FBC Hatchery article

[afishinado]

PFBC possibly closing some hatcheries?!....and you wild trout afishinados say good riddance!? I would guess co-op/ private stocking will be the wave of the future? Private clubs stock 25% of the trout in PA right now...1 million fish +/-.

Be careful what you wish for, though. There is oversight and accountability with the PFBC; not to mention all the professionals involved in the stocking program. I trust the PFBC to do the right thing when stocking more than a myriad of private clubs.

https://blog.triblive.com/wild-outdoors/2017/02/08/an-ugly-thought-closing-fish-hatcheries/

 

[Shaner]

talk from 2013

Old link above....They were going to close oswayo and bellefonte before and kept them open. I'm guessing its going to be soon.

 

[Dave_W]

afishinado wrote:
PFBC possibly closing some hatcheries?!....and you wild trout afishinados say good riddance!? I would guess co-op/ private stocking will be the wave of the future? Private clubs stock 25% of the trout in PA right now...1 million fish +/-.

Be careful what you wish for, though. There is oversight and accountability with the PFBC; not to mention all the professionals involved in the stocking program. I trust the PFBC to do the right thing when stocking more than a myriad of private clubs.

Agree.
And many of the co-op hatcheries are themselves very old and have had their share of effluent and technical problems. On the other hand, it's cheaper to provide fish from "contractors" rather than state run operations. Hhmmm...

PFBC will likely propose closing a state hatchery or two, and local opposition and political influence will likely fight to keep those hatcheries open (as happened a couple years ago with Bellefonte).

Sometimes the only viable path is to muddle forward as best you can and I tend to think the PFBC is in this sort of situation. So it goes.

 

[troutbert]

afishinado wrote:

PFBC possibly closing some hatcheries?!....and you wild trout afishinados say good riddance!? I would guess co-op/ private stocking will be the wave of the future? Private clubs stock 25% of the trout in PA right now...1 million fish +/-.

Be careful what you wish for, though. There is oversight and accountability with the PFBC; not to mention all the professionals involved in the stocking program. I trust the PFBC to do the right thing when stocking more than a myriad of private clubs.

https://blog.triblive.com/wild-outdoors/2017/02/08/an-ugly-thought-closing-fish-hatcheries/

I read the article, and the proposals to close hatcheries were coming from PFBC Commissioners, because the PFBC doesn't have enough money.

There is no mention of these proposals coming from "wild trout afishinados."

You should always be careful that you're not throwing up a strawman.

 

[troutbert]

Dave_W wrote:

PFBC will likely propose closing a state hatchery or two, and local opposition and political influence will likely fight to keep those hatcheries open (as happened a couple years ago with Bellefonte).

And the Oswayo hatchery, at the same time as the Bellefonte hatchery.

Some years back, the PFBC hired a consulting firm to evaluate their hatchery system. The firm concluded that the PFBC should close the Reynoldsdale hatchery because their numbers showed that it was the least efficient hatchery.

But "local opposition and political influence" kept it open. So it goes.

 

[streamerguy]

This article also came out recently.

The PFBC assessed the muskie population in a river, found out that the majority of the fish were actually wild, and concluded that they no longer need to stock the expensive hatchery fish. What a concept!

In the trout world I'm sure co-op hatcheries would really need to pick up the slack to keep the "trout season" crowd happy. The PFBC doesn't have the money to run these hatcheries, but if they close them and stock less fish statewide, license sales will continue to drop and then they'll really be scrambling for money. And other various programs will take a hit.

 

[Solitariolupo]

streamerguy wrote:
This article also came out recently.

The PFBC assessed the muskie population in a river, found out that the majority of the fish were actually wild, and concluded that they no longer need to stock the expensive hatchery fish. What a concept!

Not sure how you got this from the article but if I remember right it's the Susquehanna River. They say they won't be stocking much but the PFBC in their musky program is actually growing. It is showing.




As for trout now don't jump all over me but I wouldn't mind seeing them slow down on the stockings and try to get a fish more native and that can actually spawn themselves in the wild.

 

[Dave_W]

Solitariolupo wrote:

streamerguy wrote:
This article also came out recently.

The PFBC assessed the muskie population in a river, found out that the majority of the fish were actually wild, and concluded that they no longer need to stock the expensive hatchery fish. What a concept!

Not sure how you got this from the article but if I remember right it's the Susquehanna River. They say they won't be stocking much but the PFBC in their musky program is actually growing. It is showing.

I have started a fresh thread in the Warmwater forum dealing with this issue.

 

[streamerguy]

Solitariolupo wrote:

Not sure how you got this from the article but if I remember right it's the Susquehanna River. They say they won't be stocking much but the PFBC in their musky program is actually growing. It is showing.

The article was saying stocking was no longer needed on that specific section/branch of the river, because most of the fish shocked up were actually wild. Can't speak for other waterways statewide. The musky program overall may very well be growing. But that article is just one example of no longer stocking a specific place because there is an adequate population of wild fish.

And that same mindset obviously can, and in many of our opinion's should, be applied to trout management. Don't stock a place that already has fish, and use those resources towards places that need stocked. But then you got all the political mess, etc..

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:

afishinado wrote:

PFBC possibly closing some hatcheries?!....and you wild trout afishinados say good riddance!? I would guess co-op/ private stocking will be the wave of the future? Private clubs stock 25% of the trout in PA right now...1 million fish +/-.

Be careful what you wish for, though. There is oversight and accountability with the PFBC; not to mention all the professionals involved in the stocking program. I trust the PFBC to do the right thing when stocking more than a myriad of private clubs.

https://blog.triblive.com/wild-outdoors/2017/02/08/an-ugly-thought-closing-fish-hatcheries/

I read the article, and the proposals to close hatcheries were coming from PFBC Commissioners, because the PFBC doesn't have enough money.

There is no mention of these proposals coming from "wild trout afishinados."

You should always be careful that you're not throwing up a strawman.

No creating strawmen or posting misinfo from me, Sir.

The wild trout afishinados I kiddingly referred to can been found on here and from the thousands of anglers I've talked to in the past few years. Countless trout anglers have expressed their sentiment that closing a few hatcheries may good thing.

I posted the link above to the article and warned against anyone thinking that closing hatcheries is really a good thing. It would hurt FBC revenues and curtail many worthwhile stream projects. In addition, it would accelerate the rate of stocking by private concerns causing a loss of any direct accountability or control.

 

[CRB]

I don't think co-ops will be the viable solution as most are having problems getting people to participate. Co-ops or FBC hatcheries both need workers to feed fish.

 

[PennKev]

Solitariolupo wrote:

As for trout now don't jump all over me but I wouldn't mind seeing them slow down on the stockings and try to get a fish more native and that can actually spawn themselves in the wild.

I don't see the benefit of this. Wild trout are present in virtually every watershed capable of supporting trout year round. If it's more wild trout you want, habitat needs to be the focus, not the strain of fish. No trout is going to do well in shallow sluggish, silted streams. Create holding water, remedy erosion, provide cover, the trout will show up sooner rather than later. That's what needs to be done. When it comes to improving wild trout populations, hatcheries and stocking are a band aid that covers up these issues IMO. Even in regard to "wild strain" and fingerling stockings. The fish are already there, they just need a better place to live.

Kev

 

[SteveG]

Local co-ops will require more money to stock more fish, and they're hurting for money and boots on the ground too. We do not know what closing hatcheries will actually do to license sales. Sure you may loose sales to people who aren't as serious about fishing, but there may be a net gain via out of state sales to serious anglers who don't want pelletheads, and they spend money year round on gear (don't forget the fishing tax), lodging, food etc.

Selling a product that costs more than it produces, to an entitled clientele who doesn't want to spend money is a business disaster.

I am under the assumption that hatcheries have to monitor their discharge to comply with CWA, and weren't there some state hatcheries that had disease issues with brook trout?

The PFBC merely needs to be a solvent model. If it runs efficiently, and provides an experience that people desire, that's all that matters.

For those who do not understand economics or business, I suggest watching this excellent clip, from one of the greatest shows ever created https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=mDBq-OU1rHo

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I predicted this over 9 years ago and some of you laughed.
It is beginning soon unless the pfbc can get revenue fast.

 

[Mike]

Not sure exactly what was meant by the comment that the muskellunge program is growing, but if it was meant to infer that more fish are being stocked or more waters are being stocked, that is not the case. Production has maxed out.

 

[Susquehanna]

I might be going out on a limb here but I believe that comment was meant to infer that the stocking program is expanding the range of naturally reproducing muskellunge. Thus allowing the PFBC to discontinue stocking in those waters and focus the remaining muskellunge fingerling assets to other waters. This would allow the program to expand and also term it a success.

 

[SteveG]

If that's the case, then that's a stretch. If there is more natural reproduction of musky, isn't that a feather in the cap of conservation via improved water quality? I thought I read previously that fingerling stocking of them had a low survival rate.

 

[Susquehanna]

It could be, it might not be for it is all conjecture.
Muskellunge are not native to the Susquehanna watershed. It would be easy to conclude that without the stockings they would not be there. On the other hand, it might be easy to conclude that water quality improvements have allowed them to reproduce after so many stockings. In either case, the one common factor was the stockings.

Stretch maybe but less of a stretch than assuming water quality improvements are the only contributing factor on a stocked river, where it is otherwise deemed as polluted.

 

[troutbert]

Susquehanna wrote:
It could be, it might not be for it is all conjecture.
Muskellunge are not native to the Susquehanna watershed. It would be easy to conclude that without the stockings they would not be there. On the other hand, it might be easy to conclude that water quality improvements have allowed them to reproduce after so many stockings. In either case, the one common factor was the stockings.

Stretch maybe but less of a stretch than assuming water quality improvements are the only contributing factor on a stocked river, where it is otherwise deemed as polluted.

When were musky introduced to the Susquehanna? I'm guessing sometime in the late 1800s, but haven't looked it up.

Isn't it possible that they have been reproducing in the river ever since they were first introduced?

That's the case with smallmouth bass, which are also not native to the Susquehanna. And carp.

And it's the case with brown trout in many PA waterways.

 

[Dave_W]

troutbert wrote:

When were musky introduced to the Susquehanna? I'm guessing sometime in the late 1800s, but haven't looked it up.

I believe this would have been in the mid 1960s.

The systematic stocking of muskies by the PFBC across central and eastern PA is much more recent than the introduction of bass and trout.