NY study on effects of stocking browns in water w/ brookies

[k-bob]

I wrote: "And even when you guys do get PA trout stocking and Federal taxes changed to your liking, I still won't pursue the 20" natives that reappear in the Loyalsock -- I'll be afraid of the mountain lions! 🙂"

TB: "Neither PATU or TU national has ever advocated ending stocking on the Loyalsock."

uh, the loyalsock reference was a joke, implying that I do not think that effects of 19th c deforestation can be reversed by changing 21st c stocking policies. federal taxes are here to stay and PA mountain lions can't come back imho 🙂

 

[troutbert]

k-bob wrote:

I do not think that effects of 19th c deforestation can be reversed by changing 21st c stocking policies.

The PFBC recently ended stocking on Jack Dent Branch, which is a small tumbling stream flowing through a watershed that is nearly all state forest land.

In the 1990s, the PFBC area fisheries manager suggested that stocking be ended, because according to his surveys, the brook trout were being cropped off severely in the stocked section, by using the comparison with the unstocked upper end.

But there were anglers who opposed that change, so stocking continued for many more years. But there are also anglers (TUers mostly) who supported that change.

As with all political issues, there are people on both sides, and both can influence the outcome.

Anglers, particularly brook trout anglers, should ask themselves which side are they are supporting in these cases. Continued stocking over brook trout, or ending stocking?

The change to end stocking in Jack Dent Branch took place this year. Without the support of anglers supporting what the PFBC biologists/managers thought best for the brook trout population, that would not have happened.

And it is very likely that on this stream, as others, the brook trout population will go up as a result.

So that is what this stuff is REALLY about. Improving brook trout populations to improve the fishing. (While those hatchery fish can provide recreation elsewhere.)

It has nothing at all to do with stuff like:

"I do not think that effects of 19th c deforestation can be reversed by changing 21st c stocking policies."

 

[troutbert]

Some other examples of what this stuff is ACTUALLY about.

In 2003 the PFBC proposed taking sections of the following wild trout streams off the stocking list. These were Class B wild trout streams. Modest sized forested freestone streams with wild trout throughout.

Cooks Run, Clinton
W. Br Hicks Run, Cameron & Elk
Upper Jerry Run, Cameron
Wolf Run, Centre

I'm pretty sure their intent was not to reverse 1800s deforestation. The intent was to improve trout populations in those streams.

TU supported this PFBC proposal. The other side opposed it. The other side won.

This is the way politics works. There are two sides on the issue, and they advocate for what they want.

The question I'd ask fellow flyfishers is "Which side are you on?"

Do you support the PFBC in ending stocking on these wild streams? Or do you oppose them?

 

[k-bob]

tb: "The question I'd ask fellow flyfishers is "Which side are you on?"

Do you support the PFBC in ending stocking on these wild streams? Or do you oppose them?"

OK you are asking fly fishers about stocking, but the states trout plan says "The majority of Pennsylvania’s trout anglers prefer to use bait (53%) followed by lures (16%) and flies (15%)." fly fishers are not the majority.

I am just one trout stamp buyer out of 450k, but I have no one size answer. I'd look at each stream on a case by case basis and form an opinion - shrug. if brookies are being cropped in the stocked section of jack dent run, I'd fish up higher or just go somewhere else. the cropping happens because of fishermen, not competition, and I'd try to have empathy for the stockie fishermen when there are many other places I could go for wilds. see area image below, nat repro in blue, public land in black, jack dent marked with red. file limit restricts the size of this image, but there are clearly a lot of streams around.

I also am not too concerned about catching bigger brookies. If I wanted to catch bigger fish, wild PA brookies aren't what I would fish for, because the food-poor habitat they live in tends to keep them small.

 

[troutbert]

I think the PFBC made the right decision on Jack Dent Branch. They quit stocking on top of the brook trout, so their population should benefit.

And they began, just this year, to stock hatchery trout in the Bennett Branch, just a few miles a way. That is a much larger stream and people will have fun fishing for hatchery trout there.

And they also began stocking a section of the upper West Branch Susquehanna this year. That is a little further away, but still in Clearfield Cty.

Of course there are probably people who would like both these larger waters and the little brook trout streams to be stocked. But there are only so many hatchery fish produced, and that number is about half what it used to be. Choices must be made.

Every hatchery trout stocked in a brookie or other wild trout stream means one less hatchery trout for the big waters that depend on hatchery trout to provide recreation.

 

[k-bob]

"I think the PFBC made the right decision on Jack Dent Branch. They quit stocking on top of the brook trout, so their population should benefit.

And they began, just this year, to stock hatchery trout in the Bennett Branch, just a few miles a way. That is a much larger stream and people will have fun fishing for hatchery trout there."

You said above that some fishermen wanted continued stocking of Jack Dent. Are you sure they "will have fun fishing for hatchery trout" in the bigger Bennett? Were they asked about that change?

The fact that you would ask people in post 23 above to take a position on ceasing stocking on streams they have never seen, have no idea who fishes, etc., does not suggest a lot of interest in the people who fish there now.

 

[k-bob]

"But there are only so many hatchery fish produced, and that number is about half what it used to be. Choices must be made."

right. but there also fewer people buying trout/salmon permits. about 30% less since just 1991 (bottom of page linked below). so different choices could be made, including stocking fewer fish in the same places, stocking fewer places, etc?

http://fishandboat.com/licsal2.htm

 

[pcray1231]

Yeah, that's really it to me. While, as a lover of wild trout, I'd want to see wild trout absolutely maximized, I realize that people like fishing for stockies. If stockies were unlimited, I'd have to make some compromises.

But the situation on the ground is that stockies aren't unlimited. And the big, popular stocked streams have had declining allocations for years. It shows. It shows in the catch rates. It shows in the number of opening weekend anglers, and the # of youth in the sport, and declining license numbers.

The obvious way to maximize opportunity is to maximize wild fisheries where they can exist, and utilize as many stockies as possible in the remaining waters.

Now, I realize that knocking a tiny stream off the stocking list contributes a negligible # of fish to a stream the size of Pine. And there aren't very many class B streams that are stocked, so even knocking them ALL off wouldn't add much. That said, there are a lot more class C's and D's that are stocked than class B's. And IMO, many of those offer rewarding wild fisheries. I've topped 50 fish in a day on class C streams multiple times. If that ain't a good enough fishery, I don't know what is.

I don't know exactly where to draw the line. I won't go as far as saying that if it has a single wild fish, it shouldn't be stocked. Every situation is different. But I do believe the goal should be that if a stream is capable of offering a wild fishery, it shouldn't be stocked, saving as many fish as possible for those streams that can't. And I think the PFBC's line of "capable of offering a wild fishery" is WAAAAYYYY too high.

 

[k-bob]

# of stockies per trout stamp is similar in 2003 & 2014...

about 6.3-6.4 stockies per stamp in' 03 (4.1M fish & 652k stamps); also for '14 ('14 will have 3.2M fish, '13 stamps = 498k)

http://blog.pennlive.com/pa-sportsman/2014/02/pennsylvania_fish_and_boat_commission_prepares_for_trout_stocking_2014.html

I dunno, there are so many wild fisheries now that I am reluctant to try to end stocking that other anglers appreciate on the rare sections of wild brookie water that are stocked: what, 15% or less of all such water? I can go to a lot other places.

 

[KenU]

We have been concentrating on the effects of stocking over wild trout, but let's not forget the effects that stocking has had on anglers. After 100 years or so now, stocking has taught anglers that trout are a product produced by the state and put into the streams every spring for their pleasure. It has taught them that trout can be easily and cheaply replaced. It has created an 'all-you-can eat' mentality among trout anglers many of whom have little or no concept of where real trout come from - namely clean, cold streams. As one notable fish biologist (whose name I do not know) once said: "stocking is to angling what prostitution is to love." And that pretty much sums it up!

 

[pcray1231]

Yeah, that's always been my view as well. It's less about direct impact and more about changing attitudes.

To be fair, the C&R mentality has percolated even to much of the bait crowd. There still is a meat hunter crowd out there, and that's even ok, I don't dislike them, but I'd like to see their following shrink. But even on opening day I see far more fish released than stringered, and I do believe the majority of fishermen release most of their catch regardless of tackle choices.

A trout is too valuable to catch only once. I do believe that sportsmen in general appreciate that and are in the process of adopting it as a philosophy.

There is still, though, an amazing ignorance of wild trout. Avid fishermen don't know that wild trout exist in numbers in their own backyards. And yeah, we taught them this by pushing stocked trout for so many years.

It's one thing that for instance, the WBTE streams serve to do, IMO. I fish several of those streams and I don't really think the program made those waters any better, in fact, it made several of them worse. But it begins to highlight to the public that these things exist. These streams definitely saw an increase in angler usage. And those are often anglers that didn't know these opportunities existed. It's still not their focus, but they try it out at some point. And that's how it starts. After a while they try another one that's not on the list, and there are indeed lots of streams that fit that kind of a description without the posters up.

 

[KenU]

The brookie streams that suffer the most from cropping are those adjacent to the road and therefore accessible. Remote streams are protected by their inaccessibility and are little affected by no-kill regulations. I would like to see a few of our better brook trout streams that parallel roads made into no-kill brook trout waters. And, because brookies in these streams move up and down with the seasons, long stretches should be protected. Not just a mile here and there. Jack Dent Branch of Medix Run would be a good start.

 

[allan_s]

No kill regulations on brook trout streams, the headwater streams, won't have much effect anyway. They don't live long enough and one bad year class or one great year class will change the fishing more than catch and release.

 

[k-bob]

ken's comments on jack dent say a lot. there was cropping near a road but there are many places with less cropping to fish for brookies. much like cold run in Schuylkill. instead of just fishing other places, and knowing you'll see the results of cropping if you do fish JDR, why not "win" an angler v angler fight and get the stocking stopped? however clear the cropping was, if you fight for every native fish in every stream without thinking about other anglers, well no wonder TU represents 3% of PA trout stamp buyers. I clearly see cropping in cold run, and ideally it would be stopped, but look at a map, brookies are healthy in the watershed and fighting the stocking along the road would alienate other anglers. in case you guys haven't noticed we wild trout types are a small minority of the states anglers.

 

[k-bob]

Have never seen jack dent branch, so I may be off base, but I see that there are roads along it. JDB shown in the image below; blue lines are nat repro streams. I understand there was clear cropping from stockie fishing in JDB & Medix along the roads. However, the area and headwaters streams seem to have wild trout. so was the cropping in accessible stretches of JDB a preservation issue for native trout here, or more of a native-trout fishing issue? if brookies are established in the area, but cropped along the road by stockie fishing, I might be inclined to just let that go and try another stream away from the roads... (sounds like situation w/ cold run area in Schuylkill)

it might be ideal to end the stocking, but fish biology in PA involves politics. and anglers who lose fights over stocking probably are more annoyed than educated about wild trout fishing?

 

[Chaz]

troutbert wrote:

KenU wrote:
The statement: "Custom stocking scenarios with Brown Trout introductions at relatively low proportions of resident Brook Trout populations may be able to sustain healthy populations of both species within their present range"

As I pointed out in another post, they also said this, earlier in the abstract:

"New York State contains a large portion of the Brook Trout's native range, where both species are maintained by stocking and other management actions."

In both of these statements they are saying that brook trout and brown trout populations are "sustained/maintained" by stocking.

Does anyone reading this believe that they are? If stocking ended, would brook trout and brown trout populations disappear?

NO!

 

[double00]

Something to consider in discussion of Jack Dent Branch is the fact that the stream isn't just a typical Nat-Repo Brookie stream. Its headwaters area above the previously (before this year) stocked area acutally carries a Class A designation.

The Class A section is just as accessable as the lower section as the entire stream runs close to a forest service road. In fact, the upper end of Jack Dent is the only (up till recently) Class A in the entire area up on the Quhenna plateau. Not sure exactly what reasons, or combination of reasons, there are for this; but in that whole area there is only one class A brookie stream and its lower reaches were being stocked.

Incidently, Jack Dent (lower area) was slated for removal from the stocking roles once and it was put back on due political pressure as part of the list that TB previously mentioned.

This particular case isn't as cut and dry as simply having one of the area's many brook trout stream stocked while the others are left alone to be fished by those who appreciate such things.

In this case its more like: why is the single stream with the demonstrated capacity to be a class A (based on its upper reaches which are no different that the lower) being stocked when there is nearly the entire length of Medix Run thats heavily stocked just a stone's throw away?