silverfox's post said PA is going to stop stocking over brook trout by 2025 or 2026.
That is what I asked about.
Heritage Brook Trout
- Thread starter silverfox
- Start date
That is what I asked about.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
Pennsylvania had 12.8 million people last i checked. There is almost certainly more hatchery trout in this state than people at this point. 1.02 million people buying licenses set an all time record recently. A ton of those people are smallie, pan fish, catfish anglers and thats an all time record at that.
I talk alot about conservation but from an angling standpoint i would argue that with our states growing population, if the fish commission had any foresight, they would see the real approaching threat is an access crisis not one of fish to catch. The increase in anglers in the past few years was felt by most of you and myself. Alot of other people felt it and slathered putple paint and posted stickers all over their property too. The amount of people are increasing and access is either same/to shrinking. A lot more of those resources could be going towards dual conssrvation/angler access easements instead. I think the majority of the people who frequent this site know this state makes more than enough of its own tout to fish for and would agree with urban sprawl and population growth loosing access/ healthy streams themselves would be a much smarter issue to address looks towards the future.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
I think he meant stop stocking brook trout themselves.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
Sure. https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Fisheries/TroutPlan/Documents/TroutPlan2020.pdf
Issue 34.
Last year, there were very few brook trout stocked by the co-ops. The state really cut back as well.
A lot of this was also mentioned during some public meetings. So this has already been happening. Since 2020 really. I really haven't heard much push-back at all. I see a few comments here and there where people are asking for more brook trout stocking, but thankfully, they're met pretty quickly with people explaining why that's a bad idea.
PFBC also put out this document which explains some of the reasons why they're transitioning away from stocking brook trout (I wish they would've mentioned the gill lice issue): https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Stocking/Documents/TroutStocking-FactSheet.pdf
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
Sorry, I'm assuming they'll stop stocking them completely, but I don't know that. The document indicates they're substantially reducing them. It could be that they'll keep some in the system and put them where there are no wild brook trout. Of course, that has problems too.
As I've mentioned before, I've caught PA stocked brook trout in MD in a highly sensitive wild brook trout stream. So the fish we put in the water up here are even putting important wild populations at risk in another state. That's certainly happening throughout PA too. As their documents mention, brook trout are the first fish to leave a stocking location. I saw a tagged wild brook trout in ME that traveled 75 miles and I know from tagging wild fish in MD that they've gone upwards of 20 in 3 days. I wish they'd get away from this idea that the only streams impacted by stocking are right where they put them.
Last edited:
Sorry, I didn't read it carefully enough and misinterpreted what you wrote.
You wrote about ending stocking OF brook trout.
And I somehow imagined that you were talking about ending stocking of hatchery trout OVER native brook trout populations.
Wishful thinking on my part.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
Oh jeez. Yeah. That would be ideal, but considering where we're at, I don't think I'll be alive when that happens.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
Yea even if brook trout get an ESA listing in the coming decades as threatened or endangered that means nothing in this state to these people. They still stock over ESA listed Threatened Chesapeake log perch that are at risk for extinction and if someone brings it up they just shrug. Given they have never studied their deplorable practice of stocking one of the IUCN’s top one hundred most invasive species world wide thats known to be a piscivorus minow eater over top of a sculpin sized threatened species, theirrrr pretty sure everythings jusssssttt fiiiinnnee🤫.
The appreciation of native brook trout in NJ has taken decades IMHO. It started in the 70's when Bob Solwedel (I think he was trout biologist at the time) set aside 30 small streams as Wild Trout Streams (WTS) that were not stocked, artificials only, and limited catch. This was after doing lots of sampling to find wild trout populations. The program was initially mainly to get people interested in wild trout (not necessarily brookies). It worked pretty well for a specific crowd. The streams weren't the popular put and take streams so not much public outcry and the wild trout thrived. Bob S became fisheries head which meant he hired and promoted people who had some interest in native fisheries. Lisa Barno replaced Bob as fisheries head and Pat Hamilton was the trout biologist. During this time Pat did genetic testing on NJ brookies showing heritage strains were still in NJ (the work was done at East Stroudsburg State where she got her masters). The F&W had a contest and brook trout won as NJ's state fish. NJ TU sent Lisa and Pat to the first Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture meeting and they were repeatedly asked why NJ was even there. NJ doesn't get much respect, but there is still one native brookie stream within sight of the NYC skyline. Trout production streams are C1 in NJ which restricts building near them. The developers had non-stop court cases going to question if they were wild trout streams to loosen the restrictions. Pat came up with a method of certifying trout production waters finally held up in court.
With all the background work I think in 2014 (my feeble mind thinks) brook trout stocking ceased and brook trout became C&R all across the state. It was prompted by a disease outbreak at the hatchery, but it is here to stay. One criticism I heard over and over again at the time was it was wrong to stop stocking the state fish. Most people don't get it. However, I have seen more brookies in the Musconetcong than I ever did in 50 years of fishing it.
Shawn Crouse is now fisheries head and he is a strong native fish person.. He even supports the conservation of certain rare sunfish that are found in the Pine Barrens to the constant mocking of the sports fishing crowd (however, C1 does not protect any rare non-trout species in NJ - people wouldn't go that far). He needs to maintain a very fine balance to keep people happy. But he stopped stocking on the upper reaches of one of NJ's top five trout rivers, which was a gutsy move IMHO. However, the appreciation of native brookies is the result of a long history of fisheries people supporting it IMHO. It is not the popular choice among most people, but I think it is here to stay.
With all the background work I think in 2014 (my feeble mind thinks) brook trout stocking ceased and brook trout became C&R all across the state. It was prompted by a disease outbreak at the hatchery, but it is here to stay. One criticism I heard over and over again at the time was it was wrong to stop stocking the state fish. Most people don't get it. However, I have seen more brookies in the Musconetcong than I ever did in 50 years of fishing it.
Shawn Crouse is now fisheries head and he is a strong native fish person.. He even supports the conservation of certain rare sunfish that are found in the Pine Barrens to the constant mocking of the sports fishing crowd (however, C1 does not protect any rare non-trout species in NJ - people wouldn't go that far). He needs to maintain a very fine balance to keep people happy. But he stopped stocking on the upper reaches of one of NJ's top five trout rivers, which was a gutsy move IMHO. However, the appreciation of native brookies is the result of a long history of fisheries people supporting it IMHO. It is not the popular choice among most people, but I think it is here to stay.
One more thing, NJ did experiments to check the success of stocked brookies and the results were not encouraging. Brookies were generally considered easier to catch than other species and were considered more cold tolerant so were stocked heavily pre-season for the opening day crowd. However, people weren't catching as many brookies as they should have. So one year NJ stocked some waters with a 50/50 mix of brookies and rainbows and performed stream surveys on Opening Day (I surveyed one stream). The results were that the catches were mainly rainbows so the cost effectiveness of stocking brook trout was questioned. The decision to stop stocking brookies was mainly for native fish conservation, but the low cost effectiveness of raising brookies compared to rainbows didn't hurt.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
Great history here!!!! I spoke with a NJ DEP biologist at length a few months ago. His name escapes me at the moment but I have his card here somewhere and I've already forwarded him on to "the powers that be". He was over the moon about a native fish centric conservation organization helping in NJ. He rattled off a number of projects he'd like to engage us on.
We're about to launch the NJ chapter and we've already got a headstart on several worthwhile nongame fish initiatives. It's great to see that enthusiasm out of the fisheries dept.
That story isn't too unlike some of the other states I've gotten to know. As I mentioned before, I think in a lot of these states where you have a "head" in charge, if they're sympathetic to a cause, they make that their mission while at the helm. Again, I think the structure of our agency isn't conducive to those kinds of changes to the status quo. Hence, where we're at in 2022 compared to our neighbors.
Ken U
New member
The Clearfield Progress just published an article about public resistance whenever the PFBC halted stocking in Cold Stream which flows into a reservoir at Phillipsburg, PA. The reservoir is stocked and the stream has been stocked for many years, Efforts to halt stocking in Rd Run have been meeting similar resistance. It is being stocked by a cooperative hatchery that I assume is receiving its fingerings (brooks , browns and rainbows) from the PFBC . This is ubiquitous in PA. By the way - Red Run was almost depopulated of brookies through the 70s and 80s by acid rain. Stocking was halted there for many years and the brookies were coming back big time. They (PFBC ) says stocking will end this year. We'll see. I plan to fish it soon.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
Hi Ken!
I thought the consensus was that the RT you found in Red Run migrated there from other stocking locations? So the commission (or a co-op) is stocking Red Run? Hopefully that stops.
Phil
Hi Ken!
I thought stocking was ended on Red Run quite a few years ago. I'd be interested to know more about the situation there.
(BTW, if you want to go fishing sometime, let me know.)
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
Even if PAFB won’t stop harming these native brook trout streams with stocked fish. I’d at least like to see them acknowledge that the research done on stocking non native species over brook trout shows its harmful. If like to see them share more EBTJV educational materials. Its their job to educate anglers about the health of our fisheries. I am tired of this disinformation campaign, “the water just isn’t clean or cold enough, those are the only variables” when ever we talk about native brook trout. They don’t acknowledge the invasive species they stock on their own AIS page on the website. They show the public what they want to show the public essentially.
In short, what ever they do they need to own it good or (currently) bad. Just come out and say “yea federal science agencies, NGO’s, academics and others are telling us we are mismanaging brook trout but thats not the priority at the agency”. Instead its “waters not cold enough” “resource first”
In short, what ever they do they need to own it good or (currently) bad. Just come out and say “yea federal science agencies, NGO’s, academics and others are telling us we are mismanaging brook trout but thats not the priority at the agency”. Instead its “waters not cold enough” “resource first”
The PFBC once proposed ending stocking on 63 Class B stream sections. Many of these had mixed brookies & browns populations.
It got shot down. In PA the managers/biologists can PROPOSE something, but it's not really their call.
The Fish Commissioners are the deciders. They are the ones who vote yay or nay. Most of them don't have a fisheries background. And they are heavily influenced by lobbying from the sportsmens clubs, and from state legislators, who are also heavily influenced by the sportsmens clubs.
As silverfox said, the system in PA is unlike other states. Another difference is the PFBC relies on license sale revenues, and license prices are decided by the state legislature. In other states fisheries is part of a Department of Natural Resources that has a budget based on general tax revenue, so are not as dependent on annual license sales.
It got shot down. In PA the managers/biologists can PROPOSE something, but it's not really their call.
The Fish Commissioners are the deciders. They are the ones who vote yay or nay. Most of them don't have a fisheries background. And they are heavily influenced by lobbying from the sportsmens clubs, and from state legislators, who are also heavily influenced by the sportsmens clubs.
As silverfox said, the system in PA is unlike other states. Another difference is the PFBC relies on license sale revenues, and license prices are decided by the state legislature. In other states fisheries is part of a Department of Natural Resources that has a budget based on general tax revenue, so are not as dependent on annual license sales.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
🤣 lack of fisheries background influenced by sportsmans clubs and legislators who are also….influenced by sportsmans clubs. Well geeze troutbert when ya say it like that.
Take comissioner brock. On one of the last hatcheries and fisheries committee meeting he was literally complaining that freeman run was making a class A wild brown trout fishery and that they could not stock anymore. It was UNREAL. Not that I am happy about class A brown trout biomass in potter county in a brook trout stream at that. However, this guy was actually upset about the classification/reproduction causing the lack of need for stocked fish. I didn’t understand what was going on at first.
Commissioner Brock happens to be in charge of one the highest concentrations of EBTJV stronghold brookie populations in potter county. The future of the areas brook trout are in THAT guys hands.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
You hit the nail square on the head there. It's bizarre because they're not elected. So they shouldn't be pandering to, or influenced by the public or anyone else for that matter. Their job is to weigh the merits of the proposed changes, and today, supposedly with a resource-first perspective.
There should NEVER be a situation where staff (actual trained fisheries managers and biologists) propose something and then a board of appointed commissioners, as you said, most without any fisheries backgrounds, don't approve it. Decouple yourself from the PA norms for a split second and think about how absurd that is.
lycoflyfisher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,468
I would be careful what you wish for in making PFBC and PGC under the general fund umbrella of the state legislature. Look at what the legislature has done to funding for DEP and DCNR over the last 20 years...
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
Yeah, I get that risk, but it would remove the focus of prioritizing stocked trout. Even in that model, you'd still have license sales, permit fees, fines, and federal grant revenue to spend on conservation rather than aquaculture, or general fund would fund conservation and the other revenue could still fund stocked trout.
I think NY is roughly 50/50 general fund (state and federal)/license sales. So you could establish a rule that the 50% state/federal general funds have to go to conservation-related activities and the other 50% can go to recreational stocking etc.
Right now in PA, you've got this big incentive to stock trout in order to sell licenses, in order to raise and stock trout, in order to sell licenses, in order to stock trout... To support that cycle, you've got to keep the interest in stocked trout high. That leads to less focus on wild fish (and wild native fish) and more focus on stocked trout. You'll never break that cycle with the current funding model.
