habitat work, Spring Creek

[troutbert]

There is a big habitat project under way at the former McCoy Dam site, downstream from Bellefonte. If you are in the area you may want to check it out.

Here's a link to an article about it.

http://www.centredaily.com/116/story/1446398.html?storylink=omni_popular

 

[jayL]

Thanks for the link.

Are they working through the weekends? I might swing by this weekend to check it out.

 

[troutbert]

jayL wrote:
Thanks for the link.



Are they working through the weekends? I might swing by this weekend to check it out.

In the past, they've worked M-F, but not on weekends.

 

[Lance]

That sounds pretty cool, I'll need to swing by there and check it out on Monday. Thanks!

 

[flyguyfishing]

Here's the schedule...from an email from Spring Cr TU.....

This years project will focus exclusively on completing the habitat work that was started last year at the McCoy site (located below Bellefonte). Volunteers will be needed (8am-5pm) during the weeks of August 10-14 and August 17-21. In addition, evening (5:30pm-dark) help will be needed during the August 17-21 period, primarily for seeding/mulching disturbed areas. Daytime help will consist of in-stream work building log vanes, root ball deflectors and mud sills.. We will provide food and beverages to keep us going..and also any safety gear that is needed.. Please bring suitable wading gear for the in-stream work..

A significant amount of habitat improvement work is also planned at the McCoy site during the week of August 3-7. This work will be done using heavy machinery and will result in re-grading the eroded stream banks and building of four large pools to prepare the site for our work the following two weeks. No significant volunteer involvement is anticipated for that first week, but feel free to stop by, anytime, to have a look at the initial progress.. Please be careful to not interfere with the safe completion of the work by the contractor

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

It'll be interesting to see how many redds the boating traffic destroys each autumn, not to mention how many anglers they'll pi$$ off every day.

I'd like to see the PFBC put an end to the kayak traffic before it ruins the stream for anglers.

 

[PaulG]

I going to be up there next week, I'll have to go down and check it out.

Thanks for the article!

PaulG

 

[JasonS]

FrankTroutAngler wrote:
It'll be interesting to see how many redds the boating traffic destroys each autumn, not to mention how many anglers they'll pi$$ off every day.

I'd like to see the PFBC put an end to the kayak traffic before it ruins the stream for anglers.

I've never fished Spring Creek, but why do you believe that fishermen have more of a right to the waterway than kayakers?

 

[jayL]

FrankTroutAngler wrote:
It'll be interesting to see how many redds the boating traffic destroys each autumn, not to mention how many anglers they'll pi$$ off every day.

I'd like to see the PFBC put an end to the kayak traffic before it ruins the stream for anglers.

This is directly contradictory to the spirit of your argument in the spin vs FFO regs post.

Once again, I should mention that in my opinion, excluding ANYONE that wishes to utilize our resources is a very bad idea. Access is the most important issue, and we need everyone to fight for it.

 

[JackM]

I have had boaters apologize for floating through where I am fishing and invariably will reply that I do not own the river/stream. I have to say that I am more often carelessly put upon by other anglers, spin and fly, than I am by boaters. Hug a kayaker!

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

JasonS wrote:

FrankTroutAngler wrote:
It'll be interesting to see how many redds the boating traffic destroys each autumn, not to mention how many anglers they'll pi$$ off every day.

I'd like to see the PFBC put an end to the kayak traffic before it ruins the stream for anglers.

I've never fished Spring Creek, but why do you believe that fishermen have more of a right to the waterway than kayakers?[/
quote]

JasonS,

Why do fly fishermen have more of a right to fish in Fly Fishermen's Paradise than bait fishermen?

How would you feel if someone started a business that sent 500 kayaks down Spring Creek every day from the Rock to Bellefonte? Do you think it would still be a stream trout anglers would go to or do you think the kayakers would ruin the angling experience to the point that anglers would go elsewhere? Pretty sad possibility for arguably the best trout stream in Pennsylvania.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

jayL wrote:

FrankTroutAngler wrote:
It'll be interesting to see how many redds the boating traffic destroys each autumn, not to mention how many anglers they'll pi$$ off every day.

I'd like to see the PFBC put an end to the kayak traffic before it ruins the stream for anglers.

This is directly contradictory to the spirit of your argument in the spin vs FFO regs post.

Once again, I should mention that in my opinion, excluding ANYONE that wishes to utilize our resources is a very bad idea. Access is the most important issue, and we need everyone to fight for it.

jayL,

There's nothing contradictory to the spirit of my arguments. They are two different issues.

Would you still feel the same way on the access issue if 500 kayakers went down Spring Creek every day? Would you still go there to fish if you knew a kayak or two was going to go past you every 10 minutes or so?

Ever fish the current kayak section of Spring Creek below Bellefonte? My fishing rod tells me the trout population is quite low there compared to other sections. Wonder why that is?

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

JackM wrote:
I have had boaters apologize for floating through where I am fishing and invariably will reply that I do not own the river/stream. I have to say that I am more often carelessly put upon by other anglers, spin and fly, than I am by boaters. Hug a kayaker!

JackM,

Would you drive the whole way from Pittsburgh to Bellefonte to fish a morning on Spring Creek if you knew almost for fact that 250 kayakers would go past you during the morning?

If 250 sounds high, replace it with 50 in the above sentence. Would you (or anyone reading this) still go?

 

[JasonS]

Again, I've never fished this creek so I don't know the ins and outs of why the regs are why they are. With that said, in most cases I don't think it's right to exclude people just because of their preferred method of fishing, so long as that method is within the fishing regs established by the PFBC. The major problem I have with bait fishermen are the instances where they release non-native, invasive species into the waterways, Valley Creek being a prime example.

With regards to the 500 kayakers, do we not also take into account their feelings with regards to having to play slalom with fisherman who are standing in the middle of waterways, messing up their peaceful drifts? Are you ready to have waterways like the Lehigh river off limits to fishermen during the weekends of the whitewater releases, or maybe throughout the entire year? I'm arguing for access for all people. You seem to be arguing for access that draws the line right after you are included. FFO is bad becuase it exludes people, but by all means exclude kayakers, because they'll mess up MY fishing, seems to be your argument.

 

[jayL]

FrankTroutAngler wrote:

jayL,

There's nothing contradictory to the spirit of my arguments. They are two different issues.

Would you still feel the same way on the access issue if 500 kayakers went down Spring Creek every day? Would you still go there to fish if you knew a kayak or two was going to go past you every 10 minutes or so?

Ever fish the current kayak section of Spring Creek below Bellefonte? My fishing rod tells me the trout population is quite low there compared to other sections. Wonder why that is?

You argue against exclusion of others, based on the nature of their method of recreation in one thread, then demonize others based on their chosen activity. The only difference is that you happen to enjoy recreating in the former manner, not the latter. I find the spirit of the arguments to be inconsistent.

A few hundred kayaks will be there this weekend. There's a charity event.

I believe that they have every right to utilize the stream like that. I don't think it's realistic that the stream would turn into some big kayaking destination. The flows are only conducive to that in the upstream reaches in times of higher flows, which happen during colder months. I really don't think it's much of a concern.

Would I fish ANY stream that was overrun with kayakers? Probably not, but I think it's too much of a far-out hypothetical to worry about.

I have fished the stretch and done reasonably well. I suspect lower numbers of fish and slightly worse fishing has just as much to do with poor habitat, when compared to the rest of the stream. This applies to both holding and feeding habitat, which are both factors.

Edited for clarity.

 

[rrt]

1. I imagine the habitat work really does need done. McCoy's ditch is a horrendous-looking place. It really is too bad that the dam was removed. It didn't hurt anything, and before the kiss-and-tellers sold it out, it was a wonderful place to fish for big trout.
2. If you know FrankAngler, you know he isn't looking for exclusivity; he is looking for a nice fishing experience. I'm sure he recalls many good things about Spring Creek during its less-crowded days.
3. I don't know what was argued about spinfishing and fly-fishing. But, those of us who like to fly-fish can probably be glad Frank is a spinfisher. If he fly-fished, he would probably double or triple the numbers of fish he now catches!

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

JasonS wrote:
Again, I've never fished this creek so I don't know the ins and outs of why the regs are why they are. With that said, in most cases I don't think it's right to exclude people just because of their preferred method of fishing, so long as that method is within the fishing regs established by the PFBC. The major problem I have with bait fishermen are the instances where they release non-native, invasive species into the waterways, Valley Creek being a prime example.

With regards to the 500 kayakers, do we not also take into account their feelings with regards to having to play slalom with fisherman who are standing in the middle of waterways, messing up their peaceful drifts? Are you ready to have waterways like the Lehigh river off limits to fishermen during the weekends of the whitewater releases, or maybe throughout the entire year? I'm arguing for access for all people. You seem to be arguing for access that draws the line right after you are included. FFO is bad becuase it exludes people, but by all means exclude kayakers, because they'll mess up MY fishing, seems to be your argument.

JasonS,

I'm against FFO because it excludes spinner fishermen for no sound reason, as well as for many other reasons. Hooking mortality is similar with flies and spinners.

Kayakers impact the fishing for ALL anglers, particularly on a small stream like Spring Creek where they will be tearing up redds and chasing spawning trout all over creation every autumn.

The Pennsylvania Game Commission excludes horseback riders and ATV's on almost all State Game Lands. Why is that? Is that bad because it excludes a group of people? No. They're excluded because they negatively impact the land and the hunting experience.

I predict that a couple years from now Spring Creek anglers will be complaining vehemently about the kayaks. I've seen a mass exodus of anglers on the Little Juniata River after a wave of canoes and kayaks went though (more than once). Think what it will be like on a smaller waterway like Spring Creek. I could see a fly shop or two going out of business.

 

[JasonS]

FrankTroutAngler wrote:

JasonS,

I'm against FFO because it excludes spinner fishermen for no sound reason, as well as for many other reasons. Hooking mortality is similar with flies and spinners.

I'm in complete agreement here. That's why I'm opposed to FFO sections as well. And to go further, the mortality rate isn't that much higher for actively fished bait versus spin/fly, according to the resident Fisheries Biologist, Mike. My only concern with bait is the invasive species issue.

Kayakers impact the fishing for ALL anglers, particularly on a small stream like Spring Creek where they will be tearing up redds and chasing spawning trout all over creation every autumn.

But this is premised on the idea that anglers have more of a right to the waterway then kayakers. Do you have any data to back up your claim that kayakers will be tearing up the redds and chasing spawning trout? If the data is there to support that claim, then I think limiting or banning kayaking could be in order. Protecting the resource should be a mission of the PFBC, protecting anglers from the inconvenience of kayakers shouldn't be.

I predict that a couple years from now Spring Creek anglers will be complaining vehemently about the kayaks. I've seen a mass exodus of anglers on the Little Juniata River after a wave of canoes and kayaks went though (more than once). Think what it will be like on a smaller waterway like Spring Creek. I could see a fly shop or two going out of business.

Well on the other thread, spinfishing vs. flyfishing, some of the fly fishermen complain vehemently about bait and spin fishermen, does that mean the FFO regs are fair?

 

[GreenWeenie]

Some streams are meant to be fishing streams only. Smaller, fragile streams like Spring Creek, the Letort, Big Spring, Falling Spring, etc., are unique one-of-a kind streams that are natural resources and should be afforded all protection possible. I don’t think it’s being exclusionary if you prohibit boating traffic IF the presence of boating traffic negatively impacts habitat. The Letort prohibits wading in the Bonney Brook section in the spring time because wading has the potential to ruining spawning habitat. Just because it’s not fair to exclude someone because they have a right to use the waterway isn’t the way to manage resources and that is the job of the PFBC – to manage and protect aquatic resources. I don’t complain that I can’t wade on the Letort in the springtime.

Unfortunately, to manage means to regulate and regulating means imposing a list of things you can and can’t do and you can’t please everyone so you have to do what is in the interest of the water body itself. FFO, C&R, DHALO,ATW are all regulations imposed on streams by the PFBC that are theoretically imposed in the best interest of the stream.

As for other streams, if the stream can support the presence of boating traffic without damaging habitat than it’s just tough for all us fisherman. Do I like a parade of boaters going by me? No but if their presence isn’t wrecking the fishery just my fishing experience that’s just tough for me and I have no right to want them thrown off because it makes my experience less enjoyable. I simply find another spot where I can fish with no boaters and I don’t throw a little hissy fit.

If we don’t want to be exclusionary in any way, shape or form, let’s just homogenize all waters and do away with all regulations and anyone can do anything they want on any body of water. Make the PFBC nothing more than a trout nursery and their only job is to stock all waters –equally of course.

RE: “I'm against FFO because it excludes spinner fishermen for no sound reason, as well as for many other reasons.”

If there is no sound reason for exclusion than I cannot see how there can be many other reasons.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

GreenWeenie wrote:


RE: “I'm against FFO because it excludes spinner fishermen for no sound reason, as well as for many other reasons.”

If there is no sound reason for exclusion than I cannot see how there can be many other reasons.

GreenWeenie,

An example of "no sound reason" would be the hooking mortality issue, meaning that if if spinners killed a materially higher number of trout than fly fishing than I could see that as a sound reason for excluding spinner fishermen.

Examples of "other reasons" would be things like it divides people who fish and creates animosity; it could exclude a kid from fishing the stream behind his house...stuff like that.

Do you comprehend the sentence now?