Regulation Changes from Pa Fish & Boat Commission

[troutbert]

Supposing the proposal does not pass.

Is it really the case that the streams on the list, that have met Class A biomass criteria, would not be put on the Class A list?

There are basically two parts to this question:

1) Once it's been made public that these streams have met Class A criteria, wouldn't the PFBC have a strong public relations incentive to put them on the list?

2) The legal question. Since it is now known that these streams meet Class A criteria, are they not REQUIRED, legally, to put them on the list? Maybe some of the lawyers can help with this. Does the "policy" of putting streams on the Class A list, and thereby giving them additional environmental protection, have the force of law? Is it part of the PA Code? Or is it optional, just an internal guideline, but not a legal requirement?

 

[pcray1231]

I could be wrong, and am not a lawyer. But my understanding is that even with class A biomass, it doesn't actually become class A without a designation, which requires public comment, etc.

i.e. even if a stream has class A biomass you could theoretically successfully fight it being granted class A status.

 

[salmonoid]

pcray1231 wrote:
I could be wrong, and am not a lawyer. But my understanding is that even with class A biomass, it doesn't actually become class A without a designation, which requires public comment, etc.

i.e. even if a stream has class A biomass you could theoretically successfully fight it being granted class A status.

More or less correct (IANAL either). A stream may have class A biomass, but unless someone pushed the process forward to actually assign the class A designation to the stream, it's not officially class A. This could be for a variety of reason: the stream hasn't been surveyed, the stream has been surveyed and for political purposes, the designation was not sought, or who knows what else..

I don't think there is any legal obligation to pursue a class A status, but there are protection benefits afforded by a stream having attained the official class A status.

 

[SlingerFlyRods]

pcray1231 wrote:

and is the idea to not stock the stream to allow the wild trout to flourish?

And we can always take what we can get now and live to fight another day. A decade down the road when this thing is on the class A list, wild trout fishermen are visiting in greater numbers and the locals have more awareness that stocking isn't needed, we can lobby to scale back or eliminate the stocking. Baby steps. You gotta kill the stocky chaser mentality via a thousand paper cuts, cause we'd lose a full-on war.

thanks for that explanation. makes much more sense when you dumb it down for guys like me lol

 

[TimRobinsin]

Pcray for prez!

 

[Chaz]

Most if not all of these sections of streams have been Class A for years, and assuming because of heavy angler use by the truck chasers have not been considered for the upgrade. It's really a political reason, all those anglers would scream loudly, as Pat said it's a compromise. One that is not on the list and was on the original list presented to us was Pocono Creek, again a stream that's been Class A for years and never added.

 

[Bamboozle]

broesicke:

The Monocasy, Sections 8 & 9 are not a big surprise to me nor are the Little Lehigh Sections 4 & 7, I am very familiar with both and have known about the biomass for many years. Thanks for the clarification!

What confuses me is Section 8, the former Heritage Trout Section. I have been repeatedly told by fishermen, the Lehigh County WCO and the proprietor of the Little Lehigh Fly Shop that Section 8 is Class A, yet Fisheries tells me that a more definitive test of that section needs to be done because of an abundance of holdover hatchery escapees. This sampling was supposed to be done last year but I assume it wasn’t because it still isn’t listed or it was done and it ISN’T Class A in which case one would assume it SHOULD be stocked which it isn’t…

…confusing isn’t it?

I guess this speaks to pcray1231 & troutbert’s comments that in regards to Class A:

It isn’t was it is, until it is…

…listed.

Finally, if that isn’t confusing enough, Martin’s Creek Section 1 is slated to be stocked in 2014. I have known it was Class A since Reagan was in knickers but it has been stocked forever. If I am reading both the PFBC proposal & the newspaper article linked by k-bob correctly, does this mean the PFBC going to take Section 1 OFF the stocking & AT list if this proposal goes through?? That would be a shocker and about as popular with the locals as CVS not selling cigarettes!!

Thanks ALL for the additional information and insight!

 

[salmonoid]

Bamboozle,

This won't be voted on possibly the July meeting. Therefore, pre-season 2014 stockings will commence as planned..

The proposal has this:
A. Effective Date
The proposed rulemaking, if approved on final-form rulemaking, will go into effect on January 1, 2015.

 

[Chaz]

I wish the people that report on this stuff knew what they were talking about , the re-classification has nothing to do with the un-assessed waters program. These streams have been class a for a very long time and simply weren't added to the list. The streams have all been surveyed is the past.

 

[ebroesicke]

Bamboozle-

Our WCO told me stream samples can take a long time to be listed on the PFBC site. To be officially listed Class A etc, the data has to be presented for public comment and then voted on. So it can take awhile.

 

[Bamboozle]

salmonoid & ebroesicke:

Thanks, I''l be interested to see how all this will play out.

 

[troutbert]

Regarding Martins Creek, the 2014 stocking list shows Sections 1 and 3 being stocked this year.

So, the argument is over just Section 1? And Section 3 would continue to be stocked regardless of the outcome?

Does anyone know why section 2 is not on the stocking list?

 

[Bamboozle]

A guess would be the sewage treatment outflow and too much private property. A ton of that section is posted.