New Notice Of Stocking Requirement

[Nocktavius]

Like I said, level-headed.

Something something forgiveness vs permission

 

[tomgamber]

Could just be data gathering. 10-20-30 years later when they want to know how a certain species ended up in another nearby water they can look up and see what has been stocked. I would think all those people who have to be able to blame someone for something would find this helpful. .

 

[sixfootfenwick]

They cared enough about farm ponds to include specific language about them.

Yeah, I'd say that is a bit of an over reach, albeit, a good thing when considering the rest.
Your point stands on their practices being hypocritical in relation though.

 

[tomgamber]

Not sure why farm ponds deserve a special exception here.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Not sure why farm ponds deserve a special exception here.

Why not?
They have special exceptions on many PA fishing regulations, why would this one be different?
I'd argue the precedent was set by all the other exceptions.

 

[troutbert]

Not sure why farm ponds deserve a special exception here.

They are not given an exception.

As such, effective January 1, 2024, any person or group engaged in stocking fish into Commonwealth waters is required to notify the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) by way of Notice of Stocking (NOS).

An NOS is needed for:

• Stocking flowing water such as rivers, streams, or creeks on public and private property
• Stocking non-flowing water such as lakes, ponds (including farm ponds), or reservoirs on public and private property

 

[tomgamber]

They are not given an exception.

As such, effective January 1, 2024, any person or group engaged in stocking fish into Commonwealth waters is required to notify the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) by way of Notice of Stocking (NOS).

An NOS is needed for:

• Stocking flowing water such as rivers, streams, or creeks on public and private property
• Stocking non-flowing water such as lakes, ponds (including farm ponds), or reservoirs on public and private property

I was referring to the opinion of the poster who objected to it. Not the rule.

Post#5

 

[Mike]

Why not?
They have special exceptions on many PA fishing regulations, why would this one be different?
I'd argue the precedent was set by all the other exceptions.

Why not? Because as a guiding principle the merits, or lack thereof, of potential exceptions should be evaluated individually. And who is certain that previous PFBC exceptions weren’t?

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Why not? Because as a guiding principle the merits, or lack thereof, of potential exceptions should be evaluated individually. And who is certain that previous PFBC exceptions weren’t?

So, then what you are saying is, it's possible exceptions should exist, even if on an individual basis thus eliminating the requirement on some.

This has been the case on certain regulations for farm ponds and in those cases, the precedent was set.

 

[tomgamber]

Again, why should they be given an exception? What makes them different in this specific situation?

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Again, why should they be given an exception? What makes them different in this specific situation?

What made them different on prior ones?
You can look up PA code on farm ponds and see rules are a bit different, they explain why.

 

[Mike]

The exceptions have already been approved and written into the reg as shown below. My advice is to live with them or else complain to your Commissioner while at the same time proposing new exceptions that you feel should be in place.

There also was an opportunity to make suggestions/objections during the period that the reg was being formulated. Did you comment then?

An NOS is NOT needed for:

• Fish baited on a hook for angling purposes
• Stocking an ornamental pond constructed as a closed water circulation aesthetic landscape feature with no risk of contacting the surface waters of this Commonwealth and does not include aquaculture facilities, ponds constructed to provide fishing opportunity, or ponds used for the confinement or production of baitfish
• Stocking allowed by a triploid grass carp (TGC) permit and reported as directed by that program
• Stocking waters contained within a property or premise of a propagation facility licensed under the Pennsylvania Aquaculture Development Law (3 Pa.C.S. §§ 4201-4223)

 

[sixfootfenwick]

The exceptions have already been approved and written into the reg as shown below. Live with them or else complain to your Commissioner while at the same time proposing new ones. Anglers and pond owners also had opportunity to do so when the reg was first proposed and at least one did.

An NOS is NOT needed for:

• Fish baited on a hook for angling purposes
• Stocking an ornamental pond constructed as a closed water circulation aesthetic landscape feature with no risk of contacting the surface waters of this Commonwealth and does not include aquaculture facilities, ponds constructed to provide fishing opportunity, or ponds used for the confinement or production of baitfish
• Stocking allowed by a triploid grass carp (TGC) permit and reported as directed by that program
• Stocking waters contained within a property or premise of a propagation facility licensed under the Pennsylvania Aquaculture Development Law (3 Pa.C.S. §§ 4201-4223)

It's possible the OP was the one.
I'm just saying, I think he has a point on both fronts.

I don't have to agree with the regulation to have an opinion on it, nor do I need to waste my energy with Commissioners who put little value into what constituents say. I think the PO comment period reflected that reality.

I see an overreach. I generally think the regulation is good though but I find the hypocritical aspect of it by the issuing agency to be, unavoidably hilarious.

 

[Swattie87]

The exceptions have already been approved and written into the reg as shown below. My advice is to live with them or else complain to your Commissioner while at the same time proposing new exceptions that you feel should be in place.

There also was an opportunity to make suggestions/objections during the period that the reg was being formulated. Did you comment then?

An NOS is NOT needed for:

• Fish baited on a hook for angling purposes
• Stocking an ornamental pond constructed as a closed water circulation aesthetic landscape feature with no risk of contacting the surface waters of this Commonwealth and does not include aquaculture facilities, ponds constructed to provide fishing opportunity, or ponds used for the confinement or production of baitfish
• Stocking allowed by a triploid grass carp (TGC) permit and reported as directed by that program
• Stocking waters contained within a property or premise of a propagation facility licensed under the Pennsylvania Aquaculture Development Law (3 Pa.C.S. §§ 4201-4223)

I think, the meat and potatoes as to farm ponds lies in between the lines in bullet point #2.

Most of the time farm ponds are fairly contained. Many are built “off channel” from the main stem of the stream. Meaning they are fed by a small spring or side seep, and not the main stream itself like in a traditional impoundment. Most do have a small discharge (the OP said his didn’t, taking his word on that, though I’m not certain I fully understand the logistics) that continues to flow downstream of the pond and connects to other waters. Under normal circumstances the springs that feed these ponds are such small trickles that nothing is getting out of them. During a flood event, that’s a different deal though.

I know of a pretty good Class B wild Brown Trout stream that has a a series of farm ponds in its headwaters for a scout camp facility. Every time we have a big flood event, for the next year or two you’ll find small, sickly looking thin LMB in a stream with temperatures far too cold for them to grow right. After a year or two, they disappear and you don’t see any again until we have another out of banks level high water event. Where do you think they’re coming from?

Another tiny stream I know there’s Green Sunfish mixed in the small plunge pools with Brookies. Same deal, lots of farm ponds in the headwaters.

I know LMB and Green Sunfish are established in nearly every major watershed in the state, including the examples above, but it illustrates the point of why it’s a good thing for the state to be aware of what folks are stocking into farm ponds.

My guess, just a guess, is that the state will probably be cool with a landowner putting in whatever they want into their pond, as long as it’s something already established in that watershed. Fill out the form and report back.

 

[Cznymph]

I think, the meat and potatoes as to farm ponds lies in between the lines in bullet point #2.

Most of the time farm ponds are fairly contained. Many are built “off channel” from the main stem of the stream. Meaning they are fed by a small spring or side seep, and not the main stream itself like in a traditional impoundment. Most do have a small discharge (the OP said his didn’t, taking his word on that, though I’m not certain I fully understand the logistics) that continues to flow downstream of the pond and connects to other waters. Under normal circumstances the springs that feed these ponds are such small trickles that nothing is getting out of them. During a flood event, that’s a different deal though.

I know of a pretty good Class B wild Brown Trout stream that has a a series of farm ponds in its headwaters for a scout camp facility. Every time we have a big flood event, for the next year or two you’ll find small, sickly looking thin LMB in a stream with temperatures far too cold for them to grow right. After a year or two, they disappear and you don’t see any again until we have another out of banks level high water event. Where do you think they’re coming from?

Another tiny stream I know there’s Green Sunfish mixed in the small plunge pools with Brookies. Same deal, lots of farm ponds in the headwaters.

I know LMB and Green Sunfish are established in nearly every major watershed in the state, including the examples above, but it illustrates the point of why it’s a good thing for the state to be aware of what folks are stocking into farm ponds.

My guess, just a guess, is that the state will probably be cool with a landowner putting in whatever they want into their pond, as long as it’s something already established in that watershed. Fill out the form and report back.

I’ll gladly explain the logistics of my farm pond to you.

This pond was constructed in a marshy area in a depression where three hills came together. Water seeped from the hillside into the marshy area.

In the 60’s a dozer was taken through the marshy area and the pond banks were formed, using the “horseshoe” shape of the hills intersecting and building an earth dam in the “front” of the pond.

The topography of the area keeps the water in the depression and water filters out from the earthen areas around the pond, back into the ground.

There is no outlet pipe from the pond, nor does the water in the remaining marsh go anywhere. It either evaporates and enters the ground.

 

[Cznymph]

The exceptions have already been approved and written into the reg as shown below. My advice is to live with them or else complain to your Commissioner while at the same time proposing new exceptions that you feel should be in place.

There also was an opportunity to make suggestions/objections during the period that the reg was being formulated. Did you comment then?

An NOS is NOT needed for:

• Fish baited on a hook for angling purposes
• Stocking an ornamental pond constructed as a closed water circulation aesthetic landscape feature with no risk of contacting the surface waters of this Commonwealth and does not include aquaculture facilities, ponds constructed to provide fishing opportunity, or ponds used for the confinement or production of baitfish
• Stocking allowed by a triploid grass carp (TGC) permit and reported as directed by that program
• Stocking waters contained within a property or premise of a propagation facility licensed under the Pennsylvania Aquaculture Development Law (3 Pa.C.S. §§ 4201-4223)

You bring up several valid points that I’d like to address.

I did attempt to express my displeasure with the proposed rule making, but the PFBC makes it quite difficult for that to occur.

For starters, in person commission meetings are held during the work week, most often in Harrisburg. Its a long drive down there and I’d prefer not to have to use a vacation time to voice my concerns. Why can’t these meetings be held on Saturdays and Sundays, times when they would be more available to the public?

I tried contact the commissioner of my region directly, however it seems that the PFBC isn’t in the habit of handing out the contact information for these folks. There is nothing listed in the regulation book or website about how to reach out the the person that is to be representing you, no email address or phone number. I was eventually able to track down my commissioner at their place of employment, and rightfully they didn’t seem too enthused that I had contacted them there.

The smaller committee meetings that the PFBC holds are virtual and don’t allow any space for public comment. At one point there was the ability to record a very brief phone message, and then trust that the PFBC would play it at the meeting.

 

[afishinado]

I’ll gladly explain the logistics of my farm pond to you.

This pond was constructed in a marshy area in a depression where three hills came together. Water seeped from the hillside into the marshy area.

In the 60’s a dozer was taken through the marshy area and the pond banks were formed, using the “horseshoe” shape of the hills intersecting and building an earth dam in the “front” of the pond.

The topography of the area keeps the water in the depression and water filters out from the earthen areas around the pond, back into the ground.

There is no outlet pipe from the pond, nor does the water in the remaining marsh go anywhere. It either evaporates and enters the ground.

In your case stocked fish in your pond have little chance of ending up in a stream and the rule does not have any reason to be applied. But there are many thousands of "farm ponds" in PA are or may be connected to streams or may spill over during a high water event. For that reason, rather than trying to evaluate each and every pond in the state, all farm ponds are included in the rule.

I believe stocking by private entities should be regulated by the PFBC. Allowing anyone to dump in any kind of fish anywhere and anytime without some oversight is crazy, IMO.

 

[Swattie87]

I’ll gladly explain the logistics of my farm pond to you.

This pond was constructed in a marshy area in a depression where three hills came together. Water seeped from the hillside into the marshy area.

In the 60’s a dozer was taken through the marshy area and the pond banks were formed, using the “horseshoe” shape of the hills intersecting and building an earth dam in the “front” of the pond.

The topography of the area keeps the water in the depression and water filters out from the earthen areas around the pond, back into the ground.

There is no outlet pipe from the pond, nor does the water in the remaining marsh go anywhere. It either evaporates and enters the ground.

Thanks for explaining. Makes sense.

Is there any chance of the earthen dam overtopping from high water? Assuming not I guess, or it already would have done it at some point?

Your situation clearly isn’t the target here. I don’t think you’ll get the green light to stock Arapaima, but anything normal, already established in the watershed, I seriously doubt you’ll have any issues. I get the inconvenience of the hassle of having to fill out the form and the government intrusion into your land, but, I agree with afish. Overall, it’s a net win for the fisheries of the state to have some oversight of this kind of stuff. At least on paper. I get that many, both individuals and sporting groups, will just ignore this, as it will be very hard to enforce on a case by case basis.

 

[Cznymph]

Thanks for explaining. Makes sense.

Is there any chance of the earthen dam overtopping from high water? Assuming not I guess, or it already would have done it at some point?

Your situation clearly isn’t the target here. I don’t think you’ll get the green light to stock Arapaima, but anything normal, already established in the watershed, I seriously doubt you’ll have any issues. I get the inconvenience of the hassle of having to fill out the form and the government intrusion into your land, but, I agree with afish. Overall, it’s a net win for the fisheries of the state to have some oversight of this kind of stuff. At least on paper. I get that many, both individuals and sporting groups, will just ignore this, as it will be very hard to enforce on a case by case basis.

The pond didn’t overtop during 72, so I can’t say for certain that it wouldn’t, but it would need a flood of incredible proportions.

I don’t disagree that stocking needs to be done in a responsible manner, and I agree that on paper, this notice of stocking lends itself to some accountability on the part of those doing the stocking.

However, my main issue and gripe with the entire situation is that those requesting the paperwork aren’t holding themselves accountable in any manner.

PFBC says they won’t stock class A water, until they find one that they want to stock, and then the whole thing goes out the window.

I don’t think many people realize how dirty PFBC hatcheries are. I sound like a broken record here, but there are PFBC hatcheries with diseases that warrant depopulation. Other states and the federal system have shuttered hatcheries for the very same diseases. For some reason the higher ups in PFBC either aren’t aware, don’t care, or fear that closing a facility long enough to properly clean and disinfect will cause outrage among the truck chaser that buy the majority of the licenses.

Allow me to play devils advocate here, what if I had a class A trout stream on my property that flowed into an ATW. Hypothetically, I would do my very best to keep that stream pristine, allow for lots of riparian growth to keep the stream shaded, and maybe worked with my local conservation district to place some bank stabilization and fish habitat improvements. Now, some warm June day, here comes a stocked PFBC trout carrying IPN and infects the trout in the class A stream.

I really don’t see much difference between a possible escaped fish from a farm pond, and the situation I described. The only difference being is that now the pond owner has to fill out paperwork (which will eventually lead to fees and stocking permits), and the PFBC can continue to stock Willy Nilly, while claiming that they are “resource first”.

 

[Swattie87]

I agree with you. Need a lot more baby steps, but this is a baby step in the right direction IMO.

I think that’s where some of the recent “conservation” based discussions lose their momentum. Expecting wholesale changes on a relatively short timetable. Not how this is gonna work. Gonna have to chip away at change, and be happy with small wins.