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

[troutbert]

I cannot emphasize enough that failure to enact stocking reform is not due to lack of civil communication with the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Comission

When you say you are communicating with the PFBC are you referring to fisheries staff, or the Commissioners?

 

[silverfox]

When you say you are communicating with the PFBC are you referring to fisheries staff, or the Commissioners?

All of the above. I tried for years, and I'm at the point where I more or less don't care anymore. It's worth mentioning that I've had great conversations with many PFBC folks. All of which has led to essentially absolutely nothing.

 

[Fish Sticks]

AFM, commissioner, biologists, state ichthyologist, multiple commissioners, marketing/media personnel, secretary to comissioner, WCO’s, invasive species coordinator, non biologist field staff, head of fisheries bureau, individual hatchery workers, I even talked with the custodian of the Harrisburg oPFBC office for 10 minutes before a presentation i gave earlier today this fall.

 

[troutbert]

state ichthyologist,

Who is the "state ichthyologist?" Are they employed by the PFBC?

 

[troutbert]

All of the above. I tried for years, and I'm at the point where I more or less don't care anymore. It's worth mentioning that I've had great conversations with many PFBC folks. All of which has led to essentially absolutely nothing.

Many of us TU folks, including me, have also had many great conversations with PFBC folks over the decades. I think it has had beneficial effects.

Without TU advocating for and supporting wild trout management, I don't think Operation Future would have ever even been proposed. Without any support, they wouldn't have even tried it.

We'd still be in the same situation we were back in the 1970s and earlier.

I think the efforts of you guys are beneficial also.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Many of us TU folks, including me, have also had many great conversations with PFBC folks over the decades. I think it has had beneficial effects.

Without TU advocating for and supporting wild trout management, I don't think Operation Future would have ever even been proposed. Without any support, they wouldn't have even tried it.

We'd still be in the same situation we were back in the 1970s and earlier.

As I have said on here before PFBCs failures are not a reflection of staff’s wants, preferences, or capabilities. There are many great people at the fish commission that are kind of forced to go where ever leadership steers the comission. The issue is with leadership. After all it was staff who suggested not stocking class B’s which would have been a great starting block for further reforms and that was shot down.

 

[troutbert]

As I have said on here before PFBCs failures are not a reflection of staff’s wants, preferences, or capabilities. There are many great people at the fish commission that are kind of forced to go where ever leadership steers the comission. The issue is with leadership. After all it was staff who suggested not stocking class B’s which would have been a great starting block for further reforms and that was shot down.

By leadership, who are you referring to? The Executive Director is the leader of the PFBC.

The Class B proposal wasn't shot down by the Executive Director.

It was shot down by the Commissioners. The ED has no power over the Commissioners.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Many of us TU folks, including me, have also had many great conversations with PFBC folks over the decades. I think it has had beneficial effects.

Without TU advocating for and supporting wild trout management, I don't think Operation Future would have ever even been proposed. Without any support, they wouldn't have even tried it.

We'd still be in the same situation we were back in the 1970s and earlier.

I can’t speak for 50 years ago but what we have today is the following:

-wild native brook trout on the state wild life action plan made by PFBC listed as species of greatest conservation need.

-PFBC is technically a member of the EBTJV. They attend meetings but follow none of the science surrounding stocking/invasive species EBTJV serves as a repository and resource for.

-PFBC outlines habitat and connectivity work in their wild trout management. They do habitat work and culvert replacements where native brook trout exist then stock the invasive species that are an enormous cause of the loss of native brook trout state wide.

-if recovering americas wild life act ever passes they are going to get over 10 million projected on an annual basis to spend on species of greatest conservation need in the PA wild life action plan. But they continue to harm and threaten the future of these same species with their hatchery program. This is like giving money to general contractor who broke your house instead of fixed it.


What is described above is FRAUD


They are purposely putting forth an image they are the stewards of wild native brook trout but they are knowingly endangering the future of wild native brook trout via hatchery raised invasive species with their actions. FRAUD

To deal with waste fraud and abuse we need the legislature

 

[silverfox]

Any positive change has to come up from staff (ignoring the process of commissioners or even members of the public bringing items up for a vote), so everything starts with the staff. If staff doesn't bring things up for a vote, they don't get voted on. Whoever decides what to prioritize determines what the commissioners vote on. That process has likely been influenced by the composition of the commission board.

Therein lies the problem. If you know there won't be the votes to pass some "controversial" topic like stopping stocking over native brook trout; you don't even bring it up. So the whole system is broken when the agency won't do the things it has documented it needs to do because everybody knows it won't pass.

The fisheries managers already weigh the pros and cons of implementing regulatory changes that might negatively impact some portion of license buyers. That should be the end of it, as it is in many other states. What we have is two layers of protection against upsetting the apple cart, and one layer is comprised of people who are biased toward stocking. So nothing gets done unless it benefits the largest group of license buyers. Otherwise, only microscopic incremental changes can occur over very long timespans. So we have a system that ensures any meaningful changes in management take decades or more to occur, if at all. While other states largely do what needs to be done, and the public accepts it because there's no alternative.

The worst part about this is that some changes may only be perceived as being bad for some portion of the public. When Maryland implemented their statewide brook trout regulations, they surveyed license buyers and found that the vast majority supported C&R statewide for brook trout. In Pennsylvania, for some reason, nobody has even surveyed the public to see where people stand. It's likely assumed that such a drastic regulatory change wouldn't pass the current commission board even though nobody actually knows what the public wants or would support.

 

[silverfox]

Adding on that if Pennsylvania license buyers wouldn't support statewide C&R for brook trout as they did in Maryland, the next question should be why. For that, I'd suggest looking at how things have been run here for decades and what has been prioritized in media, education, and outreach. The public will support what you tell them to support. If you bombard them with "stocked trout are great" "look how many trout we manufacture and stock" and constant imagery of stocked trout and stocking, guess what the public is going to support and want?

So the marketing and media arm of PFBC plays a significant role in public perception of the value of different resources. Whoever dictates what they focus on is as much to blame here as the composition of the commission board.

The only way the general public would have any idea that brook trout are in trouble will be if they dig really, really deep into documents on PFBC's website. Taking that a step further, this current exemption proposal only reinforces that there's nothing wrong with stocking over brook trout. Then in the media, when I've stated the concerns about stocking over brook trout (backed up by references), the response from PFBC is, "stocking isn't limiting the brook trout population where they stock over brook trout." While that may technically be true in some cases, what it ignores is that it's certainly not helping the brook trout. It also then sends the message to the public that there's nothing wrong with stocking over brook trout.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I just want to say, Operation Future was great. No one can deny that, but yes we are in the same situation as we were then, perhaps a tad backwards too. We are proposing stock exemptions.

That was 40 years ago. The back patting for Operation Future is 30 years past.
Time to move forward and build off of it.

They have not.

 

[troutbert]

I just want to say, Operation Future was great. No one can deny that, but yes we are in the same situation as we were then, perhaps a tad backwards too.

That isn't true. The wild trout stream mileage that has been taken of the stocking list since Operation Future began is very large. Those streams miles haven't gone back on the stocking list. So, the situation is far better now than it was before Operation Future.

And this didn't all happen in the early years of Operation Future (1980s). Quite a large mileage of wild trout streams have been taken off the stocking list in more recent times. They don't brag about or publicize this, for reasons that should be obvious.

 

[silverfox]

They don't brag about or publicize this, for reasons that should be obvious.

Which is a huge mistake, in my opinion. There is a massive opportunity for education here that is purposely suppressed to avoid upsetting folks. Then we wonder why people are upset about things like Class A listings causing stockings to end.

One of the commissioners touched on this during the Freeman Run meeting. They need to educate people about the value of Class A streams, but at the same time, they need to educate people that stocking over Class A is bad. The backroom deal nonsense only ensures that people will forever be upset when a stream gets removed from the stocking schedule.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

That isn't true. The wild trout stream mileage that has been taken of the stocking list since Operation Future began is very large. Those streams miles haven't gone back on the stocking list. So, the situation is far better now than it was before Operation Future.

And this didn't all happen in the early years of Operation Future (1980s). Quite a large mileage of wild trout streams have been taken off the stocking list in more recent times. They don't brag about or publicize this, for reasons that should be obvious.

You are crediting way too much.
Stream miles have been taken off, yes. It's been great, but not all because it is poor practice to stock over wild fish. MOST NOW have to do with posting of land and angler use.

But it is now time to build off what came with that and what all evidence knows to be true.

Stocking over wild trout is poor practice and counter to their mission.

Again, we have exemptions and now a plan for another. It's backwards not forwards.

The modern stream classification system of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, including Class A Wild Trout Waters, was developed with Operation Future, which marked a transition from recreation-based management to resource-based management, in 1983. Following statewide stream surveys in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission created a set of biomass standards for trout streams in the state.

The first streams were designated as Class A Wild Trout Waters in 1983. At that time, 138 stream sections, totaling nearly 400 miles (640 km) of streams, were found to meet the criteria. As more streams were assessed, the number of Class A Wild Trout Waters grew rapidly. By 2005, there were 436 Class A Wild Trout Waters, totaling 1,265 miles (2,036 km). By the end of 2008, there were 487 such stream sections, which together included 1,436 miles (2,311 km) of streams. By 2014, there were 510 Class A Wild Trout Waters, comprising 1,490.6 miles (2,398.9 km) of streams.

This is great! Keep going!
And then.....

In the 2010s, the fact that the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission was considering adding seven urban streams to its list of Class A Wild Trout Waters—thus ending stocking there—caused some criticism by anglers who believed that this would impact the quality of fishing in heavily fished streams such as Monocacy Creek and Little Lehigh Creek. However, the criticism was not universal, with proponents pointing out that a redesignation would provide extra protection for the streams.The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission eventually decided to classify them as Class A Wild Trout Waters, but continue stocking them in the spring to satisfy angler demand.

According to Pennsylvania Outdoor News Person of the Year Bill Anderson, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission has become hesitant to classify streams as Class A Wild Trout Waters due to "'social' concerns".

Now we are going backwards

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Which is a huge mistake, in my opinion. There is a massive opportunity for education here that is purposely suppressed to avoid upsetting folks. Then we wonder why people are upset about things like Class A listings causing stockings to end.

One of the commissioners touched on this during the Freeman Run meeting. They need to educate people about the value of Class A streams, but at the same time, they need to educate people that stocking over Class A is bad. The backroom deal nonsense only ensures that people will forever be upset when a stream gets removed from the stocking schedule.

Exactly, public outreach on these topics is in stagnation or non existent.

Again backwards, not forward

 

[silverfox]

I had to write an extensive essay on Three Mile Island a while back. One of the things that stood out to me the most in that mess was the effect that regulators trying to keep information from going public had on the outcome. Ironically, the mass hysteria they were trying to prevent ended up happening anyway. Not to mention the risk they exposed the public to by keeping it under wraps should anything more serious have happened.

Public agencies have a responsibility to inform the public about their actions and the reasons behind them.

 

[krayfish2]

Brook trout are native if I'm not mistaken.

PFBC does a pretty awful job on management/ promotion / increasing wild trout fisheries. I can think of the 2 places I trout fish in PA and only 1 would require a stamp. Unfortunately, need to buy one for guiding.

 

[silverfox]

Brook trout are native if I'm not mistaken.

PFBC does a pretty awful job on management/ promotion / increasing wild trout fisheries. I can think of the 2 places I trout fish in PA and only 1 would require a stamp. Unfortunately, need to buy one for guiding.

Good thing I live 20 minutes from Maryland and theirs costs half as much.

 

[falcon]

I don't believe a stamp is required on the PA Delaware trout water but the Park Service people are a odd bunch. I get a NY license also. I think I read a stamp is required for Trout Approved Waters. What about other PA unstocked waters? Not sure.

 

[krayfish2]

A NY license would cover you to fish the entire system. Don't need a PA license but you must have one to get your yearly guide permit.

National park service requires a park permit (arrowhead sticker) to guide on the main river. Think it's around 460-ish for 2 years.