because the harvest component is so limited in it's current form. Not everyone can have a class A with C&R stream nearby, but a lot have DHALO nearby and they don't want it to be messed up. Whether or not a regs change would actually change the fishing situation that much is debatable, but still it is a tough sell to anglers who count on their DHALO areas for good fishing into the early summer.
Kev
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,506
Oh and one more thing.
Judging by the number of trout I caught throughout this past summer in general regs waters, the PAFBC should be more worried about all the fish going unharvested in the general regs ATWs before they think of ways to eliminate all those pesky extra trout in the DHALO.
There are a lot of fish being "wasted" in the general regs areas. At least people are fishing the DHALO in may and June. The same cannot be said for many other areas that get stocked.
Judging by the number of trout I caught throughout this past summer in general regs waters, the PAFBC should be more worried about all the fish going unharvested in the general regs ATWs before they think of ways to eliminate all those pesky extra trout in the DHALO.
There are a lot of fish being "wasted" in the general regs areas. At least people are fishing the DHALO in may and June. The same cannot be said for many other areas that get stocked.
salvelinusfontinalis
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,282
This +1000. Freaking great point.
I would really love to hear Mike K's justification for opening up DHALO to early harvest and children fishing with bait all year with the above being true. How many times have we had him tell us the ATW's aren't fished out, ....with the mild summer ATW's are holding tons of fish, and blahblahblah? Seriously explain this.
salvelinusfontinalis
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,282
Another great point. I think it's safe to say you are pretty much correct.
foxtrapper1972
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Messages
- 2,455
Just curious if anyone knows where all the dead fish go? I've rarely seen a dead or dying fish there.
Some definitely make it through the summer because there are always some nice fish there in the fall.
The fishing there can really be great. It's a shame that the bottom release wasn't engineered better.
I don't think that not eating a fish is a waste of a resource. I would bet that many of the trout caught and kept all over this state are put in the freezer and then later thrown out anyway.
Some definitely make it through the summer because there are always some nice fish there in the fall.
The fishing there can really be great. It's a shame that the bottom release wasn't engineered better.
I don't think that not eating a fish is a waste of a resource. I would bet that many of the trout caught and kept all over this state are put in the freezer and then later thrown out anyway.
Mike,
I really have no problem with earlier harvest or maybe even allowing bait fishing in waters that warm early in the season. I really don't think this proposal will have a great impact on the fish or fishermen either way.
My point I guess is given we have less fish, why not focus more on coming up with ways to stretch out the fishing and the fish by creating more DH & C&R fishing opportunities. And at least stock the current DH & C&R areas to the levels of past years.
TCOtony
New member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2010
- Messages
- 11
I appreciate all the comments and concerns posted here... all we are really trying to do is help the Trout in the Tully. We have extensive data that proves without a doubt that trout not only hold over in the Tully BUT they THRIVE! Growth rates rival that of many western rivers. I understand that money talks many times... and many of these decisions come down an economic factor. In this case, the economy of the Tully has also been very positive! I started TCO Fly Shop 25 years ago with the help of this great tailwater and the people that fish it, enjoy it and help to preserve it. This is why i am so passionate about this stream and its inhabitants. This is also why we have chosen to stock it on our own in the wake of the fish commission removing the fingerling program. I owe so much to this stream... and will never take it for granted!
The_Sasquatch
Well-known member
I believe they can and do survive in the Tully. I believe they would survive even better if people would stop fishing for them when the water is too dang hot. One thing I appreciate, Tony, about TCO is that your stream reports ALWAYS indicate when the cold water reserve is exhausted. The reports often read, "HOT!!!" in the temp field. In the details, it will say, "The Tully is too warm to fish now. Try the Skuke for smallmouth" (paraphrase of course!)
Tony, let me ask you this. How do you feel about a "closed season" on the Tully? Say from July 15-through to the Fall stocking? I don't believe its been done in PA, but I can think of several streams that could benefit from such regs.
Tony, let me ask you this. How do you feel about a "closed season" on the Tully? Say from July 15-through to the Fall stocking? I don't believe its been done in PA, but I can think of several streams that could benefit from such regs.
