Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission looks to create premium trout fishing opportunities

[JackM]

Very few miles of Class A water or even wild trout streams are stocked. It is a bit of a non-issue by and large, and, as Maurice expressed, it is getting less and less for the reasons he gave. Don't lose your point by overstating it.

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:
Very few miles of Class A water or even wild trout streams are stocked.

Very few wild trout streams are stocked?

Do you really believe that?

Does anyone else?

 

[JackM]

I believe it and it is demonstrable.

Please note I said "miles of," so you can't point to a small Class D stream and claim the entire length as a "wild trout stream" just because for half a mile in its head waters or below a higher quality stream it has an occasional wild trout population that might be considered significant as either a recreational asset or a refuge or spawning ground.

 

[troutbert]

BrookieChaser wrote:
Maurice, when public opinion is flat out ignored and known Class A streams are stocked, despite the documented wild trout population, the decrease in stocking is happenstance, it is not a management theme.

I agree with your second paragraph. Which should be all the more reason to drasticly reduce stocking. Not push people, especially those using Special Regulation areas (those with more sporting tendencies in the grand scheme (I'm just generalizing, I couldn't think of a better way to put it)) back to the white trucks.

Stocking a few biggies in the DH area on Neshannock Creek (not on the reproduction list) does not have any impact on wild trout management.

The two things are just not related.

Take for example East Branch Hicks Run. It is a freestone stream in Elk State Forest with good water quality, fairly good physical habitat, good temps, and a population of native brook trout. Currently it is stocked and has been for a long time.

So, the question on EB Hicks is, should it be stocked, or not stocked and managed solely for wild trout?

But the issue of management of this wild trout stream has NO connection at all to the question of whether or not a few stockies should be stocked in the DH area of a non-wild trout stream like Neshannock or Oil Creeks.

Suppose the PFBC would drop this big stockies in DH areas proposal. Would that mean that stocking would end on EB Hicks Run? No, because the things are totally unrelated, not linked in any way at all.

 

[JackM]

I do not think the PFBC has any mission, under the law, to preserve any and all wild trout or even wild resources in general. In fact, its mission is more weighty to provide recreational opportunities to anglers that are sustainable, thus enters their conservation duties. If they were solely conservation oriented, they probably should not permit angling at all. They are to manage so as to conserve for the purpose of recreation, not preservation. This is my understanding. I think other agencies are charged with enforcing the preservation function, such as we saw when the Big Spring hatchery was effectively shut-down.

 

[JackM]

Troutbert, can you offer your knowledgeable opinion WHY EBHR is stocked? I have never heard of it and it certainly is not a destination stream. Though it might be if those lunker hatchery plants are made.

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:
Troutbert, can you offer your knowledgeable opinion WHY EBHR is stocked?

For the same reasons so many other streams on the wild trout list are stocked. (EB Hicks is not a special case at all, just one example.)

Because these wild trout streams have been stocked for a very long time, there are people who want to keep these wild trout streams stocked, and they are politically active to keep them stocked.

There is a very large stream mileage that is:
1) stocked
2) on the wild trout list

This can be checked. The PFBC website provides info on stocked streams. And the wild trout stream list. There is a large overlap, particularly in central and NC PA.

Is anyone adept enough at GIS to make a display of the overlap on a map?

What I wrote above is not a critique of PFBC staff. It is factual information regarding stream mileage that is: 1) stocked 2) on the wild trout list.

The question of whether the PFBC has made good efforts or not is totally separate.

IMHO, PFBC staff in NCPA has made a great deal of effort to reduce the impact on wild trout from stocking, and have made considerable progress, against VERY difficult political opposition. And have not gotten much credit for these efforts.

They have made progress. But it's like chiseling away at a very large mountain. You can move a lot of rock, but there's a whole lot still there.

 

[JackM]

I took the liberty of researching this stream and see that a good portion of it is on public land and it has a road paralleling it for nearly its whole length, none of which is Class A.

 

[BrookieChaser]

Troutbert, to answer your question in post #84, the two are not directly linked based on actions. It's thought processes I'm talking about. Another generation, or more of this generation, of anglers reliant on white trucks. Therefore pulling the the political strings of those you mentioned fighting against ceasing stocking.

Jack, the mission statement says "to conserve and protect aquatic environments and their inhabitants" (paraphrasing from memory). Also the trout management plan had a slogan of "Resource First". Now I know it's a business, and ecology gets kicked aside for politics. But we will never get anywhere bowing to those who are the reason we, as a state, can't have nice things.

 

[JackM]

Title 58 Recreation...
Chapter 57...

57.1 It will be the policy of the Commission to protect, conserve and enhance the quality and diversity of the fishery resource of this Commonwealth including reptiles and amphibians and to provide continued and varied angling opportunity through scientific inventory, classification and management of that resource.

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:
I took the liberty of researching this stream and see that a good portion of it is on public land and it has a road paralleling it for nearly its whole length, none of which is Class A.

Got point?

You wrote: "Very few miles of Class A water or even wild trout streams are stocked."

I pointed out that the second part of that statement is wrong. A very LARGE mileage of wild trout streams are stocked.

And that can be verified with the stocking list and the wild trout list information on the PFBC website.

Do you still stand by your claim that very few miles of wild trout streams are stocked?

 

[BrookieChaser]

JackM wrote:
I do not think the PFBC has any mission, under the law, to preserve any and all wild trout or even wild resources in general. In fact, its mission is more weighty to provide recreational opportunities to anglers that are sustainable, thus enters their conservation duties. If they were solely conservation oriented, they probably should not permit angling at all. They are to manage so as to conserve for the purpose of recreation, not preservation. This is my understanding. I think other agencies are charged with enforcing the preservation function, such as we saw when the Big Spring hatchery was effectively shut-down.

You're confusing conservationists and environmentalists first of all.
We obviously see the mission of agency different. I see it as the people responsible for the sustainability, protection, and enhancement, of our aquatic inhabitants, amphibians, and reptiles. While monitoring their wise use to continue their survival for future generations.
You see it as the people that bring you fish, and tell you what the rules are.

Title 58 Recreation...
Chapter 57...

57.1 It will be the policy of the Commission to protect, conserve and enhance the quality and diversity of the fishery resource of this Commonwealth including reptiles and amphibians and to provide continued and varied angling opportunity through scientific inventory, classification and management of that resource.


So a conscience decision and action (stocking known class a's as example, let alone all the other wild trout streams) that's scientifically proven to be detrimental to the resource (which include wild trout), while ignoring their own classification system, is following that mission statement?

 

[JackM]

Troutbert, I may have used inaccurate language, but just to put it in perspective, do you or anyone have a guess as to the percentage of wild trout stream mileage that is stocked by the PFBC or other entities?

 

[Acristickid]

Clearly the Commission is directing too many funds toward reptiles and amphibians. I say cut that back and direct it toward big stockies. Problem solved.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

do you or anyone have a guess as to the percentage of wild trout stream mileage that is stocked by the PFBC or other entities?

Do you have a guess as to the mileage that is not?

When you say "other entities" The mileage goes way up, that I'm sure of.

 

[JackM]

My guess would have been "not a lot (of miles are stocked)," but that has been challenged so I thought I'd ask if anyone knows the facts.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Wasn't that hard to find out:

http://fishandboat.com/pafish/trout/trout_plan/troutplan2010.pdf

Page 11
Total miles of wild trout streams; 12,824
Miles of wild trout water with no stocking:
10,406

Miles of stocked water with no reproduction:
2294

Miles of trout water stocked with reproduction:
Class B: 259
Class C: 572
Class D: 1587
Total:2418

without factoring in the stream mileage of the 10 sections of class a waters stocked by the pfbc and private entities stocking natural reproduction streams, and using the numbers above from their link (not mine)
19 percent of wild trout stream mileage is stocked. the number goes way up when you add the class a and private entities mileage.

Still a small percentage Jack? or ya still gonna shoot from the hip? ;-)

 

[troutbert]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:

Miles of stocked water with no reproduction:
2294

Miles of trout water stocked with reproduction:
Class B: 259
Class C: 572
Class D: 1587
Total:2418

without factoring in the stream mileage of the 10 sections of class a waters stocked by the pfbc and private entities stocking natural reproduction streams

Good info right there. Thanks Sal.

2418 miles is a heck of a lot.

And this does not include the stocking by the PFBC coop hatcheries, which stock a large mileage of streams that the PFBC does not stock.

The coops stock many streams that the PFBC considers too small for their own stocking. Many of these small streams are native brookie streams.

 

[JackM]

Now we have perspective. Approximately 2% of Class Bs are stocked, 10% of Class B+Cs, and 19% of everything below Class A. Oh the humanity or piscimanity.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

You should let the gubment take 19% of your pay to fund your programs too if it is so small.

As far as the 19% number. Considering co-ops, kids derbies, fishing clubs and private land owners 35% is a more likely number.