Class A Stocking

[Maurice]

Well I am not confident we will make any impact. After all this discussion it is apparent that we were commenting on just the changes to stocking those select streams and not on the global issue that was swept through this fall. (as pointed out by Mike).

So it appears we are at the whims of the current and future EDs. Unless there is a suit filed against the F&BC to have it changed back.

This means that pressure from the harvesting crowd of Martins Creek(smaller percentage than the "High Angler Use" percentage outlined in the original draft) influenced the commission to globally change the policy for the entire state and any/every Class A stream.

So if I was a backwoods podunk sportsmans club wanting to have a class A stream stocked I would just lobby the local members and yell from he rooftops we want stocking, we want stocking! and based on this policy, they will likely get it.

Funny, they will cut fall stocking when angler use numbers dip below the unrealistic expectations of Fall angler use on FFO/DHALO waters (where no harvest is allowed and seasonal use is likely greater, and fish reuse utilization greater) yet they listen to and are influenced by the "one time use" crowd.

Harvest is clearly the mission statement of the PF&BC. Harvest at any cost!

 

[BrookieChaser]

Now y'all can see what I was talking about.

 

[troutbert]

The original statements by Spring Creek TU members, and the action alert from PATU, and the original post in this thread were correct.

We've examined those statements a lot, which is good. But it's now clear that they were accurate.

They described the situation accurately, and called for action, i.e. sending commentary to the PFBC.

There is always the question of your chances of success.

But I agree with KenU that our chances are pretty good of getting this changed. IF we get enough people to send in messages to the PFBC.

The other side gives their opinions to the PFBC. We should too.

And there is no downside to sending commentary to the PFBC. What's the worst that could happen? You lose a few minutes?

It takes about the same amount of time as posting on here.

 

[franklin]

Maurice wrote:

Harvest is clearly the mission statement of the PF&BC. Harvest at any cost!

I wouldn't say harvest at any cost. We have to be realistic and understand that today probably 75% of those who fish for trout are interested in harvesting trout. They are not going to react well if popular streams all of a sudden are not stocked. Same for private land owners who decide to post land once stocking is curtailed. It's going to take some discussion to convince them of the benefits of a more natural fishing experience.

 

[troutbert]

BrookieChaser wrote:
Now y'all can see what I was talking about.

Not at all.

All this has been known from the beginning. It is exactly what was originally described by Spring Creek TU, and was then sent out PATU to all members in the action alert, and posted in the OP in this thread.

They described the situation accurately, and asked for people to take action by sending commentary to the PFBC.

Nothing they've said has been contradicted. Our discussion here has simply CONFIRMED that they were correct.

 

[troutbert]

Maurice wrote:

So if I was a backwoods podunk sportsmans club wanting to have a class A stream stocked I would just lobby the local members and yell from he rooftops we want stocking, we want stocking! and based on this policy, they will likely get it.

That is why we need to get this changed. And it's what the OP, and the PATU action alert are all about.

Like KenU, I think our chances are good.

The more comments we get sent into the PFBC, the better our chances.

This is the entire point of what we're doing here:

Messages sent to the PFBC.

Now that the details of the OP have been confirmed, let's stay focused on that task.

 

[BrookieChaser]

Troutbert, I truly wish the world worked as you see it.

If so our fish, and game, would be managed solely by science, maybe the country wouldn't be the wreck it is, and money may grow on White Oak trees.

 

[Fishidiot]

troutbert wrote:
That is why we need to get this changed. And it's what the OP, and the PATU action alert are all about.
Like KenU, I think our chances are good.
The more comments we get sent into the PFBC, the better our chances.
This is the entire point of what we're doing here:
Messages sent to the PFBC.
Now that the details of the OP have been confirmed, let's stay focused on that task.

Agree. Your opinion matters - send it to the PFBC.

 

[albud1962]

If you haven't yet done so I urge you to comment on rule making # 255. The deadline for comment is Monday december 15th.

 

[franklin]

As far as I can tell the changes go into effect January 1. Given that; what is the mechanism under which stocking approval could happen? Does the Executive Director need to ask approval at a quarterly meeting? Does he just Email the commissioners for approval? How is the request communicated, is it public, and how is the approval finalized? Is there a public comment period?


An additional question: Has stocking already ceased on the newly classified streams?

 

[Chaz]

franklin wrote:
As far as I can tell the changes go into effect January 1. Given that; what is the mechanism under which stocking approval could happen? Does the Executive Director need to ask approval at a quarterly meeting? Does he just Email the commissioners for approval? How is the request communicated, is it public, and how is the approval finalized? Is there a public comment period?


An additional question: Has stocking already ceased on the newly classified streams?

The recommendation would likely come from staff, i.e., the biologists, and they would either recommend stocking be halted, or stocking being continued. There is always a lot of pressure from legislators when stocking is involve, and that's what happened with this proposal at the July Meeting. They legislator got involved because the locals complained loudly about halting the stocking of Martins Creek in Northampton County, and the locals wrote in to the fish commission. Only 2 comments came in saying anything against the original plan, one being mine.
They vote on these things at the quarterly meeting of the Commission.

 

[BrookieChaser]

Chaz, if there were only two people that sent in comments opposing the original legislation, the second one must have been me.

 

[troutbert]

albud1962 wrote:
If you haven't yet done so I urge you to comment on rule making # 255. The deadline for comment is Monday december 15th.

+1

Just a reminder, today is Monday, December 15th.

If you've been thinking about, but procrastinating, Git R Done today!

There is no possible downside. And it could help.

The link for commenting is in the original post.

 

[afishinado]

Chaz wrote:

franklin wrote:
As far as I can tell the changes go into effect January 1. Given that; what is the mechanism under which stocking approval could happen? Does the Executive Director need to ask approval at a quarterly meeting? Does he just Email the commissioners for approval? How is the request communicated, is it public, and how is the approval finalized? Is there a public comment period?


An additional question: Has stocking already ceased on the newly classified streams?

The recommendation would likely come from staff, i.e., the biologists, and they would either recommend stocking be halted, or stocking being continued. There is always a lot of pressure from legislators when stocking is involve, and that's what happened with this proposal at the July Meeting. They legislator got involved because the locals complained loudly about halting the stocking of Martins Creek in Northampton County, and the locals wrote in to the fish commission. Only 2 comments came in saying anything against the original plan, one being mine.
They vote on these things at the quarterly meeting of the Commission.

Many voted against the proposal because they were opposed to any type of stocking in Class A waters. I too believe that, but I was in favor of the "original plan" because it was a compromise to allow newly classified Class A streams to gain EV protections. (Most starve because they insist on getting the whole loaf or nothing....)

Others voted against the proposal for just the opposite of the above. They were against any reduction or elimination of stocking in the soon to be classified Class A streams.

The whole process of taking public comments in this case is a joke! Vote for the proposal and you are in favor of stocking Class A's....vote against and your are in favor of not eliminating stocking in Class A's....:-?

No matter how you voted, the whole proposal morphed into scraping the policy of no stocking of Class A's in the entire state thus opening every Class A to the possibility of stocking. The original proposal was restricted to a handful of newly classified Class A streams with parameters to determine if the stream qualifies for limited stocking.

The genie is out of the bottle since all streams are now fair game for any politician with some influence to strong-arm the Director and Commissioners to stock their cricks to get some votes.

Let the games begin!!....this winter we will be spending all our time lamenting about which Class A's are being stocked...

 

[troutbert]

afishinado wrote:

The whole process of taking public comments in this case is a joke! Vote for the proposal and you are in favor of stocking Class A's....vote against and your are in favor of not eliminating stocking in Class A's....:-?

You are not restricted at all.

You have a right, as a citizen and license buyer, to express your opinion regarding management of Class A streams.

You can ask for no stocking of Class A streams.

(That's what I believe is best, both for recreation and biologically, so that's what I sent.)

Or, you can ask for the original proposal from the spring to be adopted, with the original criteria and restrictions.

Or you can combine the two: 1) Your preference is that no Class A streams be stocked. 2) But if the PFBC does decide to stock some in "rare" cases, the original proposal, with its specific criteria for selecting streams and restrictions, should be adopted to KEEP it rare.

Rather than making it as simple as ED and commissioner approval, which entirely eliminates the policy of not stocking Class A's, and reduces it to merely a SUGGESTION.

 

[JackM]

I decided not to comment as I would probably just cancel one of your opinions. If a small percentage of Class A trout streams are stocked, it would not be the end of the world. My forbearance was equal to your comments and it took less time.

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:

afishinado wrote:

The whole process of taking public comments in this case is a joke! Vote for the proposal and you are in favor of stocking Class A's....vote against and your are in favor of not eliminating stocking in Class A's....:-?

You are not restricted at all.

You have a right, as a citizen and license buyer, to express your opinion regarding management of Class A streams.

You can ask for no stocking of Class A streams.

(That's what I believe is best, both for recreation and biologically, so that's what I sent.)

Or, you can ask for the original proposal from the spring to be adopted, with the original criteria and restrictions.

Or you can combine the two: 1) Your preference is that no Class A streams be stocked. 2) But if the PFBC does decide to stock some in "rare" cases, the original proposal, with its specific criteria for selecting streams and restrictions, should be adopted to KEEP it rare.

Rather than making it as simple as ED and commissioner approval, which entirely eliminates the policy of not stocking Class A's, and reduces it to merely a SUGGESTION.

Everyone has a right to and should voice their opinion. The "joke" is not that people sent in their comments, the
joke is [d]the baby was thrown out with the bathwater[/d] the trout were thrown out with the crickwater by the Commissioners.


My point is, comments were asked for and sent in about a specific proposal. The comments were classified as either "for" or "against" the proposal. The Commissioners stated that the response was overwhelmingly against the proposal, so they scrapped the entire thing and voted in an entirely different proposal. Either that or the comments that Class A streams should all be open to stocking statewide won.

Let's hope there are enough "resource first" minded Commissioners that will limit stocking in Class A's.

 

[troutbert]

afishinado wrote:

troutbert wrote:

afishinado wrote:

The whole process of taking public comments in this case is a joke! Vote for the proposal and you are in favor of stocking Class A's....vote against and your are in favor of not eliminating stocking in Class A's....:-?

You are not restricted at all.

You have a right, as a citizen and license buyer, to express your opinion regarding management of Class A streams.

You can ask for no stocking of Class A streams.

(That's what I believe is best, both for recreation and biologically, so that's what I sent.)

Or, you can ask for the original proposal from the spring to be adopted, with the original criteria and restrictions.

Or you can combine the two: 1) Your preference is that no Class A streams be stocked. 2) But if the PFBC does decide to stock some in "rare" cases, the original proposal, with its specific criteria for selecting streams and restrictions, should be adopted to KEEP it rare.

Rather than making it as simple as ED and commissioner approval, which entirely eliminates the policy of not stocking Class A's, and reduces it to merely a SUGGESTION.

Everyone has a right to and should voice their opinion. The "joke" is not that people sent in their comments, the
joke is [d]the baby was thrown out with the bathwater[/d] the trout were thrown out with the crickwater by the Commissioners.


My point is, comments were asked for and sent in about a specific proposal. The comments were classified as either "for" or "against" the proposal. The Commissioners stated that the response was overwhelmingly against the proposal, so they scrapped the entire thing and voted in an entirely different proposal. Either that or the comments that Class A streams should all be open to stocking statewide won.

Let's hope there are enough "resource first" minded Commissioners that will limit stocking in Class A's.

We are in agreement that the Commissioners made the wrong choice at the fall meeting.

The OP, and the TU action alert, say the same thing. That's what this is all about.

The people on the other side of the issue, who favor stocking Class A streams, are not hesitant to voice their views to the Commissioners, and they have every right to do so. We have the same right.

 

[afishinado]

Troutbert wrote:
...We are in agreement that the Commissioners made the wrong choice at the fall meeting.

The OP, and the TU action alert, say the same thing. That's what this is all about.

The people on the other side of the issue, who favor stocking Class A streams, are not hesitant to voice their views to the Commissioners, and they have every right to do so. We have the same right.

^Agreed. And we all should exercise that right.

 

[franklin]

It really boils down to how the commission treats requests to stock class A streams in the future. I believe they decided to simplify the code instead of having a whole bunch of details such as year of classification, percentile of angler use, etc, etc. It could also address the issue if/when additional streams are added in the future without having to make more changes to the code.

If any stocking requests that occur are raised at the quarterly meetings and include a public comment period then there is every opportunity to raise objections. I would think such objections would be given more weight if the stocking exception was for a stream that would have been excluded under the original language.

That is really when you find out if the commission is resource oriented or not.