Commissioner's Meeting Today: Penns Creek and Big Spring

F

Fishidiot

Active member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
9,960
Apparently, the PFBC Commissioners who are meeting today have voted on proposed changes to fishing regulations for Penns Creek and Big Spring. On Big Spring, the proposal was to change the regs to allow harvest of rainbow and brown trout in the FFO section. This proposal was rejected.

On Penns Creek, the proposal was to change the Trophy Trout section to a slot limit. This proposal was approved.

Please keep in mind, this story is breaking and if we hear otherwise, we'll let you know but at this point this appears to be the story.
 
Interested viewers can watch the public meeting from the PFBC website at: http://www.fishandboat.com/video.htm.

Thursday's Commission Meeting to be Streamed Live through Website

In a move designed to increase public involvement, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) has announced that it will provide a live video stream of its business meeting this Thursday.

“We recognize that people are often busy during the day with work, family and other obligations and may not be able to attend our quarterly business meetings,” said PFBC Executive Director John Arway. “By broadcasting the meeting live over the Internet, and then archiving it so it can be viewed later, we’re providing another way for people to stay informed of what the Commission is doing.”

Interested viewers can watch the public meeting from the PFBC website at: http://www.fishandboat.com/video.htm.

The formal meeting will begin at approximately 11:15 a.m. on Thursday, Jan. 24. During the meeting, PFBC staff present recommendations to the full board for their approval.

The public is always welcome to attend the business meetings in person. Committees will meet beginning at 12:40 p.m. on Wednesday, Jan. 23, and again at 8 a.m. on Thursday, Jan. 24. At this time, only the formal business meeting will be broadcast through the PFBC website.

A complete copy of the meeting schedule and the full agenda for the meeting can be found on the PFBC’s web site at www.fishandboat.com/minutes.htm.
 
I'm a big fan of the Penns decision. It will be interesting to see how it pans out. So did they call the bluff of all the land owners?
 
My personal view is that both of these votes are good ones.


 
Can someone lead me to a little info in the Penns stance? Have we discussed this on here already? This is not the land owners posting their property thing is it?
 
It was beat to death that if changes to Penns were ever going to occur the sky would crash to the earth. ;)

Well not exactly, but close.

Agenda item is here - http://www.fishandboat.com/images/exec/minutes/2013minu/01agd.pdf

page 7.
 
Becker,
I'm going off my memory.... but if if I recall correctly, the threads here on Paff about Penns involved landowner opposition to changing the regs from All Tackle Trophy Trout - which allows bait fishing and harvest of two fish over 14" - to a new reg restricting tackle and requiring artificial lures.

At least I think that was what it was about - please correct me if I'm wrong.

What has happened instead, was a new proposal was put forth by the PFBC that would merely change the harvest from Trophy Trout to a slot limit that would allow the harvest of smaller fish but nothing over a certain size. This is what was approved today. As far as I know, the approved new proposal does still allow bait fishing. I do not know where the landowners stood on a slot limit - I just think they were opposed to gear restrictions.

Again, please chime in if I'm off base.
 
So essentially the Penns "trophy Trout" water is under general regulations now. With no keeping of big fish. This is a loser.
 
That sounds right.

I'm not opposed to it, and am interested in seeing what the results will be. If I had to guess, though, I would guess that it will have little to no change on the population or size structure in Penns. The reason is, that while Penns is certainly heavily fished in this section, I don't think intentional harvest is high enough to have much effect, nor do I think that will change under the new regs.
 
Maurice wrote:
So essentially the Penns "trophy Trout" water is under general regulations now. .

Not quite.
The new reg establishes a two fish per day harvest and these fish must be between 7-12 inches. No harvest during the extended season (This section is Class A so this is redundant).

It's a good change. Instead of encouraging harvest of 2 fish per day over 14" - the spawners - anglers now can keep only two little guys.
 
FI: So the change is made strictly for biological purposes; to increase the likelihood of successful spawning. It's hard to argue with that.
 
Maurice wrote:
So essentially the Penns "trophy Trout" water is under general regulations now. With no keeping of big fish. This is a loser.

Maurice,

Not exactly. Under the new regulations that area of Penn's will be open year round with no tackle restrictions. From Opening day until Labor day, the limit will be 2 fish per day between 7"-14". Essentially they swapped fish over 14" for the slot limit.

As for Big Springs, It should be pointed out that the proposed regulation change was not voted down, but rather not voted on at all. When a motion was made to vote on the recommended regulations change, no one would second the motion and therefore it died.

Also, at the conclusion of the meeting the Commissioners announced the formation of a new "Big Springs work-group" to study and monitor the watershed going forward.

 
i agree with both votes.
 
Let me add a question to this thread, if you will? Do you think. Big Spring as a valuable wild fishery should even be considered to change just because the wild fish in the stream aren't the 'native fish'?

Personally i have caught more brooks then bows in that stream.
 
Tups wrote:
FI: So the change is made strictly for biological purposes; to increase the likelihood of successful spawning. It's hard to argue with that.

When I mentioned larger fish as "the spawners"....this was my own comment and opinion. The new regulation proposal does not mention this. I do believe the PFBC is interested in seeing how this new reg might effect the population dynamics.
 
FI: So it is safe to say that the change was made strictly for scientific purposes; to study the effect that such a reg change might have on the popn, one way or another.

After all, they must have expressed some purpose for the change.
 
Phish_On wrote:
Let me add a question to this thread, if you will? Do you think. Big Spring as a valuable wild fishery should be changed just because the wild fish in the stream aren't the 'native fish'?

Personally i have caught more brooks then bows in that stream.

Phish,
We've beaten this to death in many previous threads on Big Spring and the brooks vs rainbows debate. Apparently (for now) the commissioners..... feel that the answer to your question is "no."

(With emphasis on the "for now" part)
 
Tups wrote:
FI: So it is safe to say that the change was made strictly for scientific purposes; to study the effect that such a reg change might have on the popn, one way or another.

Yes. As far as I know.
It would not surprise me if there was some local pressure to change these regs....what the PFBC calls "social" issues. However, I'm not aware of this and somebody closer to the Penns Creek controversy could give you better info than I.
 
FI- Figured as much. Not tryin to start another ethics debate lol.
 
FI: Ok thanks. It's apparent we're not sure why they changed the reg. I suppose reading the text of the proposal might shed some light. Sometimes it takes me a while.

P_O: The cold snap is preventing me from torturing fish for my personal amusement, and so the ethics discussion has been a fine substitute. lol.
 
Back
Top