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


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 2 3 (4) 5 6 7 8 »


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13662
Offline
Quote:
I am kind of outraged at the fact that there are only nine streams that are getting bumped to class a that are being stocked, I think that are many many more streams that needed to be added to class a and have stocking cease.


As was said, they don't survey every stream, there probably are more than this. That said, it's not a "choice" on whether to add a stream to class A list. It's a description based on biomass of wild fish, not merely a management decision.

I tend to doubt there's too many more. Remember, these are streams that, before being stocked, were not class A on their own. Thus they have improved. And they have had that improvement while being in urban areas on public property, being stocked, and being fished very heavily by an opening day crowd. That's a pretty difficult thing to achieve.

I fish a lot of wild trout streams. What "class" it is, by biomass, is a very poor indicator of how it fishes. I have some class C's where 30ish fish is average for me and have had 50+ days. Then many class A's don't fish nearly as well. For instance, Spring Creek, which is among the highest biomass streams anywhere. While I've had 30+ days on multiple occasions, I've also gotten skunked on multiple occasions. An average day is more like 5-15 for me. And on class A sections of Penns, 5-15 fish is a downright good day.

Posted on: 2013/10/8 9:02


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2008/1/21 13:28
From South Central PA
Posts: 840
Offline
Apologies in advance for the tl;dr

I don't like the proposal for what are coincidentally all limestoners. Not so sure it is accurate to say the preferred PFBC direction is to continue stocking, but not privy to that. At the very least the current makeup of the commission argues against that.

No perfect solution to anything in life and this is no exception. If it does not go through and stocking stops, probably see some amount of posting as a result. Maybe quite a bit. Maybe even excessive cropping if regs don't change to limit or eliminate harvest on the proposed waters. But those are the chances you take. I particularly don't like the idea of a family tradition of going to a specific stream on opening day to catch easy stockers being removed. It is not simply a matter of driving over to the next valley, since that is not their "family" trout water. On this last point alone I am nearly in favor of the proposal.

However, no stocking on Class A water has not been around all that long. It must have been quite a fight to get it. Anything that chips away at it is no good even though I can see lots of practical application, and in fact, my own modus operandi for outstanding wild trout fishing is to go to lightly used ATWs of high quality after the Spring rush subsides. The biggest wild brook trout I catch come from such a stream and there are plenty of them.

The wild card is some labyrinth of Harrisburg bureaucratic tactical legal wrangling. I have no idea what that would be given that Class A is always considered the best protection, but then we have never had a Class A ATW, at least not in an official sense. The potential risk is not mission creep that sees yet more Class A waters getting stocked. The risk is diluting the legal standing and therefore the protections that come with Class A.

I can see that being argued from both sides, some saying Class A ATW is a higher standard, and others saying Class A ATW shows that Class A was not all it was built up to be. I hope someone thought about this.

There is a great deal of vagueness to this proposal. A final rulemaking with the actual language may come out later, once again looking for public comment.

The notion that there is anything illegal about this proposal is unlikely. If the Exec director wants an exception, that is all it takes to be legal. As far as I know it's on Arway.

By the way, Arway was on here a few months ago saying how stocker competition is harmful to wild trout. That is a point you might want to make when you send in comment. I don't recall exactly which thread.

Posted on: 2013/10/8 9:23


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 1809
Offline
Dwight said the "small percentage" point on PAFF posts relevance is overstated. ...

So what percentage of the states trout fishermen can post here? There are 487,000 trout/salmon stamps sold in 2012. PAFF "about us" says the site has "over 5,500 registered members." Assume that 1/3 of the t/s permit buyers don't count for any reason.

then 5,500 Paff reg users divided by 325,000 = less than two percent of the state's trout fishermen who can even post here.

less than two percent. small percentage. even if you assume that all 5500 reg PAFF users are posting.

cant understand general trout fishing public opinion here with a self selected and atypical 2%.

I only speak for myself. That's bad enough :)

Posted on: 2013/10/8 9:24

Edited by k-bob on 2013/10/8 9:40:35


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2010/6/26 11:19
From Along the Lehigh Above the Gap
Posts: 7228
Offline
DGC, They are not all limestoners. Just saying.

Posted on: 2013/10/8 9:32
_________________
"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
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22460
Offline
I think about 5-10% of all PA anglers have ever used a flyrod.

Posted on: 2013/10/8 9:36
_________________
Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal.

-- Leo Tolstoy


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 1809
Offline
I have never used one properly....

Posted on: 2013/10/8 9:38


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 6488
Offline
this proposal sets a precedent that I would fight until my dying breath. I understand what HA is saying but it creates a line and gives a path to cross it at will too easily.
Not good.

Posted on: 2013/10/8 9:54
_________________
http://cvtu.homestead.com/





Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/9/9 11:22
From New Castle, PA
Posts: 1668
Offline
Quote:

JackM wrote:
I think about 5-10% of all PA anglers have ever used a flyrod.


But 80-90% will tell you they have a fly pole back at the car/house/camp as they smush another gob of blue sparkle Powerbait onto their hooks.

Posted on: 2013/10/8 10:07


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6348
Offline
Quote:

k-bob wrote:
Dwight said the "small percentage" point on PAFF posts relevance is overstated. ...


My post stated nothing about posters on PAFF.

My post was about the percentage of PA trout fishermen who have fished for and caught wild trout.

The numbers of people who post on paff is low, and the number of people who post on general tackle forums is also low. But neither has any relevance whatever to the topic. And the percentage of anglers who are flyfishers is also not relevant.

It was claimed that very few PA trout fishermen fish for wild trout. I think that is highly exaggerated, for the reasons given.

Many wild trout streams are very popular, with both fly and spin fishermen. And there is a huge mileage of small unstocked streams that are never crowded, but do get fished and the cumulative amount of fishing done on those streams is considerable.

And about half of the streams that are stocked hold wild trout, so people fishing those streams catch both wild and stocked trout.

So, the idea that only a tiny percentage of people in PA catch wild trout, just isn't true.

Many fishermen, both spin fishers and flyfishers, fish for and catch both stocked and wild trout.

Posted on: 2013/10/8 10:59


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6348
Offline
Ending stocking on Class A streams does not decrease the number of hatchery trout stocked. It only changes where they are stocked.

And ending stocking and harvest limitations can greatly increase wild trout populations. There are many examples of this.

The number of hatchery trout remains the same. The number of wild trout increases.

So the TOTAL number of trout available to anglers to fish for is increased. And angler opportunities for trout fishing recreation are pretty closely linked to the number of trout, yes?

For example Ohio is not known as a trout fishing destination. And Montana is known as a trout fishing destination. Isn't this because of the correlation between numbers of trout and trout fishing recreation?

More is more, as the old saying goes.

Posted on: 2013/10/8 11:45


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2011/5/6 17:55
From Harrisburg
Posts: 464
Offline
People harp about FFers being a small minority, but then they also clamor about the commission catering to the opening day crowd. These fickle folks who might only fish one day a year-you really think that they are more organized than the enthusiasts? You think they yell louder and more often?

I disagree. What's more- this is not a fly VS. spin argument. This is wild trout enthusiasts versus irresponsible stewardship. The only reasonable argument for the proposed change is a lessened impact on finances short-term (and I argue that that impact is overstated as well).


The healthier we make waterways today the more trout for less cost there will be in the future. It's simple investment economics. If the commission is so concerned about their wallet atrophy, every dollar spent today in the right direction leads to a return without limits in the future.


Posted on: 2013/10/8 11:55


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2007/6/20 11:26
Posts: 480
Offline
"I have been told by more than one person that a physical letter is much more powerful to Mr. Arway than electronic communication. So there is that."

That sounds like a load of crap, why would one have any more significance than the other? Either are comments from tax paying citizens who are also most likely license buyers so one form of communication is just as 'powerful' as the other if it comes from a concerned or interested citizen. Sounds to me like Mr Arway needs to learn to get with the times or GTFO

Posted on: 2013/10/8 11:58


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2011/5/6 17:55
From Harrisburg
Posts: 464
Offline
It's absolutely more powerful. From my computer I can send a thousand messages and write a different name on the bottom of each. I could even get a proxy ISP and make it look like it came from a thousand different places.

It takes a whole lot more time and care to mail a thousand letters- and I'm a whole lot less likely to try and fake things there. Also costs me half a buck for each attempt.

Posted on: 2013/10/8 12:16


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2007/4/8 20:43
From SEPA
Posts: 11425
Offline
People can stamp their feet and huff all they want, teh truth of the matter simple.

Either they can continue to under report class A water which disallows it the additional protections that may be afforded to it, or they can grant it this "special" status which allows it to be managed better but unfortantly allows stocking to continue.

You can pretend you'll fight to prove their class A or whatever, but there simply won't be manpower or resources every available to survey that section of stream leaving your hopes and dreams untouched; or you can accept this half-step and gather some protection.



Posted on: 2013/10/8 12:30
_________________
April 8, 2007 - December 4, 2011.
And why not?


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2007/4/8 20:43
From SEPA
Posts: 11425
Offline
Quote:

timmyt wrote:
That sounds like a load of crap, why would one have any more significance than the other? Either are comments from tax paying citizens who are also most likely license buyers so one form of communication is just as 'powerful' as the other if it comes from a concerned or interested citizen. Sounds to me like Mr Arway needs to learn to get with the times or GTFO


Because typing four lines of text and clicking send requires a whole lot less effort than sending a written letter through the mail.

One shows you're committed to something enough to put effort forth, the other one shows that you're willing to piss away 45 seconds of your day between emails from your boss.

Deal with it.

Posted on: 2013/10/8 12:32
_________________
April 8, 2007 - December 4, 2011.
And why not?



« 1 2 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
Will you be fly fishing this autumn?
Yes 95% (139)
No 0% (0)
Thinking about it 4% (6)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/10/31 17:56
1 Comment





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