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

[sixfootfenwick]

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]

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.

I don't buy this at all.
In theory you would be right but in practice, it is something altogether different.

The PFBC has made this bed. Those small rodeos happen because of the very mentality the PFBC has spread.

The battle isn't on the mat with sportsmen, the battle is on the mat with politicians and pollution. The reason they get asked to wrestle in sportsmen at times is their very own fault.

Again, it's been said many times and in many ways, the PFBC should be leading a culture change. They should be showing the public the value of or wild trout resources. This takes time, campaigns, regulation changes, money etc...

The PFBC is supposed to be the entity that protects our aquatic resources. Not the agency that leads to polluting the angler mindset and polluting the ecosystems with invasive species. They are supposed to be the entity that fights back against greed and exploitation of the resource, not one that gets greedy and exploits the resource for gain.

If the PFBC was at the forefront of where it should be and had the backing of the people, the threat of dollars from political adversaries could be endured because we would vote them out.
Instead they have been at the forefront of polluting the angler mind and the people cry and whine to the political rivals that then drag the PFBC about by their snout.

The people advocate against their own interest to their very enemies, it's an age old battle.

No harsh word, stick figure battle, or reason will change it until someone leads that change.

In the meantime, enjoy a picture of the face anglers and the PFBC make when people voice their opinion on the subject.

It can be titled "you can't say that! I'm supposed to love them and they love me, right?!"

 

[silverfox]

I don't buy this at all.
In theory you would be right but in practice, it is something altogether different.

The PFBC has made this bed. Those small rodeos happen because of the very mentality the PFBC has spread.

The battle isn't on the mat with sportsmen, the battle is on the mat with politicians and pollution. The reason they get asked to wrestle in sportsmen at times is their very own fault.

Again, it's been said many times and in many ways, the PFBC should be leading a culture change. They should be showing the public the value of or wild trout resources. This takes time, campaigns, regulation changes, money etc...

The PFBC is supposed to be the entity that protects our aquatic resources. Not the agency that leads to polluting the angler mindset and polluting the ecosystems with invasive species. They are supposed to be the entity that fights back against greed and exploitation of the resource, not one that gets greedy and exploits the resource for gain.

If the PFBC was at the forefront of where it should be and had the backing of the people, the threat of dollars from political adversaries could be endured because we would vote them out.
Instead they have been at the forefront of polluting the angler mind and the people cry and whine to the political rivals that then drag the PFBC about by their snout.

The people advocate against their own interest to their very enemies, it's an age old battle.

No harsh word, stick figure battle, or reason will change it until someone leads that change.

Speaking of politicians/politics. I've been communicating with mine. What I've found is that there isn't the political pressure that people claim exists. In fact, one of the staffers searched through their contact database for the last 7 years, and I'm the first constituent to have ever reached out to that office (spanning 3 different elected officials) regarding "trout."

Frankly, in my opinion, this notion that its politicians that are to blame is a red herring.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Speaking of politicians/politics. I've been communicating with mine. What I've found is that there isn't the political pressure that people claim exists. In fact, one of the staffers searched through their contact database for the last 7 years, and I'm the first constituent to have ever reached out to that office (spanning 3 different elected officials) regarding "trout."

Frankly, in my opinion, this notion that its politicians that are to blame is a red herring.

If this is the case, then they are sole actors in their own greed. Shame on them.

And anglers perpetuate a lie that helps them do it. Shame on us.

 

[Fish Sticks]

We know they don’t listen to anyone…….except private hatcheries apparently. Tim schaefer does not return ANY calls or emails. He has a completely closed door policy.

We know that all the research that should be incorporated in management presented by USGS, EBTJV, and multiple universities gets ignored.

We know the commissioners are not trained in fisheries science and have voted down recommendations to not stock over class B streams by trained staff in the past.

My question is can anyone hold them accountable? How far off the rails can the comission go? Would the house and senate Fish and game committee be able to reign them in?

Waste- streams making their own trout, even some class A ones, are getting pummeled with stocked fish. Certain streams would likely be class A if not stocked. A lot of comission fish run onto private property where public cannot fish for them. A month or less after stocking a lot of these streams do not have a drastically different catch rate than they would without stocking.

Fraud- “resource first”, not disclosing to the general public that the species they stock ate invasive species. Telling concerned anglers who call or email that their stocking does not harm native brook trout populations. See fishjakes interaction with them on fishing creek thread. I have been told the same as well, its a flat out fraudulent. We have them on film being told about the dangers of stocking brown trout on one of the last EBTJV meetings. They get the truth and they lie to us.

Abuse- They have the ability and responsibility to educate the general public, identify science based management plans commonwealths aquatic resources, and execute them with rules and regulations. Instead they are using their power as the sole fisheries manager in this state to maximize license sales all the while lying to the public about the consequences of their actions. If thats not abuse of power and dereliction of duty I don’t know what is.

which government watch dog agency deals with waste, fraud and abuse at a state agency?

Auditor General?

 

[sixfootfenwick]

We know they don’t listen to anyone…….except private hatcheries apparently. Tim schaefer does not return ANY calls or emails. He has a completely closed door policy.

We know that all the research that should be incorporated in management presented by USGS, EBTJV, and multiple universities gets ignored.

We know the commissioners are not trained in fisheries science and have voted down recommendations to not stock over class B streams by trained staff in the past.

My question is can anyone hold them accountable? How far off the rails can the comission go? Would the house and senate Fish and game committee be able to reign them in?

Waste- streams making their own trout, even some class A ones, are getting pummeled with stocked fish. Certain streams would likely be class A if not stocked. A lot of comission fish run onto private property where public cannot fish for them. A month or less after stocking a lot of these streams do not have a drastically different catch rate than they would without stocking.

Fraud- “resource first”, not disclosing to the general public that the species they stock ate invasive species. Telling concerned anglers who call or email that their stocking does not harm native brook trout populations. See fishjakes interaction with them on fishing creek thread. I have been told the same as well, its a flat out fraudulent. We have them on film being told about the dangers of stocking brown trout on one of the last EBTJV meetings. They get the truth and they lie to us.

Abuse- They have the ability and responsibility to educate the general public, identify science based management plans commonwealths aquatic resources, and execute them with rules and regulations. Instead they are using their power as the sole fisheries manager in this state to maximize license sales all the while lying to the public about the consequences of their actions. If thats not abuse of power and dereliction of duty I don’t know what is.

which government watch dog agency deals with waste, fraud and abuse at a state agency?

Auditor General?

Getting government agencies to audit abuse by government agencies is like the NFL investigating itself. Just saying 🤷

 

[Fish Sticks]

Getting government agencies to audit abuse by government agencies is like the NFL investigating itself. Just saying 🤷

yea if one person requested probably would not get a call back even. If it was a petition with say a 1000 signatures demanding PA fish and boat be investigated for above mentioned waste fraud and abuse maybe could move the needle.

 

[Silent Ocelot]

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.

Although I agree with your way of looking at things and how to respond, I think with the current ways our fisheries are haphazardly managed I don't think @Fish Sticks is our of line. It's a reaction to a very bad situation we are in and I think his illustration provides a good example of what these organizations are doing. I like his creative touch, and even though it is a bit brash it brings awareness to an ongoing situation that hopefully somebody important that can make a change sees it and acts upon it.

The time of talking things over politely has long since been over. We have an organization or several organizations acting with complete disregard to the environment and the negative impact their actions cause for the sole purpose of monetary gains. People have tried to talk it out with them for decades to no avail. What is the course of action now?

 

[Silent Ocelot]

What we need is an Opus Dei like organization, but for the environment, that sticks up for it with a religious adherence. I'm not joking.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Here is the e-mail to comment against this nonsense first time ever proposal to stock over a class A stream that contains brook trout. Please comment against this exception and remind them that their own guidance says not to do this.

The proposed regulation change we are referencing is: Proposed Exemptions to Allow for the Continued Stocking of Class A Stream Sections (as it pertains to class A salt run in cameron county)

RA-pfbcregulations@pa.gov

“According to the current Operational Guidelines for the management of trout fisheries in Pennsylvania Waters (2022), "No exemptions will be granted for streams where acomponent of the wild trout fishery is comprised of wild Brook Trout." Based on this guidance and that a component of the wild trout fishery in Section 02 of Salt Run in Cameron County currently supports a mixed population that includes brook trout, Salt Run should not be considered for an exemption.”

 

[Mike]

Upon further investigation, I have what I believe are necessary clarifying procedural comments precipitated by this thread.

The full Commission’s action, which is what is required through a specific regulatory process, has NOT taken place to make such a stocking exemption. It is a proposal (linked below), which so far only appeared before a Committee this week. The discussion at the committee meeting was one step in the formal process, whether the proposal later passes or is rejected by the full Commission. The exemption requires action by the FULL COMMISSION.

Here is the wording describing the Committee portion of that process from the PFBC web site:
“The Board of Commissioners has also established a set of Commissioner committees to review and provide guidance on Commission actions. Prior to formal action by the Commission, these committees review all agenda items and make recommendations to the full Commission.”

The public comment period is always a minimum of 30 days and in this case it is presently scheduled to end on January 9. The full comment period on this proposal is listed as being Dec10-Jan 9, as seen on PFBC web site: https://www.fishandboat.com/Regulations/Pages/ProposedRecentRegulations.aspx#ClassAExemptions

Full proposal and background info reads as follows, as linked from the PFBC web site at the same location as the above link. I think the detail included there will be of interest to many in this forum because it also reviews details for when a Class A section may be allowed to be stocked.

Pennsylvania Bulletin

Information included at this site has been derived directly from the Pennsylvania Code, the Commonwealth's official publication of rules and regulations and from the Pennsylvania Bulletin, the Commonwealth's official gazette for information and rulemaking

www.pacodeandbulletin.gov

I found all of this by just using the search engine on the PFBC web site and entering the words: regulatory proposals. This may be valuable to you in the future as well, so you may find it worth noting.

 

[streamerguy]

So the big takeaway here is ACT NOW and submit your comments (via the link on the PFBC proposal page that Mike linked above) before the Jan 9th deadline. And spread the word. Ceasing stocking is the most SIMPLE thing the PFBC can do when it comes to managing for wild trout.

The fact that they are going against the following guideline is incredibly disappointing: "Exemptions will not be granted for streams where a component of the wild trout fishery is comprised of wild brook trout."

 

[afishinado]

So the big takeaway here is ACT NOW and submit your comments (via the link on the PFBC proposal page that Mike linked above) before the Jan 9th deadline. And spread the word. Ceasing stocking is the most SIMPLE thing the PFBC can do when it comes to managing for wild trout.

The fact that they are going against the following guideline is incredibly disappointing: "Exemptions will not be granted for streams where a component of the wild trout fishery is comprised of wild brook trout."

The "exemptions" in the above quote is to not allow a stocking of a Class A stream that has a population comprised of wild brook trout. The word "exemption" refers to the policy of not stocking Class A's. At least they didn't pull the plug completely on native brook trout.

I contend this entire proposal furthers the watering down of PFBC policies to protect wild fisheries by giving more reasons to allow stocking in the highest level of wild trout fisheries in PA.

It should be opposed, IMO.

 

[salmo]

I thought that they did the same thing on Young Womens creek at or around the time that they allowed fracking in that area. Am I wrong?

 

[streamerguy]

The "exemptions" in the above quote is to not allow a stocking of a Class A stream that has a population comprised of wild brook trout. The word "exemption" refers to the policy of not stocking Class A's. At least they didn't pull the plug completely on native brook trout.

Though, they are indeed proposing granting an exemption for Salt Run. It has brook trout, and they wish to continue to stock it.....which goes against their guideline. Salt Run should not/does not qualify for an exemption, per their guideline. But here we are.

The plug is being pulled. Hopefully not completely, it sure is going in that direction if the proposal follows through.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Yea as mentioned this a real slippery slope angled in the wrong for a PFBC that is decades behind other states.

Tell friends, family or anyone who cares about these class A streams or native brook trout.

Also as I have mentioned there is a conversation that has already been started with several senators offices about stocking reform. Please take the time to call your local PA senator and congressman and if no one picks up email them. I think the simplest thing to voice as a concern to have a unified message they can do something with is the following.

we desperately need stocking reform at PA fish and boat due to the ecological harm and financial waste resulting from their hatchery program. Its seriously harming our state fish and other aquatic species of high conservation value. Many people have tried to work with PA fish and boat but at this point talks are no longer productive and we need the legislature to step in because they are not fulfilling their core duty to protect the resource.

Find Your Legislator

www.legis.state.pa.us

If their local office phone number or email not listed just google their name

 

[silverfox]

Though, they are indeed proposing granting an exemption for Salt Run. It has brook trout, and they wish to continue to stock it.....which goes against their guideline. Salt Run should not/does not qualify for an exemption, per their guideline. But here we are.

The plug is being pulled. Hopefully not completely, it sure is going in that direction if the proposal follows through.

Right. What precedence does this set? Why even bother with an exemption if you're just going to ignore it anyway.

It's a kid's derby. What message does this send to kids? Instead of teaching them it's ok to stock over class a populations, why not educate the kids on why you shouldn't need to stock over them?

I have the same issue with the trout in the classroom program. We're teaching kids that trout are raised in tanks, and then we stock them in the nearest stream. At worst, it teaches kids to dump their aquarium fish in the nearest waterway. Education and outreach should be about the resources, not reinforcing the stocking program.

 

[salmo]

I posted a comment on the proposed regulation. I suggest that all concerned do the same on the PFBC public comment section.

 

[Silent Ocelot]

Right. What precedence does this set? Why even bother with an exemption if you're just going to ignore it anyway.

It's a kid's derby. What message does this send to kids? Instead of teaching them it's ok to stock over class a populations, why not educate the kids on why you shouldn't need to stock over them?

I have the same issue with the trout in the classroom program. We're teaching kids that trout are raised in tanks, and then we stock them in the nearest stream. At worst, it teaches kids to dump their aquarium fish in the nearest waterway. Education and outreach should be about the resources, not reinforcing the stocking program.

And/or teach kids the joys of actively stalking fish by using good knowledge of a water system and effort to catch a trout, not an instant reward that can be won 10 paces from the parking lot. Teach them about the history of fish, primarily native brook trout that swam in the streams before man set foot on the continent.

 

[kbobb]

I am not familiar with the creek/area in question but isn't there a local pond/park in that area where they could have the fishing day for kids? Our community has a 1/2 acre pond in a township park and a local landowner group stocks the heck out of it once a year for the kids - they have a great time with cookout, prizes, face painting, etc. Seems like that would be a better environment for that type of activity than a creek.