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

[troutbert]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:

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?[/quote]

Agreed. PFBC staff tried to take a large number of Class Bs (about 63) off the stocking list in 2003, and got beat back politically.

We should be supporting the PFBC staff on this.

It's disappointing to see some people on paflyfish taking the opposing position.

 

[double00]

This thread has taken an interesting turn and its prompted me to took a look back at how many stocked trout I've found in non/ATW wild trout waters in North Central PA in recent years.

FWIW: I've found stocked trout, mainly brookies and a few browns, in 8 different non ATW wild trout waters out of about 23 or so different non ATW wild trout waters I've fished this summer or last. Three of these were in streams/stream sections listed as class B and three were found in Class A sections, the others were run of the mill wild trout waters whose classification I don't know.

Of these eight, three (1 Class B, 2 unkown class) were stocked by private clubs or groups for sure (I know the organizations/people in them).

Of the other five, (3 class A, 1 class B, 1 unknown class) all fish came from stream sections relatively nearby camps. Of course, there is always the chance that these fish came in from adjacent stocked waters (ATW or otherwise) as well. However, of these "other five" streams, only one is adjacent to a PAFBC stocked stream. The remaining four either have no PAFBC stocked sections in their immediate watershed, or are isolated by pollution.

Not saying that any of the instances of stocking non ATW/WT streams are from CO-OP hatcheries, but they are obviously from private stockings of either clubs or individuals and the stocking of non ATW waters that hold wild trout is not all that uncommon in the areas of NC PA that I frequent.

 

[JackM]

A lot of words and phrases are being tossed around that are not precise and maybe I started that trend. So, I apologize. But, "not uncommon" and "prevalent" are widely divergent concepts. I am not advocating stocking on any waters, but realize that doing so serves a purpose, namely providing recreational angling opportunities to citizens and visitors to this Commonwealth where otherwise the trout angling value of a stream wouldn't attract more than 2% of the trout angling public, and even then, probably a fraction or even hundredth of a percent of the total trout angling hours of those who would fish these waters if unstocked.

If I wanted to fish an unstocked class A, B or C and below stream, I would have no problem finding one and I would "not be likely" to encounter another angler. This would be particularly true in the northern tier.

 

[troutbert]

double00 wrote:
This thread has taken an interesting turn and its prompted me to took a look back at how many stocked trout I've found in non/ATW wild trout waters in North Central PA in recent years.

FWIW: I've found stocked trout, mainly brookies and a few browns, in 8 different non ATW wild trout waters out of about 23 or so different non ATW wild trout waters I've fished this summer or last. Three of these were in streams/stream sections listed as class B and three were found in Class A sections, the others were run of the mill wild trout waters whose classification I don't know.

Of these eight, three (1 Class B, 2 unkown class) were stocked by private clubs or groups for sure (I know the organizations/people in them).

Of the other five, (3 class A, 1 class B, 1 unknown class) all fish came from stream sections relatively nearby camps. Of course, there is always the chance that these fish came in from adjacent stocked waters (ATW or otherwise) as well. However, of these "other five" streams, only one is adjacent to a PAFBC stocked stream. The remaining four either have no PAFBC stocked sections in their immediate watershed, or are isolated by pollution.

Not saying that any of the instances of stocking non ATW/WT streams are from CO-OP hatcheries, but they are obviously from private stockings of either clubs or individuals and the stocking of non ATW waters that hold wild trout is not all that uncommon in the areas of NC PA that I frequent.

I have also often run into stocked trout in non ATW streams. Mostly in NCPA, also in some other regions.

Just so no one misunderstands, stocking non ATW wild trout streams is not any more harmful than stocking ATW wild trout streams. The effect is the same. It's stocking over wild trout in either case.

The reason we brought this up the stocking of non ATW wild trout streams was so that people know that the number of miles of stocked wild trout streams is even larger than the number that Sal posted, 2418 miles.

That's a LOT. But the total miles of stocked wild trout waters is even more than 2418 miles.

Now that we have some idea of the extent of the problem, the question becomes what can we do about it?

The PFBC staff tried to take a whole bunch of Class Bs off the stocking list, but got beat back politically. What can flyfishers do to help?

 

[JackM]

" Now that we have some idea of the extent of the problem, the question becomes what can we do about it? "

What "problem"?

Isn't the problem mostly related to how prevalent the practice is? Or is?

 

[JackM]

Remember, the anglers who care are like x%.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

You were doing better when you were back pedeling.

 

[JackM]

Let me just say that declaring victory is unbecoming. I have not back pedaled, but I have had to clarify myself to keep you from nitpicking to support your otherwise difficult to support attitude.

Here's a revelation, 50 times as many anglers who buy permits probably think you are wack.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

now your just being insulting Jack. No need for that.

declaring victory? You spend too much time arguing on the internet. However you made this corner yourself with ridiculous statements.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

i will add that after seeing the co op numbers, im fairly certain that the percentage of documented wild trout mileage that is stocked is above 40% when all other entities are included.

do i think class d should be stocked, probably

Class a b or c? Not unless it keeps the land open.

But we were not discussing this or if i have an attitude or if im "wack". We were discussing frequency and facts.

I provided those. Sorry you are upset now

 

[JackM]

I am not upset in the least, but I am certainly left in doubt as to your creative mathematics and also your paranoia.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

:lol: demonize me if you feel it makes your case stronger but you have the report just like i do.

 

[JackM]

I see no reason to demonize you. You are no different than anyone else that wants to promote their own interests. I am just trying to make sure everyone recognizes there are interests beyond their own. Frankly, nothing in your posts suggest you appreciate that undeniable fact. I think I do and I think my posts show that. Get thee behind me!

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

ah i see.

In all honesty i hardly fish for trout anymore. More warm and saltwater. I do buy a trout stamp that helps support a resource that i do not utilize. I admitted stocking has its place.

I find the comments in your past 3 posts or so contridict what your last post was trying to convey. I also find it funny coming from a guy that is in a region dependant on stocking for trout fishing.

Again i presented facts against your far fetched claims and you didnt like the results. Again since i dont utilize trout much now im not advocating for my own interests, but if you think doing so is wrong i expect to see a trump sticker on a car next to the yough.

 

[JackM]

Sal, I credited your statistics but not, and still do not, credit your interpretations. And so you don't credit mine, but many posts ago, I essentially said, let the data speak for itself. And it does, and if you feel it supports your view of how extensive and detrimental the stocking regime is, then by all means, advocate against it, but do not mislead the people you hope to persuade.,

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

as your rarely happens comment did:lol:

 

[troutbert]

Very few people live in New York City.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

well you could interpt that as very few people "truely live" in nyc ;-)