Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 ... 5 6 7 (8)


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/9/11 21:48
Posts: 575
Offline
Mike

That's good information and a valid point. But what about the stocked trout that survive (the 10-50%) and make it through the gauntlet of the first few months of trout season? As you stated, brown trout "don't hit well" and should survive longer in the streams.

The Class A wild trout streams typically have the habitat and coldwater for stocked trout to survive longer in the streams or even hold over.

Wouldn't this create more or greater interaction with wild trout? What about spawning interaction potential? Could this also create higher angler use because anglers know the stocked trout will survive during the summer?

Just some other things to think about.

Posted on: 2013/10/11 9:06


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6160
Offline
Quote:

LehighRegular wrote:
Mike

That's good information and a valid point. But what about the stocked trout that survive (the 10-50%) and make it through the gauntlet of the first few months of trout season? As you stated, brown trout "don't hit well" and should survive longer in the streams.

The Class A wild trout streams typically have the habitat and coldwater for stocked trout to survive longer in the streams or even hold over.

Wouldn't this create more or greater interaction with wild trout? What about spawning interaction potential? Could this also create higher angler use because anglers know the stocked trout will survive during the summer?

Just some other things to think about.


There's no need to speculate about these things. We already have the experience of management changes on PA limestone streams.

What happens when you go from stocking and state-wide regs to no stocking and no kill or low kill is a large increase in wild trout populations.

These streams include 8 limestoners and one tailwater. The conditions are right. The results would be similar to those seen with other similar streams.

Posted on: 2013/10/11 9:49


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6160
Offline
Quote:

gfen wrote:

You can have this half step, or you can have what we've got now. You can pretend you'll get surveys and class A distinctions and all sorts of awesome things in the future, but you won't because life doesn't work that way.



If the proposed change is not passed, the Class A system would simply be maintained as it has been since it began.

These 9 streams would most likely be put on the Class A list, and stocking ended.

Because the information that these 9 streams meet Class A parameters has now been made public.


Posted on: 2013/10/11 9:57


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2007/4/8 20:43
From SEPA
Posts: 11343
Offline
Quote:

troutbert wrote:
These 9 streams would most likely be put on the Class A list, and stocking ended.


No, they won't.

You, of all people, should know many stream sections that would qualify for class A based upon your research and talking to people, but yet mysteriously aren't on the list because they don't ever seem to come up for survey.

Why? Because the value of keeping them stocked as ATW far outweighs the benefit of marking them class A.

As written, the only thing that changes with this new regulation is it allows pre-season stocking by the PFBC/approved coop trucks, and only if they were previously ATW.

No new ATW will be created by this.
Private stocking will cease.
In season stocking will cease.
More streams will be entered into whatever consideration "class A" holds above lesser graded streams.
Etc.

Its winning all around except for a few people who seem to think that the opinions of a minority of trout anglers actually matter in the grand scheme of things.

You don't, sorry. IF you stamp your feet and get your way, it'll just continue the same way its always been.

Quote:
Because the information that these 9 streams meet Class A parameters has now been made public.


That's fine, what about the other 9 they might suspect could qualify next year? Or the year after that? Etc.

Long term, it helps.

Posted on: 2013/10/11 10:34
_________________
April 8, 2007 - December 4, 2011.
And why not?


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/12/7 18:13
Posts: 217
Offline
FWIW and without weighing the merits of this proposal. There was a “secret” list at one time that included sections “supposedly” meeting the Class A criteria but NOT listed as Class A, that were stocked by the PFBC. Here is that list:

Streams with Class A Biomass Managed for Stocked Trout


Dotters Creek, Monroe, Sec 4, 2.55 miles. Mertz Rd (T442) to confl. Middle Cr.

Fishing Creek, Clinton, Sec 13, 1.5 miles. Cedar Run to Axe Factory Hollow

Little Lehigh Creek, Lehigh, Sec 4, 4.9 miles. Spring Cr confl. to Wild Cherry Lane (T508)

Little Lehigh Creek, Lehigh, Sec 7, 2.06 miles. 4 km above Country Club Rd (T473) to Fish Hatchery Rd (SR2010)

West Licking Creek, Huntingdon, Sec 2, 4.35 miles. 2.13 km above Mt. Union Water Res. to lower boundary Tuscarora State Forest

Martins Creek, Northampton, Sec 1, 4.73 miles. Confl. E&W Br. Martins Cr to discharge Bangor Sewage plant, near unnamed tributary.

Monocacy Creek, Northampton, Sec 8, 0.99 miles. Illicks Mill Dam to Shoenersville Rd (SR3017)

Mugser Run, Columbia, Sec 2, 4.68 miles. T315 Fisherdale to mouth.

Sacony Creek, Berks, Sec 2, 3.29 miles. Bowers Rd (T616) to large spring 625 meters above SR1029 (Normal Ave)

Sacony Creek, Berks, Sec 3, 1.49 miles. Large spring 625 meters above SR1029 (Normal Ave) to SR 222 bypass (Kutztown)

Big Trout Creek, Lehigh, Sec 2, 6.4 miles. Furnace Rd (T790) in Lehigh Furnace to mouth on Lehigh River

Yellow Creek, Bedford, Sec 4, 1.66 miles. Confl. Beaver Creek to Red Bank Hill.

Long Run, Clinton, Sec 1, 4.72 miles. Confl. Pepper & Washburn Runs to sink 450 meters downstream of Auction Rd (SR2008) .

Sixmile Run, Centre, Sec 2, 3.42 miles. Dayton Dam to unnamed tributary upstream of Hutton Run.

Standing Stone Creek, Centre/Huntingdon, Sec 2, 4.65 miles. Penn Roosevelt Dam to mouth of Detweiler Run
Vanscoyoc Run, Blair, Sec 2, 4.54 miles. Decker Hollow Rd (SR4033) to mouth.

Young Womans Creek, L BR, Clinton, Sec 2, 4.42 miles, Forest road bridge to Greenlick Run

Cold Run, Schuylkill, Sec. 2, 2.17 miles. Beaver Creek to mouth.


Dotter’s Creek is no longer ATW and not stocked so adjust THIS list by 1. Penns & Pohopoco do not appear on this list although it’s pretty obvious which section of the Pohopoco is under consideration on the new list since nothing is stocked above the lake and that’s Monroe County.

Based on this list and the current stocking list, it should be pretty easy to figure out what sections are being considered under this new proposal. Obviously MANY sections have been stocked for years and the ones that are on the “secret list” but omitted from the new proposal makes you wonder IF more will come later?

Interestingly in regards to the Monocasy, assuming the sections under consideration in the new proposal are Sections 8 & 9; if this secret list was/is valid, that means that section 9 (which has been stocked forever) has IMPROVED to Class A status since the secret list was published! The same goes for the Pohopoco & Penns sections, again IF the secret list was/is valid.

Whether or not the 9 streams on the new list will be added to the Class A list or will for the first time just be publicly acknowledged as such but left off, is unclear to me. Regardless, there doesn't appear to be any earth shattering additions.

If it was up to me I would created a new publicized designation like Class A-S for the nine sections and leave the regular Class A list alone so the qualifications for inclusions and the management policies remain somewhat clear. It's bad enough that the State stocks Class A but plenty of private clubs do as well because they are stupid, confused or just don't care.

OT - In regards to the Little Lehigh (not the sections in the proposal):

The infamous Section 8 (FORMER Heritage/FFO section) has long been touted as having a Class A biomass which is the reason most often given for the PFBC not stocking it. This Class A biomass assumption has been reiterated to me by many LL regulars and the WCO, yet Section 8 is NOT on the Class A list.

When I inquired to Dave Arnold the Area 5 Fisheries Manager as to why, he told me it is supposed to be further evaluated this year because “there has always been a very abundant presence of hatchery trout, including brown trout, of all life stages, thus complicating evaluations. If it does in fact meet the Class A designation it will be appropriately listed".

Assuming it does meet the criteria and is listed as Class A, it hasn’t been stocked forever and should be safe from this proposal going forward. It MAY also see a decrease in pressure after a while since many under-informed anglers think it IS stocked (despite complaining “there aren’t as many fish as their used to be”). So maybe once they know for sure, they will use the “wild fish are too tough” excuse and go upstream!

Carry on...

Posted on: 2013/10/11 11:51


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2007/3/29 7:56
From Bethlehem, PA
Posts: 291
Offline
I watched the Area PFBC biologist sample that section of the Monocacy Creek this summer. And I can only speak for the Monocacy, but on this section, this is a win for sure.

Posted on: 2013/10/11 13:20
_________________
www.monocacytu.org


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2009/2/10 16:30
From SE PA
Posts: 4861
Offline
Quote:

gfen wrote:
Streams in major urban areas, or whatever they called it, will see little pressure change because its local, and the people will still end up going there.

Easy access and open places to fish are the draw to people, not so much the stocked fish. That said, the perception that (almost) all fish are stocked in these places is part of the draw.

The difference is if there's a conspicious absence of fish, then people are gonna complain. They're not going to complain to the PFBC because they don't know what that is, they're going to complain to people who work for the local and state gov, who the PFBC relies on having a good relationship for projects and things like fee increases.

Its political. Deal with it.

You can have this half step, or you can have what we've got now. You can pretend you'll get surveys and class A distinctions and all sorts of awesome things in the future, but you won't because life doesn't work that way.




I have to agree with you. I've been fishing on the Monocacy when I happened upon a bait fishermen next to a pool. He proudly showed me a stringer of stockies. Then mentioned he had cleaned out the pool. I casually observed a number of wild trout sipping away just below his spot. Some of these people think rainbows are trout and the wild browns are not.





Posted on: 2013/10/11 13:31


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2009/2/10 16:30
From SE PA
Posts: 4861
Offline
A large number of these streams are in the LV area. The political impact of listing them as Class A and eliminating stocking will likely be significant. If the streams were geographically distributed evenly around the state it might get by. I'm writing a letter to suggest the streams outside of the LV urban areas be treated as traditional class A and those in the metro LV area be treated per the proposal (ie. classed as A but allowed to stock).

Posted on: 2013/10/11 13:39


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/11/10 8:32
Posts: 1731
Offline
Afish and others: Here is the agenda item from the PFBC meeting. The 90 day public comment period will officially start once the item is published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. Scroll down to pages 13-15 once you have activated the link.

http://fishandboat.com/images/exec/minutes/2013minu/10agd.pdf

Posted on: 2013/10/11 15:04


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2011/6/29 9:38
From Philadelphia
Posts: 2137
Offline
Thanks Mike. I think this clears up any concern in my mind and I cannot see any real donwside to this proposal. It gives the waters added protection, continues to account for high angler usage and if I read it correctly, could eventually lead to the elimination of stocking of these waters if they drop below a certain usage percentile. It also states pretty clearly that no class A waters not currently stocked will ever be considered for stocking. It does also leave the door open for other waters currently stocked that develop a class A biomss to gain these similar protections.

I personally think this is a win-win situation for all of us.


Posted on: 2013/10/11 19:42


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/11/10 8:32
Posts: 1731
Offline
Bamboozle,
Your list has been discussed before. It is out of date and because of the way that the computer handled the data, some streams were inaccurately placed on the list, such as Cold Run and Sacony Creek.

Posted on: 2013/10/11 21:52


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/12/7 18:13
Posts: 217
Offline
Mike:

No problem, I was just trying to figure out what sections were involved with the new proposal.

It's also good news about the Saucony since I got my clock cleaned there one day trying to catch those non-existent Class A trout.

Posted on: 2013/10/11 22:04


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/11 8:26
From Chester County
Posts: 8993
Offline
Quote:

Mike wrote:
Afish and others: Here is the agenda item from the PFBC meeting. The 90 day public comment period will officially start once the item is published in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. Scroll down to pages 13-15 once you have activated the link.

http://fishandboat.com/images/exec/minutes/2013minu/10agd.pdf


Mike,

Thanks for posting a link to the actual proposal.

Upon reading it carefully, I believe the proposal is a step forward for better trout management in PA, and I support it.

I recommend that anyone interested in trout fishing and the management of trout waters in our state read the proposal in the above link and voice their opinion.

Here is another copy of the link to the page on the PFBC site for adding public comment:

http://www.fishandboat.com/promo/form/regulation_comments.htm

Posted on: 2013/10/12 5:51


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 1807
Offline
seems reasonable to me. OK for fish & fishermen.

Posted on: 2013/10/12 7:12


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/11 8:26
From Chester County
Posts: 8993
Offline
Link to an article in the Morning Call about the proposed change to stocking policy:

Link to Article

Posted on: 2013/10/30 5:54



« 1 ... 5 6 7 (8)



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Do you keep a fishing journal?
Yes 52% (85)
No 47% (78)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/8/22 12:38
2 Comments





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com