The HuntingPA.com Outdoor Community banner

1 - 17 of 17 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,476 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Seen a "Wild Trout Waters" sign on another thread. I didn't know that these waters were artificial only. So, I have a question. Does the artificial apply to only the "Class A" waters, that are not stocked ?

The other thought I had, was that these Wild designations may be a double-edged sword ? While it seems to offer protection by mandating artificial only and C&R, it also will draw more people to what may otherwise be not very well know streams, via signage, and maps on websites ?

I should also add, we fishermen of meager SW PA waters, don't have to deal with this matter much at all.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,249 Posts
I'm guessing that the sign is not the result of a new program by the PFBC. The only emblem I could make out at the bottom of the sign was Trout Unlimited. I assume this is just a special notation for one stream. It would be interesting to know the motivation for the sign.

In general, the Class A streams in PA, unless otherwise designated, are open to bait fishing too.

A sign like that will definitely draw-in anglers. Sometimes I think the best protection for these streams is as little publicity as possible, or at least equal publicity for all of them.

It would be interesting to know why that tiny stream was chosen. I doubt many people would want to fish there.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
6,866 Posts
Where is the photo of the sign?

All the special regulation waters in PA are listed in the regs booklet, and also on the PFBC website.

In some cases I have seen signs posted by private landowners, giving you permission to fish the stream on their property, if you follow their instructions (catch-and-release or whatever.)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
662 Posts
Fleroo said:
Seen a "Wild Trout Waters" sign on another thread. I didn't know that these waters were artificial only. So, I have a question. Does the artificial apply to only the "Class A" waters, that are not stocked ?
I'm assuming that you are referring to my post and this sign:



The stream in question has not been designated by the PFBC as a Class A stream, nor do I believe it would qualify if it was evaluated for Class A status. It is also not a defined "Wilderness Trout Stream" by the PFBC.

The stream runs through a preserve, so I believe it is the preserve that posted the "Wild Trout Waters" sign. I've seen those signs on other preserves in the eastern side of the state regardless of the quality of the wild trout populations that inhabit the waters in those preserves.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,476 Posts
Discussion Starter #6
That's interesting. But I'm not sure how any other entity can govern over the PFBC when it comes to fishing mandates ? I can see posting land that is private, but if this is not all private water, how can a non-PFBC entity do it ? It would be like me starting a "Fleroo loves Minnows" club, putting up a sign on a non-stocked water that only minnows my be used on said water ? Outlandish of course, but you get my drift ?

Oh and.... congrats on "Best HPA Avatar, EVER".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
434 Posts
There was a study done by the PAFBC with respect to two streams near me. Both streams were initially surveyed and had approximately the same size and density distribution of native brook trout. One stream was promoted under the Wild Brook Trout Enhancement program. After 10 years of these regulations, the streams were re-surveyed and the size and number of wild brook trout was rought 1/3 of what it was before these regulations. The other stream increased the number and size of its fish. The wild brook trout enhancement stream gets fished a few times a week all year long due to its popularity as part of a special regulations program.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
974 Posts
You folks down in the SE part of state have more pressure because you have less streams and more people.

Up in my necks of woods - too much pressure is not a concern because accessibility to most of the streams is a venture that few put themselves through...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,476 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
I'm in the Southwest if that's what you mean. And I agree, limited streams and more people. Can't speak to the Southeast.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
33 Posts
Fleroo said:
That's interesting. But I'm not sure how any other entity can govern over the PFBC when it comes to fishing mandates ? I can see posting land that is private, but if this is not all private water, how can a non-PFBC entity do it ? It would be like me starting a "Fleroo loves Minnows" club, putting up a sign on a non-stocked water that only minnows my be used on said water ? Outlandish of course, but you get my drift ?

Oh and.... congrats on "Best HPA Avatar, EVER".
Lots of preserves are private land. Owned by a non-profit, but private entity, but open to the public. Ergo, they have the ability to post it with a "Fleroo Loves Minnows" club sign, if they want. Or block fishing altogether, if they want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
974 Posts
salmonoid said:
Fleroo said:
That's interesting. But I'm not sure how any other entity can govern over the PFBC when it comes to fishing mandates ? I can see posting land that is private, but if this is not all private water, how can a non-PFBC entity do it ? It would be like me starting a "Fleroo loves Minnows" club, putting up a sign on a non-stocked water that only minnows my be used on said water ? Outlandish of course, but you get my drift ?

Oh and.... congrats on "Best HPA Avatar, EVER".
Lots of preserves are private land. Owned by a non-profit, but private entity, but open to the public. Ergo, they have the ability to post it with a "Fleroo Loves Minnows" club sign, if they want. Or block fishing altogether, if they want.
One such entity in my area doing great work = Nature Conservancy.
They have bought up thousands of previously private-owned parcels and opened it up to public hiking.
Some of their holdings - require you to obtain a permit to hunt or fish.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,880 Posts
HD1969 said:
You folks down in the SE part of state have more pressure because you have less streams and more people.

Up in my necks of woods - too much pressure is not a concern because accessibility to most of the streams is a venture that few put themselves through...
We have a fair amount of "wild" streams - the problem is they are POSTED and most will not allow trespass. The few that do, you will run into another set of POSTED signs before you go a 1/4mile. Sadly to fish a mile of stream you need permission from several owners, a couple of which maybe live else where in the state.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,932 Posts
I'm mixed on whether or not special regulations are in order. It depends on the stream. For streams that are famous and sustain a lot of fishing pressure, I think they are a great idea.

On some streams, I think the presence of special regulations increases fishing pressure because there is an expectation that the section holds more trout due to the regulations, which isn't always true. I'm generally not in favor of special regulations on remote streams for that reason.

We have a tremendous number of streams with special regulations. I understand the rationale for catch & release regs and delayed harvest regs; I just wonder if we've overdone it with special regs areas.

What do you think?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
16,476 Posts
Discussion Starter #15
I just wonder if we've overdone it with special regs areas.

What do you think?
Well, I think yes. Case in point. There is a sewer pipe of a stream here in Washington County named Pike Run. About 20 years ago, the made a long section of it Delayed/Artificial. The stretch they did, has the best holes, and offers the best fishing. So now, bait fisherman have to fish the lesser areas, which really are crappy, but here is the real kicker. The Artificial area runs through a remote area of Redneckville. Those ******** don't care about "Artificial Only", and you can ride by on any given day, and see the locals tossing bait without a care in the world. They should just switch back. This isn't an "experience stream".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,036 Posts
Fleroo said:
That's interesting. But I'm not sure how any other entity can govern over the PFBC when it comes to fishing mandates ? I can see posting land that is private, but if this is not all private water, how can a non-PFBC entity do it ? It would be like me starting a "Fleroo loves Minnows" club, putting up a sign on a non-stocked water that only minnows my be used on said water ? Outlandish of course, but you get my drift ?

Oh and.... congrats on "Best HPA Avatar, EVER".
They can govern it if they own it. The stream where that sign is runs through land that was acquired by the township and the land trust. It is a park preserve now, open to public use but they have set rules for the various uses.

God bless the land trusts & conservancies. One of the greatest private entity friends of hunters and anglers.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,932 Posts
I fished Pike Run years ago and concur. There's nothing special about that stream in my opinion to warrant special regulations. My guess is that some group pushed for the regs to provide for lower harvest. I fished there only once and didn't witness any poaching, but have seen it in several of the DHALO areas in the SW.
 
1 - 17 of 17 Posts
Top