JackM
Moderator
Staff member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,323
Be honest or opt out; and comments are welcome.
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,299
I voted for judicious. However, I don't believe the PAFBC is free to do this, nor am I in any way convinced they would like to do it this way. I think they will ultimately stock in a way that they think maximizes license sales and holds them in the best possible light amongst the general public.
Also, I find the idea of not stocking ANY wild trout stream, even class D to be unrealistic. Some wild trout streams just are not going to support any real level of recreational angling for wild trout, but are situated so that if stocked, they will provide a worthwhile sport fishery. These streams SHOULD be stocked, even if a handful of wild trout turn up in a recent survey.
I do think, however, that Class A should not be stocked at all.
Also, I find the idea of not stocking ANY wild trout stream, even class D to be unrealistic. Some wild trout streams just are not going to support any real level of recreational angling for wild trout, but are situated so that if stocked, they will provide a worthwhile sport fishery. These streams SHOULD be stocked, even if a handful of wild trout turn up in a recent survey.
I do think, however, that Class A should not be stocked at all.
Swattie87
Well-known member
- Joined
- May 3, 2011
- Messages
- 5,786
FWIW, my wild Trout stream experience is that there a lot of B's and C's that fish very well on their own without the aid of stocking. I've fished plenty of D's that seemed to be duds though, and very few that were truly good.
IMO Cish and above shouldn't be stocked. Maybe anything with over 10 or 15 kg/ha would be the right sweet spot to not stock over in terms of resource allocation, and allowing a viable wild Trout sport fishery to exist on its own?
IMO Cish and above shouldn't be stocked. Maybe anything with over 10 or 15 kg/ha would be the right sweet spot to not stock over in terms of resource allocation, and allowing a viable wild Trout sport fishery to exist on its own?
wildtrout2
Well-known member
I fish for wild trout exclusively (snob? lol). If I catch a stocker it's purely by accident, and I either eat it or turn it into raccoon food. As far as the stocking goes, I wouldn't care if they never stocked another trout in this state. As long as they leave the Class A streams alone (they do for the most part) I'm a happy camper.
H
hendeylathe
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2007
- Messages
- 380
Barry Gibb??? I thought it was Yakov Smirnoff.
F
Fishidiot
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 9,960
I didn't vote as the questions are too broad and I tend to think about streams as individual case studies.
Generally, I'm okay with stocking streams that have small WT populations - which is most ATWs in my neck of the woods - but certainly not Class A, and probably not Class B either.
Why the waters are muddied for me is that several of my local streams in the CV have developed very strong WT populations in spite of having been stocked for decades. Personally, I'd love see these streams surveyed and dropped from stocking if biomass meets Class A. However, dropping the creeks would result in a tremendous howl from local anglers and the PFBC knows this. The agency is happy to stick with the status quo. Generally speaking, the WT fishing gets better every year in spite of the stocking. WT are thriving in my area and seem to be more numerous in many ATWs in recent years.
Generally, I'm okay with stocking streams that have small WT populations - which is most ATWs in my neck of the woods - but certainly not Class A, and probably not Class B either.
Why the waters are muddied for me is that several of my local streams in the CV have developed very strong WT populations in spite of having been stocked for decades. Personally, I'd love see these streams surveyed and dropped from stocking if biomass meets Class A. However, dropping the creeks would result in a tremendous howl from local anglers and the PFBC knows this. The agency is happy to stick with the status quo. Generally speaking, the WT fishing gets better every year in spite of the stocking. WT are thriving in my area and seem to be more numerous in many ATWs in recent years.
R
RLeep2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,463
I didn't vote. The choices were inadequate for the scope of the question.
I tend to see it largely as FI does, though. I'd be fine with ending all stocking on current Class B ATW's, but I have no expectation that such a change would result in better wild trout populations across the board in these stream sections and maybe not even in the majority of them. It would, without a doubt, help in some of them.
I tend to see it largely as FI does, though. I'd be fine with ending all stocking on current Class B ATW's, but I have no expectation that such a change would result in better wild trout populations across the board in these stream sections and maybe not even in the majority of them. It would, without a doubt, help in some of them.
salvelinus
Well-known member
What a country!
JackM
Moderator
Staff member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,323
Responding to the criticisms of my poll options, I recognized I couldn't capture all possible attitudes, which is why I asked "which BEST describes you." And that is why I solicited comments.
My personal view is that stocking trout is a necessary evil. As a resident of one of the mostly wild trout poor regions of the state, I appreciate some stocking.
My personal view is that stocking trout is a necessary evil. As a resident of one of the mostly wild trout poor regions of the state, I appreciate some stocking.
F
Fishidiot
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 9,960
Agree.
I voted for "judiciously discriminate."
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,768
Me too.
How many are even on the other side of that argument?
Who is advocating the ending the stocking/hatchery program?
P
poopdeck
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,414
I went the judicious route but I'm am firmly against stocking trout in warm water streams that cannot carry trout over. This is nothing more then a money grab.
salvelinusfontinalis
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,284
no one is dwight. much like those that write letters to officals if you try to remove a few miles of stocking to make a decent wild trout population, its nothing more than a fit. the funny thing is as if the 50% of the 2% can change it :lol:
WildTigerTrout
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2010
- Messages
- 2,068
I voted "judiciously discriminate" also. I am fortunate and live in an area where I don't have to rely on stocked trout. I can fish for wild trout year round if I want to. There are other parts of the state where that is not the case and fellows must rely on stockings if they want to enjoy the sport at all. I agree stocking is a fact of life and there are areas where it is needed and warmly welcomed.
Prospector
Well-known member
You fellows that have lots of opportunities to fish for wild trout are very lucky. I truly am jealous. I think I fished 14 streams this year and caught nearly 500 trout but only caught wild trout in 3 of those streams. All were small brook trout that made up a fraction of the fish in those streams. I don't believe that any of those 3 streams would provide a positive angler experience if they were not stocked. Which means I'd have 4 choices. I could drive to the wild trout streams you fellows are fishing and hopefully I wouldn't stand too close to you during the spinner all. I live near one of the best fishing lakes in the state so I could switch to a warm water guy (which I do enjoy but not as much a trout fishing). I could become an avid golfer which would really balance out my tan. Last option is I could spend my time tying flies and sell them on eBay and "trout fish" vicariously through the stories that might be told by the people that buy my flies.
So I would survive but life sure would be different.
So I would survive but life sure would be different.
JackM
Moderator
Staff member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,323
I will expand somewhat.
Class D streams and below seem to be of two kinds: too small in size of water and fish, or ugly, running through developments or near high-traffic roadways.
With Classes above, you have streams that are on public land, away from development, relatively more beautiful and interesting, yet still providing a fishing experience that is sub-par. When these waters are stocked, yes, they attract anglers for obvious reasons.
A certain amount of stocking in these highly utilized streams can be tolerated even by the most fanatic wild trout enthusiast, imo. Blanket statements about how widespread this management practice is are counterproductive. If you want to return a single one of these waters to natural management, you need to do so a little at a time or you will be spinning your wheels.
Console yourself by recognizing that this is a small sub-segment of such streams and does not bring calamity to our wild resources.
Class D streams and below seem to be of two kinds: too small in size of water and fish, or ugly, running through developments or near high-traffic roadways.
With Classes above, you have streams that are on public land, away from development, relatively more beautiful and interesting, yet still providing a fishing experience that is sub-par. When these waters are stocked, yes, they attract anglers for obvious reasons.
A certain amount of stocking in these highly utilized streams can be tolerated even by the most fanatic wild trout enthusiast, imo. Blanket statements about how widespread this management practice is are counterproductive. If you want to return a single one of these waters to natural management, you need to do so a little at a time or you will be spinning your wheels.
Console yourself by recognizing that this is a small sub-segment of such streams and does not bring calamity to our wild resources.
foxtrapper1972
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Messages
- 2,455
judiciously
My interest is wild trout but I do know some sections of streams that most years stay cold and have both wild and stocked and are a lot of fun. I really think throwing any trout on the bank is pretty strange but to each his own.
If it wasn't for stocked trout I would likely not have discovered trout fishing which is one of the great joys of my life. I moved on to finding wild fish but that was after I got a car.
My interest is wild trout but I do know some sections of streams that most years stay cold and have both wild and stocked and are a lot of fun. I really think throwing any trout on the bank is pretty strange but to each his own.
If it wasn't for stocked trout I would likely not have discovered trout fishing which is one of the great joys of my life. I moved on to finding wild fish but that was after I got a car.
salvelinusfontinalis
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,284
At the very least, if you voted judiciously then you should support the PFBC's trout management plan of wanting to remove class B streams from stocking.
salvelinusfontinalis
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,284
I'm curious if there is evidence to this statement. I know many class a streams that are small, ugly and run through devolpments and roadways. I also can show you a map of all the class streams in pa, including E , some of which are in NC pa. It is also a fairly known fact by the PFBC that urban streams with easy access are often the most popular by the vast majority, even to the point the commission stocks these heavily. Example being Jordon. In fact most easy access streams on public land , like Pine, get a ton of fish and Most of these streams are class d or e. I think your above statement is a blanket one without much merit. Especially since the PFBC stocks 2294 miles of class e and 1587 miles of class d. Seems to contradict that they are too small to fish. Any proof?
