RE: Shame on the PFBC.

RE: Shame on the PFBC.

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Pennsylvania Boards] >> Southwest PA >> RE: Shame on the PFBC.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/13/2008 8:11:21 PM

chauncy

Posts: 978
Joined: 2/3/2002
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: *commander*

dang chauncy, is there anything you dont catch up there. with the fish you catch you could be a year round guide service.

Here's some i got last year, i believe. Was the last time i limited in feb.

River ran too high to fish it this winter.

(in reply to *commander*)

Post #: 31

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/13/2008 11:36:58 PM

CATMAN610

Posts: 170
Status: offline

I don't want a shooting gallery, or eat any trout, but a few more points
1. they don't put numbers in the paper or internet,,,,embarresment I guess.
2. they do give fish to co-op nursuries,,for prvt clubs,,,,that only have to put a small # in public water.
3. the trout stamp is for exactly that ,trout, so why in years since the stamp fewer and smaller trout?
4. I can except a bad day,,not bad programs and money wasting knumbskulls in Harrisburg
5. I do expect the PFBC to try and be money wise in this day and age, but don't take me and other fisherman for granted.
6. Please don't tell me about all these 15 inch rainbows,,,its funny,,,,they always end up being 11 or 12 inches when I go to these great places full of nice sized trout,,i've heard all the stories.
7, browns don't eat brookies,,,they all co-excist.

(in reply to coolerfull1)

Post #: 32

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 12:17:04 AM

spoonchucker

Posts: 4934
Status: offline

Cat,

You have no clue.

First an 11" trout IS bigger than the previous average.

Second they are NOT stocking less and less fish, 4.5 million is only slightly less than two years ago, and MORE than five years ago, and nearly twice what it was ten years ago.

Third, The PF&BC does give FRY to the clubs to raise in co-op hatcheries, these are EXESS fish beyond the capacity of the PF&BC's raceways. The PF&BC losses NO stocking capacity by doing this, in fact they GAIN capacity, and those fish are not included in the stocking numbers. 4.5 million Trout went into approved waters.

Fourth, Same as first. No one ever promised 15" fish, 11" & 12" trout ARE 30% bigger than the previous average.

Pa's trout program, is the envy of almost every state in the country.

_____________________________

Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

Step Up, or Step Aside

The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

GL&TC

(in reply to CATMAN610)

Post #: 33

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 12:23:30 AM

fishrmn

Posts: 1247
Joined: 10/9/2002
From: Latrobe, PA
Status: offline

^^^What Spoon said...

(in reply to spoonchucker)

Post #: 34

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 7:13:01 AM

CATMAN610

Posts: 170
Status: offline

You guys are being fooled by meaningless numbers. I'm out on the creeks and lakes I've been to places over the last several years and they are stocking and enormously smaller number of fish. 90 percent of the streams in my area will be done recieving fish by weds. this week. In years past they all got stocked well into may. I'm not foolish enough to believe they are putting all those fish in at once,,come on.

(in reply to fishrmn)

Post #: 35

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 7:17:30 AM

CATMAN610

Posts: 170
Status: offline

I'm off to a stream in about an hour to stock. It won't get anymore fish all season after today. It usually got stocked at least twice in-season. I hope the water is high enough to support three stockings all at once.

(in reply to CATMAN610)

Post #: 36

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 8:09:56 AM

Mikastorm

Posts: 1961
Joined: 10/18/2006
Status: offline

No bit-- here, caught some nice size, but not like last year. The average was 12-14 inchers. Did not see one golden caught.
It did seem to me that last year the fish were 14-16 inchers. Did catch small ones but years ago you had to measure them to see if they were 6".
Not as many this year but it could have been the water too. Fished Shenango Sat. and Sun, Sun . all gates open ,tough to fish.

_____________________________

Today’s mighty oak is just yesterday's nut that held its ground!

(in reply to CATMAN610)

Post #: 37

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 8:46:57 AM

Wally Cat

Posts: 951
Joined: 3/27/2002
From: Scottdale, PA
Status: offline

Well done Spoon! As usual.

_____________________________

Enjoy Life, Be Happy, Go Fish - Often!

"God has blessed America - may He continue to do so, if we are worthy of it".
Author..... Wally Cat

(in reply to Mikastorm)

Post #: 38

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 10:14:46 AM

egg sac

Posts: 2311
Joined: 10/2/2000
Status: offline

I can say that a few streams have had some of thier inseason stockings stopped but have alos seen the same streams get more fish per stock in place of it.I will use the stream I fished opening day as an example, During a normal preseason stock the main area of this stream would receive 4200 trout from 2 trucks this year it received 6100 from 3 trucks and some of the best average sized trout I have personaly ever seen stocked. We stocked 17 places and every spot got on average 4-6 fish over 17 in (mix of palaminos,rainbows,browns)plus many in the 12-14 inch range and I did not see nor catch anything under 10in range. Not sure how many trout you feel you need in each stream but 17 stops and 6100 fish total for an average of 358.8 fish per stop is a crap load of fish for sure. Not sure what streams you fish but most of the ones I do and help stock are from the corry hatchurey, and corry always has very nice fish every year.I also fished the early opener down lower east and thought the average size was not to bad at all either.

_____________________________

SO MANY FISH SO LITTLE TIME.
WHY ARE ALL THE PLACES I HAVE YET 2 FISH SO FAR AWAY?

(in reply to Wally Cat)

Post #: 39

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 12:08:47 PM

eyesandgillz

Posts: 500
Joined: 6/18/2003
Status: offline

All this griping over a non-native, stocked, slimer that tastes like fried "pooh"?

I just don't get it.

(in reply to egg sac)

Post #: 40

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 3:05:55 PM

CATMAN610

Posts: 170
Status: offline

Well your right about the taste.
But I just returned from watching them stock Clear Shade Cr, somerset county. On the nicest strech of water in the whole creek they were putting at max two buckets of fish per stop. Stops were about 250-300 yards apart.
The biggest nicest area got 1 and 1/2 buckets(about 30-35 fish,,maybe) 5 years ago that would have been 4-6 full buckets at each stop. The fish were 95 percent 10-12 inches, I saw one go in about 18,,in a different area.
10-12 inch fish are not 30% bigger than they were 15 years ago,,,that would have made the average then about 7 inches?,,,we've all been catching 10-12 inch trout our whole lives.

(in reply to eyesandgillz)

Post #: 41

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 3:29:18 PM

youghdude

Posts: 28
Joined: 6/7/2007
Status: offline

Its not as bad as it used to be. Christ, can you not remember catching those 8-9 inch lunkers a few years ago. I'll take 12 inchers all day long. I have caught some very nice trout in my life, over twenty inches, one or two a year, but you know I remember every one of them. I get the thrill of my life every time I have one of those on.

Besides, have you tried bass fishing? What is the average size of the bass you catch? Seriously. Not much better than the trout, maybe even worse. I'm not trying to pick a fight, but if you want to catch decent size trout...they are out there. It takes time, and you may have to work for them.

I did some research on all the northeast states last night on their respective stocking programs. Not one compared with PA. New Jersey did impress me somewhat though.

(in reply to CATMAN610)

Post #: 42

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 3:30:19 PM

egg sac

Posts: 2311
Joined: 10/2/2000
Status: offline

CATMAN610,

Ok 30 percent bigger is not realy a length thing more of a over all size what the fish commision calls biomass. Well all know a 10 inch fish is alot fatter on average then a 8 inch fish hence it has a higher biomass.Sorry your streams down thier are getting stocked so bad but up here in northwestern pa we get great sized fish and lots stocked every year. It may just be the hatchery stocking your area has some small fish who knows. I have helped stock inseason many years up my way and most holes always get 4-8 buckets a stop.The stream I fished for the opener was getting a full tank per stop.

_____________________________

SO MANY FISH SO LITTLE TIME.
WHY ARE ALL THE PLACES I HAVE YET 2 FISH SO FAR AWAY?

(in reply to CATMAN610)

Post #: 43

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 3:34:24 PM

CATMAN610

Posts: 170
Status: offline

Ok, I remember 8-9 inch trout too,(which are still out there as well) but with the large amount less thats being put in now,,shouldn't they have come up a bit more in size? Since the trout stamp has been around they stock less fish every year and the size has pretty much stayed the same 1 or 2 years maybe were the exception on the size.

and its not fighting,,,its disscussion

(in reply to youghdude)

Post #: 44

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 5:41:31 PM

ronnie84

Posts: 661
Joined: 11/6/2006
From: Hermitage, PA
Status: offline

I remember last year the PAFBC touted 'bigger fish' being stocked and they were just that, fewer but much bigger. I didn't even figure they would be doing the same this year, as I saw no reference to it in their announcements. Doesn't matter, there are so many opportunities to trout fish in PA and while this years fish aren't consistently the size of last (from what I've experienced), they aren't exactly minnows, either. It could be worse, you (or I) could live in Ohio.

< Message edited by ronnie84 -- 4/14/2008 5:42:01 PM >

(in reply to CATMAN610)

Post #: 45

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 7:02:59 PM

RELAYER

Posts: 373
Joined: 7/24/2000
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: eyesandgillz

All this griping over a non-native, stocked, slimer that tastes like fried "pooh"? I just don't get it.

My thoughts exactally I always say you have to eat one every year to remind yourself how discusting they really are. Wonder how many get put in the freezer then thrown out at the end of the year.Good reciepe for trout dig a hole and stick a tomato plant on top of them LOL

(in reply to eyesandgillz)

Post #: 46

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 7:18:49 PM

CATMAN610

Posts: 170
Status: offline

Well maybe your right about the hatchery thing, I'd also suggest the warden who happens to be there at the time of the stocking has something to do with the amount and how many go where. We had a young guy today at shade cr. and he started bellyaching right from the get-go about people carrying buckets. Maybe powertrip happy wardens who are more focused on hiding fish in spots where guys aren't waiting forget the guys standing along the stream paid for those fish.

(in reply to RELAYER)

Post #: 47

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 7:34:21 PM

spoonchucker

Posts: 4934
Status: offline

"10-12 inch fish are not 30% bigger than they were 15 years ago,,,that would have made the average then about 7 inches?,,"

An 8 inch fish, FIFTY percent bigger would only be 12 inches. A 9 inch fish ( which 15 yrs ago was high average ) plus 30% IS 12 inches.

You SAY they are stocking less fish every year all you want, but it just ain't so.

_____________________________

Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

Step Up, or Step Aside

The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

GL&TC

(in reply to CATMAN610)

Post #: 48

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 7:56:19 PM

shemanese

Posts: 38
Joined: 3/25/2008
Status: offline

Yeah for years I killed trout for frying because I this erroneous idea that was the thing to do and that I just had to get the recipe right. Then one day it dawned on me. Trout just don't taste that good and I haven't killed one in probably 10 years.

I do thoroughly enjoy hooking them in the lip though.

(in reply to RELAYER)

Post #: 49

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 8:13:18 PM

CATMAN610

Posts: 170
Status: offline

I'm not saying it,,its the sad truth. This is why honest people don't become pollititions, some people don't want to hear the truth. They want to hear what they believe.

(11" & 12" trout ARE 30% bigger than the previous average.)

11 inches minus 30% is 7.7 inches and 12inches minus 30 % is 8.4,,,these were never average size fish,,not in the last 25 years anyhow,,but then again thats an average, meaning we would have been catching them smaller than 7.7 inches regularly. Because some fish would obviously be smaller and larger than the average.

(in reply to shemanese)

Post #: 50

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 8:31:56 PM

spoonchucker

Posts: 4934
Status: offline

When figuring a percentage of increase, you can't SUBTRACT percentage from the greater. You have to ADD percentage to the lesser.

Example: 8 plus 50% is 12, but 12 minus 50% is only 6.

: an 8 inch Trout PLUS 30% is only 10.4 inches.

_____________________________

Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

Step Up, or Step Aside

The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

GL&TC

(in reply to CATMAN610)

Post #: 51

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 8:44:25 PM

CATMAN610

Posts: 170
Status: offline

Trout have been 10-11 inches average for my whole life. The main differnce between then and now is they put alot less fish in,, they're no bigger and we pay more for them and its only going to get worse. I'm not fooled by numbers I go to the lakes, rivers and creeks and see it for myself,,I still catch my fair share but I'm looking at the big picture. The trout program in this state has alot in common with the deer program, they want us to believe less is more.

(in reply to spoonchucker)

Post #: 52

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 9:00:52 PM

coolerfull1

Posts: 128
Status: offline

We can debate size, numbers, pounds, averages, or whatever. There are still fall stockings but some early winter stockings are no longer happening in some waters, instead they are stocking them in late winter. Overall I see no increase or decrease there. But there are many streams that got their in-season stocking knocked down from 4 to 1 or 2. Many lakes that got their pre season stockings cut to a third of what they used to get and in-season stockings again cut from 4-6 to 1-2. I personally don't live and die by how many trout are stocked, I do all kind of fishing, but from what I heard from just about everybody I know is that the first three days of trout season has been disappointing. It is a little hard to believe that some places are already done with this years stockings including in-season.

(in reply to CATMAN610)

Post #: 53

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 9:03:07 PM

juddthejudge

Posts: 55
Joined: 4/10/2006
Status: offline

I am on both sides of the issue i suport the commission because i do undestand prices have gone up on everythting and they have kept our cost for icenses low compared to other states. I have noticed more bigger fish i dont measure everyfishi catch but i do see soem differene in size compared to tother years. I also give some of the people credit for trying.

Butttttt......

I have noticed they have gotten lazier. They dont stock as many places as they used to i mean that by saying that instead of floating or trying to spead the fish out like they used to they just dump them at the most covnient spot for them to access which in turn means the spots where fish get stockd get loaded with fish and other spots being left for empty and slim pickings. I have noticed a drop in fisherman on the 1st day ths year compared to other years but most ack breakers then ever. In years past i nevr keep fish unless they die so i might keep one or 2 a year. But saturday i thoguh hey i might keep the first couple i catch to eat. So i did and eiven thgouh they fish were bigger in size then previosou years there was nothing to them. tired to fillet they 2 i kept and that was a mistake there was like paper then filletson both of them and for lal the work tring to gut nd clean them it wasnt worth it so say if the fish are gonan be bigger which they are let them get fatter because the fish tha i had seen you couldnt eat cause they was bnothign on them to eat.

(in reply to CATMAN610)

Post #: 54

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/14/2008 11:56:27 PM

Timachro

Posts: 33
Joined: 6/26/2007
Status: offline

Ah, just quit bellyaching about the size and numbers and just go fishing already!!!!!!

(in reply to juddthejudge)

Post #: 55

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/15/2008 6:50:34 AM

Rich_FishUSA

Posts: 15
Joined: 3/8/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: mossy oak

We fished a part of Laurel Hill yesterday that we have gone to since I was a child. My brother and I took the kids, that's the only reason we went.

I may have talked to you for a minute or two along the road on Sunday?

I too have noticed that the stockings don't seem to be up to par the past two years. We don't normaly fish first-day weekend, but did because we where in the area of Laurel Hill on Sunday and can't pass up a chance to wet our line. We used to catch more and bigger fish up until two years ago. When I heard rumor of the PFBC saying they were gonna' stock less but bigger fish our catch then decreased by half in count and by half in size.

I caught 3 at Laurel Sunday all over 10 inches. But, we used to catch two dozen or more all 9-24" each trip out. We fish at least 3/4 mile of stream in a day. That's 3/4 mile of being in the water, not 3/4 mile of driving from parking spot to parking spot!

I can't complain about the fishing, because a bad day of fishing is better than a good day at work.

One thing though. I think they should stock more smaller fish for first day. I think the kids need to be sure and catch a few on first day. The PFBC can be concerned about trout size for the rest of the year. Another thing, I don't know how they can dertermine that the water conditions aren't good for stocking on some streams. I know I'm up to my waist until June on most streams I fish and people say the water conditions aren't good???

(in reply to mossy oak)

Post #: 56

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/15/2008 7:07:56 AM

Rich_FishUSA

Posts: 15
Joined: 3/8/2008
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: youghdude

Isn't trout fishing supposed to be a sport? Not a shooting gallery. If you caught 100 trout everytime you went out...where's the challange?

Well, it's not about the challenge. It's about whether or not the stockings are up to par. I think the idea is to buy a license and have the money go to providing a nice fishing experience through stocking fish, upholding laws, etc. Gas is now expensive, clubs are buying fish from the hatcheries, and the recent raise in license fees provide a pretty penny for sticky fingers.

I'm not making any accusations I'm just saying the program is facing some "challenges" of it's own. But, if the program can't follow through on it's purpose we (the consumers of the program) need to speak up! I personally get much more value out of my license then the 30some bucks it costs. But, if someone thinks the stockings are falling short, they have the right and the responsibility to say so! Eg. Sticky fingers can only get bit if you open your mouth.

(in reply to youghdude)

Post #: 57

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/15/2008 11:39:59 AM

spoonchucker

Posts: 4934
Status: offline

The PF&BC should have never promoted this program. If they had just done it unannounced, most people would not have noticed any difference other than MAYBE they would notice slightly larger fish.

As it is, they created certain "expectations". They announced fewer, bigger fish, so people were preconditioned to believe they are catching less than in the past, and to expect larger fish than a 30% increase in size REALLY is. It's all about perception, and expectation VS reality. It is easier for most, to percieve the negative of the equation ( less fish ), than the positive side ( bigger fish ), creating a "fuzzy math" which gives us a flawed solution ( reality ).

_____________________________

Get Informed, Get Involved, And Make A Difference.

Step Up, or Step Aside

The next time you say "Somebody should do something", remember that YOU are somebody.

GL&TC

(in reply to Rich_FishUSA)

Post #: 58

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/15/2008 12:29:47 PM

Cold

Posts: 37
Joined: 3/27/2008
From: Latrobe, PA
Status: offline

I guess that people are just saying that trout in the 7-12" range are all pretty much created equal, and that they'd rather catch 10 trout of that size range, regardless of which end of that range, than 2 (even tho the guy next to them DID catch a lunker...). I tend to agree with this since I'm the kind of guy who would rather sit and catch smallish panfish all day than to sit around all day to catch one really big fish.

(in reply to spoonchucker)

Post #: 59

RE: Shame on the PFBC. - 4/15/2008 1:12:58 PM

Got My Pole Wet

Posts: 26
Joined: 3/6/2008
Status: offline

I don't think anyone will be pleased unless they are catching lunkers all day. I caught 2 fish on sunday in about an hours worth of fishing. Fished hard all day saturday and got skunked. Saturday I saw 2 20 inch brookies and an 18 inch brookie taken.

3 weeks ago I went Confluence and caught fish all morning in excess of 25 and had some sizable fish a 18 inch rainbow was one. I think I just may scrap fishing on the first day and fish fall winter and Late april into May.

(in reply to Cold)

Post #: 60

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

All Forums >> [Pennsylvania Boards] >> Southwest PA >> RE: Shame on the PFBC.

Page: << < prev 1 [2] 3 4 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Locked w/ New Messages
No New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

0.172