Murder at Stans Pool

[MD_Gene]

Went up to my trailer (at Hemlock Acres) to power wash, use my hammock, read, do a little fishing, and burn some vacation. It's amazing how well you can see out of your trailer when windows are cleaned on the inside and out! I bumped into Streamer Stan at Burkholder's on Monday. He said that
when the water was a little muddy a week or so ago, some spinner guys
came to his stretch of water and (don't quote me on the numbers but)
took 4 or 5 large trout! The fish were in the 16 to 19 inch range.
He said that he tried to explain to them that they were having an
adverse impact on the future of fishing there. The fish that they
were keeping were breeders. He told me that his advise feel on deaf ears. For those of you who do not know who Stan is, he's the very nice land owner on Penns Creek with the concrete bridge that crosses the creek about 2/3 of the way down from Coburn to the tunnel/bridge. There's a very large pool below the bridge. Stan is known for going out at night with large streamers and catching (and releasing) large trout.

The good news is, the water temp down on the parking lot side of the tunnel bridge is 63 in late July. I have seen it in the high 70's in prior years.

 

[Chaz]

Is that pool in the regs area?

 

[PennKev]

Holy crap, at first I thought a PERSON had been killed. Glad that is not the case.

Kev

 

[MD_Gene]

No, it's in the trophy trout section. You're allowed to keep 2 over 14 inches and you can use any tackle. But, in the 8 years that I hve been fishing there, I have only seen one trout taken personally. It was the same pool. Maybe it was the same meat man?

 

[wildtrout2]

gene_cyprych wrote:
No, it's in the trophy trout section. You're allowed to keep 2 over 14 inches and you can use any tackle.

This being said, if there were two fishermen and they each kept 2 14" or bigger trout, then no laws were broken. For all of the concern, were these wild trout or were they stocked trout?

 

[FarmerDave]

I hate it when people attach human emotion to fish. You are doing PETA's work.

 

[franklin]

gene_cyprych wrote:
No, it's in the trophy trout section. You're allowed to keep 2 over 14 inches and you can use any tackle. But, in the 8 years that I hve been fishing there, I have only seen one trout taken personally. It was the same pool. Maybe it was the same meat man?

I've seen quite a few taken out of the stretch at Poe Paddy by the upper cabins. Usually in spring until mid-June. Almost always by spinner fishermen. After that it's rare to see anyone but FF'ers and C&R.

 

[jeff]

How did Peta get involved in this post!!! I don't think gene is worried about someone harvasting a trout and eating it. What he and everyone should be worried about is some idiot harvasting 4 or 5 breeders out of a hole!

 

[troutbert]

If it's illegal activity that is taking place, PFBC law enforcement are the ones to contact.

If it's legal harvest, and you think the regs should be changed, contact the PFBC in Harrisburg.

 

[franklin]

jeff wrote:
How did Peta get involved in this post!!! I don't think gene is worried about someone harvasting a trout and eating it. What he and everyone should be worried about is some idiot harvasting 4 or 5 breeders out of a hole!

I believe FD is referring to the title by calling it murder.

 

[vcregular]

This is one instance where I've never understood the reg set-up. Here you have a known thermal refuge area, that is TT - Kill 2 @ 14+, and then immediately below the TT section you have a C&R area. Fish in Penns do migrate from the C&R area to the TT area. IMO the upstream refuge area during the heat of the year should at least receive equal protection as the downstream area.

And no, I have evidence that the harvest of trout from the TT area is having a detrimental effect on the populations of trout in Penns, but I tend to think it does. Maybe that study the state is talking about will shed light on this often debated topic.

 

[troutbert]

vcregular wrote

And no, I have evidence that the harvest of trout from the TT area is having a detrimental effect on the populations of trout in Penns, but I tend to think it does.

If the info in the original post is correct, the population in Penns Creek has been reduced by "4 or 5 large trout! The fish were in the 16 to 19 inch range."

If you go fishing there tommorrow, those fish are no longer there for you to catch, because someone has removed them.

The technical, scientific fisheries term for this is: "subtraction."

 

[afishinado]

LOL, I too never understood when people say that harvest has no impact on the fish population or fishing. If 50 fishermen each harvested 2 fish (not inconceivable on a popular stream), there would be 100 less fish in the section. I guess to be scientific about it…they were subtracted!

 

[DMT]

"I hate it when people attach human emotion to fish. You are doing PETA's work."

I agree. I'm as disappointed as anyone to see fish like that pulled out of the stream, but calling it "murder" is pretty gross. You'd probably have a better chance of changing the situation if you skipped the histrionics

 

[franklin]

Both the C&R and the Trophy Trout regulations have been in place on Penns for a number of years now. Is there a substantial difference in trout numbers or size between the two sections?

 

[tomgamber]

troutbert wrote:


If you go fishing there tomorrow, those fish are no longer there for you to catch, because someone has removed them.

This is different from any other stream how? They will be replaced other trout that can now grow to that size because those bigger trout are no longer competing for food and space.


The only controversy here is whether it was 4 or 5. 4 would be legal and 5 would not. Your personal feelings or ethics play absolutely NO role here. Someone said the regs need changed. Be careful what you wish for. They might not change in the direction you are hoping.

So two guys caught 2 trophy trout each. Exactly what the regs allow and exactly what they paid their 40+ dollars for to the PFBC.

 

[TDB]

I love the old, "they paid for a license so they can keep fish" comment... That is a classic and makes me want to puke everytime I read it...

Anyway, I'll preface by saying that I am a big proponent of C&R, especially on waters where fish are capable of holding over. I'll never understand some thoughts on the contrary, but hey, we all have opinions, what do they say, opinions are like......?

Things that are legal are no always "right" for nature, the environment, and or society in general... I think that is the point here. There are thousands of miles of streams in PA where trout will die via thermal exhaustion - keep all you want in these water. In the meantime, why do people argue that C&R on waters where populations are sustained isn't necessary.?

I get great joy in releasing any trout and knowing that maybe the next person that cathces it will be some 12 year old kid, first time out with a flyrod...

 

[jayL]

TDB wrote:
I get great joy in releasing any trout and knowing that maybe the next person that cathces it will be some 12 year old kid, first time out with a flyrod...

Because not everyone values things in the same way as me or you.

Some people get joy out of harvesting some wild trout. As long as they are within regulation to do so, so be it. It may not be for me, but I have a hard time preventing others from legally enjoying the resource in the way they see fit, just to increase my own enjoyment.

The fact is that some wild trout fisheries can sustain harvest. In fact, it may even improve some.

Personally, I am vehemently c&r. I also do not like seeing wild trout creeled at all. I also do not like to see lots of other things, but it's not my place to judge others that do.

 

[JackM]

TDB wrote:
....why do people argue that C&R on waters where populations are sustained isn't necessary.?....

Why do people believe and argue that C & R regulations are necessary? Seems that either proposition could be maintained with a straight face. Evidence exists to support some benefit to a fishery in strict catch-and-release regulations and likewise that limited harvest does not cause a discernable detriment to the fishery. Some folks have a preference for one type of regulation or the other. I think that unless there is satisfactory evidence that a population of wild trout (or stocked trout for that matter) cannot sustain the amount of harvest expected to result from a given harvest allowance, then it is an unnecessary regulation that limits the enjoyment of some anglers to satisfy the desires of another group. It is a matter of basic fairness to those of us that demand that a real and palpable benefit to the fishery be demonstrated before a segment of the angling population is restricted in their enjoyment of the fishery.

 

[Millertime]

This is hilarious.

I thought calling it murder was funny.

Maybe he meant different by it, but really??? PETA???

These 2 guys like to fish. that is why they were there. Maybe they aren't as serious as some of us. Maybe a little dumb. Whatever.

I heard that SPINNING RODS were created by satan so people can keep fish they catch.

I am glad I never ran into any of you guys before I started fly fishing.

I bet you would have slashed my tires on my truck and broke my spinning rod over your knee right there in the creek. I bet I could tie a rooster tail on my fly rod right now and cast it out and maybe catch a fish.

The first trout I caught was on a spinning rod. I am obviously a member of satan's army.

I love fly fishing. I will never spin fish for trout again.
I don't keep Fish.
I C&R 99% of the time. I'll keep a steelhead or 2 each year.

But man. . . lynching a guy for his rod type?
It was even an artifical lure . . it wasn't even live bait.

I say we find those guys and make them put those legal fish back and someone can gaurd the creek so that no one can fish there that has a spinning reel on their rod.


Sucks that they took them out of there.

Try to have some fun when your out fishing.