When license sales generate revenue which is used to operate the program, the goal becomes license sales. The stocked fish prop up license sales, so that gets priority. Arguably, if you eliminated stocking, license sales would decrease, but so would expenses. The reason they stock fish is to promote the sport and generate revenue, but it's to continue the operation at the current level. If the net result is positive cashflow (or breaking even), should it matter whether it's with $5.5 million in revenue and $5 million in expenses or or $505,000 in revenue and $500,000 in expenses?
This is kind of the problem with the PAFBC operating more like a self funded business. The focus becomes keeping the business running rather than the environment, fish or anything else. I hate to say that, but it's true. From a biology standpoint, there can't be any positive outcome from stocking 5lb brown trout in a stream full of naturally occuring brook trout. That's exactly what they do though, so that should tell you where the priorities are.
Right now, they need to keep stocking to generate enough revenue to support the entire operation. What will be interesting is at what point the general public stops buying licenses due to cost regardless of the quantity of stockers available in April.
I fully support the PAFBC and I know there are a lot of passionate people who work there who do put the environment and fish/biology above all else. At the same time, I believe the current/historical approach is fundamentally, inherently flawed.