Native fish restoration- Westslopes and Grayling

Silent Ocelot said:
I still don't understand why they can't just let the truck chasers fish the hatchery. It just seems like a much better option for those that want easy ugly fish and meat. Why someone would want to eat a trout is beyond me, probably one of, if not thee, most bland tasting fish one could eat. When I think of trout eaters I think of Ketchup on a steak that's well-done, ice cubes in cheap liquor, coffee WITH additives, and a thinking process that thinks cigarettes have flavor.
Click to expand...
The trout stocking is only one small piece of a much larger pie. I'm looking at the agency's actions across multiple issues, and there's an alarming trend. They're placing more weight on angling, selling licenses, angler feedback/attitude, and maintaining the hatchery/stocking status quo than on natural resource management/conservation.

Montana took the opposite approach in the 70s.
 
silverfox said:
The trout stocking is only one small piece of a much larger pie. I'm looking at the agency's actions across multiple issues, and there's an alarming trend. They're placing more weight on angling, selling licenses, angler feedback/attitude, and maintaining the hatchery/stocking status quo than on natural resource management/conservation.

Montana took the opposite approach in the 70s.
Click to expand...
Montana doesn;t have 12 million residents jammed into an area less than half the size. Apples and oranges.
 
Acristickid said:
This is how it is done. Seems like a beautiful stream , perhaps one day I will be able to fish there.


Restoration
Click to expand...
I've been there. It's in a fairly remote, mostly unsettled area with plenty of public land access. I had considered stopping to fish it after noticing it during a drive to the Big Hole, but at the time it was unclear if they had already poisoned the stream. This was a couple years back. It's a stream I'll probably revisit in the future.
 
tomgamber said:
Montana doesn;t have 12 million residents jammed into an area less than half the size. Apples and oranges.
Click to expand...
Good point Tomgamber and to further add context the region I covered as an AFM with 2 additional staff biologists was the size of Rhode Island and Connecticut combined and had a population greater than those combined states. Heck, Philly’s population alone is greater than all of Montana’s. Area 6 had responsibilities for inland and “marine” fisheries.

I have no doubt that the RI and Conn staffs for inland or marine species were each greater than the staff in Area 6. Likewise Montana’s staff biologists, yet look at how many other agencies and organizations, and I assume personnel, had to be pulled in for just one project in the video.

Another difference…I looked at the video and if you placed a pond that size on a lot of Pa wild trout streams, the stream below would most likely be seasonally too warm to support trout populations. A low gradient, unshaded stream in Pa like that one in the video would be a warmwater stream from the get-go. Must be nice to have exceptionally cold water with which to work.

Hemlock, they don’t have to be anglers to be a drain on staff time. Natural resources are impacted by more than just anglers….development, stormwater runoff, shipping channel dredging, mining, road construction, groundwater and surface water usage, fish and fish egg impingement and entrainment, thermal discharges, wastewater discharges, private ponds, pollution cases, stream encroachments, wetland filling, pier and bulkhead construction, reservoir drawdowns, etc, etc.
 
Last edited:
Mike said:
Good point Tomgamber and to further add context the region I covered as an AFM with 2 additional staff biologists was the size of Rhode Island and Connecticut combined and had a population greater than those combined states. Heck, Philly’s population alone is greater than all of Montana’s. Area 6 had responsibilities for inland and “marine” fisheries. I have no doubt that the RI and Conn staffs for inland or marine species were each greater than the staff in Area 6.

Another difference…I looked at the video and if you placed a pond that size on a lot of Pa wild trout streams, the stream below would most likely be seasonally too warm to support trout populations. Must be nice to have exceptionally cold water with which to work.

Hemlock, they don’t have to be anglers to be a drain on staff time. Natural resources are impacted by more than just anglers….development, stormwater runoff, shipping channel dredging, mining, road construction, groundwater and surface water usage, fish and fish egg impingement and entrainment, thermal discharges, wastewater discharges, private ponds, pollution cases, stream encroachments, wetland filling, pier and bulkhead construction, reservoir drawdowns, etc, etc.
Click to expand...
So is this argument that because PA has more licensed anglers than MT, disproportionately focusing on stocked trout, zero reclamation projects to date, no native brook trout specific angling regs (explicitly, not the length restriction), failing to follow through on promises for reintroduction projects as part of the bay agreement, lack of focus on native brook trout in state media, etc. are all justified? So, we need to lose more license buyers per capita before PA prioritizes our native "trout"?
 
Actually both states have around the same amount of anglers. Montana has much more water. Montana anglers are probably primarily trout anglers though, where not all PA license holders are trout fisherman, also the majority that are only fish stocked trout in the early season.

These kinds of comparisons and arguments that come from them are stupid.
It is apples to oranges, but that doesn't mean you can't grow either.

Each species in each region will require different things for a reclamation project to work. Just because you can't make a pond like the one in the video, doesn't mean you can't restore brook trout.

Let's not act like PA doesn't have cold water, brook trout and areas that reclamation wouldn't work.

That would be equally as stupid.
 
Last edited:
Its just time to recognize PFBC does nothing with conservation except make misleading PDF’s about it. Its way to broken to fix. It really just needs to canabalized by the state and rolled into DNR with a transitional period where DCNR has conservatorship over all of its activities.
 
Fish Sticks said:
😂
Click to expand...
I know😂

Its the year 2024. Upheaval in Pennsylvania begins with a hordes of unhappy trout anglers as the number of anglers grows to 12 million and the number of fish remain the same. Riots begin, full on revolution takes place, death toll is huge and a flurry of mean tweet style letters flood politician desks in Harrisburg.

The year 2025 begins with the state giving full authority to the militarized hatchery industrial complex.

Spring of 2025 the ex PFBC now named the PHS (Pennsylvania Hatchery Senate) announce bread and circuses for everyone and institute a plan. The plan is to raise the stocking commitment to 180,000,000 and dubbed "Operation Future ll". A total of a 3 creel limit for every angler is expected.

Summer of 2025 a major lake in each region is dedicated to the hatchery system. With full on Pennsylvania budget at their disposal PennDot is abolished and cold water systems installed on each lake.

By 2027 anglers have burned major cities to the ground but stocking begins. All class A and all natural Reproduction streams are stocked. Anglers begin to calm and rebuild communities.

The mantra, "it's for the kids!" Is the slogan of Operation Future ll.

2029 mentored youth day is forgotten and eventually abolished.
 
sixfootfenwick said:
Actually both states have around the same amount of anglers. Montana has much more water. Montana anglers are probably primarily trout anglers though, where not all PA license holders are trout fisherman, also the majority that are only fish stocked trout in the early season.

These kinds of comparisons and arguments that come from them are stupid.
It is apples to oranges, but that doesn't mean you can't grow either.

Each species in each region will require different things for a reclamation project to work. Just because you can't make a pond like the one in the video, doesn't mean you can't restore brook trout.

Let's not act like PA doesn't have cold water, brook trout and areas that reclamation wouldn't work.

That would be equally as stupid.
Click to expand...
Those are per capita. PA has more licensed anglers than Montana has people.
 
And no.
Montana has a slightly higher population than PA has licensed anglers. By about 200000+

Even still, it's apples to oranges.

What does restoration projects in Montana for grayling have to do with restoration projects in PA for brook trout?

What does 12 million people packed in a SE corner of PA have to do with a small forested freestone stream in Potter County?

Nothing.
🤷

Is someone trying to reclaim the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia?
Acting like the population dynamics in a state with major cities is hindering less dense forested areas from being reclaimed is stupid.
So is acting like the number of anglers hinders it.

I've been told harvest and fishing has no affect of brook trout population dynamics🤭
 
Last edited:
Fish Sticks said:
Its just time to recognize PFBC does nothing with conservation except make misleading PDF’s about it. Its way to broken to fix. It really just needs to canabalized by the state and rolled into DNR with a transitional period where DCNR has conservatorship over all of its activities.
Click to expand...
This. Out of the 14 states in the EBT native range, PA is the only state with a fisheries agency that is not a division or department of a natural resources agency. It is a self-funded independent commission. Regardless of the finger-pointing that usually identifies elected representatives as the cause, this is the underlying problem. I wonder what things would be like if we had a PA DNR funded or partially funded by general fund money. That's what Maryland has, and they're decades ahead of PA on this issue.

We shouldn't be surprised that an agency forced to fund itself via fishing licenses would focus almost entirely on whatever sells fishing licenses.
 
sixfootfenwick said:
Is someone trying to reclaim the Schuylkill River in Philadelphia?
Acting like the population dynamics in a state with major cities is hindering less dense forested areas from being reclaimed is stupid.
So is acting like the number of anglers hinders it.

I've been told harvest and fishing has no affect of brook trout population dynamics🤭
Click to expand...
Exactly. You don't even have to go to MT to see this. Just cross the Mason Dixon line. Maryland is the 5th densest state in the country (PA is 9th), and somehow, they didn't let the population density of Baltimore County prevent them from doing incredible things for brook trout in Garrett County.
 
I have no idea why anyone would be against native fish, especially in PA where restoration projects would seemingly not impact anglers much if at all.

Have to believe that the streams to be restored would be on the smaller and more into the head water type where there is best chance to do well. Admittedly brook trout restoration is not something I know much about.

I’m not against giving them (knuckle dragging caves) cake. Let’em fish all those tailwaters and Great Lake tribs for invasive browns and rainbows.

While I’d concede many native fish are small ( mostly dictated by habitat/food ) not all natives are small if given the water. Hopefully relatable- here is a native rainbow.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5649.jpeg
    IMG_5649.jpeg
    271.9 KB · Views: 20
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages
Wayward Trading”/> </center> </div> </div> </div> <div class=


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top