PA fish and boat makes stocking exemption for a class A stream with brook/brown trout

[Fish Sticks]

I mean lol on the last EBTJV recorded meeting I saw with PFBC in attendance one of the speakers pointed at a slide and loudly said “if you need a reason to stop stocking brown trout here it is guys”.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

"if you need a reason to stop stocking brown trout here it is guys. Now enjoy this short film"

 

[Fish Sticks]

I think whats a tragedy is all the staff who trained in school or interned for their current positions in the fish and boat commission who wanted to do resource management knowing their not going to make much. Then people with a lot less fisheries management knowledge and social/political biases to no end won’t even let them do conservation lite. I doubt there are many staff who relish the idea of dropping stocked invasive species over native brook trout.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Pennsylvania fish and boat Wild trout management plan

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I think whats a tragedy is all the staff who trained in school or interned for their current positions in the fish and boat commission who wanted to do resource management knowing their not going to make much. Then people with a lot less fisheries management knowledge and social/political biases to no end won’t even let them do conservation lite. I doubt there are many staff who relish the idea of dropping stocked invasive species over native brook trout.

Yeah. The other end is they also get it from people like us. I certainly don't blame most the employees, many are decent enough and want to do better things.

 

[Mike]

Two things.

1. This is exactly the type of stream (small forested freestoner, with Brook Trout) that should be the low hanging fruit for removal from stocking. Both from a conservation perspective, and from an angler usage viewpoint. Can the derby not be held 3 miles downstream on the Driftwood Branch?

2. IF (I’m not saying I agree with it) there is a greater good to be realized by allowing stocking for a kids only fishing derby, the stocking (on a stream like this), should be 100% limited to the stocking for the kids derby. Period. Put the fish (an agreed upon number) in as small of an area as is possible, the day before or the morning of so they’re less apt to move, and as many as possible get caught. It should not become a green light to stocking on that stream or stream section being open season and no holds barred. Is that what will happen with this decision?

Based on this discussion I’m a little confused by the language being used by the opponents. I understand that there is to be a derby that’s grandfathered, but it is unclear to me if 1) up until now this has been a PFBC stocked section or 2) the PFBC is proposing to either continue stocking and/or proposing to initiate stocking.

 

[troutbert]

Based on this discussion I’m a little confused by the language being used by the opponents. I understand that there is to be a derby that’s grandfathered, but it is unclear to me if 1) up until now this has been a PFBC stocked section or 2) the PFBC is proposing to either continue stocking and/or proposing to initiate stocking.

The PFBC 2022 regs booklet doesn't show Salt Run as being on the PFBC stocking list.

But maybe it's being stocked by a club, and that's what the dispute is about?

 

[Fish Sticks]

In the meeting they said there was historically or historic “record of a derby there” so it meets “criteria for a stocking exception” from what I remember

 

[Fish Sticks]

Basically adults using children who don’t care where/what they catch as an excuse for their own selfish desires to keep stocking over a stream containing wild native brook trout is exceedingly common.



“Oh its not a rubber half dead crappy invasive hatchery trout that doesn’t know how to be a fish, screw this I am never fishing again”

That kids suffering from “hypo-stocked trout-emia” the scurge destroying americas childrens love of the outdoors.

 

[Swattie87]

Based on this discussion I’m a little confused by the language being used by the opponents. I understand that there is to be a derby that’s grandfathered, but it is unclear to me if 1) up until now this has been a PFBC stocked section or 2) the PFBC is proposing to either continue stocking and/or proposing to initiate stocking.

I don’t know either. While neither is ideal, or appropriate from a conservation perspective on a steam like this, there’s a big difference between one isolated and localized stocking of fish for a kids derby, and the stream being more broadly opened up to stocking because of the kids derby being present on the stream and opening up the loophole…”Oh, well, it has a kids derby on it, so we might as well just stock it.”

We probably need some more clarification there.

I’m not trying to enable the thought process that leads to decisions like this, just that there’s a difference between one stocking for a kids derby, and a stream being “stocked”. If that makes sense.

The kids don’t care. When I was a kid the community kids fishing derby was held at the swimming pool. (I’m not kidding.)

 

[Fish Sticks]

Yea just getting them out there with a fishing rod and a worm in transitional/warm water fishery is going to result in higher angler success more consistently. Having one day with immediate gratification catch after catch in a fishery present on opening day that plummets in angler success in a matter of hours and continually declines there after actually teaches them to get discouraged if they go out in a stream with no stocked fish. The focus is not on the stream or relaxing. Its like a pigglet trying to get at a teet and there is combat fishing people acting nuts older intimidating people for kids yelling.

It really would take a serious head wound to make me believe that catching redbreasts, fall fish, channels, rock bass, smallies, or suckers in a calm environment with not as many people and almost year round opportunity mandates children need stocked trout to like for have a future in fishing.

Its just expensive, annoying when you want to catch something thats not a manufactured “trophy”, and very harmful to many aquatic organisms.

 

[RLeep2]

There is another well respected fishing forum that has a simple rule about discussions revolving around fisheries management issues. Roughly paraphrased, the rule states that intelligent discussions of fisheries management policies are welcome, but the "bashing" of management agencies, character attacks on agency personnel and rants along these same lines are not welcome.

I think this would be a good rule for this forum to adopt. At the very least, it might save us from having to endure such juvenile expression as stick figures and the like.

In my view, degradation of the PFBC is getting out of hand. If you have a problem with what they are doing, considering attempting to articulate your view calmly like a grown up.

Couldn't hurt.

 

[Fish Sticks]

There is another well respected fishing forum that has a simple rule about discussions revolving around fisheries management issues. Roughly paraphrased, the rule states that intelligent discussions of fisheries management policies are welcome, but the "bashing" of management agencies, character attacks on agency personnel and rants along these same lines are not welcome.

I think this would be a good rule for this forum to adopt. At the very least, it might save us from having to endure such juvenile expression as stick figures and the like.

In my view, degradation of the PFBC is getting out of hand. If you have a problem with what they are doing, considering attempting to articulate your view calmly like a grown up.

Couldn't hurt.

There is another well respected fishing forum that has a simple rule about discussions revolving around fisheries management issues. Roughly paraphrased, the rule states that intelligent discussions of fisheries management policies are welcome, but the "bashing" of management agencies, character attacks on agency personnel and rants along these same lines are not welcome.

I think this would be a good rule for this forum to adopt. At the very least, it might save us from having to endure such juvenile expression as stick figures and the like.

In my view, degradation of the PFBC is getting out of hand. If you have a problem with what they are doing, considering attempting to articulate your view calmly like a grown up.

Couldn't hurt.

PFBC degraded PFBC, i have calmly articulated the fisheries science till blue in the face in the form of podcasts, articles, interviews with reporters and we all just watched a critical stocking authorization the resource desperately needed that we had been banking on get kicked down the road half a decade while we lose brook trout streams. While your taking if the moral high ground is not wrong, i am glad you are able to enjoy being so removed/indifferent to the tofays events. I am genuinely jealous

 

[silverfox]

I don’t know either. While neither is ideal, or appropriate from a conservation perspective on a steam like this, there’s a big difference between one isolated and localized stocking of fish for a kids derby, and the stream being more broadly opened up to stocking because of the kids derby being present on the stream and opening up the loophole…”Oh, well, it has a kids derby on it, so we might as well just stock it.”

We probably need some more clarification there.

I’m not trying to enable the thought process that leads to decisions like this, just that there’s a difference between one stocking for a kids derby, and a stream being “stocked”. If that makes sense.

The kids don’t care. When I was a kid the community kids fishing derby was held at the swimming pool. (I’m not kidding.)

What concerns me is it's a slippery slope. There seems to be more of an effort to find loopholes to support questionable activities than to stop them. In this case, their own decision-making guidelines suggest that since the stream contains brook trout, it doesn't qualify for an exception, yet here it is in a proposed exception soliciting public feedback.

What good is public feedback on issues like this? Let's say they get 200 people who want the derby and 10 who don't. Their internal guidelines seem to support the 10 who don't, but they're outnumbered even though it's the ecologically responsible option. It pretty much sums up the whole operation, I guess.

 

[silverfox]

We've talked about identifying streams where the agency (or anyone else) is stocking over brook trout to use as an example for years. Maybe if there was one stream where someone was stocking over brook trout, a concerted effort to get that ended might be effective. Then this is what you get. A class A that should be exempt from the special exemption to allow stocking (regardless of the scope of the stocking) that pops up for public comment. That implies to me that it's a foregone conclusion. It seems pretty difficult to stop stocking but awfully easy to continue doing it.

That's on the heels of backpedaling on the stocking authorization by converting it to a notification and pushing it out by several years. In other words, if someone reports that they're dumping 6,000 diseased rainbows in a brook trout stream, PFBC just shrugs their shoulders, but at least now they know about it, I guess.

Then a trout management plan update that failed to even mention brook trout once. They glossed over all the items in the management plan that had anything to do with brook trout.

Then wonder why people get upset. Gee. I'm not sure.

 

[CRB]

There is another well respected fishing forum that has a simple rule about discussions revolving around fisheries management issues. Roughly paraphrased, the rule states that intelligent discussions of fisheries management policies are welcome, but the "bashing" of management agencies, character attacks on agency personnel and rants along these same lines are not welcome.

I think this would be a good rule for this forum to adopt. At the very least, it might save us from having to endure such juvenile expression as stick figures and the like.

In my view, degradation of the PFBC is getting out of hand. If you have a problem with what they are doing, considering attempting to articulate your view calmly like a grown up.

Couldn't hurt.

Agreed,
Bashing does not work.

 

[Mike]

General comment about resource agencies choosing battles wisely with small, traditional fishing rodeos being an example:
I would say that in general the typically small rodeos in terms of stream length covered are not fights over which going to the mat is worthwhile. An Agency might win the battle over such relatively small issues, but the ill will generated among sportsmen, citizens, and if a big enough stink is raised, among politicians may be costly when it comes to bigger, more important issues. It pays to choose battles wisely.

 

[BrookieChaser]

I do not agree with any censorship when it comes to criticizing a government agency. A citizen should be able to voice their opinions openly.

 

[silverfox]

General comment about resource agencies choosing battles wisely with small, traditional fishing rodeos being an example:
I would say that in general the typically small rodeos in terms of stream length covered are not fights over which going to the mat is worthwhile. An Agency might win the battle over such relatively small issues, but the ill will generated among sportsmen, citizens, and if a big enough stink is raised, among politicians may be costly when it comes to bigger, more important issues. It pays to choose battles wisely.

Well, this has all generated ill will in another demographic. For the first time in 30 years I'm not buying any PFBC licenses or permits. Between all the licenses/permits I typically buy (excluding voluntary permits, which I stopped buying after the Spruce Creek project), that's $181.82 that I'm not contributing to the machine this year. I donated that amount to MD DNR's fisheries department instead.

There's always this threat that people will get upset with the agency and stop buying licenses because of their actions. Well, I might as well vote with my wallet since that's one of the reasons given for why I should just accept the status quo. I can't, in good conscience, financially support an agency that doesn't seem to share my values.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I do not agree with any censorship when it comes to criticizing a government agency. A citizen should be able to voice their opinions openly.

Oh, I very much agree but I am also not surprised what was expressed either.

The assumption that "bashing" is expected to change anything or that one has not tried intelligent conversation with these entities is false thinking. The bashing comes in light of knowing after 30 years of intelligent conversation that nothing is expected to change.

Today's society is filled with those apparently immune to sticks and stones but get black and blue from words.

I am left to ponder why sometimes. The PFBC getting sore over discussing native brook trout or even hearing the term, to the common man having to "endure" words and stick figures like it's some kind of persecutory affliction. Not one is tying anyone down like a robot chicken holding their eyes and ears open.

Juvenile, maybe, but a funny stress relief of truth.

Lighten up Francis, the government agencies do not really care about you, intelligent conversation, comment periods, petitions or my words. They care about $, in this case, license sales.