FOX 43 News: PFBC stocking invasive trout story(link to video of story aired on evening news). PFBC declines to be interviewed

[silverfox]

Exactly. It's a software error or someone just made a wrong entry in the database. I've seen such errors many times on GIS maps.

One that they've been aware of for about 4 months now and said they were going to fix. Again, they did change some things on it since I brought it up, but you'd think they'd change Spring Ck at least. I work with GIS all the time. This would take all of about 30 seconds to correct.

 

[Mike]

One that they've been aware of for about 4 months now and said they were going to fix. Again, they did change some things on it since I brought it up, but you'd think they'd change Spring Ck at least. I work with GIS all the time. This would take all of about 30 seconds to correct.

I’m betting that the I.T. people have bigger fish to fry.

 

[silverfox]

I’m betting that the I.T. people have bigger fish to fry.

I'm sure. The point of that whole thing, regardless of whether it's an oversight, technical error, or deliberate, is that we don't have any brook trout streams on the same level as the Letort, Penns, LJR, Spring, Yellow Creek etc... Even if they remove brook trout from the listings for the streams like Spring, Penns, or the other Class A brown trout streams, that still doesn't "fix" the issue that we have no notable brook trout streams left in the state.

I'm still curious if you support the C&R regs for Brown Trout on the LJR, Letort, Penns, Spring, Falling Spring, Yellow Creek, West Branch Sus. etc.? Were those regulations implemented to protect larger brown trout? Was the slot limit reg type created to protect larger brown trout? I assume they'll implement the slot limit on Spring Creek. Do you support that? You don't support C&R for "larger" brook trout, so I would assume you also don't support the same approach for brown trout.

 

[jifigz]

I'm sure. The point of that whole thing, regardless of whether it's an oversight, technical error, or deliberate, is that we don't have any brook trout streams on the same level as the Letort, Penns, LJR, Spring, Yellow Creek etc... Even if they remove brook trout from the listings for the streams like Spring, Penns, or the other Class A brown trout streams, that still doesn't "fix" the issue that we have no notable brook trout streams left in the state.

I'm still curious if you support the C&R regs for Brown Trout on the LJR, Letort, Penns, Spring, Falling Spring, Yellow Creek, West Branch Sus. etc.? Were those regulations implemented to protect larger brown trout? Was the slot limit reg type created to protect larger brown trout? I assume they'll implement the slot limit on Spring Creek. Do you support that? You don't support C&R for "larger" brook trout, so I would assume you also don't support the same approach for brown trout.

I know you aren't asking me, but I will gladly reply.....

I think everyone here already knows my stand on this issue......allow harvest of brown trout on all streams. Including Penns, Little J, Spring, etc. Harvest will still be very minimal because C&R has been beat to death in the wild trout/bass fishing circles and why protect a non-native species that continues to thrive and expand and, quite frankly, needs no protections at this point. Plus, wild trout taste a whole lot better than stocked/farmed fish. I may only keep a wild trout or two or a year, or maybe even 0, but I'll be damned if you're telling me a stream like the Little J or Spring couldn't afford to lose some fish and knock the population back a little. Especially Spring, it needs to lose some fish.....

These are also the same reasons I no longer staunchly oppose stocking over wild brown trout populations. The fish are doing great. Could they be doing better without being stocked over? Probably. But they continue to thrive and maintain strong populations. I can handle that scenario.

 

[jifigz]

And I am in no way bashing C&R. It is an extremely valuable tool and I rarely, if ever, keep a trout. We just need to stop acting like it is time to crucify someone if they are seen keeping a few wild browns or something. I used to be one of those people who wanted to crucify them for keeping smallmouths or largemouths. I have lightened up a lot in the recent years.

 

[silverfox]

I know you aren't asking me, but I will gladly reply.....

I think everyone here already knows my stand on this issue......allow harvest of brown trout on all streams. Including Penns, Little J, Spring, etc. Harvest will still be very minimal because C&R has been beat to death in the wild trout/bass fishing circles and why protect a non-native species that continues to thrive and expand and, quite frankly, needs no protections at this point. Plus, wild trout taste a whole lot better than stocked/farmed fish. I may only keep a wild trout or two or a year, or maybe even 0, but I'll be damned if you're telling me a stream like the Little J or Spring couldn't afford to lose some fish and knock the population back a little. Especially Spring, it needs to lose some fish.....

These are also the same reasons I no longer staunchly oppose stocking over wild brown trout populations. The fish are doing great. Could they be doing better without being stocked over? Probably. But they continue to thrive and maintain strong populations. I can handle that scenario.

I know everyone thinks I'm a zealot, but... I have no problem with C&R on the big name streams. We should promote and protect the wild browns in those places. They bring money into the state, are wildly popular, and I think there's a biological justification for it. I think the slot limits on Penns, and I suspect Spring soon, are good too, though. They're going to result in even more, bigger brown trout in those streams as evidenced by the trial run on Penns. I am not suggesting, nor do I support, the complete eradication of BT from PA waters. It's impossible. I do think in some remote brook trout strongholds, we should have regs that favor the harvest of browns/rainbows at a minimum. If for nothing else, the message it sends.

I also agree with you though that in less pressured fisheries, limited harvest of BT may actually benefit the size structure. Basically "slot-limit-lite" type approach, which, to be honest, is basically what we have on BT Class A's. As I've said before, for brook trout, I doubt angling regulations would have any significant impact on the size structure of brook trout in MOST waters. However, the message it sends to the public is worth far more than any result you can measure with an electrified backpack and an Excel spreadsheet.

More broadly, my biggest issue with the state is that from outward appearances, they completely ignore brook trout while focusing on absolutely everything else.

 

[afishinado]

I know everyone thinks I'm a zealot, but... I have no problem with C&R on the big name streams. We should promote and protect the wild browns in those places. They bring money into the state, are wildly popular, and I think there's a biological justification for it. I think the slot limits on Penns, and I suspect Spring soon, are good too, though. They're going to result in even more, bigger brown trout in those streams as evidenced by the trial run on Penns. I am not suggesting, nor do I support, the complete eradication of BT from PA waters. It's impossible. I do think in some remote brook trout strongholds, we should have regs that favor the harvest of browns/rainbows at a minimum. If for nothing else, the message it sends.

I also agree with you though that in less pressured fisheries, limited harvest of BT may actually benefit the size structure. Basically "slot-limit-lite" type approach, which, to be honest, is basically what we have on BT Class A's. As I've said before, for brook trout, I doubt angling regulations would have any significant impact on the size structure of brook trout in MOST waters. However, the message it sends to the public is worth far more than any result you can measure with an electrified backpack and an Excel spreadsheet.

More broadly, my biggest issue with the state is that from outward appearances, they completely ignore brook trout while focusing on absolutely everything else.

Hi-Ho Silver!

 

[troutbert]

Even if they remove brook trout from the listings for the streams like Spring, Penns, or the other Class A brown trout streams, that still doesn't "fix" the issue that we have no notable brook trout streams left in the state.

There are hundreds of streams in PA that offer good brook trout fishing. But IMHO the PFBC should not focus attention on particular brook trout streams. People should spread out and fish the hundreds of streams.

If you take "notable" to mean good, then yes there are many. But if you take "notable" to mean streams that it makes sense to highlight, to attract big crowds, then no, there aren't any.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I know everyone thinks I'm a zealot, but... I have no problem with C&R on the big name streams. We should promote and protect the wild browns in those places. They bring money into the state, are wildly popular, and I think there's a biological justification for it. I think the slot limits on Penns, and I suspect Spring soon, are good too, though. They're going to result in even more, bigger brown trout in those streams as evidenced by the trial run on Penns. I am not suggesting, nor do I support, the complete eradication of BT from PA waters. It's impossible. I do think in some remote brook trout strongholds, we should have regs that favor the harvest of browns/rainbows at a minimum. If for nothing else, the message it sends.

I also agree with you though that in less pressured fisheries, limited harvest of BT may actually benefit the size structure. Basically "slot-limit-lite" type approach, which, to be honest, is basically what we have on BT Class A's. As I've said before, for brook trout, I doubt angling regulations would have any significant impact on the size structure of brook trout in MOST waters. However, the message it sends to the public is worth far more than any result you can measure with an electrified backpack and an Excel spreadsheet.

More broadly, my biggest issue with the state is that from outward appearances, they completely ignore brook trout while focusing on absolutely everything else.

I don't think you are a zealot, rather I appreciate your zeal and think most others lack zeal for our native fish, that is the problem which was perpetuated by the State, as referenced in your last paragraph.

Don't stop being you and doing what you are doing.
No matter how much krayfish kries 🤣

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I’m betting that the I.T. people have bigger fish to fry.

That's because they keep focusing on BT over ST

 

[silverfox]

There are hundreds of streams in PA that offer good brook trout fishing. But IMHO the PFBC should not focus attention on particular brook trout streams. People should spread out and fish the hundreds of streams.

If you take "notable" to mean good, then yes there are many. But if you take "notable" to mean streams that it makes sense to highlight, to attract big crowds, then no, there aren't any.

I agree, not without angling protections. The reason we can all talk about the Letort, you can write news articles and books about it, promote it in state-issued media, and highlight it on an interactive "best fishing waters" map, is because the fish are protected by law.

Unfortunately, a study was conducted on a handful of short sections of tiny headwater streams that didn't result in 12lb brook trout. So now there's an argument against creating any brook trout angling regulations, despite evidence that it works outside PA.

 

[krayfish2]

Keep going..... you're on fire

 

[Fish Sticks]

That's because they keep focusing on BT over ST View attachment 1641229635

“Bigger fish to fry” mike parker busy giving statements lying about whats an invasive species and what isn’t. It takes a lot of energy to convince the general public one of the worlds top invasive species is a fluffy harmless bunny rabbit. Much like silverfox I also don’t want to persue something impossible like reclaiming little J, spring creek ect. People get enjoyment from it and thats the compromise in me recognizing that there are other peoples priorities besides conservation of native fish, and I fish these streams to their fun as hell.

Its just sad that PFBC has the “ brook trout don’t exist policy”. They couldn’t even hit the deliverable in the trout management program for making a media presentation educating the public on brook trout. Maybe if mike parker wasn’t busy lying to the general public they could have done that. At this point its beyond neglect. They are making a species specific reg tomorrow that will pass for the first time ever for trout in Pa and its for an invasive species.

 

[jifigz]

“Bigger fish to fry” mike parker busy giving statements lying about whats an invasive species and what isn’t. It takes a lot of energy to convince the general public one of the worlds top invasive species is a fluffy harmless bunny rabbit. Much like silverfox I also don’t want to persue something impossible like reclaiming little J, spring creek ect. People get enjoyment from it and thats the compromise in me recognizing that there are other peoples priorities besides conservation of native fish, and I fish these streams to their fun as hell.

Its just sad that PFBC has the “ brook trout don’t exist policy”. They couldn’t even hit the deliverable in the trout management program for making a media presentation educating the public on brook trout. Maybe if mike parker wasn’t busy lying to the general public they could have done that. At this point its beyond neglect. They are making a species specific reg tomorrow that will pass for the first time ever for trout in Pa and its for an invasive species.

What regulation are they passing tomorrow regarding brown trout?

 

[silverfox]

What regulation are they passing tomorrow regarding brown trout?

It's on the agenda for tomorrow's meeting: https://www.fishandboat.com/About-U...Docs/2023-4-5-Fisheries-HatcheriesMtg-agd.pdf

Which I suspect will involve a proposed regulation that allows the harvest of rainbow trout in the 12 stocked class A's (yellow creek is already C&R), but makes brown trout C&R in those sections. I'm guessing here.

 

[jifigz]

It's on the agenda for tomorrow's meeting: https://www.fishandboat.com/About-U...Docs/2023-4-5-Fisheries-HatcheriesMtg-agd.pdf

Which I suspect will involve a proposed regulation that allows the harvest of rainbow trout in the 12 stocked class A's (yellow creek is already C&R), but makes brown trout C&R in those sections. I'm guessing here.

Ok.. What is the proposed alternate management strategy?

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Ok.. What is the proposed alternate management strategy?

I think no one knows yet, he is guessing to what that is in his above post.

"Which I suspect will involve a proposed regulation that allows the harvest of rainbow trout in the 12 stocked class A's (yellow creek is already C&R), but makes brown trout C&R in those sections. I'm guessing here."

 

[jifigz]

I think no one knows yet, he is guessing to what that is in his above post.

"Which I suspect will involve a proposed regulation that allows the harvest of rainbow trout in the 12 stocked class A's (yellow creek is already C&R), but makes brown trout C&R in those sections. I'm guessing here."

Ahhhhhh.....I thought people knew what the proposition was.

Maybe it will be a mandatory catch and kill browns to make room for more stockies ........🤣

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Ahhhhhh.....I thought people knew what the proposition was.

Maybe it will be a mandatory catch and kill browns to make room for more stockies ........🤣

🤷
Could be.
It wouldn't surprise me either 🤣

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Ahhhhhh.....I thought people knew what the proposition was.

Maybe it will be a mandatory catch and kill browns to make room for more stockies ........🤣

In all honesty, I think silverfox might be right.

And IMO while I don't think it needs stocked the public wants it stocked, so if you are going to stock class A streams that have an excellent population of wild brown trout, stocking them with rainbows only and only allowing harvest of rainbows would be a good trade off.

If it is followed and if the public can tell the difference of course.