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


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 (2) 3 »


Re: FFO and Opening Day: a solution from the past?

Joined:
2006/11/10 8:32
Posts: 599
Offline
Wyomissing Ck: Previous proposal by me for special regs rejected in favor of present management.

What am I looking for?
For starters: Good physical habitat, good flow through July 1 in most years, 2 miles of water, cool temps at least until July 1, no posting or willingness of landowners to allow DHALO even if presently posted, good parking, reasonable distance from parking spots, good width...not a "small" or tight stream...preferably 10 m. or more, not close to other special reg waters, good access for stocking truck and stockers, ideally no need to take a stretch from existing trout stocking program but will consider it depending upon availability of similar water in the area.

In response to your original post: New FFO waters are unnecessary and will not be established; new special reg waters will be ALO at a minimum. This has been the situation for a number of years.

Posted on: 2011/2/17 13:01


Re: FFO and Opening Day: a solution from the past?

Joined:
2009/10/15 13:45
From Eastern PA
Posts: 37
Offline
Ok, so you are looking more for stream suggesting for DHAFO versus the initial post of changing regs for opening day.

There are limiting factors obviously. Prime open accessible water is already being stocked. Stocking points are chosen for some of the same criteria, thus finding "new" water is going to be tougher, but surely among this group a few good recommendations should spew forth.

Posted on: 2011/2/17 13:07


Re: FFO and Opening Day: a solution from the past?

Joined:
2006/11/10 8:32
Posts: 599
Offline
jdaddy: No, this is not an either/or situation. We are always on the lookout for potential DH Areas and, in addition to that, the original post still stands, although your first response caused me to add one sentence for clarification. My original post should not have led you to think that I was only speaking about opening day. My mistake. Thus, the addition to that post.

We'll see about the spewing.

Posted on: 2011/2/17 13:12


Re: FFO and Opening Day: a solution from the past?

Joined:
2009/10/15 13:45
From Eastern PA
Posts: 37
Offline
Out of curiosity what was the issue with Wyomissing?

Posted on: 2011/2/17 13:23


Re: FFO and Opening Day: a solution from the past?

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 996
Offline
I said the Upper Tully when you asked this question before. The Tully in Lebanon County has certain stretches with fairly decent habitat and would make a nice project water. I also believe Tully TU is doing work up there.....sounds like the perfect place. You may want to check with them on what stretch they are restoring. IMO (and mine counts because I have fished many sections of that stream above Charming Forge) the stream holds stocked trout year round. They are just about in any section of the stream where habitat is ideal for them to hold over the summer. After that they spread out during fall and winter. Usage on the Upper Tully should not be an issue. Just downstream of Limestone Springs Hatchery (Riley Road) downstream to the Rod and Gun Club have anglers on it just about every day from the beginning of the season into late summer. People in that area like to fish and I'm sure they would utilize a DH area.

More? Ill give it ago. But I'm going to try thinking like the PFBC when I do this. I do NOT advocate stocking of wild trout water but you guys might and have. Iam going to consider multiple factors but using the new "resource 1st policy" in my mind will be paramount when considering Reg changes and stockings.

Hammer Creek in Lancaster County used to have a DH area (County Park) and could use one now. From 322 downstream to the Turnpike or even Speedwell forge road downstream to the Turnpike could support such a reg. Then again with the fact it holds wild brook trout year round....a C&R reg would be even better. The ATW also could use a reg change but we do not want to take away ATW sections. This section gets used fairly frequent late into the season. Angler usage should not be an issue. The old DH area got used very often and still does.

Conowingo Creek in Lancaster County obviously could support a DH area, but you would probably need to rob some of the ATW limits. Not sure about angler usage.

Fishing Creek Lancaster County would make an EXCELLENT special reg area. The area is beautiful and the stream is or has been enhanced by TU. Downstream a good way has some nice looking water. The ATW could also support such a reg (DH) but we dont want to change ATW limits. Not sure about angler usage.

Lititz Run Lancaster County could support C&R regs or a DH area. However landowners do not wish to have it be a public fishery and are very happy with having there own regs (C&R FFO if your not doing this you are a trespasser). Angler usage on this stream is fair to good. Not really an option for the PFBC.

Trout Run Lancaster County would be an awesome wild trout fishery for beauty alone. This would make a good C&R steam(no stocking). Again above the precious small ATW section. Fly fisherman utilize this wonderful stream.

Tucquan Creek Lancaster County would make a totally fantasic C&R stream (stocked) or DH area. Fish populations near the river are higher than the rest of the stream. Given the lack or smaller population of wild fish, it would be nice to see more trout in it. I believe the would have no problem holding over in this stream. Again, this stream is just down right beautiful and people use the place to hike. If you stock it they will come. Only issue here is landowner getting upset and closing it down. I would fish it more personally if it had a special reg on it.

Notables: Big Beaver, Little Chiques, Cocalico Creek, Middle Creek,Pequea Creek, Hammer Creek (below speedwell) are all fairly long and get warm.However with a moved up date on DH areas to allow harvest these could all be options of a revamped DH system. They are not that warm in the beginning of May. June yes. I would think a better idea for these streams would to be a preseason stocking and delay the second stocking on half the streams for 2 weeks or so. This would in essence extend their trout season. No idea on angler usage.

Lehigh County/Northampton has many streams that would excellent if stockings and regs changed. These precious limestoners need less stockings, stricter regs and enforcement. You saw how people got upset when the LL was deemed wading allowable. Just imagine messing with FFO areas. DH areas on these streams should not even be considered. TT regs should be canceled and C&R put in place. Many of these streams would become Class A if we gave them a chance. The general angling public would fight this hard, but it really needs to be done if we are trying to manage the fisheries better.

Allegheny Creek in Berks County is only stocked in-season (no limits again btw, you totally avoided or didnt read that part of my post). What section is stocked? It has wild trout and is fairly small in the headwaters. Downstream of the Lake would make a decent DH area.

Hay Creek Berks County would make a great C&R stream(stocking or none) & or DH area. Usage obviously not an issue but locals belly aching over a reg change would make this virtually impossible.

NorthKill Berks County could support a DH Area. Not sure about usage in this area....but I like the WT section and would probably utilize it myself.

Wyomissing Creek in Berks County should be C&R(not stocked) in the Class A section. Also the PFBC should stop giving permits to stock that section.

Stony Creek in Dauphin would make a nice one. Given the location near Harrisburg I'm sure it would get plenty of usage, but thats not really SEPA considered by the PFBC. Then again neither is Lebanon and the Upper Tully. A cetain landowner on that stream restored his section and asked the PFBC for special regs. He was told no and put his own in place (C&R FFO) and if you are not doing such you are trespassing (much like Lititz Run). This is a mistake by the PFBC. Stony has miles of stocked water but we dont want to take ATW mileage away from the general angling public. I see nothing wrong with taking 1 mile of that stream and making it C&R(stocked). Make it a short special reg area like the Quitte in Lebanon. I will admit the gated road is under utilized given its hard to access nature.

Rattling Creek in Dauphin could us a DH area as well. Angler usage on this stream is fairly high each time I visited it. Even this past winter.

Schuylkill has many streams new special reg areas could be created on. However, I know angler usage here is low. To name a few:Swatara should have a C&R(stocked or not) area in the headwaters & Cold Run would be an option for this reg also. Again it would rob ATW sections or sections stocked by clubs. This could cause angler angst.

York County also has many streams Special reg areas could be created on. Not sure on angler usage, Maurice would have a better handle on that than I. I suspect it is low. To name a few:
Fishing Creek (trib to Muddy), Bald Eagle Creek and Orson Run should be C&R(not stocked)given its migrating wild brown trout population. Sawmill Run and Beaver Creek could use a DH area.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

I agree that Donegal Creek and West Branch or Octo in Lancaster would make better DH areas than FFO areas. Until you give the fisherman in this county more places to fish later into the season, would not make the illusion of robbing these special reg areas from Lancaster Co. anglers.
Fish in Donegal do holdover though and do not die in the late season if they are left alone. I lived near this stream many years and never witnessed dead trout because of heat stress. However, the FFO is in bad need of restoration (to the disagreement between DTU/ me and other Lancaster County fly anglers that fish the water). It is possible if more anglers were able to utilize this water more people may care about it and it might get more work.

I also agree multiple FFO areas in SEPA could probably go DH, but again donot give the illusion that you are robbing FFer's of there water. This will not go over well. A better thing to do would be make those streams DH and make better wild trout streams C&R FFO.

I think that is fair. Others may not.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

To end:

If the PA fish commission is serious about extending trout season in PA these are some options close to SEPA.

Also I understand why angler usage is important to streams that are stocked and given DH regs. On streams that are C&R angler usage should not be even in the equation. If we are expecting the fish to hold over then it is even better it is under fished. It makes the survival rate of trout high given angler behavior(as you talked about in your past thread). This would make the fishing fantastic from time to time until someone discovers it and utilizes it. Then when it dies down it would eventually return being fantastic when those anglers leave.

Again, C&R and angler usage should not even be considered together

I think even delaying the second stocking 2 to 3 weeks later than you do it now for half the streams that are second stocked would also accomplish this. In this case Special Regs would not be needed and everyone could enjoy a longer trout season, be it flyrod/spin rod or Spinner/Woolly Bugger/or Canned Corn.



I tried to be unbiased and I tried to give my honest opinion......let the blasting begin.

Posted on: 2011/2/17 13:46
_________________
http://cvtu.homestead.com/





Re: FFO and Opening Day: a solution from the past?

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 996
Offline
Also just to be clear.

I'm not saying make all those streams special reg areas. That would be over kill IMO, I'm saying pick one....there are options. Streams / Trout Season could be managed in PA so much better than we do under our current format.

I really believe doing a stocking for preseason on all ATW's then 2nd stocking them 2 weeks later on half the streams and then another stocking 2-3 weeks later on the other half would do so much for everyone's enjoyment in SEPA.

Posted on: 2011/2/17 13:52
_________________
http://cvtu.homestead.com/





Re: FFO and Opening Day: a solution from the past?

Joined:
2009/10/15 13:45
From Eastern PA
Posts: 37
Offline
Sal, I agree with every word.

Posted on: 2011/2/17 13:54


Re: FFO and Opening Day: a solution from the past?

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 996
Offline
shhhhhhhhhhh dont let people see you say that!

Posted on: 2011/2/17 14:15
_________________
http://cvtu.homestead.com/





Re: FFO and Opening Day: a solution from the past?

Joined:
2007/4/8 20:43
From SEPA
Posts: 19
Offline
There's only one portion I have direct experience with in that posting. You are correct. I'd like to see the LV limestoners treasured instead of plundered.

Posted on: 2011/2/17 14:22
_________________
April 8, 2007 - December 4, 2011.
And why not?


Re: FFO and Opening Day: a solution from the past?

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 53
Offline
Quote:

jdaddy wrote:
Sal, I agree with every word.


Anotherwords your saying good post amirite?

Anyway, I am not so confident that anyone will provide a solution that mike hasn't considered, unfortunately. My opinion is still that a piece of hay creek would be good for special regs, but I know what the answer is. And I also have friends, family, and former neighbors that would strangle me for feeling that way.

Posted on: 2011/2/17 14:23


Re: FFO and Opening Day: a solution from the past?

Joined:
2009/10/15 13:45
From Eastern PA
Posts: 37
Offline
Like I said, I like Wyomissing the way it is, but unlike Hay or Manny, it gets practically no pressure, and could easily be managed as a FFOC&R wild trout stream with little cost or effort by PFBC. Seems Mike is on the same page but someone shot it down for unknown reasons.

Posted on: 2011/2/17 14:38


Re: FFO and Opening Day: a solution from the past?

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 996
Offline
My guess would either be the Park because they feel it would be unfair to residents who care to fish the stream or.......

The people whom each year continue to get a permit to stock it for a "kids" trout derby. The few times I have witnessed this event there is always WAY more adults fishing this kids derby than children. They put nets in the stream to attempt to pen them in (which doesn't work and is basically illegal according to PFBC law with obstructing objects and fish in free flowing water) and they also tell out of town fisherman like myself(whom are there for the wilds and not the stockers anyways) its for Wyomissing residents only. When I called about this the PFBC told me they never put that in their permit and it is legal for me to fish it.

All in the middle of a Class A section. Makes no dang sense to me. If I had a nickle for every time I have been fishing that stream in the middle of winter and people stop to ask me if they stocked it again. They always have a confused look on their face.

Wyomissing is under utilized but that does not mean it is ok to stock a Class A section either. It should also have no bearing on making it C&R.

*Note: in my previous post to Mike where I mentioned streams- I said C&R as to mean C&R AFLO.....not FFO. I was trying to be fair to other fisherman, not that I would hate a FFO reg on streams i mentioned. Mike says its not an option so I would hope C&RAFLO would be at least considered.

Posted on: 2011/2/17 14:52
_________________
http://cvtu.homestead.com/





Re: FFO and Opening Day: a solution from the past?

Joined:
2009/10/15 13:45
From Eastern PA
Posts: 37
Offline
I don't understand why they can't just use that big shallow reflecting pond or whatever it is. Where is that derby held?

Posted on: 2011/2/17 15:02


Re: FFO and Opening Day: a solution from the past?
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 17:32
From Gettysburg
Posts: 439
Offline
I remember the old FFO 3 Fish Per Day regulation. We had one of those here in Adams County that went to DHFFO about 1990 and is now C&RFFO.

Broadly speaking, I don't favor adding any new FFO areas. It's too exclusive and unfair to spin guys. Make the new reg sections Artificial Lures C&R where there is cold water/wild fish... and DHALO where the waters are stocked and get warm in summer
Add more waters to special regs, but keep the regs simple.

Posted on: 2011/2/17 15:08


Re: FFO and Opening Day: a solution from the past?

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 996
Offline
In the section across from that ice skating rink. What ever road intersects right there upstream to the next road I believe are the limits.

I have caught those stocked fish past the upper road crossing about 200 yards downstream to the sewer plant.

Posted on: 2011/2/17 15:13
_________________
http://cvtu.homestead.com/






« 1 (2) 3 »



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
Sponsors
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

USGS Water Levels
Polls
Angling Trade E-Survey: How Many Outdoor Print Magazines Do You Subscribe To?
None. Nada. Zip. 50% (46)
One or two. 32% (30)
Three or four. 13% (12)
More than four. 3% (3)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2017/10/27 11:42
Comments?





Copyright 2017 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com