M
Mike
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 5,562
Jack,
Earlier this week RLeeP said something like: "there is stocking , and then there is stocking." He hit the nail on the head. You have been referred to some good scientific papers on the topic of stocking over wild trout. When thinking about Pa. as you read those papers, it is important to consider the variations in stocking programs discussed and how those compare to Pa. Those variations can make a big difference in the impact of stocking, a point that is missed in all of the discussions that I have seen on this board. As you apparently already suspect, the topic, at least from my experience, is not so black and white as I once thought it was and as some on this board believe it to be. There are nuances and major variations, but I think they are missed or ignored on the board.
For instance, a paper that I had read that dealt with stocking over wild trout in the Pacific Northwest, as I recall, described negative impacts. But there could be no real comparison made to Pa in that case. Why? Because the stocking occurred throughout the summer with great frequency and brought anglers to the streams again and again. Ultimately, the number of fish being stocked in the stream well exceeded Pa. stocking rates. Plus Pa's stockings occur with much lesser frequency on any given water and the stocking season is much shorter. This substantial difference between state programs was never pointed out when this paper was mentioned on the board in the past in support of no stocking over wild trout, yet it probably makes a big difference in the impact on wild trout being harvested. Variations in stocking rates, frequency of stocking, species stocked, effective season lengths, and the number of angler trips all can make a difference, in my opinion. No surprise here... some of these variables have apparently made a difference in some of my experiences in Pa.
Happy reading.
Earlier this week RLeeP said something like: "there is stocking , and then there is stocking." He hit the nail on the head. You have been referred to some good scientific papers on the topic of stocking over wild trout. When thinking about Pa. as you read those papers, it is important to consider the variations in stocking programs discussed and how those compare to Pa. Those variations can make a big difference in the impact of stocking, a point that is missed in all of the discussions that I have seen on this board. As you apparently already suspect, the topic, at least from my experience, is not so black and white as I once thought it was and as some on this board believe it to be. There are nuances and major variations, but I think they are missed or ignored on the board.
For instance, a paper that I had read that dealt with stocking over wild trout in the Pacific Northwest, as I recall, described negative impacts. But there could be no real comparison made to Pa in that case. Why? Because the stocking occurred throughout the summer with great frequency and brought anglers to the streams again and again. Ultimately, the number of fish being stocked in the stream well exceeded Pa. stocking rates. Plus Pa's stockings occur with much lesser frequency on any given water and the stocking season is much shorter. This substantial difference between state programs was never pointed out when this paper was mentioned on the board in the past in support of no stocking over wild trout, yet it probably makes a big difference in the impact on wild trout being harvested. Variations in stocking rates, frequency of stocking, species stocked, effective season lengths, and the number of angler trips all can make a difference, in my opinion. No surprise here... some of these variables have apparently made a difference in some of my experiences in Pa.
Happy reading.
