Much trout fishing related info at recent PFBC meeting

[Mike]

https://www.media.pa.gov/pages/fish-and-boat-commission-details.aspx?newsid=345

 

[silverfox]

Not arguing there's no good here, but reducing the reach on (2) DHALO's and then using voluntary wild trout permit money on Spruce Creek?

I was a huge cheerleader for these volunteer permits and I bought every one of them. Then I see a report that says they're using wild trout funds on Spruce Creek. One of the furthest things from a true wild trout stream I can think of in central PA. What a gut punch.

Even from an optics standpoint, why on earth? You could argue that it (the habitat project) will get more visibility. Ok, by who?

The guys who spend extra money as a donation to PFBC like me? What do you think guys like me are going to think of PFBC using those funds in a place like spruce?

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Yikes!
Agree Silverfox.

Would have loved to see a change of heart on stocking the Tioga River and some good habitat installed there myself.

 

[PennKev]

silverfox wrote:
Then I see a report that says they're using wild trout funds on Spruce Creek. One of the furthest things from a true wild trout stream I can think of in central PA. What a gut punch.

I feel the same way, although in fairness to Spruce Creek, it is a great wild trout stream underneath all the pay-to-play, lunker-feeding nonsense. The real problem is that the PAFBC has influence over so little of the creek, I can't help but think it is almost pointless to throw money at it.

 

[silverfox]

I also take direct issue with this line:

These stream sections are in proximity to high-density human population centers and are heavily fished streams of a size and character that can support a fishery featuring both stocked and wild trout.

Can someone explain to me what giant population center is near Yellow Creek in Bedford? I live down here and if we're a "high-density human population center" it's news to me.

Heavily fished? Sure. So we'll just ignore biology. It's all about what people want right? I'm not convinced yellow creek "can" support a fishery featuring both stockers and wild trout. I've noticed a decline in larger wild brown trout in the FFO reach over the last 30 years. Sure it's anecdotal, but if we're relying on anything other than science to drive policy then my personal experience should count right?

A few years ago I left there in disgust. Apparently, I happened to decide to fish the FFO right after a fresh dumping of pellet raised rainbows. It's all I caught. Cast after cast. 8 or 9 inch cookie cutter rainbows with no color, missing fins, maxilla torn off, half the caudal fin worn down from swimming upstream in the infinite raceway. It sucked and I left pretty quick and probably didn't go back for a good 6 months.

I'm sure the YC coalition or whatever they call themselves these days are a big supporter of this practice. I'm sure that plays a bigger role in why it's stocked than anything based in science. It's certainly not due to it's proximity to a high-density population center.

 

[silverfox]

PennKev wrote:

silverfox wrote:
Then I see a report that says they're using wild trout funds on Spruce Creek. One of the furthest things from a true wild trout stream I can think of in central PA. What a gut punch.

I feel the same way, although in fairness to Spruce Creek, it is a great wild trout stream underneath all the pay-to-play, lunker-feeding nonsense. The real problem is that the PAFBC has influence over so little of the creek, I can't help but think it is almost pointless to throw money at it.

Trust me. I get that completely. Which is why it's so disheartening to see they're going to waste that wild trout earmarked money on that stream.

Here's an idea, if you want to do instream work on spruce, why not wait until the statewide stocking permits go live in 2023 and use some of that money there? Since the vast majority of that stream is private individuals stocking the stream, isn't it only fair that you use some of THEIR money to improve their private stream?

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Phillip,

So wild trout button funds are going to facilitate a stream because it has wild fish AND CAN BE STOCKED?
gut punch indeed.

 

[silverfox]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
Phillip,

So wild trout button funds are going to facilitate a stream because it has wild fish AND CAN BE STOCKED?
gut punch indeed.

Apparently. For the life of me, I don't get this. Of all the Class A's in this state, THAT'S the one you chose for the first round of funding from a voluntary wild trout permit? IF someone asked me if I would donate money for a habitat improvement project on Spruce Creek I would've told them to go door to door on Spruce Ck road instead. I think they make enough money off the club up there to throw a few bucks at it.

 

[silverfox]

$20,000

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I dont get it either.
Beyond that, i remember an initiative to try and get some of the class b status streams to class A.
Why not there?

This is stupid IMO.
I will bow out of this thread because i can see myself getting nasty.

Good luck

 

[lycoflyfisher]

I believe they also talked about removing multiple culverts on a wild trout trib to pine creek, Ott Fork maybe? There were some other uses of the voluntary funds from the wild trout stamp as well. If I get a chance I will find the slides that were presented. They did say in one of the past meetings that there would be more and larger projects in the future as the amount of funds in play were better realized.

 

[silverfox]

lycoflyfisher wrote:
I believe they also talked about removing multiple culverts on a wild trout trib to pine creek, Ott Fork maybe? There were some other uses of the voluntary funds from the wild trout stamp as well. If I get a chance I will find the slides that were presented. They did say in one of the past meetings that there would be more and larger projects in the future as the amount of funds in play were better realized.

That's correct, and as I said, it's not all bad. Those are just 2 points that rubbed me the wrong way personally.

Since these projects apparently don't have a public comment period, (not that it matters I guess) I guess the only way to voice our displeasure with how the funds are being spent is to whine on the internet about it. Submit comments to the fishing hole that are never answered, or never buy another voluntary permit again.

I'm personally not going to sit idly by while they squander (imo) funds that I helped provide. I would've liked to have seen that money go to "real" wild trout water with better access frankly.

I'm eating crow for cheerleading these voluntary permits.

 

[Dave_W]

I'm going to play a bit of devil's advocate on Spruce here...

While I can certainly see folk's angle on Spruce Creek as a recipient for these (limited and donated ) funds, I really enjoy fishing the small Harvey section and many other anglers do as well. This combined with a new, albeit small, section open to public access does make it a reasonable candidate for these funds.

Are there better candidates? Probably - but Spruce has a lot of wild BTs and is very heavily fished.

I would hope those of us who have supported the voluntary permit program - which is excellent and is showing growing success - will continue to do so. Just because we don't agree with every project should not invalidate the entire program in my view.

 

[silverfox]

Dave_W wrote:
I'm going to play a bit of devil's advocate on Spruce here...

While I can certainly see folk's angle on Spruce Creek as a recipient for these (limited and donated ) funds, I really enjoy fishing the small Harvey section and many other anglers do as well. This combined with a new, albeit small, section open to public access does make it a reasonable candidate for these funds.

Are there better candidates? Probably - but Spruce has a lot of wild BTs and is very heavily fished.

I would hope those of us who have supported the voluntary permit program - which is excellent and is showing growing success - will continue to do so. Just because we don't agree with every project should not invalidate the entire program in my view.

I get that Spruce is a wild trout stream underneath the P2P nonsense. My issue is; what population of anglers is going to benefit from any instream work done there? Also, what portion of the resident population of wild fish vs stocked fish will benefit from habitat work? I know there are wild fish in there, but there are an awful lot of stocked trout too.

Should we be ok with WT money being used on a keystone select because there are some WT in there with the pellet heads? I think if they said they were using voluntary wild trout donations on a keystone select, people should be equally up in arms. There are so many WT streams (class A and B) that are 100% wild fish, have greater public access and could benefit from instream work that I have a real problem with using the funds on a mostly stocked stream with extremely limited public access and will benefit a small group of people who already benefit financially from the stream.

If it were just some posted property on a Class A with a few small public access points I wouldn't care as much.

I was happy to see the perched culvert replacement projects done with some of the funds. That's what I envisioned my money going to. Since we have no vote in how the funds are spent, all we can do is voice our concerns about it. I've already voiced my concern to PFBC with absolutely zero response (as per typical) so I brought it up here so at least other people are aware.

For me personally, I had really hoped the majority of that money would go to brook trout. Without a roadmap of how they plan to spend the funds, I personally have to evaluate whether I want to participate in something like this (the permits) in the future.

This is my last comment on this because I'm too aggravated and I'll probably get too worked up continuing to talk about it.

 

[bigjohn58]

I think its funny you guys act surprised about what they are doing with the permit money...You really trusted them? Its a government run agency so nothing else really needs to be said. If they would have a list of streams that they wanted to do habitat improvement on and a sign up sheet to help I'd do that but no way am I giving them my money for them to make the choices.

 

[krayfish2]

And this is why I didn't buy a permit. Was going to wait and see how the funds were spent. Don't count on me buying one anytime soon. I'd rather donate money to Montana fish and game.....and I've never been there but it appears that they do a better job of wild fish management.

 

[troutbert]

On Spruce Creek, the work will probably be done on the public access sections, not the posted sections.

Penn State owns a section open to the public, and the PFBC recently bought a section.

Spruce Creek has loads of wild brown trout. Neither the Penn State or the PFBC section are stocked.

I've fished the Penn State section a few times, and only caught wild trout there. I don't doubt that some of the pellet-fed bloaters move in there sometimes, but the great majority of the trout in that section are wild.

 

[silverfox]

troutbert wrote:
On Spruce Creek, the work will probably be done on the public access sections, not the posted sections.

Penn State owns a section open to the public, and the PFBC recently bought a section.

Spruce Creek has loads of wild brown trout. Neither the Penn State or the PFBC section are stocked.

I've fished the Penn State section a few times, and only caught wild trout there. I don't doubt that some of the pellet-fed bloaters move in there sometimes, but the great majority of the trout in that section are wild.

Ok, I've calmed down.

Yes, the slide says the 30 instream devices will be installed in the newly acquired "cavern" section which is .15 miles or approximately 800 feet in length.

The slide mentions nothing about the lower George Harvey/Penn State section.

I can assure you the "cavern" section has a completely different makeup of fish and it changes daily. Most days it's pig rainbows and obese brook trout with a few wild browns roaming around. One day there will be 8 big rainbows under the bridge and the next day 1. Fish move through there a lot and I'd say the majority are not wild trout.

The Harvey section is different and I think that's mostly because of barriers upstream. Most of what you find in that section are smaller wild browns. I agree.

I'm sorry, but there is nothing that can be said that justifies this move in my opinion.

 

[BrookieChaser]

krayfish2 wrote:
And this is why I didn't buy a permit. Was going to wait and see how the funds were spent. Don't count on me buying one anytime soon. I'd rather donate money to Montana fish and game.....and I've never been there but it appears that they do a better job of wild fish management.

I agree completely.

 

[PennKev]

silverfox wrote:


Yes, the slide says the 30 instream devices will be installed in the newly acquired "cavern" section which is .15 miles or approximately 800 feet in length.

The slide mentions nothing about the lower George Harvey/Penn State section.

I will concede that this stretch definitely needs some help as far as habitat goes.