Class A Stocking

[albud1962]

This information was provided by the Spring Creek Chapter of TU and discussed at the TU Trout management committee meeting yesterday.


Call for Action


At the 2014 Fall Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) meeting (September 29 & 30, 2014), the Board of Commissioners voted to allow stocking of some Class A wild trout streams. The policy change, documented at http://fishandboat.com/rulemakings/255finp.pdf, allows the Executive Director, with approval from the Board of Commissioners, to designate specific Class A streams for stocking. This is a dramatic change, as previous PFBC policy forbid stocking in all Class A wild trout streams.



In summary, the original proposal (full text at: http://fishandboat.com/rulemakings/255nprp.pdf) was to allow stocking on a few specific streams according to the following criteria:

1.The stream was not identified as Class A prior to 2013


2.The stream was stocked the year immediately prior to determining the stream was Class A


3.Angler use meets or exceeds the 75th percentile


4.No stocking would occur in Class A wild brook trout (or mixed wild brook trout) waters


5.After review of the above data, stocking was approved by the Board of Comissioners and the Executive Director


Stocking in Class A wild trout streams is controversial, to say the least. However, the *original* proposal sought to provide protection to newly surveyed Class A stream sections that have traditionally been stocked while implementing some level of stocking controls. The scope of stocking was tightly limited to a few instances and care was taken to prevent stocking over wild brook trout populations.

In its final decision, however, the Board of Commissioners voted to remove all criteria EXCEPT approval by the board and executive directors. Essentially, any Class A wild trout water can be stocked if the Board of Comissioners and the Executive Director approves it. There is no requirement for an objective review, and even wild brook trout can be stocked over.

We believe this leaves the door open for the PFBC to make stocking decisions based on politics instead of objective data. We feel this is an unsound decision by the PFBC that jeopardizes the health of wild trout, and are asking for your help to overturn the decision. Please consider writing the PFBC to voice your concern on this matter. Comments may be made electronically prior to December 15th at: http://fishandboat.com/regcomments/index.htm?title_number=ClassAWildTrout .

 

[SteveG]

Thank you for posting this.

 

[shortrod2]

I think we went over this when the proposal came out.

albud1962 wrote:
We believe this leaves the door open for the PFBC to make stocking decisions based on politics instead of objective data.

The door has always been open, its just that before this rule, they would not classify one of these sections as class A.

The intent here is to classify some stream sections for the DEP protection provided by a class A classification.

If stocking is stopped then the owners will revoke public access.

albud1962 wrote:
We feel this is an unsound decision by the PFBC that jeopardizes the health of wild trout, and are asking for your help to overturn the decision.

It may not be perfect, but the PFBC's strategy seems to be the best for maintaining protection, access and wild trout populations.

 

[troutbert]

Thanks for posting this Al. I sent my opinion to the PFBC.

shortrod, they've changed the proposal that would have allowed the exception just on 9 stream sections, and on future streams only with very specific criteria.

So, Al's message, and TU's is about that NEW situation.

At the fall meeting, they decided to get rid of ALL criteria. Under their proposal the PFBC could stock ANY Class A stream, simply by the approval of the Commissioners and the Executive Director.

Including existing Class A streams now managed for wild trout, with no stocking.

It's a very bad idea. Removing all criteria other than commisioner and ED approval would open up a Pandora's box of people pressuring their legislators, who would then pressure the commissioners to stock Class A streams.

The whole wild trout management system that's been around since about 1980 could unravel.

BTW, this proposal did not come from the PFBC fisheries staff. It came from the commissioners. Very disappointing.

Tell them what you think. I think we can get this changed. Use the link provided in Al's original post. It is easy to use.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

I saw this today in an email from my local TU chapter. I find this quite disturbing.

I strongly suggest we rally the trouts to submit letters in favor of legislation that favors fostering improved wild trout fisheries. I'm sure we can all rattle off many benefits of such legislation that reach beyond the recreational angling experience associated with fishing for wild trout v. stocked trout.

Maybe someone can draft a concise letter we can all copy and paste into this link to get the number of wild trout friendly responses up.

Can someone please step up to the plate to get this done quickly?

We can take the same approach with our local TU chapters and individual networks of fishing friends. Even people who do not fish should write in. Use social media to spread the word.

This is an environmental issue whose impact reaches beyond the angling community. It demonstrated a lack of conviction to improve stream quality in general.

We all live downstream from someone...

 

[SteveG]

Sent my 2 cents in. Is the "75th percentile" of angler usage just a number gathered from opening day? It seems that'd be a poor indicator of how much usage a stream gets.

 

[SteveG]

Since the PFBC is so concerned with wild brook trout, I found it ironic that there isn't a stipulation preventing stocking over them. But I guess that'd prevent stocking on many streams because they're brook/brown brook/bow mixes.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

SteveG,

I agree with both posts.

It's, at best, misleading to extrapolate a small data set.

The truly disingenuous part of stocking non-brookies over native brookies is they are not considering the impact of predation by the (typically) much larger stocked trout.

Maybe the commissioners are under-qualified or maybe they have an agenda that doesn't align with maintaining and enhancing our wild trout fisheries.

Both possibilities are disheartening.

 

[KenU]

I am co-chair of the PATU Trout Management Committee and was at the meeting when this was discussed. A PFBC biologist was also there and was very responsive. I think I can reasonably say that if we can get enough responses to the PFBC asking that the original 5 conditions of the proposal be reinstated, that our voices will be heard. So please folks, respond to this request ASAP. Believe it or not your voices do matter. And the more the better. - Ken Undercoffer

 

[CRB]

Question, is there a way to remove a commissioner? I did send a letter.

 

[Chaz]

shortrod2 wrote:
I think we went over this when the proposal came out.

albud1962 wrote:
We believe this leaves the door open for the PFBC to make stocking decisions based on politics instead of objective data.

The door has always been open, its just that before this rule, they would not classify one of these sections as class A.

The intent here is to classify some stream sections for the DEP protection provided by a class A classification.

If stocking is stopped then the owners will revoke public access.

albud1962 wrote:
We feel this is an unsound decision by the PFBC that jeopardizes the health of wild trout, and are asking for your help to overturn the decision.

It may not be perfect, but the PFBC's strategy seems to be the best for maintaining protection, access and wild trout populations.

The proposal given to T. U. in June of this year was to limit the stocking to those streams in the proposal. The latest iteration of the proposal opens up ALL Class A streams to stocking, it must be rejected.

 

[SteveG]

Ken, thank you for the input. Was the PFBC as a whole responsive, or just the biologist?

 

[troutbert]

I agree with KenU that if enough people contact the PFBC on this, that they will likely respond.

Thanks to all those who have already contacted the PFBC.

If you are considering doing so, go for it!

 

[Maurice]

I am confused... I just reread the NEW proposal listed above and it seems to me that based on the Summary of Revisions. I just don't see where they "eliminate the previous restrictions" It seems like just a semantic and terminology change. Please clarify how this policy has changed.



E. Summary of R evisions
Upon further consideration at its fall 2014 meeting,
the Commission determined that the current policy should
remain largely unchanged with two exceptions. First, the Commission added language requiring the Executive Director to obtain the Board’s approval prior to granting permission
to stock any Class A wild trout stream. Because Board approval will be necessary regardless of whether a water meets all of the previously proposed criteria for stocking, it is unnecessary to include
these criteria in the statement of policy. Second, the Commission changed the reference to “Wild Trout Abundance Class Criteria” to “Biomass Class Criteria” since all of the classes described in the
policy are actually biomass class criteria. The Commission adopts these changes to §
57.8a as set forth in
Annex A
.

 

[KenU]

SteveG:
It is my understanding that the PFBC biologists would prefer that the proposal be instituted as originally written. It is the commissioners that we must convince.

 

[Maurice]

Troutbert and /or KenU

From Albuds OP.

In its final decision, however, the Board of Commissioners voted to remove all criteria EXCEPT approval by the board and executive directors. Essentially, any Class A wild trout water can be stocked if the Board of Comissioners and the Executive Director approves it. There is no requirement for an objective review, and even wild brook trout can be stocked over.

Were is this stated in the language of the new proposal up for public comment?

Here is what it says...

Annex A
Regulation No. 48A
-
25
5
Title 58. Recreation
Part II. Fish and Boat Commission
Subpart
A
.
General Provisions
CHAPTER
57
.
STATEMENTS OF POLICY
§
57.8a.
Class A wild trout streams.
It is the policy of the Commission to manage self-sustaining Class A wild trout populations as a renewable natural resource to conserve that resource and the angling it provides. Class A wild trout populations represent the best of this Commonwealth’s naturally reproducing trout fisheries.
[These]With rare exceptions, these
stream sections are managed solely for the perpetuation of the wild trout fishery with no stocking.
*
*
*
(4) Stream sections that the Commission designates as Class A wild trout streams after 2013
may remain eligible for fingerling stocking of trout or preseason-only stocking of adult trout by the Commission or Commission approved pre-season only stocking of adult trout by
Commission cooperative nurseries to provide additional early season angling opportunities provided all of the following conditions are met:
(i) The stream section was stocked with adult trout during the year immediately prior to its designation as a Class A wild trout stream.
(ii) Angler use (anglers/mile of stream) in the stream section equals or exceeds the 75th percentile, statewide, of angler use for the opening weekend of trout season as documented by
Commission staff.
(iii) The trout species to be stocked are not the same species as the primary component of the wild trout population.
(5) A stream section designated as a Class A wild brook trout, Class A mixed wild brook and brown trout or Class A mixed wild brook and rainbow trout stream will not be considered for stocking.
(6) Prior to implementing a decision to stock a Class A wild trout stream, the Executive Director will obtain the approval of the Board

 

[troutbert]

Maurice,

I'm confused too. But read the document at the first link in the OP. This gives a fuller history of the whole thing.

A key point is that the proposed policy to allow stocking of these 9 or 10 streams, with various restrictive criteria of Class A streams to be stocked, and the restrictions such as preseason stocking only, etc. was discussed at the summer meeting, but it NEVER PASSED.

So all that stuff that was discussed was never passed, never went into effect. So, those are not "current policy."

The proposal was taken up again at the fall meeting. But they decided that since approval of the ED and the Commissioners were needed to stock a Class A stream, that none of the restrictive criteria that had been discussed were necessary.

So, the "current policy" referred to is the original Class A, Operation Future one.

What they passed was an exception to that, namely:

Class A streams can be stocked with approval of:
1) The Executive Director
2) The Commissioners

None of the other criteria or restrictions that were discussed apply, because they were never passed. Not at the fall meeting, the summer meeting, or anytime previously.

I THINK this is the situation, but I'm not sure. It is very confusing. If someone really knows the truth, please explain it to us.

PS, Maurice I wrote the above in response to your original post, not your updated one.

Looking at this new info, it seems like what they passed is very different from the PFBC description of what they passed, in the document at the first link in the OP.

Very confusing.

What I sent the PFBC is pretty simple: Don't stock any Class A streams. Stick to the original Operation Future policy.

If anyone else feels the same, send the PFBC that message.

 

[Maurice]

Troutbert, Thank you, I see what you are saying but I am not so sure either. I wonder if anyone had thought to ask.

 

[troutbert]

Maurice wrote:
Troutbert, Thank you, I see what you are saying but I am not so sure either. I wonder if anyone had thought to ask.

I don't know all the details.

But the PFBC provided the document at the first link in the OP.

http://fishandboat.com/rulemakings/255nprp.pdf)

From that description it that it appears that the only criteria would be approval of the ED and the Commissioners. That's from the PFBC, and described as "rulemakings" so I don't think you can fault people for assuming that it was accurate.

 

[troutbert]

Maurice, are you sure the document you just posted is CURRENT, i.e. after what they decided at the fall meeting?

Or is that the proposal that was being discussed back in the spring?