Article on PFBC class A designation process

So it’s not about the science then??

If they are going to go through the expense and costs to produce an assessment of a stream then it’s really just up for debate??

IMO- this is really just a debate. It could be the best wild trout stream (Penns, Fishing Creek) and still get stocked.

Get the angler highest and best use issue but again your just debating and not going with the science.

As for the article and notification of the public- would need a formal process. How long is the rebuttal period? What criteria should be listed for a rebuttal?? Angler use? Economic opportunities decline for business?

I’m not discounting angler use and economic issues but again that disregard la the science.
 
The author of that article is just another doofus who probably calls all wild fish "natives" ;) and had nothing else to write about that day...

It wouldn't matter to those whining anyway, they wouldn't read the newspaper notices either...

...think about it, who reads the newspaper at all these days, let alone public notices? Where I live, those types of notices are published in a small, local 48-page weekly tabloid sized newspaper that most people don't even know exists.

Besides, we presently have 12 "advertised" Class A sections that are stocked, so the PFBC is listening and considering the input of those who want to catch stockers.

Personally, I'm not worrying about his proposals or opinion...
 
I think may be some are a little hard on the author. Mind you, I understand he has argued against special regulations on streams and generally supports stocking.- at least that's the overall impression I got from reading his work. I don't think I am wrong. Postion 1: take up each stream individually. I see great value in that. The negatives are that it would prolong discussion and the process. Position 2: I don't see the difference between newspapers and how they do it now. Different venues, same type of notification and who would look more at newspapers. They would have to search for it on-line. Let's face it printed news is a dying industry. The associated costs and hassle of directly notifying landowners is not worth it. It is published and landowners that concerned can read the current notifications as they are- keep an eye out.
I am torn, I feel the current process can be viewed as "slipping in changes", but at the same time there are people who would seize upon this to mount campaigns and stir up discontent and pressure landowners who otherwise don't care to take a side. I recall reading on this forum a situation on Penns Creek a few years back.
 
In general, this seems to be the result of a group who is used to "getting their way" suddenly realizing their personal preferences are being overridden. I suppose it's viewed as an erosion of norms that they thought would never change. Frankly, I think anglers have had too much sway over fisheries management in PA.

At some point, science has to overrule angler want.

Natural resource management shouldn't be a democratic process. We have to rely on the biologists who manage the resources to make the best decisions for the resources. They can consider angler sentiment, but angler sentiment shouldn't be the final determining factor in the outcome of a decision. Especially if the decision has a potentially negative impact on the resource.

I read every bulletin PFBC publishes. It's up to the public to be aware of proposed changes. They have the opportunity to comment on proposed changes just like anyone else. You can't ignore the process and then complain that you weren't made aware after it's too late. Interestingly, despite prior arguments of bait anglers and stocked trout fanatics being better connected and mobilized to fight off regulation changes as an excuse for why stocking changes haven't been made, this article seems to indicate the opposite is true.

I see the same thing in public comment results. Comments in favor of classification changes far outweigh the opposition.

This idea that because you buy a fishing license you should have the ultimate say in how the fisheries are managed is ridiculous. I guess because I buy a hunting license I should demand the PGC stocks Bengal Tigers in PA because that's what I want (I don't). People want all kinds of things that may be detrimental to natural resources.

It's the same with the trout management plan. Everything that is happening now was outlined in that plan. Why didn't people comment in opposition of it when it was published? Again though, just because you oppose a decision doesn't mean it gets unwound.

I'm so sick of children being used as justification for stocking. As a father of two young girls, I can say that in my case, stocked trout never resonated with them. I'm sure their father's personal preferences and constant discussions around the house about this stuff helped mold their opinions too, but it was native brook trout and smallmouth fishing that got my daughters interested in fishing. Kids aren't the ones asking for stocked trout, the adults are. In my experience, not only with my own kids, kids don't really care what kind of fish they're fishing for. They tend to be excited about whatever their parents are excited about.

On Cold Stream, they're moving the fish a few hundred yards downstream. Even Black Moshannon isn't that far away. This idea that every ditch with flowing water needs trout stocked in them is just selfish laziness. People complain about the lack of stocked fish and then turn around and complain about stocked fish consolidation. Which is it?

I personally don't think anything needs to change with the classification/reclassification process. It's supposed to be based on biomass, not what 10 local people want. If the process changes to prioritize what the local anglers want over ecological reasoning, there'll never be any more Class A's added to the list.

As some commissioners have said in the past, I think the state needs to do a better job of explaining the benefits of having a class a stream vs a stocked stream. The problem there though is that will lead to the public understanding the value of wild & native trout vs stocked trout. The less people who want stocked trout, the less value the stocked trout program has. I don't think that necessarily needs to result in a loss of license sales though. In fact, if they have to produce less stocked trout, they can spend more on doing habitat and water quality improvements themselves instead of feeding fish. You still end up with more catchable trout, but it costs little to nothing to produce them.
 
At some point, science has to overrule (fill in the blank with whatever faction you like) want. :unsure:
 
Agree with “at some point science has to overrule angler want”. What this speaks to thus point is people have confused conservation with fishing so badly at this point that when something is done for conservation purposes people see it as “wrong” because of their fishing preferences. In a state with 86,000 stream miles if there is a watershed that contains a healthy population of native brook trout I personally don’t care about what fishermen want dumped into a stream. When it comes to species of high conservation need like wild native brook trout, they are already in this situation because of what lay people think is ok to do with streams.

From a conservation standpoint things are so FUBAR at this point in terms of harmful placement of hatchery fish and protecting wild invasive trout species that unless you are reading fisheries research you have no idea about whats really in play here or what the real goal is as far as conservation of our cold water ecosystems. If PA fish and Boat actually educated anglers that “clean cold water” isn’t a panacea for wild native brook trout, this wouldn’t be such a frustrating uphill battle with anglers standing in the way of conservation. Not to mention there is research showing invasive trout species are harmful to native hellbenders, endangered darters species, sculpins, crayfish, many more. All these. On game species have already been hostage to what anglers want where does it stop.

I say public education instead of public comment.
 
silverfox said:
On Cold Stream, they're moving the fish a few hundred yards downstream. Even Black Moshannon isn't that far away.
Click to expand...


Black Moshannon Creek is a wild trout stream (browns and brookies) also. It would be a better one if it wasn't stocked.

The best place to do the early season stockie put-and-take thing in that area is in Black Moshannon Lake. They could stock thousands of trout in there and people would have fun fishing from boats and from shore.

Just like they do at Lyman Lake, Kettle Creek Lake and many other impoundments.
 
What I find ironic is, the best native brookie stream I've fished isn't even on the Class A list.
 
wildtrout2 said:
What I find ironic is, the best native brookie stream I've fished isn't even on the Class A list.
Click to expand...

That's one of the problems with having so much flowing water. Not enough survey crews to do frequent enough surveys to update old data. Consider the stream you fished may have been a very high class b when it was surveyed in 1993 and it's a higher biomass now. Then there are seasonal variations in population size due to a number of factors (rainfall, average temperature, good or poor year class recruitment due to some other factor etc.) or that they happened to sample a class b biomass in one section but it might exceed class a in another nearby within the same stream.
 
wildtrout2 said:
What I find ironic is, the best native brookie stream I've fished isn't even on the Class A list.
Click to expand...
PA fish and Boats classification system makes no sense from a fisheries science standpoint. They call a short segment of stream “class A” because of a threshold density of wild native brook found in kg/hectar but this does not factor in conservation genetics and how important that stream is connectivity wise to the larger meta population. This outdated ineffective classification system also ignores fine scale and long distance movement of fish, they move in and out of these short class A sections obviously.

Shannon whites telemetry/genetics study in loyalsock creek shows they use the whole watershed and we need to manage the whole watershed for them if we are serious about having healthy populations, this much is scientifically obvious at this point. Pa fish and boat continues to fail native brook trout and is so behind other state fish agencies it’s baffling. NJ, MD, WV, VA do SO MUCH more with so much less brook trout water in terms of actually managing for them and creating large healthy populations that people rate as good fisheries . Our stream classification system is designed to accommodate irresponsible stocking by drawing arbitrary boundaries in trout streams that don’t have any ecological significance to promote the fallacy that we are some how managing for wild native brook trout. There is so much potential for native brook trout conservation if you read fisheries journal articles. But Pa fish and Boat would have you all believe that the water in PA just isn’t cold enough or clean enough anywhere in the state to have larger streams with healthy native brook trout populations like VA,MD and WV do that are south of us. There are exciting new solutions to improve the health of our native brook trout populations such as

1. Genetic rescue for in inbred populations(worked with great success in North Carolina)
2.XYY genetic supermale invasive trout species
3. Selective manual removal of invasive trout combined with super males.
4.bolstering genetic adaptive potential of brook trout by prevention of introgression and outbreeding depressing/inbreeding depression.
5. The ability of brook trout to survive higher stream temps if brown trout are not present due to enhanced use of fine scale thermal Refuge.
6. Ground water manipulation/spring pond dam removal( alot of our best spring discharges are ironically and tragically taken up by hatcheries. there are other techniques which increase ground water recharge/ maintain ground water in gravel basal layer.

Anglers have dipped Thermometers in streams in the 70’s and confidently declared the whole stream is “to warm for brook trout” now it’s a brown trout stream. This ignores fine scale thermal refuge like seeps and springs that have more favorable temps that allow brook trout to survive these conditions when invasive trout species don’t push them out. You will never hear about any of this from PA fish and boat despite the fact that they are aware of it because they are ignoring the recommendations to change their stocking/non native trout management practices from federal science agencies, brook trout NGO’s, academic brook trout researchers. They ignore this science just to keep the hatchery machine going and keep everyone believing the only factor is the water temp/quality itself, a panacea for all native brook trouts problems. We have really underestimated invasive species(biotic factors) when we think about why a stream does not support healthy brook trout populations in some cases(not all obviously). I know this thread got started because of this decision by PA fish and Boat and an angry fishermen but it’s a public education tragedy. I will give them credit on the right decision to not stock freeman run specifically, but there is SO much more they need to do to transition from social program selling trout stamps into a serious conservation based resource manager including adopting effective fisheries science and educating the angling public they have wronged by pretending to be a resource manager.
 
This article is done by a very reputable federal science agency(USGS where you all get your stream flows in cfs) and shows brook trout can survive higher water temps without brown trout and would likely inhabit bigger waters we think of as “not brook trout streams” if browns were not present.

USGS Study Reveals Interactive Effects of Climate Change, Invasive Species on Native Fish | U.S. Geological Survey

A new USGS study shows non-native Brown Trout can place a burden on native Brook Trout under the increased water temperatures climate change can cause.
www.usgs.gov www.usgs.gov
 
Genetic rescue has potential to restore larger more fertile brook trout after being used on isolated inbred brook trout. This is very exciting because it’s not always improve the stream sometimes we need to think about improving the fishes genetic diversity that human activity and isolation has taken away allowing them a better chance to Adapt to survival in less ideal streams.

www.researchgate.net

Experimental test of genetic rescue in isolated populations of brook trout | Request PDF

Request PDF | Experimental test of genetic rescue in isolated populations of brook trout | Genetic rescue is an increasingly considered conservation measure to address genetic erosion associated with habitat loss and fragmentation. The... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on...
www.researchgate.net www.researchgate.net
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top