I don't think Mike is refuting that C&R helps maintain wild trout populations. I think he is saying that not all Class A wild trout waters should be automatically C&R specifically to help manage that trout population and make it sustainable, and with that notion, I fully agree. I think most of our waters should be open to harvest.
Not as much as his back to you 🤷
Right, that's exactly what he said (post #3) in the April 12th 2021 "PFBC Class A Wild Trout Waters" thread. I get that thinking, but I still maintain C&R would do nothing but help wild trout populations.
Right, which is where we, as the people who recreationally fish for trout, seem to totally dismiss someone's viewpoint who has years of field surveys and population assessments. Of course it is okay for us to have our own opinions, but to so quickly turn a blind-eye to a source with actual surveys, evidence, and field-data seems silly. Now, I get that Mike's opinion brings a level of bias into this, too, as he is a former employee and supporter of the PFBC in most regards, or at least seems to be.
I wasn't and neither were you.
I'm not at all dismissing Mike's viewpoint, as I said in my previous post "I get that thinking", and I understand/appreciate that years of field surveys and population assessments hold weight. I still view C&R on Class A streams as a positive thing. My belief in this won't change.
I appreciate it. I actually laugh out loud at the thought of whomever empties out those dog-poop receptacle finding a stinky, rotting bagged fish inside of it. lol
I know I do too 😆
I read the article. First off, the term or phrase of "Waste, Fraud, and Abuse" commingles three terms that are unrelated. Let me first address the term "Fraud". Fraud is intentional misuse of funds. IE: Fraud is theft of monies or other assets. "Waste" is in the eye of the beholder.....as is the term "Abuse".
I’m not sure if you know this, but fish can and do reproduce naturally. Many waterbodies in the state have wonderful fishing, but never receive a stocking.
Yes. Nothing like a natural hitting your fly. It's the fight in the dog for sure.
I am way late to this party, so apologies if the question was previously correctly answered. Bamboozle posted the fishing regulations book information (post #2 in thread). The important items from that information is: 1. waters stocked with trout (e.g. stocked trout waters during the date range mentioned, DHALO, FF only, etc.), 2. class A trout water, or, 3. keep, kill, or possess trout. So, from the OPs perspective, so long as don't fish waters stocked with trout, you don't fish class A trout waters, and you don't keep, kill, or possesses any trout then you don't need a trout permit to simply fish in natural reproduction streams.
There are plenty of self sustaining fisheries that the PAFBC could work on securing public access. We could start with those and wouldn't have to worry about them being devoid of fish.
I’d only go for that if the monies dedicated to securing more public access were distributed primarily in proportion to their general regions of origin. As such, I think the access that has been acquired on Erie tribs is quite appropriate.
Do they do that with CAP donations?
Using this logic, should the majority of the access funds be used in the Pittsburgh area, since that’s where a large number of Erie area anglers live?
This point is well taken and hilarious.
I'm thinking more like the trains in Italy. Build a high speed train from Pittsburgh to Erie. Call the the "Steelhead Express". Those European trains hit 200mph and are smoother than a commercial flight.
