Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

[Foxgap239]

SBecker wrote:
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.

Different discussion but I wholeheartly agree.

 

[troutbert]

Foxgap239 wrote:
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.

No need for an apology.

Whether there is more reflexive "pro" or "con" on PFBC policies or proposals in general is hard to say.

If you are going to be scoping things out for one sort of bias, you should also check out the other sort of bias. Both are equally "highly illogical."

The other thing to keep in mind is that on this issue, you can be sure that WITHIN the PFBC there are people on both sides of the issue. So, whichever view you take, you are supporting the position of some and opposing the position of others.

But that personal stuff should be considered irrelevant. It's the effects of the policies that matter.

 

[Mike]

In response to one or two specific posts, I think a clarification on my part would be fair. When anyone comments on a PFBC proposal, it is not required that the writer agree or disagree with the entire proposal. In fact, it is beneficial to the agency to know what aspects of a proposal are acceptable to the writer and what aspects are not. For example, in Becker's case, he has mentioned that not all of the streams are urban. If a writer feels that urban streams are ok to stock under the proposal but others are not, it is fair to comment in that way. Likewise, if one feels that a certain stream should not be included for a particular reason, but another should or could be included in the writer's opinion, that is also fair game.

Regarding some other posts, despite the fact that 1) a stream supports a wild trout population or 2) a stream has a biomass that is equivalent to Class A, the legal staff pointed out perhaps a decade or more ago that designating a stream Class A (when it meets or exceeds the qualifying biomass) and in more recent times designating a stream as one that supports reproduction of trout (ie wild trout stream) were actions that required a public comment period and formal Commission action via Commission meetings, as well as, if I recall correctly, publication in the Pa. Bulletin. This allows not only the general public, including anglers, to comment, but it also allows for input from industry. So, yes, from a legal standpoint, official designation of Class A waters AND wild trout streams is required, and that designation is required to follow the same review process as other items that require formal Commission action. Contrary to what many anglers may think it should be, it is not a "rubber stamp" process.

 

[geebee]

can't it just be given an EV wtare quality status to protect it, like some brook trout streams get to protect the water if that's the aim ?

 

[Mike]

EV status has nothing to do with the biomass of wild trout populations. EV status may be determined by a number of factors, but primarily what is used in layman's terms is the abundance and diversity of the most pollution sensitive species of aquatic macroinvertebrates relative to what has been found in similar reference streams.

 

[k-bob]

thanks for posting here mike.

 

[ebroesicke]

i'm more worried about the increased fly fishing pressure from the new class A listing. PFBC spot burn.

 

[Chaz]

Again, these streams have been Class A for a long time and indeed excede Class A by a lot. Many of these sections already have special regulations on them. The proposal as presented to TU was that it was specific to these streams and allows 1 stocking pre season.
As it is now these streams are some of the most pressured in the state. I would assume that pressure wouldbe lessened on these streams, but nearly all are on public land so that may not be the case.
I don't necessarily agree with it, but on the other hand TU has been after PFBC for a long time to add these streams to the Class A list.
It is a win for these streams.

 

[midnightangler]

I find it mind-boggling that sections of streams like Penns Creek, Fishing Creek and the Lower Bald Eagle receive heavy stocking. The PFBC should just light a pile of money on fire instead of spending it to raise fish that contribute nothing to the populations on those streams.

 

[troutbert]

Mike wrote:

Regarding some other posts, despite the fact that 1) a stream supports a wild trout population or 2) a stream has a biomass that is equivalent to Class A, the legal staff pointed out perhaps a decade or more ago that designating a stream Class A (when it meets or exceeds the qualifying biomass) and in more recent times designating a stream as one that supports reproduction of trout (ie wild trout stream) were actions that required a public comment period and formal Commission action via Commission meetings, as well as, if I recall correctly, publication in the Pa. Bulletin. This allows not only the general public, including anglers, to comment, but it also allows for input from industry. So, yes, from a legal standpoint, official designation of Class A waters AND wild trout streams is required, and that designation is required to follow the same review process as other items that require formal Commission action. Contrary to what many anglers may think it should be, it is not a "rubber stamp" process.

Could you clarify another legal point? If the PFBC finds that a stream section meets Class A criteria, is the PFBC obligated to submit that section for designation as a Class A stream?

 

[k-bob]

difficult reality: whatever harm comes to wild fish from stocking is mostly due to hooking/catching by fishermen, not competition from the stocked fish.

so, on the stocking issue, you can only really help PA wild trout by reducing the number of fishermen.

I don't fish for stockies, but I am not ready to throw huge numbers of stocked trout anglers under the bus by fighting stocking all over the state, or for that matter, dramatically reducing the number of streams in which they can fish for stockies. as if I could!

I have read the states trout plan, which says that 65% fish for wild and stockies, versus 34% stockies only, and 1% wild only.

not exactly the recipe for "wild trout only" anglers to carry the day politically...

trout plan p 17 "The majority of Pennsylvania’s trout anglers prefer to use bait (53%) followed by lures (16%) and flies (15%). Stocked trout waters are an important resource for Pennsylvania’s trout anglers as 78% spent greater than half of their trout fishing trips fishing for stocked trout. A majority of Pennsylvania trout anglers (66%) agreed that trout-stocked lakes with healthy populations of other species should be open to year-round fishing. Stocked trout waters are important in introducing children to fishing, as nearly 99% of surveyed anglers who fished with children fish for stocked trout at least half of the time (Duda et al. 2008). Duda et al. (2008) estimated that 34% of Pennsylvania trout anglers fish exclusively for stocked trout and 1% fish exclusively for wild trout. The remaining 65% spend time fishing for both wild and stocked trout."

 

[pcray1231]

so, on the stocking issue, you can only really help PA wild trout by reducing the number of fishermen.

**or their impact.**

And I'm not saying to make it FFO or ALO, as while that is one method, I do sympathize with those who think it's a bit discriminatory to limit things by tackle choice.

But AT C&R, TT, reduced creel limits, DH, etc. can do the same. As can education on proper C&R techniques. Plus, these types of regs attract C&R minded anglers, while putting off meathunters. The meathunters absolutely should be given a place to fish for stockies, it just doesn't have to be the places where there also exists a thriving wild trout population.

 

[Gorosaurus]

No one is arguing against stocking, k-bob. We're trying to say that stocking is GREAT. I really appreciate the stocked fish that the state offers almost all areas of the state.

Many, like myself, question why any of this limited number of fish would be used on streams that already have a proven biomass of fish to keep up an active fishery. That concern is compounded when we consider that studies show that stocked fish often hurt wild trout populations.


So essentially, it's not just perplexingly unnecessary- it could be harmful. How silly!

 

[mr7183]

My rant of what the PFBC should do:

1. Dedicate most trout stocking to known put and take trout streams.
2. Increase C&R ALO areas on all streams that can sustain native trout.
3. Increase the price of fishing licenses / trout stamps. A round of golf typically costs ~$50 on the weekends on a nice course. Having the privilege to fish PA's great streams and rivers year round should be at least double the cost of one round of golf.

 

[Chaz]

Yellow Creek since it has had a history of access issues could end up being closed to fishing if stocking is ended, and I'd venture to say that is not what any of us want.

 

[Chaz]

ebroesicke wrote:
i'm more worried about the increased fly fishing pressure from the new class A listing. PFBC spot burn.

There is no spot burning of the streams involved in this proposal, they've been fished heavily for years. All these streams have held good wild populations for years so people know they have plenty of fish. Spot burning not the issue.

 

[Chaz]

k-bob wrote:


so, on the stocking issue, you can only really help PA wild trout by reducing the number of fishermen.

NO! You can help wild trout by reducing harvest, reducing the number of fishermen is not a policy of TU and never has been. Reducing harvest however is, the 2 are separate issues. PFBC reduces the number of anglers, by increasing the cost of fishing. They will deny it until they are blue in the face but the numbers don't lie. Every time they increase the license the number of license buyers go down. Does that improve fishing? One could make that argument, but I won't. It is detrimental to the goals of TU to reduce the number of fishermen, it means fewer anglers to look out for the streams where trout live.

Further there is nothing in TU's policy that says stocking is a bad thing. However science tells us that stocking over wild fish is detrimental to wild populations.

 

[ebroesicke]

Chaz-

joke. mostly.

 

[Mike]

If you are going to cite the Vincent study in Montana for comparison, then you need to understand the stocking rates, stocking frequency, avg size of fish stocked, length of time during the year that stockings occurred, angling pressure, and harvest rates in the study versus what occurs in Pa. Many of these factors differ(ed), some considerably, between the states, and at least some of those differences would in my view be expected to affect study results. For instance, Montana was stocking monthly from April through August. That has the potential to generate extended fishing pressure and extended interaction between hatchery and wild fish. Pa stocks over a much shorter period, generally resulting relatively quick "put and take" of many of the stocked trout. In the study, the harvest amounted to only 15% of the trout stocked; in Pa, especially in high use streams, harvest rates are much higher, often in the 50% or more range and sometimes as high as 90%. Pa harvest has slowed down in the past decade with the advent of more C&R fishing by the general angling public, but most of Pa's stocked fish are removed by anglers in high use waters much more quickly than were the Montana fish from its study waters. I could go on, but just the two factors that I mentioned means that wild trout/hatchery trout interaction and stocked trout angler/wild trout interaction likely occurs over a much shorter time span in Pa. Coupled with the stocking of relatively naive rainbows in Pa in comparison to the streams' wild browns leads to many of the rainbows being removed at a rapid rate, especially from cold, early spring waters/water temps. Heck, it has been documented repeatedly that even Pa's stocked browns (let alone wild browns) don't hit well in many cases during the opening day, and that was the original reason why there was such a dramatic shift away from intensive stocking of browns prior to opening day going back to the creel surveys of the late 1980's and early 1990's. Conservation Officers who patrol some of these stocked class A candidate waters tell me that they rarely see a wild trout in the creel on opening day.

 

[BrookieChaser]

Thanks for the insight Mike! I appreciate that. I've been trying to find all the details of the Vincent study (stocking rates, angler usage etc) but to no avail.

Is there a similar study from PA?