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


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 ... 3 4 5 (6) 7 8 »


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 1807
Offline
if you actually read the bio literature, and not the exaggerated stuff in TUs stocking policy, it says any impact on wild fish from stocking is through hooking/catching not wild vs stockie competition for space or food... I think that implies that a reduction in the number of stockings is something wild trout fishermen might support..

Posted on: 2013/10/9 14:58


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2013/8/6 21:44
Posts: 880
Offline

Posted on: 2013/10/9 15:04
_________________
"I think I fish, in part, because it's an anti-social, bohemian business that, when gone about properly, puts you forever outside the mainstream culture without actually landing you in an institution." John Gierach


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6122
Offline
Quote:

Foxgap239 wrote:

It is obvious to me that as far as most PAFF posters are concerned the PFBC has few friends among us.


These proposals are opened up to public comments, by the PFBC itself, for consideration by staff, and by the commissioners, before a decision is made.

So, participating in that public comment process is not being unfriendly to the PFBC.

You should think about what you sincerely think would be best, from a biological and/or recreational perspective, then send in your commentary.

That is participating in the public process, as designed, as intended.

Posted on: 2013/10/9 15:06


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2011/6/29 9:38
From Philadelphia
Posts: 2137
Offline
TB, I think you are taking that comment out of context. My comment is meant as "my" opinion on numerous posts on this forum about numerous subjects not just this thread. It simply appears to me to read that anything the PFBC does is less than satisfactory based on past sins by some people on this forum. I point to no one specific and apologize if you think I did.

Posted on: 2013/10/9 15:13


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2010/6/26 11:19
From Along the Lehigh Above the Gap
Posts: 7101
Offline
I think I would have less problems of the PFBC stocking my local stream once a year if they added some regulations to it. C and R or artificial lures section.

Posted on: 2013/10/9 15:15
_________________
"Four of us wolves, running around the desert together, in Las Vegas, looking for strippers and cocaine. So tonight, I make a toast!"

http://bugflingerandfeatherlasher.blogspot.com/



Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2011/6/29 9:38
From Philadelphia
Posts: 2137
Offline
Quote:

SBecker wrote:
I think I would have less problems of the PFBC stocking my local stream once a year if they added some regulations to it. C and R or artificial lures section.


Different discussion but I wholeheartly agree.

Posted on: 2013/10/9 15:18


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6122
Offline
Quote:

Foxgap239 wrote:
TB, I think you are taking that comment out of context. My comment is meant as "my" opinion on numerous posts on this forum about numerous subjects not just this thread. It simply appears to me to read that anything the PFBC does is less than satisfactory based on past sins by some people on this forum. I point to no one specific and apologize if you think I did.


No need for an apology.

Whether there is more reflexive "pro" or "con" on PFBC policies or proposals in general is hard to say.

If you are going to be scoping things out for one sort of bias, you should also check out the other sort of bias. Both are equally "highly illogical."

The other thing to keep in mind is that on this issue, you can be sure that WITHIN the PFBC there are people on both sides of the issue. So, whichever view you take, you are supporting the position of some and opposing the position of others.

But that personal stuff should be considered irrelevant. It's the effects of the policies that matter.

Posted on: 2013/10/9 15:45

Edited by troutbert on 2013/10/9 16:04:06
Edited by troutbert on 2013/10/9 16:06:10


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/11/10 8:32
Posts: 1719
Offline
In response to one or two specific posts, I think a clarification on my part would be fair. When anyone comments on a PFBC proposal, it is not required that the writer agree or disagree with the entire proposal. In fact, it is beneficial to the agency to know what aspects of a proposal are acceptable to the writer and what aspects are not. For example, in Becker's case, he has mentioned that not all of the streams are urban. If a writer feels that urban streams are ok to stock under the proposal but others are not, it is fair to comment in that way. Likewise, if one feels that a certain stream should not be included for a particular reason, but another should or could be included in the writer's opinion, that is also fair game.

Regarding some other posts, despite the fact that 1) a stream supports a wild trout population or 2) a stream has a biomass that is equivalent to Class A, the legal staff pointed out perhaps a decade or more ago that designating a stream Class A (when it meets or exceeds the qualifying biomass) and in more recent times designating a stream as one that supports reproduction of trout (ie wild trout stream) were actions that required a public comment period and formal Commission action via Commission meetings, as well as, if I recall correctly, publication in the Pa. Bulletin. This allows not only the general public, including anglers, to comment, but it also allows for input from industry. So, yes, from a legal standpoint, official designation of Class A waters AND wild trout streams is required, and that designation is required to follow the same review process as other items that require formal Commission action. Contrary to what many anglers may think it should be, it is not a "rubber stamp" process.

Posted on: 2013/10/9 16:49

Edited by Mike on 2013/10/9 17:10:18
Edited by Mike on 2013/10/9 17:17:42


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2012/10/24 19:22
From Da 'Berg, PA
Posts: 1465
Offline
can't it just be given an EV wtare quality status to protect it, like some brook trout streams get to protect the water if that's the aim ?


Posted on: 2013/10/9 17:06
_________________
nowhere is so sweet, as the bosom of the vale where the bright waters meet.


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/11/10 8:32
Posts: 1719
Offline
EV status has nothing to do with the biomass of wild trout populations. EV status may be determined by a number of factors, but primarily what is used in layman's terms is the abundance and diversity of the most pollution sensitive species of aquatic macroinvertebrates relative to what has been found in similar reference streams.

Posted on: 2013/10/9 17:38


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 1807
Offline
thanks for posting here mike.

Posted on: 2013/10/9 20:17


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2007/3/29 7:56
From Bethlehem, PA
Posts: 290
Offline
i'm more worried about the increased fly fishing pressure from the new class A listing. PFBC spot burn.

Posted on: 2013/10/9 21:09
_________________
www.monocacytu.org


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/9/13 10:18
From LV
Posts: 7611
Offline
Again, these streams have been Class A for a long time and indeed excede Class A by a lot. Many of these sections already have special regulations on them. The proposal as presented to TU was that it was specific to these streams and allows 1 stocking pre season.
As it is now these streams are some of the most pressured in the state. I would assume that pressure wouldbe lessened on these streams, but nearly all are on public land so that may not be the case.
I don't necessarily agree with it, but on the other hand TU has been after PFBC for a long time to add these streams to the Class A list.
It is a win for these streams.

Posted on: 2013/10/10 8:38
_________________
It's time to stop stocking all wild trout streams no matter what Classification they are, and time to eradicate brown trout in some of our limestone streams and re-establish brookies in them.


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2009/9/14 12:48
Posts: 867
Offline
I find it mind-boggling that sections of streams like Penns Creek, Fishing Creek and the Lower Bald Eagle receive heavy stocking. The PFBC should just light a pile of money on fire instead of spending it to raise fish that contribute nothing to the populations on those streams.

Posted on: 2013/10/10 8:50


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6122
Offline
Quote:

Mike wrote:

Regarding some other posts, despite the fact that 1) a stream supports a wild trout population or 2) a stream has a biomass that is equivalent to Class A, the legal staff pointed out perhaps a decade or more ago that designating a stream Class A (when it meets or exceeds the qualifying biomass) and in more recent times designating a stream as one that supports reproduction of trout (ie wild trout stream) were actions that required a public comment period and formal Commission action via Commission meetings, as well as, if I recall correctly, publication in the Pa. Bulletin. This allows not only the general public, including anglers, to comment, but it also allows for input from industry. So, yes, from a legal standpoint, official designation of Class A waters AND wild trout streams is required, and that designation is required to follow the same review process as other items that require formal Commission action. Contrary to what many anglers may think it should be, it is not a "rubber stamp" process.


Could you clarify another legal point? If the PFBC finds that a stream section meets Class A criteria, is the PFBC obligated to submit that section for designation as a Class A stream?

Posted on: 2013/10/10 11:09



« 1 ... 3 4 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
1 Comment





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