Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC




Bottom line. People love this. Right or wrong. All we can do is submit our thoughts. I think this is a great opportunity for the wild trout enthusiasts to speak up; either via email, snail mail, fax or pony express. Just write.

 
Has this been open for comment? I can't find anything here. Am I looking in the wrong place? #251 looks like it is related only to changing the requirements for designating class "a" water or removing the classification.
 
Its not a Rulemaking yet...and may never be. It is a proposal that would be put to the Commissioners for consideration of a rulemaking as I understand it. So the comments would influence the consideration by commissioners.
 
This is a big deal because of the precedent this sets and the fact that it is completely against PFBC Policy and what has been detailed in the Trout Management Plan. If the PFBC approves the continued stocking of these waters, the PFBC is wasting stocked trout and wild trout.

If anyone is against this, please send an email to your PFBC commissioner and even your local Senator/Representative. I get the feeling this is spurred on by politics and the fear of getting flack from anglers who like these streams stocked regardless the fact that there are trout already there for them to catch.

Take a few minutes and send a quick email voicing your opinion on this matter. If the PFBC caves on this policy/regulation, what other policies are they going to cave on too?
 
As reasonable people, us fly anglers should tolerate a little bit of stocking over viable wild trout populations, when conditions warrant. I have no gripe with people who actually think it isn't warranted, but not with those who simply take a stand on principle, without considering the particular circumstances of the stream in question.
 
As the idea was presented to PA Trout Unlimitded, the idea is to reduce stocking on a bunch of waters that ARE ALREADY Class A, ie, Little Lehigh, Monocacy, Bushkill Yellow, and a bunch of other creeks, that are already being stocked up to 6 times a year. Replace that stocking with one preseason stocking, so the anglers that fish these streams heavily get there Government handout. All of the streams on the list have very good numbers of wild trout and are stocked. This proposal represents a reduction of stocking on these streams. It's unfortunate the PFBC did quite word it right and didn't include the streams involved.
I have to wonder if anyone really read the proposal?
To further clarify the proposal. all of the streams have been Class A for a while and stocking has continued up to 6 times a year, but the streams were never added to the Class A list allowing them to be degraded by development and other interests. Adding to the Class A list gives all these streams upgrades to at least HQCWF under DEP regulations, giving them a higher level of protection than they now recieve, think not the protection they should have. Opposing this change may mean the streams are left off the class a list and therefore won't recieve the added protection that being class a provides.
Again this represents a reduction of stocking, less pressure and more wild fish.
 
How can they leave a stream off the list if it meets Class A criteria? For political reasons? So the PFBC intentionally keeps a stream off the Class A list because of political reasons? I guess you have to ask yourself is that the right thing to do.

Where is the correct language for the proposal? Does PATU have it?

As I and maybe others understand it there is nothing that was discussed about a reduction in stocking.

So if this goes through, its like being 1/2 pregnant?
 
1/2 pregnant? No, it is a proposal to allow the PFBC to make exceptions to the non-stocking of Class A waters. Nothing more. Draw what conclusions your paranoia suggests.
 
So if I read this entire post correctly (and that assumption is always in question), I get that the PFBC currently has two choices for these 9 stream sections. Leave status alone and not classify as class A (with all the protections that affords) and continue multi stockings each year even though they have bio-mass to qualify as class A. Or change to class A with an exception status allowing 1 pre-season stocking each year. Given that those appear to be all the PFBC is willing to pursue at this point, isn't this really a no brainer?

It is obvious to me that as far as most PAFF posters are concerned the PFBC has few friends among us. It seems to me we ought to be applauding that they want to give these waters some protections on a compromise basis but we won't be satisified unless we get the whole thing without compromise. I say something for these 9 waters is better than nothing. Isn't that a step in the right direction?
 
Fox,

If they are class A biomass water then they have to be classified class A. If not, then they are not being truthful and following there own rules.
 
Yeah, if we're being open and honest about stuff, NOT making it class A isn't an option. Class A isn't a management policy, it's a factual statement of how many wild fish are in it. It either is, or it isn't, there's no "choice" to be made there.

The choice whether to stock or not stock a class A is the management decision we're discussing. Not on whether to MAKE it class A.

I realize that may not be quite how it works. But it's how it's supposed to work. And we're being idealistic about it.
 
SB and Pcray,

This is from PFBC's own documentation. So I'm not sure I agree with your contention that they are not following their own rules. We have no idea if these 9 streams meet any or all of the below criteria.

"To be designated as a Class A wild trout water, a stream must be surveyed by PFBC biologists using approved protocols, meet species-specific biomass standards, and be officially designated as Class A by the Board of Commissioners. The PFBC maintains a list of these waters and it is available on the PFBC’s website at: http://www.fish.state.pa.us/classa.pdf."

No where does their documentation say that any stream meeting the first two criteria "must" be designated as class A. I'm not saying these streams should not be listed as class A but they currently are not and I think moving in any direction that gets us closer is a good thing. Even our own US Constitution has "amendments" because it's a living document as we learn more. Why shouldn't the PFBC be able to amend their own rules to try to make things better even if we don't see it as better? Let's face facts that these streams have been stocked for many years and still manged to attain a class A bio-mass despite this stocking program. So even if they don't plan to reduce stocking, why can't we appreciate they will now get protections which can only help all 9 waterways. The majority contention it this post is all or nothing and that to me is narrow-minded and short-sighted.

Those who know me and fish with me, know my preference for fishing for wild trout but I'm willing to give the PFBC the benefit of the doubt of this one.
 
Fair enough. Agree the new status quo would be better than the old one for these streams.

Like I said, in our minds, class A is merely a description of the biomass. A physical reality that doesn't need "approved" and can't be denied. If they have class A biomass, they ARE class A, with or without a designation. These particular streams reaching this status is great, and absolutely represents an improvement, but there's nothing to debate about. Good management may have contributed to getting here, but the positive of declaring it "class A" cannot be used as a carrot to get away with also doing something negative. It IS class A.

All that's left is to decide how to manage them, and we have always approved of the PFBC's own rules not to stock them. Thus, a decision to stock these streams would represent an overall degradation, not an improvement, in PFBC policy.

i.e. despite these streams gaining ground, the decision loses ground.

It may not be complete reality on how it works, and I can accept that. It's just how we see it.
 
Okay, so your objection is not about these 9 streams per se, it's about whether the PFBC will use this new classification on other streams down the road. Fair point and I concur with your concern there.
 
if you actually read the bio literature, and not the exaggerated stuff in TUs stocking policy, it says any impact on wild fish from stocking is through hooking/catching not wild vs stockie competition for space or food... I think that implies that a reduction in the number of stockings is something wild trout fishermen might support..
 
http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2004/****Vincent.htm
 
Foxgap239 wrote:

It is obvious to me that as far as most PAFF posters are concerned the PFBC has few friends among us.
Click to expand...

These proposals are opened up to public comments, by the PFBC itself, for consideration by staff, and by the commissioners, before a decision is made.

So, participating in that public comment process is not being unfriendly to the PFBC.

You should think about what you sincerely think would be best, from a biological and/or recreational perspective, then send in your commentary.

That is participating in the public process, as designed, as intended.
 
TB, I think you are taking that comment out of context. My comment is meant as "my" opinion on numerous posts on this forum about numerous subjects not just this thread. It simply appears to me to read that anything the PFBC does is less than satisfactory based on past sins by some people on this forum. I point to no one specific and apologize if you think I did.
 
I think I would have less problems of the PFBC stocking my local stream once a year if they added some regulations to it. C and R or artificial lures section.
 
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