PA Opening Day plans

[HopBack]

Hahaha, very impressive. I did too, but it was Donatello, and my Grandmother was the seamstress.

I also had Rafael 🤣

 

[JerryC]

Not going anywhere on opening day. When I was younger my buddy and I would go out on opening day. Anywhere but a stocked trout stream. Usually we would hit the Delaware or one of the local lakes that hadn't been stocked with trout. If I were going out I'd go to Valley Creek. I did that a few years and there weren't a whole lot of people there. I think it's suppose to rain Saturday. I think I'll go to the casino.

 

[sarce]

MD opened this past Saturday. I don't place any meaning on the day, but I hope those who got out had a good time. The weather wasn't great. I met up with a friend on a wild trout stream and we didn't see anyone else. We caught about a dozen wild browns combined. I appreciate those stocked trout drawing attention away from our spot for a weekend. It's unusual to have the place to ourselves in spring.

 

[Frederick V. C.]

If the weather is good I might take the Kayak to my local lake. The gills and perch are finally starting to bite and hopefully the crappie will start to come in soon. That said, a heavy downpour before and during would be fine by me.

 

[Mike]

Why speculate about economic impact, how many trout are harvested, how many are released, etc when the answers are at your fingertips? As for the economic impact, just estimate it by adjusting the economic impact upward by the rate of inflation from 2006 until 2023, which would make the economic impact of the 2023 stocked trout program in streams about $93 million in the first eight weeks of the season. Given that the trout cost about $3 each to raise and deliver, the cost of the program will be approximately $10 million.

Fishsticks, with that cost/benefit ratio, it’s no wonder Pa politicians like the program. The 6% sales tax on the vast majority of this goes into the Pa general fund. The sales tax does not go to the PFBC, but if the legislators sometimes feel a bit generous, who could blame them for occasionally helping out with some dam repairs, etc.?

If individuals here want more details just enter the title in a search engine. I can tell you that the two of thirty streams in the study that my staff and I surveyed were the urban section of the Jordan Ck, Lehigh Co, and a Suburban section ( rural residential/agriculture) of Hokendauqua Ck, Northampton Co.

Stocked Trout Stream Angler Use, Trout Catch, & Economic Contribution
in Pennsylvania
Executive Summary
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission’s adult trout-stocking
program provides trout angling opportunities over a broad range of
streams across the state. There were 1,856,500 adult trout stocked in
1,082 stream sections prior to the opening day in 2005; an additional
1,478,800 trout were stocked after the opening day through the end of
May2005. Angler surveys were conducted during the spring of 2005 to
quantify use and harvest statistics from a group of 30 randomly
selected trout stocked stream sections that were representative of
trout stocked streams statewide. Information collected from these
surveys was expanded to estimate total stocked trout stream angler
trips; numbers of trout caught, harvested, and released on all stocked
trout streams statewide. In addition, information was also collected
to assess the economic contribution of stocked trout stream angling in
Pennsylvania. The survey was designed to provide an estimate of
fishery statistics and the economic contribution of trout fishing for
two periods, the opening weekend of season (April 16-17, 2005) and the
remainder of the spring sample period (April 18 – June 12, 2005).
An estimated 2,124,821 angler trips were made on Pennsylvania’s
stocked trout streams during the first eight weeks of the regular
trout season (April 16 –June 12, 2005). Approximately 21.3% of the
angler trips (452,220 trips) to stocked trout streams were made during
the opening weekend of regular trout season. Angler effort was
estimated at 171.9 angler hours per day per mile of stream on opening
weekend and 16.8 angler hours per day per mile of stream for the
remainder of the survey period after opening weekend. Angler catch
rates exceeded 1.0 trout/hour during both opening weekend (1.07/hr)
and for the remainder of the survey period after opening weekend
(1.13/hr). Anglers caught an estimated total of 6,770,094 trout on
stocked trout streams during the spring of 2005. Approximately 25.8%
of the total catch (1,745,373 trout) occurred on opening weekend.
Anglers released 63.1% (4,272,571 trout) of the trout caught on
stocked trout streams over the course of the study period. The
estimate of trout caught is more than 1.5 times the number of adult
trout stocked; there are at least two contributions to this effect.
Based on the 63% release rate, there appears to be a high level of
recycling of stocked trout. Also, there are wild trout in about 50% of
the streams stocked with trout that would also contribute to the trout
catch.
Based on the results of this study angling on stocked trout
streams contributed over 65.7 million dollars to Pennsylvania’s
economy during the first eight weeks of the regular trout season in
2005. Angling on stocked trout streams also supported 1,119 jobs in
Pennsylvania. An economic assessment of stocked trout fishing on
lakes has not yet been conducted but Pennsylvania stocks about 20% of
its adult trout into lakes each

 

[Dan_r]

Kid is just old enough to be excited about it now. He had a blast on M.Y. day, so we will be out on a local put-and-take stream on Saturday catching some lunch. I'm hoping he takes to the sport, so I'll encourage it however I can.

 

[6xAdams(Jones)]

I'll be doing anything other than partaking in the madness. In the last 35 years, think I did one when I was just getting the nephews started fishing.

Plus, think I'm scheduled to wear the easter bunny torture suit for kids to get photos this weekend. 40 minutes in that suit and you are ready to pass out.

Just don't remove the head while the kids are around.

 

[silverfox]

Why speculate about economic impact, how many trout are harvested, how many are released, etc when the answers are at your fingertips? As for the economic impact, just estimate it by adjusting the economic impact upward by the rate of inflation from 2006 until 2023, which would make the economic impact of the 2023 stocked trout program in streams about $93 million in the first eight weeks of the season. Given that the trout cost about $3 each to raise and deliver, the cost of the program will be approximately $10 million.

Fishsticks, with that cost/benefit ratio, it’s no wonder Pa politicians like the program. The 6% sales tax on the vast majority of this goes into the Pa general fund. The sales tax does not go to the PFBC, but if the legislators sometimes feel a bit generous, who could blame them for occasionally helping out with some dam repairs, etc.?

If individuals here want more details just enter the title in a search engine. I can tell you that the two of thirty streams in the study that my staff and I surveyed were the urban section of the Jordan Ck, Lehigh Co, and a Suburban section ( rural residential/agriculture) of Hokendauqua Ck, Northampton Co.

Stocked Trout Stream Angler Use, Trout Catch, & Economic Contribution
in Pennsylvania
Executive Summary
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission’s adult trout-stocking
program provides trout angling opportunities over a broad range of
streams across the state. There were 1,856,500 adult trout stocked in
1,082 stream sections prior to the opening day in 2005; an additional
1,478,800 trout were stocked after the opening day through the end of
May2005. Angler surveys were conducted during the spring of 2005 to
quantify use and harvest statistics from a group of 30 randomly
selected trout stocked stream sections that were representative of
trout stocked streams statewide. Information collected from these
surveys was expanded to estimate total stocked trout stream angler
trips; numbers of trout caught, harvested, and released on all stocked
trout streams statewide. In addition, information was also collected
to assess the economic contribution of stocked trout stream angling in
Pennsylvania. The survey was designed to provide an estimate of
fishery statistics and the economic contribution of trout fishing for
two periods, the opening weekend of season (April 16-17, 2005) and the
remainder of the spring sample period (April 18 – June 12, 2005).
An estimated 2,124,821 angler trips were made on Pennsylvania’s
stocked trout streams during the first eight weeks of the regular
trout season (April 16 –June 12, 2005). Approximately 21.3% of the
angler trips (452,220 trips) to stocked trout streams were made during
the opening weekend of regular trout season. Angler effort was
estimated at 171.9 angler hours per day per mile of stream on opening
weekend and 16.8 angler hours per day per mile of stream for the
remainder of the survey period after opening weekend. Angler catch
rates exceeded 1.0 trout/hour during both opening weekend (1.07/hr)
and for the remainder of the survey period after opening weekend
(1.13/hr). Anglers caught an estimated total of 6,770,094 trout on
stocked trout streams during the spring of 2005. Approximately 25.8%
of the total catch (1,745,373 trout) occurred on opening weekend.
Anglers released 63.1% (4,272,571 trout) of the trout caught on
stocked trout streams over the course of the study period. The
estimate of trout caught is more than 1.5 times the number of adult
trout stocked; there are at least two contributions to this effect.
Based on the 63% release rate, there appears to be a high level of
recycling of stocked trout. Also, there are wild trout in about 50% of
the streams stocked with trout that would also contribute to the trout
catch.
Based on the results of this study angling on stocked trout
streams contributed over 65.7 million dollars to Pennsylvania’s
economy during the first eight weeks of the regular trout season in
2005. Angling on stocked trout streams also supported 1,119 jobs in
Pennsylvania. An economic assessment of stocked trout fishing on
lakes has not yet been conducted but Pennsylvania stocks about 20% of
its adult trout into lakes each

I don't broadly hate the stocking program in its entirety. My issue is the stocking in 1,268.65 miles of native brook trout streams. Until that changes, I'm refusing to buy a PA license, fish in PA, or promote PA fishing in any way shape, or form.

 

[tomgamber]

So if there isn't stocked water, people will just harvest wild fish. Other marginal water will be devoid of trout. I agree, that they shouldn't stock over wild fish but like others on this board who share that opinion, I'm in the minority. I'm also not such an elitist that I feel other should be restricted in their enjoyment because of my beliefs.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Why speculate about economic impact, how many trout are harvested, how many are released, etc when the answers are at your fingertips? As for the economic impact, just estimate it by adjusting the economic impact upward by the rate of inflation from 2006 until 2023, which would make the economic impact of the 2023 stocked trout program in streams about $93 million in the first eight weeks of the season. Given that the trout cost about $3 each to raise and deliver, the cost of the program will be approximately $10 million.

Fishsticks, with that cost/benefit ratio, it’s no wonder Pa politicians like the program. The 6% sales tax on the vast majority of this goes into the Pa general fund. The sales tax does not go to the PFBC, but if the legislators sometimes feel a bit generous, who could blame them for occasionally helping out with some dam repairs, etc.?

If individuals here want more details just enter the title in a search engine. I can tell you that the two of thirty streams in the study that my staff and I surveyed were the urban section of the Jordan Ck, Lehigh Co, and a Suburban section ( rural residential/agriculture) of Hokendauqua Ck, Northampton Co.

Stocked Trout Stream Angler Use, Trout Catch, & Economic Contribution
in Pennsylvania
Executive Summary
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission’s adult trout-stocking
program provides trout angling opportunities over a broad range of
streams across the state. There were 1,856,500 adult trout stocked in
1,082 stream sections prior to the opening day in 2005; an additional
1,478,800 trout were stocked after the opening day through the end of
May2005. Angler surveys were conducted during the spring of 2005 to
quantify use and harvest statistics from a group of 30 randomly
selected trout stocked stream sections that were representative of
trout stocked streams statewide. Information collected from these
surveys was expanded to estimate total stocked trout stream angler
trips; numbers of trout caught, harvested, and released on all stocked
trout streams statewide. In addition, information was also collected
to assess the economic contribution of stocked trout stream angling in
Pennsylvania. The survey was designed to provide an estimate of
fishery statistics and the economic contribution of trout fishing for
two periods, the opening weekend of season (April 16-17, 2005) and the
remainder of the spring sample period (April 18 – June 12, 2005).
An estimated 2,124,821 angler trips were made on Pennsylvania’s
stocked trout streams during the first eight weeks of the regular
trout season (April 16 –June 12, 2005). Approximately 21.3% of the
angler trips (452,220 trips) to stocked trout streams were made during
the opening weekend of regular trout season. Angler effort was
estimated at 171.9 angler hours per day per mile of stream on opening
weekend and 16.8 angler hours per day per mile of stream for the
remainder of the survey period after opening weekend. Angler catch
rates exceeded 1.0 trout/hour during both opening weekend (1.07/hr)
and for the remainder of the survey period after opening weekend
(1.13/hr). Anglers caught an estimated total of 6,770,094 trout on
stocked trout streams during the spring of 2005. Approximately 25.8%
of the total catch (1,745,373 trout) occurred on opening weekend.
Anglers released 63.1% (4,272,571 trout) of the trout caught on
stocked trout streams over the course of the study period. The
estimate of trout caught is more than 1.5 times the number of adult
trout stocked; there are at least two contributions to this effect.
Based on the 63% release rate, there appears to be a high level of
recycling of stocked trout. Also, there are wild trout in about 50% of
the streams stocked with trout that would also contribute to the trout
catch.
Based on the results of this study angling on stocked trout
streams contributed over 65.7 million dollars to Pennsylvania’s
economy during the first eight weeks of the regular trout season in
2005. Angling on stocked trout streams also supported 1,119 jobs in
Pennsylvania. An economic assessment of stocked trout fishing on
lakes has not yet been conducted but Pennsylvania stocks about 20% of
its adult trout into lakes each

Mike, first: how are you getting 10 million for the trout hatchery program? A 2009 report had it at nearly 13 million. With inflation id guess that has gone up several million dollars at a minimum from almost 15 years ago.

Second, 50% of streams had wild trout so if stocking stops your not losing all that angler effort so ya ‘t attribute the whole number, cause and effect, to stocked trout unless of course you think fishing would cease to exist without stocking.

Third, your statement ignores the fact that the 2017 smeal college of business analysis was triggered by the threat of insolvency and recommended they cut hatcheries and fish because costs were rising faster than revenues. So your impact study is a snap shot in time, people are getting proced out of fishing licenses with these increases i am seeing it on social media and in fact the business report predicted dropout with increases. So what happens when they max out their revenue from increases due to drop out. Should the tax payers keep giving around $25 million dollars every time hatcheries need repair or the “great” white fleet needs to be repaired? Its funny we are talking about economics and ignoring the business analysis of the agency itself and instead looking at something that associates any economic activity associated with fishing with stocking.

And thats ALL just fiscal, you have the fact that invasive species not only cause 120 billion a year annually in environmental damage, are responsible for 70% of aquatic invasive extinctions this century, and are a significant cause of decline of 42% of species on the IUCN Red List globally. And oh by the way brown trouts only top 30 worst out of 4-5k invasive species and rainbow trouts top 100. Wheres the data on how many conservation dollars we are spending to mitigate the damage their causing at ecosystem level?

If politicians feeling a little generous think they should still fund that mike???

 

[silverfox]

So if there isn't stocked water, people will just harvest wild fish. Other marginal water will be devoid of trout. I agree, that they shouldn't stock over wild fish but like others on this board who share that opinion, I'm in the minority. I'm also not such an elitist that I feel other should be restricted in their enjoyment because of my beliefs.

I'm not sure if this is directed at me or not. Regardless, to clarify, my concern is not due to some selfish want, or "elitism." I'm concerned about the well-being and future of our state fish. We know stocking over brook trout is bad, so this isn't about what I (or anyone else who agrees) "wants" or what one group wants vs. what another group wants.

 

[pcray1231]

Will just say I do not advocate the end of the stocking program altogether, or even a massive reduction in it. There are just so many streams that are not viable wild trout streams, yet represent a massive recreational fishery.

I think we should stop stocking over Class C and above wild populations. I think we should not stock brook trout, period, and make brookies C&R statewide, even if mainly for the educational aspect of it rather than expecting a direct effect. Make it clear they are here and valued, instill that value into people. And perhaps most importantly, I think most of the PFBC's public relations efforts should aim to draw attention away from and diminish fishing for stocked trout. It's supplemental in nature, not the main draw. And highlight all of the wild trout opportunities.

 

[jifigz]

I don't broadly hate the stocking program in its entirety. My issue is the stocking in 1,268.65 miles of native brook trout streams. Until that changes, I'm refusing to buy a PA license, fish in PA, or promote PA fishing in any way shape, or form.

What percentage is this of the overall PA state stream mileage for wild brook trout?

 

[Fish Sticks]

So if there isn't stocked water, people will just harvest wild fish. Other marginal water will be devoid of trout. I agree, that they shouldn't stock over wild fish but like others on this board who share that opinion, I'm in the minority. I'm also not such an elitist that I feel other should be restricted in their enjoyment because of my beliefs.

I don’t think being against the spread of invasive species is elitism. I think causing and accelerating the decline of native brook trout, hellbenders, darters, and many other native fish species for a sport that is NOT entirely dependent on stocking invasive species is actually very selfish.

 

[silverfox]

What percentage is this of the overall PA state stream mileage for wild brook trout?

About 25% assuming the numbers are correct, and we're not counting waters that might have brook trout in them seasonally (winter-spring). This also includes streams with mixed populations. There are 1,700 miles of streams where brook trout are the only salmonid species. So we stock over darn near as many brook trout populations as we have allopatric populations. Again, assuming the 1,700 miles of allopatric streams is correct.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Will just say I do not advocate the end of the stocking program altogether, or even a massive reduction in it. There are just so many streams that are not viable wild trout streams, yet represent a massive recreational fishery.

I think we should stop stocking over Class C and above wild populations. I think we should not stock brook trout, period, and make brookies C&R statewide, even if mainly for the educational aspect of it rather than expecting a direct effect. Make it clear they are here and valued, instill that value into people. And perhaps most importantly, I think most of the PFBC's public relations efforts should aim to draw attention away from and diminish fishing for stocked trout. It's supplemental in nature, not the main draw. And highlight all of the wild trout opportunities.

I agree those would be some good first steps. The only issue is these things are huge issues for hellbenders in too so your looking at large scale reductions to eliminate those harms as well. And then there are log perch, the decisions there are study it or stop now thats only 3 streams roughly but then you have darters in WV they found harm to endangered candy darter and guyandotte crayfish. We haven’t studied the effects in the heavily stocked French creek watershed with 6 listed darters, again a study it or stop it scenario. I talk about brook trout a lot but in reality these things are invasive species and are going to harm biodiversity in many places

 

[Fish Sticks]

Another thing we need to ditch is that trout must be unlimited to have a sport. This is a conditioned social behavior and would be like starving to death sitting in-front of to a BLT because you were on a Pizza kick recently and refused to eat what’s available. Its all just learned behavior, not the end of days for fishing if a stream does not contain trout.

 

[flyguyfishing]

I don't broadly hate the stocking program in its entirety. My issue is the stocking in 1,268.65 miles of native brook trout streams. Until that changes, I'm refusing to buy a PA license, fish in PA, or promote PA fishing in any way shape, or form.

If ya don’t fish in PA, why post on a PA fly fishing forum? Why post in a thread about opening day fishing plans?

 

[silverfox]

If ya don’t fish in PA, why post on a PA fly fishing forum? Why post in a thread about opening day fishing plans?

I've been given the excuse for years that taking stocked trout out of brook trout streams would result in a loss of license sales. I decided this year to use the same logic, and my answer to my opening day fishing plans is that I'm not fishing in PA. Why didn't you question the other people who said they aren't fishing on opening day?

 

[Mike]

My $10 million estimate came from the approximate avg cost of a stocked adult trout including delivery being about $3 using round numbers. Even at $4 if inflation has really taken its toll over the past 10 yrs or so you’re looking at a $12.8 million price tag with a $93 million economic impact, which would still be a good cost/benefit ratio. Perhaps PSU considered the co-op fish as part of the cost. I did not since in my mind that is a separate program. Likewise, they may have considered the cost of the fingerling stocking program, which again is a separate program in my view. In reality, when most people talk about the trout stocking program in Pa, they are usually speaking about the 3.2 million state stocked adult trout.

As for the hellbenders, I am still not buying that argument entirely until it it is shown that there is a negative impact at the population level. That means a stream study. What the stocked trout in hellbender streams are really eating to my knowledge has not been answered. Likewise the estimated impact at the population level in such streams. As previously stated, what I have been told is the best hellbender research sampling site on Kettle Ck also happens to be one of the major stocking points for PFBC trout and club trout.

As for Chesapeake Logperch, to my knowledge there are no actual data on trout consuming C logperch, let alone a population impact. What we do know is that the best populations exist among Class C or Class B wild Brown Trout populations in unstocked streams. Furthermore, the way of describing the stocking that occurs in streams with C Logperch is that one population is within at least part of a stocked trout section. The other logperch populations are removed to well-removed from the stocked trout sections. In one case the distance is around 5 miles. In the other case, if it is the stream about which I am thinking, there was at least one intentional introduction of C Logperch into a stream where no natural population occurred. This suggests to me that the concern over trout being stocked in the stream’s tribs was minimal.