Maurice
Administrator
Staff member
I liked this little nugget
And they have their biologists out doing angler counts to justify "low use" streams so they can remove them from the stocking schedule instead of expediting the reports and approval process of the wild trout streams.
And they have their biologists out doing angler counts to justify "low use" streams so they can remove them from the stocking schedule instead of expediting the reports and approval process of the wild trout streams.
S
Smike
Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2011
- Messages
- 233
I had to pleasure of spending some time with Katy Dunlap of TU on Carbon county steams a few weeks ago. TU is really jumping in an stepping up the help in taking on some of the unassessed streams which have watersheds in the Penn East Pipeline. They are lending the expertise to get the surveys done in the hopes to get these waters classified before all final permits get granted for the pipeline right of way.
k-bob
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,371
believe this is proposed pipeline... must cross many streams
http://www.trbimg.com/img-54c4540f/turbine/mc-penneast-pipeline-meeting-20150124
http://www.trbimg.com/img-54c4540f/turbine/mc-penneast-pipeline-meeting-20150124
R
RyanR
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,002
Smike, was there a training for volunteer personnel on assessing these waters or something? Katy does an excellent job in her TU role. I live in Carbon and I'm a TU life member and past chapter president but I haven't been as active the last couple years as I used to be for many years. Both fishing & TU have taken a bit of a backseat to my hunting dog training endeavors. Hoping to have my dog all but finished finally, ie. completely steady to Wing, Shot & Fall, by summer's end. Then get back to being more involved again in both TU and fishing.
One of the proposed crossings for the Penn East pipeline is just down the road from my house. Penn East had a survey crew out the other week right here where it's crossing some land/stream within Beltzville State Park.
S
Smike
Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2011
- Messages
- 233
Hi Ryan,
It was a focused group of Outdoor writers to educate on what’s going on. We did stop and view a small section of the upper Po which was recently assessed by them (and had natural trout reproduction) TU is coming back in July to survey other watersheds in that area. PM me is you want to get her email to see if they need help. Good luck with the dog!
Mike
It was a focused group of Outdoor writers to educate on what’s going on. We did stop and view a small section of the upper Po which was recently assessed by them (and had natural trout reproduction) TU is coming back in July to survey other watersheds in that area. PM me is you want to get her email to see if they need help. Good luck with the dog!
Mike
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,299
Unfortunately a "new trout plan" does not equal or even suggest a shift towards wild-trout-first management.
This is, after all, still PA.
There won't be any such change until the hatchery system totally collapses and the commission has no other choice. At which point they will make a big to-do about how they are doing the right thing and taking a huge leap forward.
I hope I'm wrong but I doubt it.
This is, after all, still PA.
There won't be any such change until the hatchery system totally collapses and the commission has no other choice. At which point they will make a big to-do about how they are doing the right thing and taking a huge leap forward.
I hope I'm wrong but I doubt it.
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,768
---------------------------------------------------------
It has a statewide trout management plan that's meant to guide decisions on how to manage stocked and wild fish. It's several years old and due for revision, said Leroy Young, head of the commission's bureau of fisheries.
The commission will attempt to create a “trout working group” of commissioners, staff, representatives of angler groups and unaffiliated fishermen to solicit opinions and ideas. Invitations will go out soon to potential members, with the goal of having the first meeting in August, Young said.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So, anglers who care about wild trout should be ready to advocate for them, when the time comes.
Many within the PFBC would like to reduce stocking over wild trout and particularly brook trout. They will need our support.
It has a statewide trout management plan that's meant to guide decisions on how to manage stocked and wild fish. It's several years old and due for revision, said Leroy Young, head of the commission's bureau of fisheries.
The commission will attempt to create a “trout working group” of commissioners, staff, representatives of angler groups and unaffiliated fishermen to solicit opinions and ideas. Invitations will go out soon to potential members, with the goal of having the first meeting in August, Young said.
-----------------------------------------------------------
So, anglers who care about wild trout should be ready to advocate for them, when the time comes.
Many within the PFBC would like to reduce stocking over wild trout and particularly brook trout. They will need our support.
S
Smike
Member
- Joined
- Apr 10, 2011
- Messages
- 233
Stocking in streams that do not have wild trout serves a very good purpose which is to take the fishing pressure off of wild streams. Take away stocking all together, then everyone fishing and stringing fish will move on to wild fish. (after considerable grumbling of course)
This part of stocking I hope doesn't get removed anytime soon.
This part of stocking I hope doesn't get removed anytime soon.
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,768
The ending of hatcheries and stocking is not even under consideration.
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,299
I disagree. I think in a PA without stocking as we know it, license sales crash and the vast majority of "trout fisherman" just pack it in and quit.
wildtrout2
Well-known member
Which would be fine by me.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
Read the report. The trout stocking program has become a ball-and-chain for the PFBC. More than half of anglers license dollars collected goes to the trout stocking program.
The budget, as it is set up now, is doomed to failure. Resources and personnel have been cut to the bone for all other functions such as conducting surveys to document wild trout populations and formally submitting them. In addition, funds have been cut to support habitat improvement, acquiring public access areas for fishing, and acquiring and maintaining boat launch areas for anglers and boaters; just to name a few.
Mr Arway had it right a few years ago when he proposed closing two state hatcheries and cutting back the trout stocking program. But I'm afraid that proposal was put forward just to shake up the politicians enough to have them grant a license increase. Well that didn't happen....now what?!
The budget, as it is set up now, is doomed to failure. Resources and personnel have been cut to the bone for all other functions such as conducting surveys to document wild trout populations and formally submitting them. In addition, funds have been cut to support habitat improvement, acquiring public access areas for fishing, and acquiring and maintaining boat launch areas for anglers and boaters; just to name a few.
Mr Arway had it right a few years ago when he proposed closing two state hatcheries and cutting back the trout stocking program. But I'm afraid that proposal was put forward just to shake up the politicians enough to have them grant a license increase. Well that didn't happen....now what?!
R
RyanR
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,002
Fine by me too, Wildtrout2! I think people would then be surprised how good the trout fishing would still be without stocking. Suitable habitat and water quality is so much more important than hatcheries and it's more economically efficient too.
While the ending of all stocking is not on the table I do think Arway is saying that the current hatchery system is unsustainable without major expenditures and I just don't see that happening. I think this is great because as more streams that have fishable wild trout populations come of the stocking list those marginal streams can receive the trout available for stocking without putting them over sustainable wild trout populations.
While the ending of all stocking is not on the table I do think Arway is saying that the current hatchery system is unsustainable without major expenditures and I just don't see that happening. I think this is great because as more streams that have fishable wild trout populations come of the stocking list those marginal streams can receive the trout available for stocking without putting them over sustainable wild trout populations.
foxtrapper1972
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Messages
- 2,455
Smike said-"Stocking in streams that do not have wild trout serves a very good purpose which is to take the fishing pressure off of wild streams. Take away stocking all together, then everyone fishing and stringing fish will move on to wild fish. (after considerable grumbling of course)"
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right on Smike.
And along with them shifting from hatchery/stocking they will PROMOTE wild trout fishing (THEY ALREADY ARE). Of course for most trout fishermen in PA catching means keeping so every trout over 7" will be creeled. (And even pounding away with flies is harmful over the long haul for many of the wild streams.) Wild trout need LESS pressure not more. While I am for limiting stocking over wild fish I would not be in favor of doing away with stocking.
The good wild trout fishing that exists today in almost all cases was a result of stocking at one time but beyond that the PAFBC can't take credit and say they somehow managed the resource and that is why it is good. And we flyfisherman don't want wild trout "utilized" in the ways the PAFBC has in mind.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Right on Smike.
And along with them shifting from hatchery/stocking they will PROMOTE wild trout fishing (THEY ALREADY ARE). Of course for most trout fishermen in PA catching means keeping so every trout over 7" will be creeled. (And even pounding away with flies is harmful over the long haul for many of the wild streams.) Wild trout need LESS pressure not more. While I am for limiting stocking over wild fish I would not be in favor of doing away with stocking.
The good wild trout fishing that exists today in almost all cases was a result of stocking at one time but beyond that the PAFBC can't take credit and say they somehow managed the resource and that is why it is good. And we flyfisherman don't want wild trout "utilized" in the ways the PAFBC has in mind.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
The FBC should, and surely will continue the trout stocking program. There are many streams that cannot support wild trout and should be stocked to give anglers a chance to trout fish.
The first issue here is, given the limited amount of funds, how much of the budget should be allocated to state hatcheries and stocking? Projected costs of stocking are escalating far greater than any projected revenue increase. In fact, even with a modest fishing license fee increase, looking at past history, will likely decrease the number of license buyers and a net loss in revenue or at best only a very small gain. Hard decisions must be made now.
The only choice is to close several of the hatcheries and scale down the trout stocking program and evaluate the streams being stocked with respect to how they are being utilized by anglers as well as the viability of the stream as wild trout fishery. This process, to some degree is already in place. The main problem has been no angler wants "their" stream taken off the stocking list.
As I posted earlier, many of the most important functions of the FBC are being shortchanged to prop up the trout stocking program. The warmwater fish and fishing that has been shortchanged by overspending for stocked trout. As well dollars allocated to angler and boating access areas has suffered. And the most important function of the PFBC, documentation and evaluation of the streams and watersheds given the natural gas drilling activity and now the construction of a network of pipelines throughout our state.
Believe it or not, weening anglers off stocked trout and promoting, enhancing and just allowing wild trout to grow in our streams will make PA a better place to fish in the future.
The first issue here is, given the limited amount of funds, how much of the budget should be allocated to state hatcheries and stocking? Projected costs of stocking are escalating far greater than any projected revenue increase. In fact, even with a modest fishing license fee increase, looking at past history, will likely decrease the number of license buyers and a net loss in revenue or at best only a very small gain. Hard decisions must be made now.
The only choice is to close several of the hatcheries and scale down the trout stocking program and evaluate the streams being stocked with respect to how they are being utilized by anglers as well as the viability of the stream as wild trout fishery. This process, to some degree is already in place. The main problem has been no angler wants "their" stream taken off the stocking list.
As I posted earlier, many of the most important functions of the FBC are being shortchanged to prop up the trout stocking program. The warmwater fish and fishing that has been shortchanged by overspending for stocked trout. As well dollars allocated to angler and boating access areas has suffered. And the most important function of the PFBC, documentation and evaluation of the streams and watersheds given the natural gas drilling activity and now the construction of a network of pipelines throughout our state.
Believe it or not, weening anglers off stocked trout and promoting, enhancing and just allowing wild trout to grow in our streams will make PA a better place to fish in the future.
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,768
Many of us favor taking many wild trout streams off the stocking lists.
But there is nothing in the article to suggest that is in the works.
It says new trout plan may be in the works. But says nothing about what the new plan might be.
They have talked about closing 2 hatcheries. If so, they could adjust for that by taking a lot of wild trout streams off the stocking list.
Or they could simply cut the numbers stocked across the board, but not take wild trout streams off the stocking list.
They haven't said which way they would go on that.
But there is nothing in the article to suggest that is in the works.
It says new trout plan may be in the works. But says nothing about what the new plan might be.
They have talked about closing 2 hatcheries. If so, they could adjust for that by taking a lot of wild trout streams off the stocking list.
Or they could simply cut the numbers stocked across the board, but not take wild trout streams off the stocking list.
They haven't said which way they would go on that.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
^ That's what has been done in the past few years. Less fish stocked per stocking and less stocking dates.
Step two is to eliminate stocking in certain streams and/or stream sections. The criteria used for doing this right now is to gauge angler usage by doing angler counts and possibly eliminate stocking in the more lightly fished streams.
While angler usage should definitely be a big part of the equation, another important factor should be an evaluation of stream as a viable self sustaining wild trout fishery that doesn't need stocking.
The Class A stocking issue came up last year and the commissioners caved in to the "stock first and ask questions later crowd."
The one thing not often mentioned is when (not "if") the state trout stocking program is scaled down, what if anything will be done to assure private clubs don't become bucket biologists and stock streams without any guidelines or regulations. There is a great temptation for the state to allow stocking of our streams by private concerns to supplement or even replace stocking by the state.
I've seen more and more stocking by private clubs and organizations than ever. The danger is, in order for the stocking to have the most "bang for the buck" streams with the best habitat, water quality, and favorable temperatures aka Class A's will be stocked rather than the more marginal streams that need to be stocked to remain a viable fishery.
So, to sum it up, be careful what you wish for...it may come true.
R
RyanR
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 1,002
Only approved trout waters may be stocked and private clubs and coops cannot LEGALLY stock trout where they feel. There is some degree of oversight from the PFBC on that. I actually think there are a lot of anglers out there that don't realize just how many streams don't actually require stocking and the fishing would still be good. I'm not really worried at all about what I'm personally wishing for.
True, they could just cut stocking across the board and still not take wild streams off the list but if, as expected, stocked trout become more of a premium the logical step is to utilize the resource (stocked trout) in the wisest, cost-efficient manner possible. I think that means less streams that don't actually need stocking will get stocked. Sure not every wild stream in a region is likely to be removed but I think at least a fair amount would be. I don't need the article to spell it out completely in order for me to see which way we're likely heading. I still support stocking, I just support and advocate for wiser utilization of the stocking program in conjunction with the wild trout resource. Especially as costs continue to rise.
NJ has actually just gone thru a big shakeup to their stocking program this year. The impetus was a disease outbreak last year in the hatchery but now starting with this year's stocking program, only rainbow trout are now raised and stocked by the NJDFW. This was a big change for their long-traditional stocking program, I was actually somewhat surprised (but happy) they committed to it.
True, they could just cut stocking across the board and still not take wild streams off the list but if, as expected, stocked trout become more of a premium the logical step is to utilize the resource (stocked trout) in the wisest, cost-efficient manner possible. I think that means less streams that don't actually need stocking will get stocked. Sure not every wild stream in a region is likely to be removed but I think at least a fair amount would be. I don't need the article to spell it out completely in order for me to see which way we're likely heading. I still support stocking, I just support and advocate for wiser utilization of the stocking program in conjunction with the wild trout resource. Especially as costs continue to rise.
NJ has actually just gone thru a big shakeup to their stocking program this year. The impetus was a disease outbreak last year in the hatchery but now starting with this year's stocking program, only rainbow trout are now raised and stocked by the NJDFW. This was a big change for their long-traditional stocking program, I was actually somewhat surprised (but happy) they committed to it.
foxtrapper1972
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Messages
- 2,455
afishinado said-"Believe it or not, weening anglers off stocked trout and promoting, enhancing and just allowing wild trout to grow in our streams will make PA a better place to fish in the future."
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please explain this. How in the world can shifting the mass of current trout fishermen ( who rely on stocked fish mostly) (and enjoy killing them) over to wild trout possibly make PA a better place to fish? Even if the wild trout resource were somehow to be enhanced (not sure how?) there is just too much damage that would happen to the fish.
I've suspected they are trying to exploit wild trout fishing in this state for a while now. More articles and info on their site etc. It's so much cheaper to advertise the great wild trout fishing than to raise trout. And considering the trend of less regulations not more I don't see them making any NO KILL places anytime soon. Let's face it there are a limited number of decent wild trout streams in PA....(not gemmie streams) and a very limited number of streams capable of sustaining a really good population of wild fish under the best of protections or enhancements.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Please explain this. How in the world can shifting the mass of current trout fishermen ( who rely on stocked fish mostly) (and enjoy killing them) over to wild trout possibly make PA a better place to fish? Even if the wild trout resource were somehow to be enhanced (not sure how?) there is just too much damage that would happen to the fish.
I've suspected they are trying to exploit wild trout fishing in this state for a while now. More articles and info on their site etc. It's so much cheaper to advertise the great wild trout fishing than to raise trout. And considering the trend of less regulations not more I don't see them making any NO KILL places anytime soon. Let's face it there are a limited number of decent wild trout streams in PA....(not gemmie streams) and a very limited number of streams capable of sustaining a really good population of wild fish under the best of protections or enhancements.
