PFBC staff recommended taking 63 Class B sections off the stocking list. The Commissioners, under pressure from the sportsmens clubs and state legislators, rejected it.
I've written about that on Paflyfish many times over the years.
What this shows of course is that the hangup is not PFBC staff (biologists/managers). The hangup is the Commissioners, who are heavily influenced by the sportsmens groups and the state legislators. The state legislators have control of the PFBC budget.
Looking at it from the Commissioners and the legislators perspective, they are going to represent the people they hear from. They hear from the sportsmens clubs, not very much from us.
The brookie and wild trout advocates have always talked to PFBC "staff." But not talked to the Commissioners and legislators very much, even though they are the deciders.
The sportsmens clubs talk to PFBC staff also, but they also talk to the Commissioners and their state legislators. They are representing their position in a much savvier way.
The Commissioners and legislators are not going to be impressed by "I read this research paper." What would impress them is large numbers of anglers who contact them because they are passionate about brook trout. That will not "flip" them, because they will still be hearing from the other side. But if they hear from both sides, that may give them a more balanced view.
I don't disagree with your assessment, but the issue I have is that some of the decisions shouldn't be based on human wants. I'm not advocating for brook trout simply because I want to catch more brook trout. Frankly, it is, and always will be, easier for me to drive to Maryland. There's no prospect within a shorter distance from my house in Pennsylvania than the Savage in Maryland.
So if the system is built to be influenced by people based on selfish wants, and the system supports that and maintains the status quo at the expense of native brook trout, then the system is broken. Or it was never designed properly in the first place.
The PGC is designed similarly, yet I don't see them managing everything based on what hunters want (necessarily). Our turkey season length and dates are dictated by the state turkey biologist, and despite the constant outcry by hunters to adjust the season to make it easier to harvest a gobbler in the spring, PGC doesn't do that. I happen to know the state turkey biologist, and I remember one time asking about something, and she said, "you're not going to be happy with me." I had to explain that I support the decisions of the scientists who know best, regardless of what that means to me as a hunter. So she's used to getting pushback on season and bag limits to the point she just assumes every hunter she meets hates her.
I've reached out to my commissioner. I don't think if I found 500 people who live in my district to bombard him with emails, phone calls, letters, or pounded on his door at 10 PM, he would ever change his position on stocking. He works at a co-op hatchery for fun and obviously loves to raise trout in his spare time. I've spoken to my representatives about this issue, and while they seemingly understand it, it's presented as some immovable object that will "never" change.
Regardless of whether a coalition of people could effectively lobby the right people, I think that's a terrible way to manage resources. This isn't about getting new benches installed at the local park or advocating for a new bike trail on an abandoned railroad right-of-way. These decisions need to be made by biologists and natural resource managers, not the loudest constituents in any given district.
Frankly, I think a big part of the issue is the commissioners personally like stocking and being involved in stocking and hatcheries. I get it, raising fish is probably fun. There's also the feeling of exclusivity by being involved in those activities when the plebs aren't allowed to. I just wish they'd buy an aquarium and some tropical fish and leave the wildlife management to the scientists.
