Special Reg. Waters?

[afishinado]

Mike,

Rather than hijacking the thread on wild trout and Hay Creek, I started a new one. Just some observations and a question. I observed many wild trout on stringers on Hay Creek this past weekend while fishing in the approved waters. I caught many more wild trout than stocked in the section, some 8-11” and many smaller ones. I talked to fisherman who believe that the FC is still stocking too many “dinks”. While the PFBC doesn’t classify Hay as class A in that section, the harvesting of wild trout definitely would have an impact on the number of fish counted in a survey.

I know it would be unpopular taking any section off the stocking list, but what about a special regulation section? What is the prerequisite for designating a section for special regulation area? Hay has a large area for public access and is definitely suitable for holding fish well into the season. I believe a DHALO section would keep everyone happy and extend the season for all fishermen. The catch and keep fisherman would still have to chance to harvest, and the spring fishing would be extended well into the summer, in addition, a fall stocking would extend it’s use into fall and winter.

With all the miles of approved and wild trout streams Berks County, the Tulpehocken is the only special regulation trout water in the County. Another special regulation area would take pressure off the other overcrowded SR areas in the Southeast region.

One other observation, French Creek is a C&R FFO area. It truly is a marginal stream with respect to holding trout through the summer. I live nearby and fish it often. The water temperature reaches the upper 70’s for long periods during the summer, and there are not a lot of tributaries or springs in the regulation waters for the fish to hunker down in. The stream is for the most part barren of trout in the summer fall and winter. Most of the catch after the water warms are warmwater fish – chubs, sunfish, and smallmouths. Also, from the summer through the next spring, until the March stocking, the stream is underutilized. I would think that a DH designation would serve this water better, and a fall stocking would allow the stream be to be utilized from the fall through the next spring.

Since there are less stocked fish to go around, stretching the limited amount of fish available by increasing special regulation waters makes sense for everyone. Just my opinion.

 

[Bamboozle]

This answer should be interesting 'cause I had a long conversation with a older bait fisherman, (who wasn't fishing) on the Saucon trophy section on Friday.

He HATES the Trophy designation because he doesn't want to fish with artificials and also likes to eel fish and the Trophy section runs right behind his house.

It was an interesting point of view; one I never considered. I guess sometimes we get caught up in our own ideas of "the quality fishing experience" and forget that the PFBC tries to keep the masses happy.

The good news about this discussion is the guy told me about a place to get good access to another stream I have been wanting to fish for years but only saw NO TRESSPASSING signs. I figure that not copping a "fly fisher holier than thou" helped me to secure this new fishing place although giving him my lasagna recipe didn't hurt either...

 

[afishinado]

Bamboozle,

Good point about bait fishing preference, but the upper stretch of Hay doesn’t really have any other species of fish to consider. I think the PFBC tries to satisfy the most amount of fisherman, as well they should, but that’s really my point, since many special regulation waters are crowded almost year-round, while pure put & take areas are only utilized for a few weeks early in the season. This is especially true in heavily populated Southeast region with the limited number of trout fishing streams

 

[jayL]

I doubt it ever happens.

That stream is very very popular with local bait fisherman. I'd estimate that I see 25 to 1 bait fisherman vs fly fisherman on an average trip.

I was also interested that in a recent publication that I've read that Vic Attardo claims that this stream is infertile and that the fish are almost exclusively put and take. Irresponsible journalism IMO.

I'd estimate that I saw 15 wild trout on stringers on opening day. It really made me sick.

I, for one, would support any effort for special regs on this stream. This would also probably put a stop to that sportsman's club "rodeo" nonsense.

 

[FishPro]

If you want to go for special regs, you've got to ask the Fish Commission to do it in a place where it will not compromise existing 'open waters. It also needs to be at least one mile in length. And it has to have some level of parking. If you are looking for a place, the best one I would recommend is the West Branch of the Perkiomen below Rt 100. It will require legwork, but I bet the Perkiomen Chapter of TU would support it. You have to sell the landowners that DHALO does not cause crowds, has no opening day, and will not result in bait containers. All sellable items. Some for the land is quasi-public. I know one of the landowners, and he may jump on board. Chaz knows about this stretch. I always felt that DHALO sections were TU chapter builders, at least in the more populated areas.

In good years (plenty of rain, and not too hot of a summer), and when an upstream farm has it's newly planted buffer grown in, it will holdover trout. Right now it is not stocked, and does have decent hatches. Good Luck.

 

[troutbert]

Bamboozle wrote:
This answer should be interesting 'cause I had a long conversation with a older bait fisherman, (who wasn't fishing) on the Saucon trophy section on Friday.

He HATES the Trophy designation because he doesn't want to fish with artificials and also likes to eel fish and the Trophy section runs right behind his house.

It was an interesting point of view; one I never considered. I guess sometimes we get caught up in our own ideas of "the quality fishing experience" and forget that the PFBC tries to keep the masses happy.

The good news about this discussion is the guy told me about a place to get good access to another stream I have been wanting to fish for years but only saw NO TRESSPASSING signs. I figure that not copping a "fly fisher holier than thou" helped me to secure this new fishing place although giving him my lasagna recipe didn't hurt either...

It's not just a matter of angler preference, one guy prefers C&R another guy prefers keeping 5 fish per day. Kind of like one guy prefers green shirts another prefers blue shirts.

Reductions in harvest of fish (from trout to flounder to cod to stripers etc.) were done for reasons not just related to angler preference, but because of the effect of overharvest on fish POPULATIONS.

So some anglers may prefer to keep not just 5 fish per day, but 20 fish per day. So should we do it that way because they want it? Do the agencies have a responsibility to maintain fish populations at a level near their capacity or is OK to allow fish populations to get hammered down way below their carrying capacity?

Are fish POPULATIONS just a matter of a matter of angler preference too? If some people prefer low populations, should they get their way?

Many anglers don't really see the connection between fish removed and less fish being in creek. I said this to one guy and he described this a "theory." Subtraction is a theory? I thought it was pretty well established.

But fisheries people understand the connection, i.e. they understand subtraction and they have an obligation to prevent overharvest and maintain fish populations near their carrying capacity. The whole field of fisheries was established for just that purpose. And those anglers who understand such things have an obligation to support conservation-oriented fisheries management.

On Spring Creek, the idea of C&R is widely supported by spin fishermen as well as fly fishermen. I know this from talking to many of them.

About the observations of people walking out with wild trout on Hay Creek, I saw the same thing on lower Bald Eagle Creek this weekend. Beautiful wild browns. The biggest was about 15 inches and if you go to fish Bald Eagle Creek this coming weekend, that fish won't be there for you to catch. It was subtracted, and no another 15 inch wild brown does not magically and instantly replace it. If somenone takes a 15 inch wild brown OUT of the creek, then there is just one less 15 inch wild brown trout IN the creek.

 

[afishinado]

Bump for Mike.......

 

[RRR]

FishPro The W. Branch below rt. 100 doesn't have enough good holding water to support a delayed harvest area. There are several decent holes but mostly long shallow flats and riffles. I own nearly a mile of property on the W. Branch in the area you're talking about and may be the individual you mentioned in your post. The only way I'd even consider opening my stretch to the public is if it would be some kind of fly fishing only stretch. This stretch hasn't been stocked for years and I still find empty spinner packages littering the banks from time to time.

 

[Bamboozle]

troutbert wrote:
Reductions in harvest of fish (from trout to flounder to cod to stripers etc.) were done for reasons not just related to angler preference, but because of the effect of overharvest on fish POPULATIONS.

So is it a fact that all open areas that have been converted to Special Regulations in the State of PA; were done so because of over harvest? I would think a couple of million extra cod, flounder or stripers harvested by commercial fisherman is a far cry from the impact that a few real or supposed wild trout harvested would have on a PA stream; but heck, I'm just a fisherman, not a fisheries biologist. Add this to the list of questions for Mike.

IS it also a fact that ALL harvest for a given waterway is over-harvest therefore Special Regulations are necessary to maintain the population? If that were the case; based on the harvest observations made by some posters on this board; the list of Class A streams with NO special regulations would get shorter every year to the point of being non-existent in 20 years. BTW, it hasn't been getting shorter in the most recent years and has grown considerably in the 20+ years I have been counting.

The bottom line is some folks are 2000% against the harvest of any trout and 5000% against anyone who dares even consider using anything but a fly fly rod. Those same folks chose to vilify anyone who evens DARES consider the un-sacred cow; keeping a few. I don't keep any fish and it does sadden me when I see a beautiful wild trout on a stringer; but I also don't think that the "keepers" are sending our PA fisheries down the drain; at least not the Class A, no special regulation areas I fish.

I hate to put it this way but that license that the "harvesters" buy does entitle them to keep fish where legal. I just figure that since the PFBC is the steward, does the research, and has the scientific info to back it up, (whether you agree with it or not); that angler preference MAY have something to do with their decisions when actual harvest doesn't present a problem.

Besides the desire to simplify the regs; the PFBC didn't eliminate the old Delayed Harvest Fly Fishing Only designation because of over-harvest; it was because a survey of fly angler preference showed that the majority who utilized those stretches didn't harvest anyway.

Just something to consider...

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

i remember when i was a kid and my family used to fish the delaware bay. you could easily catch 50 fish (sea trout, blue fish, flounder and "junk fish") slowly the fishery declined. it was because they allowed the gill netters into the bay. after awhile the gill netters were restricted and the fishery each year got better.i agree with troutbert and bamboozle

bamboozle- the fact that the harvesters buy a license does entitle them to keep fish. especially those THAT are stocked.

troutbert. 100-1=99 that is an esay concept to understand. if you keep a fish it wont be there towmorrow.

what i dont understand is if the trout stamp helps pay for the trout stocked and allows you to harvest and fish for them, why do i need to to fish class a streams? i mean they didnt stock those fish.my trout stamp fee doesnt ensure those fish will be there towmorrow. if most harvesrters dont fish class a streams because of little fish why not change the regs? if i was a fisherman that only fished wild or class a streams why should i have to pay for the majority to harvest stocked trout?
something to think about....

bamboozle: "those that win the war write history" the pfbc is the steward and have the data. something to consider....

 

[Wulff-Man]

Bamboozle wrote:
....IS it also a fact that ALL harvest for a given waterway is over-harvest therefore Special Regulations are necessary to maintain the population? If that were the case; based on the harvest observations made by some posters on this board; the list of Class A streams with NO special regulations would get shorter every year to the point of being non-existent in 20 years. BTW, it hasn't been getting shorter in the most recent years and has grown considerably in the 20+ years I have been counting....

That made me think a bit. What I ended up thinking is that it wouldn't necessarilly mean that there would be fewer Class A streams, it would just mean that they would be filled with trout under 7 inches.

 

[Bamboozle]

Wulff-Man wrote:
That made me think a bit. What I ended up thinking is that it wouldn't necessarilly mean that there would be fewer Class A streams, it would just mean that they would be filled with trout under 7 inches.

Well considering the criteria for determining Class A water includes biomass based on WEIGHT of the fish sample in a specific area; and bigger fish usually weigh more than smaller fish...

...all of those 7" or less fish may not be enough to meet the weight requirement...

...again, just a thought...

 

[Wulff-Man]

Well, then I'm thinking you just have a couple of 2-ouncers instead of a quarter-pounder. The stream has the habitat and carrying capacity for a particular biomass, it's just that the bigger ones are taken out.

 

[RRR]

Wulff-Man, you're exactly right. And that is the very thing that is happening to class A as well as lower classification waters that have good wild trout populations. I have fished half a dozen of my favorite wild trout streams so far this year and the number of legal size trout I've caught is very few. Just today I fished the Monocacy below Illick's Mill Rd. I used to catch a ton of wild trout in this stretch up to 11 or 12 inches. Today it looked like opening day and I had to fish a long stretch of stream to catch one legal size trout. I only had 6 total and several of these were 3 to 4 in. long. On the way out I talked to a fellow who lives near there and walks the path along the stream every day. He is a bait fisherman but releases all the trout he catches. He said it made him want to throw up seeing all the stringers with limits of wild trout on them that have come out of that streth this year.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

wulff is exactly right.

Well considering the criteria for determining Class A water includes biomass based on WEIGHT of the fish sample in a specific area; and bigger fish usually weigh more than smaller fish...

that is true also but as wulff eluded to.....i stream may have enough biomass in 1-2 year olds to classify itself as a class a stream. as undercoffer stated in to 2002 trout summit some of the biggest brookies he has caught were in streams that were not class a. and that it may be because we are "frying" them up before they reach 10 inches or more. streams not listed as class a get less pressure and harvest.

i belive him to be right. so far almost all the big brookies i have caught have been in non-class a streams.

 

[Mike]

I agree that Hay Creek in certain segments, particularly from the lower end of the walk-in area upstream somewhere beyond the upper limit of the walk-in area has in many places the type of habitat that I look for in establishing DH Areas. I gave this serious thought about 20 years ago. Additionally, its cool summer temps are also a plus.

Public ownership would also be a plus in most regions, but I do not like to take too many public lands away from the general trout fisherman in a region where public lands are at a premium, particularly long stretches. Berks is no exception, and with the Tulpehocken DH having taken nearly 4 miles out of circulation for the general trout fisherman, that is enough public land tied up in DH management in that county.

Additionally, some special reg areas have been criticized by general trout anglers in the past for having been located on the "nicest water" of a particular creek, relegating general anglers to the less desirable locations. I can't imagine an angler preferring to fish the stretch in Birdsboro over the stretch in the walk-in area, yet this is where local anglers would be relegated if they did not want to drive over hill and dale to get to the Geigertown area. This would push more anglers onto sensitive properties located upstream of the walk-in area and could result in more posting/loss of that segment. Of further concern is the present and past popularity of the stream. It is one of Berks' three or four most popular stocked streams (Tulpehocken - upper segment, Manatawny, Hay, and possibly Northkill).

As for the desirability of fall stocking in a DH area, Hay is already stocked in the fall and is one of a minority of fall stocked streams that receives apparently good angler usage in the fall. Additionally, largely through the urging of fly anglers, we began stocking the near-by lower section of Manatawny and its walk-in stretch one or two falls ago, thus in addition to other fall stocked streams, there are enough fall opportunities for fly and other anglers in Berks. The approx 1 mile walk-in segment near Pine Forge was float stocked last fall and should have provided fly anglers with all that they would seek.By the way, the WCO would float stock it more (spring and fall) if he could get the volunteer help, including angler-built float boxes.

As for rebuilding or relocating Rt. 82 within the Hay Creek coridor, we will need ALL (not just DH anglers) anglers to help fight whatever skirmishes over any number of possible issues may arise if such a project ever gets going. I am not inclined to potentially disenfranchize any segment of the angling community in this coridor.

None of this is to say that I am not looking for another DH-ALO location in Berks/very upper Montgomery). Specifically, my interests in that regard have focused on the Bally/Bechtelsville area for years and we even tried 15 years ago on Swamp Creek, but one landowner stood in the way. We also briefly looked into the W Br. Perkiomen between Rt 100 and Green Lane Res., but could not at the time come up with a 1 mile or longer stretch with good habitat, parking, and access. The main Perkiomen is not a candidate due to its popularity and the limited number of streams in Montgomery Co. that are available for stocking/stocked trout fishing.

French is a whole other story that I will not discuss here except to say that the opportunity for compromise... an even longer DH-FFO area in exchange for a switch to DH-ALO regs... was lost. Now it is C&R - FFO. We do not have a DH-FFO program anymore as regs were consolidated in the reg simplification process and fly anglers tended to treat DH-FFO areas as strictly C&R anyway. You are correct that French at its present location gets too warm. It is a bad location in that regard, but the project was established long before my tenure. It has been grandfathered. As for fall stocking, it received low usage when it was stocked in fall in the past. It won't be stocked in fall again.

PS. I write these responses from home...on my own time. If I didn't, I would sign off at the end in an official manner.

 

[afishinado]

Mike,

I appreciate your thorough and frank answers to the question I posed about Hay Creek and French Creek. With respect to Hays, how would an individual or group go about lobbying the PFBC about changing a general regulation water to a special regulation water?

Since I am but one fisherman, I would like to ask the moderators if perhaps we can have a poll on this site to see if there is some support from fly anglers on the board for a DH-ALO area on Hay Creek. If there is some support, perhaps we can lobby the PFBC for it.

Mike, with respect to French Creek, you confirmed the point I made in my original post that the current designation isn’t the best use for the resource. I believe I know where the pressure is coming from in a segment of the fly fishing community. In my opinion, I would certainly trade the current C&R-FFO designation for a DH-ALO only in a larger area. As you surely realize, sometimes fly fisherman can a very hard headed group! Keep trying, perhaps they will someday see the light. I’m sure their hearts are in the right place.

I really appreciate your response to this issue and others posed on this board, and we all appreciate you responding on your own time. Further I realize that while you share you knowledge and opinion on the board, and your posts are not be be interpereted as an official response from the PFBC. I find it very beneficial to get the perspective and knowledge from the PFBC on these issues. Keep up the communication, since you hear things from our perpective, and we can learn and understand the issues from your perspective.

Thanks again, I’m certain there will be many posts to follow on this thread.

 

[Mike]

Thank you for your compliment.

I am not trying to be a "wise-guy" in the least, but a lobbying effort would likely come back to me in a round-about way for my response. I have given a fairly thorough and logical response already, which would carry a lot of weight. There is even more that I could have said; I know enough not to play all of my cards on a Board. Furthermore, having grown up in Berks Co., I can tell you that I don't think the local anglers would stand for such a proposal, especially in the walk-in area. Anglers already enjoy year around fishing in there except for one month out of the year without restrictive regs. Additionally, I would say that if anglers in the Hay Creek walk-in area are seeking less crowding, they can go to the upper section to fish (Scarlets Mill to Geigertown, or fish the Class A segment). Furthermore, near-by Allegheny Creek receives light pressure (stocked inseason only)and is enjoyable to fish in a number of locations.

 

[afishinado]

Mike,

I guess I have to accept “ no way Jose’ “ on Hay Creek. I suppose my/our viewpoint on special regulation areas are in the minority. Thinking about it further, if majority ruled in PA with respect to special fishing regulation areas, than I suppose there would be few if none in the State. It does appear that you do see the need for more special regulation areas in the highly populated southeast region.

Perhaps Chaz will comment about the Perkiomen or Swamp Creek areas. I don’t have enough knowledge about those streams to have an opinion.

Again, thanks for your response.