Why not in PA?

[LehighRegular]

I think we discussed this before...but here is another instance of a fisheries managment agency protecting the resource. Why not in PA??

http://www.uticaod.com/waterwoes/x1667161723

 

[FarmerDave]

LehighRegular wrote:
I think we discussed this before...but here is another instance of a fisheries managment agency protecting the resource. Why not in PA??

http://www.uticaod.com/waterwoes/x1667161723

After reading the entire article, it looks like NY is treating the symptom and only talking about the actual problem. PF&BC does that quite a bit.

Don't get me wrong, they made the right decision in closing the stream (closed for the first time), but the article pointed out that the low water conditions are a result of man made issues that are probably under the Army Corpe, or some other agency.

I don't see eye to eye with a lot of what the PF&BC does, but they, and the PA governenment does quite a bit to protect the resource. Just ask someone who owns property along an EV stream how DNR (or whatever it is called this year) is doing. I know of a few people who greatly resent the State doing their job. Could they be doing a better job? I'd say so. None the less, they are doing a pretty decent job of protecting the streams IMHO. Truth is, we have more trout stream miles now than we had 40 years ago. My beef with the PF&BC is mostly centered around their stocking program (need less of it in many places), but I give credit where credit is due.

 

[TDB]

LR - I couldn't agree more. Look at Montana. i was out there this summer and it is unbelievable. Aweosme fisheries, but if the conditions warrant it - they'll shut it right down. and the people there are educated enough to understand that it is a good thing to protect the fisheries. Too many ignorant people in PA - they are worried too much about the stocking and other BS.

 

[brookieaddict]

Pa has been in the enforcement mentality since day one of their founding, while other states enforce their laws and most with more and harsher penailtys . They put their effort into true conservation, and look after their resource and at the same time interface with the sportsman. Steam conservation and development are first and foremost, along with stocking and delayed harvest and no kill streams that will hold fish through summer. Pa needs to stop worrying about losing a handfull of first weekers who will not buy a liscence if they cant take home their "limit",and take care of the bulk of their sportsman, who dont care about how many fish they caught , but enjoy being there. Thats how i see it . P.S. pick up that trash that the trash left behind, its for our kids, not us.

 

[Mike]

PFBC position paper on closure of coldwater stream mouths to fishing during warm summers...........

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/images/fisheries/info_sheets/trout_congregate.pdf

 

[JackM]

brookieaddict wrote:
Pa needs to stop worrying about losing a handfull of first weekers who will not buy a liscence if they cant take home their "limit",and take care of the bulk of their sportsman, who dont care about how many fish they caught , but enjoy being there. Thats how i see it .

I'm not disagreeing with the sentiments you express, but I think you are badly mistaken in thinking that the "bulk of" PA trout anglers are not, in fact, the "first weekers."

 

[LehighRegular]

PFBC position paper on closure of coldwater stream mouths to fishing during warm summers...........

Ahhh.... I was wondering when this document might surface. Thank you Mike.

If anyone has taken the time to read this document, please comment. If not and you are concerned about the some of PA's better trout fishery resources, then you should. If you don't like what is presented, then you should tell your regional PFBC commissioner about it.

IMO - this document is everything that is wrong with the PFBC or was wrong, being that it was published prior to recent mission statement changes. Which is now, more so than ever, to be RESOURCE FIRST!!!

When I read this document, all I get from it are excuses why our PFBC should not do something that is done else where and is proven to preserve the resource. It appears that this document is taken as a "blanket" statement for trout streams across PA....NO, it should not be that way. Closures should be used on selected, most pressured or better fisheries that suffer during drought or times of stress and where there are known refuges for wild trout in which uneducated anglers take advantage of the circumstances. Don't believe its not done either, I have seen anglers lined up on streams and rivers fishing over stressed trout just trying to survive. And this is something that our PFBC takes for granted.

In addition, the enforcement issue is the biggest excuse in the entire paper. The PFBC patrols the sh!t out of their stocked fish pre-season and during the early season months. When these types of situations usually arise they are during times when the stockie chasers are done fishing and moving onto easier targets or other species. Therefore, enforcement should not be difficult as all one has to do is drive by once or twice a week, hand out some citations and people will get the hint.

I believe most anglers are conservationists and want what is best for the resource and would support closures if it meant better fishing later when favorable conditions return. If that be the case, than one should be appauled by the document Mike has posted. Nothing against Mike personally and thankfully his name isnt on it. But this paper is hogwash.

This is yet another example of "we don't need a fish commission". Nobody eats trout, bass or any other fish. Then why do we need a fish commission at all?

Just my opinion!

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear Lehigh Regular,

What ever happened to personal responsible and the idea of sportsmen policing themselves? If you don't think that trout fishing is a good idea then stay home or fish for something else but why worry about doing everyone else's part?

If you really think that the people that need to be told that fishing for trout during times of low warm water is overly stressful to the trout would stop fishing because fishing was banned you need to get out more.

Everyone complains that they never see a WCO as it is? Closing off streams would be a huge enforcement issue and it would have little to no effect on the most egregious offenders anyway. Most of them seem to have little to any use for any of the rules and regulations as it is now if you read some of the complaints that people have posted on this board.

Closing the streams won't stop them.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

For those who actually carry a thermometer on stream has anyone actually had a good day fishing with a high water temp? I personally have learned to look elsewhere if I get a reading over 65.........i could pretend its because I want to "protect" the fish but in reality its because I rarely catch a fish with the temp over 65. My observations agree with the data in the article. Watching water temps has drastically improved my fishing sucess. The silver lining with high water temps is that fishing becomes less of a factor on fish mortality because they aren't biting. So when they close the waters in Montana, I think they are saving fisherman from a crummy fishing experience more than they are saving fish from fishing.

And if we're talking about a bunch of stockers in marginal trout water that won't make it through the summer anyway, who cares?

The fact is that with the exception of a few counties in central PA, there are more big fish to be caught and more waters open to public trout fishing because of stocking. I agree that the C and R fisherman would have a better experience at a vigourous wild fishery if it was made C and R instead of stocked but stocking definitely has its place in increasing the number and quality of coldwater angling opprotunities.

 

[Maurice]

TimMurphy wrote:

Everyone complains that they never see a WCO as it is? Closing off streams would be a huge enforcement issue and it would have little to no effect on the most egregious offenders anyway. Most of them seem to have little to any use for any of the rules and regulations as it is now if you read some of the complaints that people have posted on this board.

Closing the streams won't stop them.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

No, but it would put a little "meat" behind the enforcement. Because without a restriction or law, enforcement isn't very useful.

 

[Chaz]

As for the PFBC position, it is purely "about angling opportunities" not conservation. While I think there is a need for concern, I think as far as stocked fisheries go, let the boys have at it. However, I don't think PFBC or any other state agency knows enough about trout movement to make a judgement on wild trout streams, and I include Pine Creek in this group, so I think they should err on the side of caution and protect thermal sanctuaries. A simple rule would suffice, something like, no angling shall occur on designated waters within 100 yards of tributaries of the designated streams. IT"S NOT ROCKET SCIENCE!!!

 

[tabasco_joe]

I think it would lead to enforcement issues unless you closed the whole watershed or maybe even the whole county. I've had a couple run-ins with the Game Commission on picayune issues and I think the Fish Commission is trying to avoid confrontations where they simply create bad will with sportsman.

BTW the Game Commission issues were about property lines and safety zones where I am the property owner. The warden then checked all my and my brothers license info and found that my brother forgot to sign his doe permit. He wrote him up for that. The dispute led me to post my property.

 

[LehighRegular]

Joe

The enforcement issue is one big excuse if you look at it closely. As Chaz indicated, the PFBC is not looking at preserving the resource when it comes to Wild Trout. THey are using this as a blanket policy and it shouldn't be as such. MT doesnt use it as such and is on a case by case basis depending on conditions in a given watershed or stream/river.

Its not rocket science...its done else where on the more highly regarded fisheries in other states. Why do you think they do it...to preserve the angling oppurtunties and the resource.

Enforcement is easy....The PFBC Exec Direction (Dr. Austen) makes a delclaration, the staff puts up a sign or two, then the WCO patrols the location once or twice a week during "prime" hours...hands out a few citations, explains the need for the closure...BAM....easly as that. What gets me is that the PFBC patrols their stocked fisheries preseason, why can't they do it during times when the "close" streams or stretches of streams where wild trout are being targeted under times of stress while seeking refuge?? The WCO will have far less locations to patrol because it will only be select areas. Plus the fines can help in their funding...god knows they could use it...unless the fines go somewhere else??

With the PFBC's new mission statement...this should be on the list is issues they re-evaluate to preserve and do what is right for the "resource".

If the PFBC is to be a conservation agency first and foremost....its a no brainer!!!

LR

 

[tabasco_joe]

LR I think I am looking at it closely. First I believe this particular issue is exaggerated. In my opinion overall water quality and harvest limits are significantly more impacting than targeting trout on heat stressed streams.

As to closures; are they regional, watershed, stream, or sections?

Is that no fishing or C&R during the special declaration?

Can I fish for other species in a declared area?

The fish commission is going to put up and take down signs on all the streams across the state that might be affected in a summer like we just had?

 

[LehighRegular]

LR I think I am looking at it closely. First I believe this particular issue is exaggerated. In my opinion overall water quality and harvest limits are significantly more impacting than targeting trout on heat stressed streams.

I agree water quality and harvest limits are more significant, but don't kid yourself, some "anglers" do take advantage of the situation and even then the harvest limits are exacerbated as a result of the conditions. Bottom line it happens and it is one area where the PFBC should try to protect the resource and make a change in policy (IMO). This change would be consistent with the "Resource First" policy change....maybe you are not aware of the??

As to closures; are they regional, watershed, stream, or sections?

That would have to be dependent on conditions and at the descretion of the PFBC. But I would believe sections or refuge areas/streams should be closed for starters. Like Chaz indicated, the refuge stream and 100 yds downstream of the mouth for example

Is that no fishing or C&R during the special declaration?

NO FISHING...period. Easily enforced. You see someone fishing...breaking the law.

Can I fish for other species in a declared area?

NO! Go fish a different stretch of differnt body of water.

The fish commission is going to put up and take down signs on all the streams across the state that might be affected in a summer like we just had?

YEP. How difficult is that? THey do it all the time with the stocked waters.

Don't look at this as a "blanket" policy. It would only be on a streams/rivers that have a high recreational value or highly used and have wild trout populations. Mostly this would be to protect the wild trout.

 

[jaybo41]

Whichever side of the arguement you fall on with this issue, it's my belief that educating the public is a good first step. To most of us here, it's nothing new to us to stay off the water when the temps are above 70. Try to discourage fishing in the warm conditions by posting signs on the stocked streams and the Special Regs streams, etc. Educate the public on what it can do to the trout. It's going to be tough to enforce because some of the streams hold different species of fish, not just trout. Although this is a generalization and not 100% accurate, I would have to believe that wild trout waters are fished by anglers more interested in preservation of the resource. Therefore, they would be less likely to fish during the hot weather conditions.

Regardless of which side of this issue you stand on, I think we all have a common goal in mind, which is to preserve the trout and their habitat. Posting signs along stocked streams will help get the message out. Also, perhaps a special section in the regulations books handed out when you purchase a license and a special "Caution" scroll line on the PF&BC website will help.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

Jay, you bring up a very good point. When I had the fortune of fishing in Washington State earlier this year, I was floored that the regulation book was 130+ pages.....yes they have more regulations but a large chunk of the book dealt with educating on good C and R practices, watershed issues, and was a good overall primer on conservation issues. I think most people will do the right thing when they know about it and we might get more band for the buck through education than regulation. And in the end people become better fisherman and enjoy the sport more the more they know about fish and their habitat. Am I catching more fish these days because I can cast better or have that fancy dancy $600 rod.....NO.....its because I've learned where the fishing will be good because I understand fish habitat and behavior. This is not an altruist endeavor....its a selfish one...i want to catch more fish.

When I have read any of the "resource first" publications I have NOT come away that by resource they mean wild trout only. What I come away with is that they are going to look more at stocking water that is capable of producing a wild sport fishery of its own. The goal here is not to help wild fish necessarily but rather to maintain or perhaps increase angling opprotunities at a lower cost. I think this is just common sense.

With all of the comments of "rocket science" and "common sense" flying around, I guess I really have to disagree. Things are not as simple as they seem when talking about softer science like population ecology. There is a lot of dogma amoungst the C and R fly fishing crowd and I for one am glad the PFBC takes a more conservative approach towards regulation and at least make an attempt to back their policies with evidence like was done above rather than dogma.

Also, its totally unfair to compare streams in the Alleghenies and Poconos with western water. Our mountains aren't as high and don't generate the snowpack, cooler temps, and pristine environment to give cold, clean water throughout the summer like western rivers. So when I don't see a bunch of 16-20" trout running around like I do on the South Fork of the Snake in PA, I don't assume its the PFBC's fault.

 

[LehighRegular]

OO

Maybe I'm mis-interpreting some things but i'd like to comment on some things. BUt forgive me if I didn't pick up on some of your points...

When I have read any of the "resource first" publications I have NOT come away that by resource they mean wild trout only. What I come away with is that they are going to look more at stocking water that is capable of producing a wild sport fishery of its own. The goal here is not to help wild fish necessarily but rather to maintain or perhaps increase angling opprotunities at a lower cost. I think this is just common sense.

I am at a loss here. Are you saying the "resource first" means to stock more fish?? And that Wild Trout are not considered a resource.

What ever you are refering to and how I may be interpreting you comments, I would render that way off base.

With all of the comments of "rocket science" and "common sense" flying around, I guess I really have to disagree. Things are not as simple as they seem when talking about softer science like population ecology. There is a lot of dogma amoungst the C and R fly fishing crowd and I for one am glad the PFBC takes a more conservative approach towards regulation and at least make an attempt to back their policies with evidence like was done above rather than dogma.

So the paper that was posted by Mike makes sense to you? There is no backing of any policy in that paper. All you have is excuse after excuse not to do some thing to protect trout fisheries during times of stress.

Also, its totally unfair to compare streams in the Alleghenies and Poconos with western water. Our mountains aren't as high and don't generate the snowpack, cooler temps, and pristine environment to give cold, clean water throughout the summer like western rivers. So when I don't see a bunch of 16-20" trout running around like I do on the South Fork of the Snake in PA, I don't assume its the PFBC's fault.

I agree there is NO COMPARISON for the most part between MT and PA fisheries. However, the western states employ much more proactive measures to protect their fisheries and trout for obvious reasons. No one is blaming the PFBC for not having 20" trout everywhere, but there are some instances that their current regulations on certain streams in PA may not help to create a larger population of those types of fish. But then it comes down to the "goals" of what the PFBC has for those fisheries as Maurice elduded to in another topic.

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

LR,

I should have said the PFBC will look more at NOT stocking water that has the capability of being a sustainable wild trout sport fishery. The motivation is not that they are valuing wild trout more as a resource but rather to limit expense, at least per my interpretation. The real resource is $$$$$$$$$.

I wish I could cut and paste from Mike's link but I can't. The paper does cite paper by McMicheal, Kaya, and Elliot citing the fact that fish don't feed and people don't catch fish with high water temps. They also point out that they "could find no evidence" that regulating sportfishing over the trouts thermal sanctuaries during high temp/low flow times affected trout populations. Sounds like a literature review to me.

No evidence = dogma. I admit leaving the poor trout alone when its hot and low feels good to do and I do it cause it feels good, but I don't think and the PFBC doesn't seem to think along with most other states that its something worthwhile doing.

Furthermore, I think their arguement that the regs would be difficult to understand and expensive to enfore are very valid. Why waste money when you are being "resource first"?

The only reason I would care about restrictions is that it would make the cold water I seek out and fish more crowded. I have no desire to fish over hot water.

As other people have pointed out, its much better to worry about why the water is hot in the first place than to worry about people fishing over hot water.

The fact is that sport anglers have very little control over fish populations by modification of thier fishing acts is very hard for us egocentric fisherman to accept. Its easier to focus on regs which we control as fisherman than on the larger environmental issues which we don't control, though, because it gives us a sense of control. We probably have 10 threads on regs for every one thread on environmental issues on this board. Its all very devisive, IMHO. (Not intended to be a personal attack....I'm as guilty or more guilty as the next guy arguing about regs)

Respectfully,

Bill

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear Bill,

Did I ever tell you that I loved you? :-D

You manage to say in a nice and respectful way what I have been trying to beat into these people's heads for years.

Common sense and personal responsibilty have been legislated out of our lives for the most part and yet there remain those people who think they should be legislated out of our fishing as well?

The scoflaws will fish, WITH OR WITHOUT LAWS, and the crybabies will cry about them. That's what scoflaws do and that's what crybabies do, it's a circle of life thing.

A successful catch and release trout fisherman in PA during August or September in a drought year is as deadly as a meat man regardless of how warm and fuzzy they seem to be about their C&R tactics.

I cannot state it any more plainly.

Lot's of folks can fool themselves, but they ain't fooling me dude.

Regards,
Tim Murphy