Trout Summit 2002 a Success
It was with a bit of skepticism that I accepted my invitation to attend the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission’s Trout Summit 2002, which was held late last month. Day one of the two-day event was for fisheries managers and trout biologists from different states to share ideas. Day two, which I attended, was advertised to be a “reaching out” by the agency to inform anglers of current trout programs and to learn what type of trout fishing anglers wanted.
On Friday, September 27, fisheries professionals from Pennsylvania, 17 other states and several Federal agencies, listened to presentations and participated in discussions about fish disease, hatchery discharge standards, stocking programs, funding and other topics. Virginia Department of Game and Inland Fisheries biologist Steve Reeser, who also attend Saturday told me, ”Friday’s sessions contained two-way sharing, and it was a chance for all of us to learn.”
As I drove to Harrisburg early that Saturday morning for day two, I had pretty much convinced myself that I’d make the best of the Summit. After my negative experience with the 1997 Wild Trout Workgroup, I still had my doubts about the outcome, but I hoped that it would be a worthwhile endeavor.
Things looked up when I entered the building. I was impressed with the Trout Summit from the moment that I walked up to the registration desk. Everything was well organized, very professional, and the Fish and Boat Commission really seemed to be glad that we were there and wanted to hear what us anglers had to say. There were many familiar trout enthusiasts gathered in the lobby.
Centre, Blair and Huntingdon counties were well represented at the Summit. They included Mark Jackson, from the Bald Eagle Sportsmen and Bellefonte author Dwight Landis with the Spring Creek Chapter of Trout Unlimited, and others from the area.
In his opening remarks, PFBC Executive Director Peter Colangelo welcomed the 90-some people present, explained the importance of trout fishing to the economy of our state, and outlined the purpose of the Summit. He said, “We want to develop a vision. We’re not here to sell you a package, but instead, [to] work together for the future of trout fishing in Pennsylvania.” Richard Snyder, Chief of Fisheries Management, added in his follow-up presentation, “We are reviewing all coldwater programs from the bottom up,” and he hoped that the day would foster “a two-way flow of information.”
We saw a 45-minute presentation regarding wild trout, by Area Fisheries Manager Mike Kaufmann, and then it was time to move to our pre-assigned break-out groups for discussion. Things were looking up, but on the way downstairs to join the 20 others in Group 5, I introduced myself to Al Chislo, from Allegheny County. Chislo quickly told me, “The problem with trout fishing is too many special regulation areas. We ought to do away with all of them.” Since I know that special regulation waters, such as the Little Juniata River or Spring Creek, are the heaviest fished and best streams in the state, I don’t agree with Chislo, not even a little. Then I thought, “What can we possibly accomplish with such diverse views?”
Chislo was a nice enough fellow, but he represented the Traditional Anglers of Pennsylvania. Whatever “traditional” means, I’m not sure, but I gathered that their position was to: Keep licenses cheap; stock lots of trout; ignore biology; have state-wide regulations that allowed bait everywhere; and promote a liberal creel limit. I hope that isn’t the future of trout angling in the Keystone State.
The facilitators in our breakout group did a great job of listening, allowing all to speak, keeping us on track, and diffusing arguments. We covered each of our four discussion questions at each of the three breakout sessions. All ideas were written on a flip chart and then posted on the wall. At the end of each session, we each received four colored dots to indicate what we felt were the most important ideas, making a vote of sorts. Some ideas were shared with all participants following each breakout.
To give you an idea about the discussion questions assigned, one of our group’s was, “What are your ideas on the role of harvest as part of a wild trout fishery?” Other topics included fisheries management efforts with special regulation, limiting harvest, and habitat improvement, and stocking.
Although opinions were wide ranging and everyone did not agree, a few ideas seemed to shine through loud and clear from Summit participants. The Fish & Boat Commission should:
* spend more money on habitat protection and enhancement;
* stock fewer but larger trout; * not stock Class A Wild Trout Streams;
* consider more species-specific and stream-specific management with wild trout.
Attendee Comments
Spring Creek Trout Unlimited member Dwight Landis said, “It’s hard to get into enough depth with the wild trout issues, but overall the Summit went pretty well.” Landis added, “If the subject is wild trout, I’ll talk to anybody who will listen!”
Mark Jackson thought that the presentations were “very informative.” He also thought that his views were heard and he said, “The group facilitators did a good job. They were abrupt, but they did their job and our group always got through the assigned discussion questions.”
Ted Onufrak, who represented the Pennsylvania Federation of Sportsmen’s Clubs, was generally happy with the day, but thought that additional issues needed to be addressed. All four thought that their views were being heard by the Commission, which is certainly a good start.
Three Point Sportsmen Club president Richard Biggins was somewhat unhappy with the way that the morning sessions went, but by the end of the day he felt that he had an ample opportunity to share the views of his club with the group.
In an interview with Colangelo after the Trout Summit, he beamed, “I’m absolutely happy with the way the Summit went. It is so important to open up communication. It is too bad that we didn’t do this years ago.”
Colangelo admitted that a few of the ideas shared by anglers really caught his attention, but he declined to comment at this time on exactly which ones they were. He said, “I get a lot of good ideas from just listening and that’s why we are here today, to listen.” He added, “Hopefully this will give us a new vision.”
I left pleased with the Trout Summit and also happy with the way that all of the participants handled themselves. Everyone was polite and listened to others views even if they disagreed. Though the majority of my breakout group was fly anglers, not once did anyone suggest that there should be more “flies only” areas. I was pleased with the Summit but, in the final analysis, what really matters is what happens to the ideas that were shared. As Onufrak put it, “Will the commissioners who decide policy listen to what we said?” I’ll be watching and hoping for positive results during the next year.
Mark Nale can be reached at MarkAngler@aol.com
