How to establish Fly Only Catch and Release Stretches

[NickR]

Is it enough to put out a petition to establish some fly only stretches on some of our favorite streams? Sadly I feel as fly fisherman there are so many streams we are unable to enjoy to their fullest potential because of harvesting and fishing methods that kill fish.

 

[rrt]

You are unlikely, unfortunately, to meet with success. Not long ago the FBC was inundated by those who wish to eliminate the ones we now have as being exclusionary. Sadly, I cannot imagine that the FBC will establish any new ones.

 

[troutbert]

The PFBC has not created any new flyfishing areas for many years, and are not likely to do so any time soon.

But they have taken other steps that are beneficial, such as ending stocking in some wild trout waters. And they have taken steps to reduce harvest in some streams.

For example, it doesn't seem all that long ago to me that the Little Juniata was stocked and the daily "limit" was 8 fish, min. size 7 inches. Now it's not stocked, it's managed for wild trout, and it's catch-and-release.

The brook trout special regs came about fairly recently, in 2005 I believe.

What can you do? Join TU. PATU has around 11-12,000 members. And it has had some influence. If it had 25,000 members, it would have more influence.

Write letters to the PFBC or specifically to the Fish Commissioner in your region. But I recommend not asking for new fly areas because it won't happen.

Ask for things that will improve the trout population. Reducing stocking over wild trout. Specifically ending of stocking over Class B populations. And reduced harvest limits on wild trout streams in general, not just in "special regs" areas. 5 trout per day is just much too high on any wild trout stream.

 

[Fishidiot]

Nick,
I agree with rrt and troutbert.

It's not impossible to get a section of stream listed under special regs but it's tough. You're more likely to get the PFBC to consider artificial lures only or all tackle with C&R....rather than FFO. There have been special reg sections added recently, although not FFO. The special reg sections of Pine Creek, for example, were established just a few years ago. Nevertheless, getting FF only is unlikely. Most of the streams with this regulation have had it for over 30 years. If you're determined to try, the key is landowners. If a majority of them are on board with wanting FF, you can get a petition drive and the PFBC will certainly give it serious consideration. If the landowners aren't on board, forget about it.

Finally, might I humbly suggest rethinking the notion that, without FFO, you can't enjoy fishing "to it's fullest potential." Many of my absolutely favorite streams and rivers for FFing allow conventional tackle as well.

 

[Chaz]

I agree with all of the above. You may want to look at some wild trout streams in your region, there are nearly 4,000 wild trout stream sections with over 7,000 miles of water. And the surprising thing few people ever fish them. During the summer flows get dicey but after a good rain the fish are very active.
PFBC has said they aren't going to make any new sections Fly-fishing Only. However they did move a bunch of streams from DHFFO to C&RFFO within the last couple of years.
My point of view is that unless they decide to make a bunch of ALO sections no new regs will come about. I don't think we need more FFO waters myself, I think we need better regs on out wild trout streams. NO TT, and low harvest would satisfy me.

 

[SBecker]

We (WPTU) will be beginning to try to push for an artificial lure C&R section on the Pohopoco. We would not even think about trying to make it FF only, because we know there are others that are responsible and enjoy the same section of stream. The problem lies with the bait fishermen.

They are needlessly killing small wild browns, because of allowing them to swallow the hook then ripping it out of them and throwing them back in because of their size. Only for them to go belly up. This section is also a non stocked area and a thermal refuge for many Lehigh trout. This is the reason they are basically coming to this section. Tonight I witnessed this sorry display of fishing first hand. Before I was getting these reports from other responsible bait and spin fishermen. It was sickening tonight watching bait fishermen from and hour and half away kill everything they caught and put the fish in plastic bags. I had to leave or I would have blown my top.

We have the backing from the LCFA, LRSA, and the Pohopoco Rod and Gun Club to go ahead with trying to get these regulations in place. Last year the president of the LRSS watched two guys walking up the creek with spears stabbing trout successfully! It is just a sad display of fishing.

 

[Mike]

Anglers would be much more successful in interactions with fisheries managers if they were to describe the characteristics that they would like to see in the fish populations over which they fish and in their catches rather than the regulations that they would like to see in place. FFO regulations are not in an of themselves a necessary route to those desired fish population characteristics; plain and simple they are a social program (for humans) that initially gained popularity among old time biologists and anglers when little was known about spin fishing and even less was known about the low mortality rates that could also be achieved with hardware. Times change and so does the scientific knowledge behind various fishing techniques. FFO is not required to manage Pa. fisheries where low mortality rates are desired. Furthermore, more recently scientific examination of bait fished on a tight line has revealed that using this specific bait fishing technique also produces acceptably low mortality rates. Times change.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Fisheries managers would be much more successful in interactions with anglers if they were to describe the characteristics that regulations have in the fish populations over which they survey and in their catches rather than telling anglers the regulation they requested will not have the desired affect that the angler was hoping to achieve.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Im just joshing ya Mike.

I do think that PA could use some more special reg waters overall though. I do see a benefit to having some more on certain waters.
It doesn't have to be FFO either.

 

[troutbert]

Mike wrote:
Anglers would be much more successful in interactions with fisheries managers if they were to describe the characteristics that they would like to see in the fish populations over which they fish and in their catches rather than the regulations that they would like to see in place.

We want:
1) Big fish
2) Lots of them.

 

[JackM]

Adding:

I would like more streams where wild trout are exclusive. To preserve these waters, I would like a regulation that limits fishing pressure and harvest for a period of, say, 5 years. Require a special permit to fish these waters, an extra 20 bucks a year or a $5-$10 weekly permit. Make huge fines and disqualifications for any infractions. Police these waters a little more than normal. Use teams of college students to help monitor the streams by using internships of short or long duration.

If nothing else, it will answer a lot of fisheries management questions.

Take this to the brass, Mike.

 

[Haywood]

In Fifty years Tailwaters like the Pohopoco are gonna be the only streams that hold trout if something is not done soon to stabilize the existing streams. If they keep devolping the banks wash away the streams fill with silt the trout have no structure the bugs wl be gone the temps will rise. Its not gd. Next time y

 

[Haywood]

I hit submit by accident. My fault. Anyway I hope something can be done to save to save our streams before its to late. Next time your out on any of the Lehigh Valley streams in SE Pa just look at how bad the banks are and how much silt is on the bottom of the stream.

 

[SNJChef]

I agree with above, just has to be presented properly and not FFO. FFO will never be successful since it eliminates people to fish in certain areas. Special regulations I am a fan of not FFO increases.

 

[Chaz]

I'd like to see all harvest on wild trout streams reduced, and more big fish.

 

[Maurice]

Mike wrote:
Anglers would be much more successful in interactions with fisheries managers if they were to describe the characteristics that they would like to see in the fish populations over which they fish and in their catches rather than the regulations that they would like to see in place. FFO regulations are not in an of themselves a necessary route to those desired fish population characteristics; plain and simple they are a social program (for humans) that initially gained popularity among old time biologists and anglers when little was known about spin fishing and even less was known about the low mortality rates that could also be achieved with hardware. Times change and so does the scientific knowledge behind various fishing techniques. FFO is not required to manage Pa. fisheries where low mortality rates are desired. Furthermore, more recently scientific examination of bait fished on a tight line has revealed that using this specific bait fishing technique also produces acceptably low mortality rates. Times change.

Successful at what? Hearing how our desires are not possible due to the myriad of reasons you can come up with because you are the professional? maybe with warmwater fisheries where you throw mud at the wall and see if it sticks. Then discontinue the program because nobody uses it rather than push PR campaign on the success of the boosted fishery.

Lest face it, most if not all booming wild trout fisheries came about not because of the F&BC but in spite of them. Pollution, cold water release dams, posting that eliminated stocking, etc.

All we as anglers have to push for are social programs because otherwise we are told how great things are with stocking over wild trout, current harvest limits and reductions in stocking numbers due to F&BC restrictions.

You guys are selling a product not managing a resource. Or rather you manage the resource to sell licenses. If you managed it to please your most frequent customers there would be alot more restrictive regs regarding wild trout and tackle restrictions. But alas its all based on the motto: Harvest is Job #1, admit it.

Its a $33 piece of paper that says STHU and fish. We got this.....

 

[gfen]

maurice eloquently states what more than a few people have said offline.

well done.

 

[SBecker]

+1000 especially on how they run fisheries management on tailwater fisheries.

 

[afishinado]

Maurice wrote:

Mike wrote:
Anglers would be much more successful in interactions with fisheries managers if they were to describe the characteristics that they would like to see in the fish populations over which they fish and in their catches rather than the regulations that they would like to see in place. FFO regulations are not in an of themselves a necessary route to those desired fish population characteristics; plain and simple they are a social program (for humans) that initially gained popularity among old time biologists and anglers when little was known about spin fishing and even less was known about the low mortality rates that could also be achieved with hardware. Times change and so does the scientific knowledge behind various fishing techniques. FFO is not required to manage Pa. fisheries where low mortality rates are desired. Furthermore, more recently scientific examination of bait fished on a tight line has revealed that using this specific bait fishing technique also produces acceptably low mortality rates. Times change.

Successful at what? Hearing how our desires are not possible due to the myriad of reasons you can come up with because you are the professional? maybe with warmwater fisheries where you throw mud at the wall and see if it sticks. Then discontinue the program because nobody uses it rather than push PR campaign on the success of the boosted fishery.

Lest face it, most if not all booming wild trout fisheries came about not because of the F&BC but in spite of them. Pollution, cold water release dams, posting that eliminated stocking, etc.

All we as anglers have to push for are social programs because otherwise we are told how great things are with stocking over wild trout, current harvest limits and reductions in stocking numbers due to F&BC restrictions.

You guys are selling a product not managing a resource. Or rather you manage the resource to sell licenses. If you managed it to please your most frequent customers there would be alot more restrictive regs regarding wild trout and tackle restrictions. But alas its all based on the motto: Harvest is Job #1, admit it.

Its a $33 piece of paper that says STHU and fish. We got this.....

I tried to highlight the great points made, but it's all great stuff, so I highlighted it all! Read and reread the whole post.

 

[Kabutt]

Maurice said it all.

Why not require anglers to be more responsible and knowledgeable about the fish they pursue? Let's make everyone differentiate between wild and stocked fish. Is it really that hard to tell the difference 99% of the time? Wild fish should be immediately released, unharmed. For wild trout streams that can support harvest, keep bag limits at a minimum. Barbless hooks should be used unless an angler intends to kill what he catches...