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

[salvelinusfontinalis]

But seriously, you said this Jack

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

When is actuality more stream miles of wild trout water are stocked than waters without trout. You can downplay at will now.

 

[troutbert]

2418 miles = "very few" miles.

It just depends on your definition of "very few."

 

[JackM]

Well, again with perspective. My initial statement was in response to an overstatement of stocking Class A's. So to overstate my point, I include "wild trout waters." I guess I should have known that Class D's stocked in areas of perceived demand would be included by wild-trout-huggers and chose instead to qualify my comment or my vague statement of the extent of such stockings. I got called on it, and solicited data for perspective. Now that we have perspective, I am sure we can all come to our own conclusion of how large a crisis this is.

 

[pcray1231]

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.

Well, he didn't give the total mileage of any of those classes, only all of them combined. So you can't say, from these numbers, what % of class B's, C's, etc. are stocked.

Based on those #'s:

51% of stocked trout waters also have wild trout.
19% of wild trout waters are also stocked.

^^This follows because the total number of wild trout miles far exceeds the total number of stocked trout miles.

Of that 51% of stocked trout waters which also have wild trout:

66% are class D
24% are class C
11% are class B
0% are class A

Disclaimer: I'm using the numbers above. I know that a few class A's are actually stocked, so something's wrong here. I also know that this only includes PFBC stockings, not private stockings.

My own point of view: I won't take the idealistic approach and say they should never stock a stream with wild trout. Many of those class D's are token populations only. Not capable of a real sport fishery, and not capable of improving if stocking were ended. In most cases, water temp is the limiting factor, not harvest and fishing pressure. Some may not even have wild trout all year long, but rather, only a few seasonally sourced from upstream or nearby tribs.

But, the current line is drawn between class A and B. I'd probably draw the line between C and D. Meaning that 0% of class B and C streams would be stocked, but class D's would be unchanged.

And, I think you'd find many of those streams would be viable sport fisheries (ignoring legal size limits, by the way, which is meaningless to most as most are C&R). Many already are, as soon as the opening day crowds are gone they are decent wild trout fisheries, even at a low class C. I also think you'd find that many of those are the ones that would improve in population when you end stocking. Because water temps aren't their limiting factors, and they already hold solid year round populations. In some cases it's harvest and fishing pressure limiting the wild populations. In others it's lack of structure and/or food abundance, but even then, competing against stockies for the limited resources certainly hurts the cause.

 

[PennKev]

troutbert wrote:

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.

Which co-ops are stocking streams that are not already stocked by the commission?

I recall my local co-op being told they could not do this as there was a local small steam that has very good water temps but is not an ATW, and therefore was not allowed to be stocked.

I think we had a thread discussing the activities of co-ops a while back....

 

[troutbert]

PennKev wrote:

troutbert wrote:

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.

Which co-ops are stocking streams that are not already stocked by the commission?

I recall my local co-op being told they could not do this as there was a local small steam that has very good water temps but is not an ATW, and therefore was not allowed to be stocked.

I think we had a thread discussing the activities of co-ops a while back....

The PFBC allows them to stock non ATW streams. There is no rule against that in the coop program.

 

[JackM]

Co-ops must stock waters designated by the PFBC. Something tells me they don't give permission to stock waters the commission wouldn't stock if it was up to them to do the stocking.

 

[PennKev]

Gee if there was only someone who regularly posts here and is also a PAFBC employee who could clear this up.....

 

[Gone4Day]

JackM wrote:
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.

Put another way, for all trout streams:
69% are wild
15% stocked E
10% stocked D
4% stocked C
2% stocked B
Stocked A’s are a round off error. Piscimanity in deed.

 

[pcray1231]

Which co-ops are stocking streams that are not already stocked by the commission?

Private hatcheries may be a better term than co-op. True co-ops can stock non-ATW's, but it's probably fairly rare.

But lots of private water is stocked by clubs from private hatcheries. By definition, those waters aren't stocked by the PFBC, because the PFBC does not stock private water as a matter of policy. They still need a permit from the PFBC.

Waters that aren't stocked by the state getting stocked by private hatcheries is pretty common, but most of it is posted water.

 

[Maurice]

The stocking policy for Co-ops is this...

- Prior to the stocking season Feb, Co-ops are required to turn in a schedule of proposed stockings with stream sections and allocation numbers. This informs the F&BC Cooperative Unit where the fish are going as well as the Local WCO for enforcement.

- Each stocking is reported after executed to refresh the stocking schedule submitted.

- Stocking in Class A stream sections is prohibited.

- Non-ATW stream sections are fair game unless the Cooperative Nursery Unit Recommends against a particular entry on the schedule.

- Schedules are NOT returned approved though. Its sort of a "no news is good news" thing.

- Stocking of CO-op fish must occur in waters open to the general angling public.

I am not aware of any/many streams stocked in southern York County that are not on the ATW list. There may be a small section here or there for a derby but by and large these stockings occur on ATW sections.

[edit]I will add that one small non ATW with a pretty good wild BT pop (Class B) that had been stocked for years recieved a recommendation by the CO-op unit to not stock BT there anymore. The Co-op that was stocking it after some consideration decided to discontinue stocking it all together.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

jack is on a roll of misinformation

 

[PennKev]

Actually he is spot on, at least according to a doc I dug up on the PAFBC site while board at work.

However, I reamin skeptical about rampant co-op stocking on non-ATW's and again my andectodal experience leads me to believe the commission is not very keen on co-ops dumping fish in random off-beat streams.

I remain unconvinced that co-ops are much threat to our wild trout streams and do not do much to add to the number of good wild trout streams recieving stocking.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I wouldn't consider it rampant either. I do know of a co-op here that stocks a non approved trout water. I know of another that stocks a good wild trout stream it happens. And yes Jack was wrong on both accounts.

I suggested that the pfbc, co-ops, private stockings and derbies do stock wild trout streams much more than the 19% number. I can think of 4 derbies without much thought that combined stock more than 2 miles of class a water.
It happens more than you may believe. I also think the breakdown of biomass on streams stocked is rather inaccurate being that a biomass in streams in pa fluctuate greatly.

I never suggested co-ops alone stock a ton of wild trout streams but the combination of all entires together do.

 

[Maurice]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:

I wouldn't consider it rampant either. I do know of a co-op here that stocks a non approved trout water. I know of another that stocks a good wild trout stream it happens. And yes Jack was wrong on both accounts.

I suggested that the pfbc, co-ops, private stockings and derbies do stock wild trout streams much more than the 19% number. I can think of 4 derbies without much thought that combined stock more than 2 miles of class a water.
It happens more than you may believe. I also think the breakdown of biomass on streams stocked is rather inaccurate being that a biomass in streams in pa fluctuate greatly.

I never suggested co-ops alone stock a ton of wild trout streams but the combination of all entires together do.

4 derbies stock more than 2 miles of Class A water? Wow, thats a pretty big claim. You should be all up in their faces over that. I mean derbies rarely extend more than a few hundred feet like the one at Letort Run park.

And I might add, make little difference to the overall stream impact. Care to share these 2 miles of water specifically and who is stocking them. It would be good information for the commission to know too.

And Oh yeah, Jack was wrong, I believe twice.

 

[JackM]

Maurice wrote:

And Oh yeah, Jack was wrong, I believe twice.

Again with the overstatements, yoy!

 

[troutbert]

Stocking of non-ATW streams by coops is common in northern PA.

As we've said, the PFBC coop program does not have a rule against that.

 

[troutbert]

Regarding the overall impact of the coops, I think it is pretty significant.

The PFBC said in 2015 it planned to 3,197,700 trout. And gives the coops number as 1,000,000 trout. So the coops are producing about 1/4 of the total hatchery trout.

As Sal's numbers showed, with the PFBC stockings, over 50% of stream mileage they are stock is wild trout water.

With the coops that percentage is surely much greater than 50%. Think about the coops in the Big Woods region of northcentral PA The great majority of the stream mileage they stock holds wild trout. And nearly all of that water holds brook trout. Even in the freestoner mileage that holds predominately brown trout, there are still brook trout.

The significance of stocking over brook trout is that they are the native trout, of course. But also that their populations are impacted by stocking much more so than brown trout.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Using the same link I posted before.... Pages 30-31

Many Class B, C, and D waters are not stocked with trout and are not subject to the stressors associated with heavy angling activity. As confirmed by the results from the 2004 Angler Use, Harvest and Economic Assessment on Wild Trout Streams in Pennsylvania, angler use and harvest tends to be low on most wild trout streams (Greene et al. 2005). However, a total of 557 Class B, C, and D stream sections that support wild trout populations are stocked with adult trout by the PFBC. In addition, over 600 waters, many of which are Class B, C and D wild trout waters, are stocked with trout through the Cooperative Nursery Program (CNP). The CNP is a cooperative effort between the PFBC and the sportsmen of Pennsylvania to

So 19% goes to 38% because the co op stocking virtually doubles the amount of stocked wild trout streams. Now add in class a mileage, private party stockings and fish derbies.

As far as my last comment,
The Lackawanna river has 3 sportsmans clubs that stock for derbies, letort, wyomissing, monocacy, kish, fishing..... It's a pretty big list.
Oh don't forget adult tagged fish derbies. Already complained Maurice. Whom do you think issues the permits? The PFBC. The May claim they only stock those select 10 sections or whatever of class a water, but they do allow many more to be stocked by private entities.

I do agree that it is a non issue on many waters, the sky is not falling but it is an issue on some. Still, what is the point of making a policy if you only follow it sometimes, or if ya wanna...

But ya know, it never or rarely happens anyways :lol:

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

1. Provide increased fishing opportunities for public angling. 2. Provide sporting groups with an educational opportunity in culturing fish. 3. Promote public involvement in PFBC programs. 4. Increase PFBC involvement in local group fishing interests. 5. Support local groups’ initiatives to provide fish for special events. The PFBC’s, Cooperative Nursery Unit (CNU) supports 151 sponsors who manage 168 hatcheries in 49 counties throughout the Commonwealth. Combined, these nurseries receive approximately 1.2 million, four to six inch brook, brown, rainbow, and golden rainbow fingerling trout from the Benner Spring, Corry, Huntsdale, Oswayo, and Reynoldsdale State Fish Hatcheries (SFH). One sponsor in Erie County receives steelhead eggs from Tionesta SFH, while another one receives steelhead fingerlings from Tionesta SFH. Participants in the CPN annually stock an average 1million catchable adult trout (25% of state total) and 100,000 steelhead smolts (10% of state total) for the anglers of Pennsylvania. In addition, two sponsors in Erie County are raising brown trout to contribute to the PFBC’s newly developed program to establish a near shore brown trout fishery in Lake Erie. The combination of attracting high numbers of anglers through stocking, and the competition with hatchery trout may suppress the potential to expand wild trout populations on some of these waters. This is of particular concern on the Class B waters. Phasing out all stocking on these streams is an approach that should be explored in an attempt to improve wild trout populations on them to Class A levels.

The pfbc recognizes it's an issue. Shouldn't we?