Class A Stocking

[Maurice]

Yes its the one from the spring...from the rule making page the link in the top of #255. At the bottom it says NEW and "adopted"

So apparently as Brookie Chaser said in the other post its a "done deal". Meaning the comment period is closed back in March.

So it seems they asked for comment, received them, discussed nuances to the language, tabled it and then adopted one without any of the language in the original except the last line.

So I can now see the outrage. But I see anywhere the F&BC asking for comments. As stated it appears to be a done deal.

It appears to be a very shady maneuver.

[edit] but then by reading the second link Chaz posted from the other thread it appears comments can be sent just like Spring Creek TU says.

2014_11_07classa.pdf

Man this is so screwed up! Its like a shell game. I shoulda just read the OP commented(which I did) and kept my big mouth shut.

 

[troutbert]

The PFBC is still taking commentary on the addition of those specific streams. The second item under PROPOSALS.

http://fishandboat.com/reg398.htm

Mo, this is kinda fun, yah? 🙂

 

[bikerfish]

So, here is the PFBC, complaining about having no money, having to pay retirement moneys, etc, AND decides to cut back on stocking, but now, decides it's a good idea to STOCK WATERS THAT ALREADY HOLD LOTS OF WILD TROUT???????
WTF?????
Who is the IDIOT that came up with this plan of brilliance?
What a bunch of incompetent idiots. "hey, we're broke, so lets put fish where there is already fish!!! har har har!!! yeah, that will be a good thing!!!
and WE pay these people?????????????????????????

 

[Maurice]

troutbert wrote:
The PFBC is still taking commentary on the addition of those specific streams. The second item under PROPOSALS.

http://fishandboat.com/reg398.htm

Mo, this is kinda fun, yah? 🙂

Frustrating is more like it...Anyone trying to get to the bottom of it would lose interest. Thank goodness for the folks that simplify it and point us idiots (speaking for myself) in the right direction. Criminy sakes.

 

[ebroesicke]

bikerfish wrote:
So, here is the PFBC, complaining about having no money, having to pay retirement moneys, etc, AND decides to cut back on stocking, but now, decides it's a good idea to STOCK WATERS THAT ALREADY HOLD LOTS OF WILD TROUT???????
WTF?????
Who is the IDIOT that came up with this plan of brilliance?
What a bunch of incompetent idiots. "hey, we're broke, so lets put fish where there is already fish!!! har har har!!! yeah, that will be a good thing!!!
and WE pay these people?????????????????????????

This is what has me scratching my head. Reduced stockings have been in the works for a while, officially and unofficially. Even if they only intended to stick to the original 8 (?) streams, which I sort of supported, why leave the door open to add ANY Class A stream? I guess it is possible that they figure putting in easier to catch fish will entice more license sales.

 

[troutbert]

ebroesicke wrote:

bikerfish wrote:
So, here is the PFBC, complaining about having no money, having to pay retirement moneys, etc, AND decides to cut back on stocking, but now, decides it's a good idea to STOCK WATERS THAT ALREADY HOLD LOTS OF WILD TROUT???????
WTF?????
Who is the IDIOT that came up with this plan of brilliance?
What a bunch of incompetent idiots. "hey, we're broke, so lets put fish where there is already fish!!! har har har!!! yeah, that will be a good thing!!!
and WE pay these people?????????????????????????

This is what has me scratching my head. Reduced stockings have been in the works for a while, officially and unofficially. Even if they only intended to stick to the original 8 (?) streams, which I sort of supported, why leave the door open to add ANY Class A stream? I guess it is possible that they figure putting in easier to catch fish will entice more license sales.

biker and ebro,

Have you sent your commentary to the PFBC?

 

[Mike]

I have no inside info. I have read your comments and your references/links on the PFBC web site. I have looked over the rule makings and decisions there. What I get from the web site is that the comments being sought at present only have to do with the list of ten stream sections that is provided and the proposal to keep stocking those sections.

 

[bikerfish]

I will this morning, trying to find a way to be civil about it, I find it rather hard to do.

 

[albud1962]

Troutbert,
You essentially stated this correctly.None of the criteria was adopted at the August or September meetings. About 200 letters were received against the proposal so the commissioners tabled the original. They then followed up with the policy that allows stocking of Class A waters at the discretion of the director and commissioners. I think this whole process was purposely kept vague as to provide political cover over the failed attempt to stop stocking of Martins Creek. By the way another stretch of this Stream is being sold and there will be even less public access here in 2015.

Not only did the commission's action abandoned the proposal limiting stocking to Class A waters, it was a step backwards in righting the whole dilemma perpetuated by the commission of not classifying high density wild trout waters as Class A if they were stocked with hatchery trout.
What is frustrating was John Arway prior to his appointment appeared to be in favor of eliminating class a stocking because of the PAFBC fiscal situation.

There is a Commission meeting scheduled for January, If anyone is local I would urge them to attend.

 

[troutbert]

What language will actually go into PA Code? The Class A wild trout provisions are part of the PA Code. See:

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/058/chapter57/s57.8a.html

The one document the PFBC issued in November says that at the Jan meeting, they will vote on allowing those 9 or 10 Class A streams to be continued to be stocked, per the recent changes to 57.8a, which will go into effect in January.

I've read a lot of PFBC documents relating to all this, but nowhere have I seen the actual language that will be added to the PA Code. Has anyone?

From the info at the first link in Al's original post, it sounds like they will simply add a provision that Class A streams can be stocked, with the approval of the Executive Director and the Commissioners.

But I haven't seen published anywhere the actual language that will be added to the section of PA Code that deals with Class A streams.

 

[afishinado]

I can't find a link to post, but I recall reading somewhere online a comment written by one of the commissioners that this (the new regulation) will not open the door to stocking many or more or new Class A streams and will be used sparingly...I'm paraphrasing. This is why I believe an amended reg for stocking Class A's without stipulations/restrictions has been passed.

 

[franklin]

Doesn't the commission always have the ability to pass changes to the class A rules regardless of the specifics of this current modification? Thus they could grant an exception and allow stocking whenever they want.

 

[troutbert]

franklin wrote:
Doesn't the commission always have the ability to pass changes to the class A rules regardless of the specifics of this current modification? Thus they could grant an exception and allow stocking whenever they want.

In the past the policy, per the PA Code, was that Class A streams could not be stocked. As long as that was in the PA Code, they could not legally stock Class A streams.

What we are discussing is a change in the PA Code that would allow Class A streams to be stocked simply by vote of the Commissioners and signature of the ED.

That's what its all about. That's why we are sending commentary to the PFBC.

So, if you oppose that change in the PA Code, send them a message and tell them.

 

[franklin]

troutbert wrote:

franklin wrote:
Doesn't the commission always have the ability to pass changes to the class A rules regardless of the specifics of this current modification? Thus they could grant an exception and allow stocking whenever they want.

In the past the policy, per the PA Code, was that Class A streams could not be stocked. As long as that was in the PA Code, they could not legally stock Class A streams.

What we are discussing is a change in the PA Code that would allow Class A streams to be stocked simply by vote of the Commissioners and signature of the ED.

That's what its all about. That's why we are sending commentary to the PFBC.

So, if you oppose that change in the PA Code, send them a message and tell them.

My point is that if they can change the PA code now then they can change the PA code later. According to the PAFBC most of the feedback they previously received favored continued stocking by a wide margin. So there won't be significant political pressure to stop them. More likely significant support for stocking.

My own view is that I prefer to allow the commission some latitude in dealing with this issue as some streams transition to class A status. It's good news that popular streams have improved to the point of being upgraded to class A. I could envision much worse outcomes if the commission was truly politically motivated.

 

[troutbert]

bikerfish wrote:
I will this morning, trying to find a way to be civil about it, I find it rather hard to do.

Good stuff, bikerfish. Thanks!

There's no need for anyone to write a long complex message. A short simple one probably works just as well.

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:
What language will actually go into PA Code? The Class A wild trout provisions are part of the PA Code. See:

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/058/chapter57/s57.8a.html

The one document the PFBC issued in November says that at the Jan meeting, they will vote on allowing those 9 or 10 Class A streams to be continued to be stocked, per the recent changes to 57.8a, which will go into effect in January.

I've read a lot of PFBC documents relating to all this, but nowhere have I seen the actual language that will be added to the PA Code. Has anyone?

From the info at the first link in Al's original post, it sounds like they will simply add a provision that Class A streams can be stocked, with the approval of the Executive Director and the Commissioners.

But I haven't seen published anywhere the actual language that will be added to the section of PA Code that deals with Class A streams.

Here it is:

Annex A
Regulation No. 48A-255
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. However, there may be circumstances that justify stocking a Class A wild trout stream. Prior to granting permission to stock a Class A wild trout stream under §71.4 (relating to stocking of designated waters), the Executive Director will obtain the approval of the Commission.
*

Link to source - PFBC site - (last page of link below):

http://fishandboat.com/rulemakings/255finp.pdf

 

[Chaz]

That's from July, it now reads differently and is found here;

New Doc

Pay particular attention to Section 'D,' This is where they made changes to the original proposal. They've removed all of the qualifiers except that stocking of Class A water can be approved by the ED after the Commission approves it.
Really Stupid.

 

[troutbert]

Thanks afishinado & Chaz.

In the second document, which Chaz posted, the language in the last part is the same as in the document afishinado posted.

The first part, the Preamble, is an explanatory document about the changes to be made to the PA Code.

But only the last section actually goes into the Code.

(IMHO. I'm not a lawyer.)

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:
Thanks afishinado & Chaz.

In the second document, which Chaz posted, the language in the last part is the same as in the document afishinado posted.

The first part, the Preamble, is an explanatory document about the changes to be made to the PA Code.

But only the last section actually goes into the Code.

(IMHO. I'm not a lawyer.)

Yep. The section I posted above is the law of the [d]land[/d] stream as of right now.

 

[troutbert]

afishinado wrote:

troutbert wrote:
Thanks afishinado & Chaz.

In the second document, which Chaz posted, the language in the last part is the same as in the document afishinado posted.

The first part, the Preamble, is an explanatory document about the changes to be made to the PA Code.

But only the last section actually goes into the Code.

(IMHO. I'm not a lawyer.)

Yep. The section I posted above is the law of the [d]land[/d] stream as of right now.

I think I read that it is scheduled to take effect January 1.

Unless it's changed. Which is what we are trying to accomplish.