Poll on Fishery Management

What change(s) would you like to see in how your State manages its
fisheries?


I'd say manage more waters for native trout.



(What I'd REALLY like are stream access laws like they have in Montana
but that's not a management issue)

Willi

"Willi" wrote in message
...
What change(s) would you like to see in how your State manages its
fisheries?

I'd say manage more waters for native trout.

(What I'd REALLY like are stream access laws like they have in Montana
but that's not a management issue)

I guess the native trout thing is a grand idea, but not workable here in
Massachusetts. Too many people, not enough cold water. We have mostly
glacial scrubbed, wide, low flow, low gradient sterile streams and most of
those are dammed to hell. F&W is (in my opinion) trying to identify waters
with sustainable populations (and that includes a few streams with
reproducing browns and even one or two with reproducing rainbows) with the
ultimate goal of encouraging them. However, and a mighty big however, the
emphasis is, and will remain, planting catchable trout for the meat
fishermen. In a sense, that might actually help the few streams that hold
real trout, albeit 4-6" brookies in tiny streams. The thing I really want
them to do is implement a trout stamp for those people who want to fish for
the stocked trout. I would prefer not to subsidize that folly and prefer to
fish for wild reproducing fish (limiting myself to warmwater species that
is).

--Stan

"Willi" wrote in message
...
What change(s) would you like to see in how your State manages its
fisheries?


I'd say manage more waters for native trout.



(What I'd REALLY like are stream access laws like they have in Montana
but that's not a management issue)

Well, actually, yes it most certainly is.

Wolfgang
somewhere in the land anyone can fish virtually anywhere.

Stan wrote:snipThe thing I really want
them to do is implement a trout stamp for those people who want to fish for
the stocked trout. I would prefer not to subsidize that folly and prefer to
fish for wild reproducing fish (limiting myself to warmwater species that
is).

--Stan
Careful what you ask for Stan. It is just like a bunch of politicians to do the
exact OPPOSITE. We had what you are wishing for here in Texas, so they changed
it to where not only do they no longer have a trout stamp, but now we will have
have a warmwater stamp as well as the sal****er stamp and everyone must pay
for the stupid trout stocking program. The costs of the licenses have more than
doubled in the last decade. I agree with Willi about stream access, but in our
state the land is 97 or 98% privately owned so that is not ****ible either. In
effect if you are from out of state plan on hiring a guide with a bass boat wih
a 200 horse motor.

Big Dale

Washington State has got to have some of the most unitelligent
management out there. I think it stems from all the salmon/stealhead
that some of the interior states don't have. This state seems to think
that the only way to manage fisheries is from a harvest standpoint.
The more people can take, the more liscences they can sell, the more
money the department will have, etc. Opening up the Yakima to salmon
fishing is a clasic example. They turn a section of stream into C&R or
a decade+, and then once they have enough of a salmon run to harvest,
they allow that same stretch to be hammered to treble-hook throwing
gear fisherman. Most of them had little or no regard for the
trout--people were keeping them and asking around for what the limit
on trout was.

Or take Lake Chelan. They plant mysis shrimp in it, introduce Kokanee,
Mackinaw, and Kings, not to mention 25 or 50K trout plants a year. 20
years later they're freaking out about the native cutthroats in the
lake. Gee, a little late for that, don't you think? They tried to
develope a trophy mackinaw fishery, and they succeeded. The king
salmon fishery took off too. In less than 10 years, they king fishery
was fished into oblivion. They now only open it for one month of the
year so that--get this--they can still hold a salmon-catching derby on
the lake. Nothing like having a fishing contest to rebuild stocks!
Then they decide the mackinaw are harming the cutthroat. So they
remove all limits (size, numbers) on the mackinaw and openly encourage
keeping all that are caught. Well the poor guides who'd built up a
business guiding for those two species just got screwed. Sure, there
are still Mack's around, but the trophy/large-size aspect that was the
genuine draw is disappearing. They thought about doing away w/ the
trout plants, but that was just too unpopular w/ the gazillions of
people who tossed powerbait off their docks for trout during the
summer. But you're supposed to release any cutthroat. Hmmm...powerbait
and C&R. Yeah, that's gonna be successful.

And on and on it goes. In many areas of the columbia and snake
systems, bass are now very prevelant. Smolts migrating downstream in
slow, warm water and very predacious fish now thriving in that same
water.... I recognize there's nothing they can do about the dams and
the water changes they've brought, but you can't help but note their
joy in discussing the bass opportunities now available. So much for
helping the salmon and stealhead.

I'm not sure how I feel about native vs. introduced. Clearly there is
a lot more opportunity now due to all the introductions and plants. I
think it would tough to manage for natives now, since so much has
changed. Lake Chelan, for example--how do you rid the lake of
rainbows, kokanee, macks, kings, smallmouth bass, and the ungoddly
number of sqaws (maybe they were native too?)? You simply can't now.

But the recurring theme, both for recreational and commercial, is the
department of wildlife's unfailing and unwavering intent to allow the
fishing/harvest of any and all stocks if it is even remotely possible.
Typically it's poorly managed, and they don't do anything about it
until a given population is in severe trouble. Then they halt all
fishing (no C&R even), except they still allow commercial fleets to
kill thousands and thousands as "by-catch" of the targeted species.
Recently they've had to tighten up control on Sturgeon fishing due to
the increased pressure and decreased stocks.

If I sound a little bitter, it's because my tax dollars and liscence
dollars have to support an agency whose purpose is to clearly manage
the harvest of wildlife, not the actual wildlife itself. If they can
sell a liscence so someone can take it home, they will. Once it's in
dire trouble, they shut off the fishery entirely--no C&R, no nothing.
They've done the same thing w/ elk in the state (particularly the Blue
mountains, where 30 years ago they harvested 3000 a year, and now it's
300 or less), pheasants, etc. And I'm sure it's only a matter of time
before the hunt the growing turkey population into obscurity.

There was even a brief discussion about opening a commercial fishery
on the one remaining run of salmon on the hanford reach of the
Columbia--the only free-flowing stretch in the 48 states, and probably
the only non-hatchery fish run that actually spawned in the columbia
(instead of the tributaries).


As for land/water laws, I REALLY wish we were like Montana. It's
really hard around here to get access to streams because there's no
high-water provision. People own the land to the middle of the stream
(you're technically not even supposed to drop an anchor). Cows run
freely in S.E. washington. Streambanks are mess in many areas, and
half the water is cow urine.

Well, I should quit complaining and go fishing before I'm told I cant
do that anymore.

regards,
TyKo





Willi wrote in message ...
What change(s) would you like to see in how your State manages its
fisheries?


I'd say manage more waters for native trout.



(What I'd REALLY like are stream access laws like they have in Montana
but that's not a management issue)

Willi

"TyKo" wrote in message
m...

and opined brilliantly. He made my little rant that I was going to post = a
whimper! g
John

"bassrecord" wrote in message
...
"TyKo" wrote in message
m...

and opined brilliantly.

Um......o.k., SOMEBODY has to ask. Can you actually be serious?

He made my little rant that I was going to post = a
whimper! g

Better that than an extended impotent whine.

Wolfgang

Better that than an extended impotent whine.

Wolfgang

Call it what you will, but what exactly is the brilliant contribution
of your post? Do you ever post anything besides one-liners?

"TyKo" wrote in message
m...
Better that than an extended impotent whine.

Wolfgang

Call it what you will,

Thank you......I'll do that.

but what exactly is the brilliant contribution
of your post?

Nothing brilliant in mine. How about you and old "bassrecord" put
your heads together and tell us all what was brilliant about yours?

Do you ever post anything besides one-liners?

Yeah, sometimes.

Wolfgang

Willi wrote in message ...
What change(s) would you like to see in how your State manages its
fisheries?

I'd say manage more waters for native trout.

(What I'd REALLY like are stream access laws like they have in Montana
but that's not a management issue)

My biggest complaint that could be addressed specifically by the PA
Fish & Boat Commission is the 'visible license' clause. I hate that
damned license holder--it's always in the way, whether pinned to hat
or vest, front, back or side. I'd just as well keep it in my wallet
and be required to produce it on demand. Sounds small, but it's one
of those 'quality of life' issues to me.

I won't even start with the strange distinction between the PA Dept.
of Transportation, PA Fish & Boat Commission and PA Game Commission.
Why DOT doesn't have *all* modes of mechanized transportation under
it's purview is beyond me. They are actually considering a new 'Fish
& Game' commission/dept., but in typical gov't. fashion the entrenched
bureaucrats will do everything short of armed rebellion to fight it.
Now that I think about it, armed rebellion is a distinct
possibility...

IMO, the state doesn't manage anything other than their own revenues.
They sell licenses, stock fish and issue citations. They try to sell
as many licenses as possible (ditto issuing citations) and stock as
many fish as cheaply as they can. PA is now buying trout from private
hatcheries in North Carolina for direct stocking into PA streams &
rivers. How this can be good for anyone outside of NC is (again)
beyond me.

I'd prefer an increased focus on habitat reclamation & improvements
like fish ladders over (or the elimination of) Susquehanna River dams
and a campaign to reclaim old coal mining sites in order to reduce
acid runoff. The Fish Commission is (to their credit) working on the
Susquehanna situation but wouldn't even consider the acid/coal mine
problem. They'd probably refer any complaints to DEP or Forestry. I
want Shad runs and Sturgeon fishing--not lower speed limits on popular
recreational boating waters.

PA is hard on 'point source' polluters but mostly ignores 'non-point
source' polluters. For example, the (private) hatchery on Elk Creek
(near Coburn) suffers almost every winter from 'non-point source'
pollution from the dairy farm uphill from his spring. The farmer
spreads manure all over frozen fields and every time it rains or thaws
dramatically he has dead fish. By spreading the manure the farmer
creates a 'non-point source' of pollution. OTOH, if the farmer put
that manure into a holding tank and it leaked into the creek DEP would
be all over it--fines, cleanup, etc. The blind eye toward the (much
more common) non-point source pollution is a perfect example of the
farm lobby's disproportionate influence in PA politics.

The tip of the iceberg,
Tom G