Pennsylvania's Biggest Fishery Blunders

[5footfenwick]

It is stocked with warm-fish?? I always thought it was a small brookie stream. Obviously I have never fished it.

I’ve caught those species I listed in good quantity’s fairly recently. And on multiple trips multiple years. They have to be stocked. They aren’t just washed out of a farm pond. Small brookie streams don’t give up multiple largemouth and multiple bluegills and multiple bullheads and multiple channel catfish from the same hole. Let alone multiple holes like this.

 

[The Rodfather]

In my mind, PFBC enacting species specific protections for Brown Trout but not for the Brook Trout is a huge blunder.

 

[bringthepain]

I feel that man. You should ask yourself why, after many possibilities, this has never been done

They clearly don't want to do it

 

[joebamboo]

Allowing TU anywhere near a stream!!!!!!

 

[salmonoid]

I'll give another which would be number 2 on my list. Not caused by fisheries mismanagement from the PFBC but rather life and progress. Shad.

Pennsylvania's Shad runs are well documented through history. Would have been an anglers paradise.

Here is a unique piece of history about the Pennsylvania Shad run many don't know. Pretty entertaining read. In the end of it, the PFBC tried to help the Shad but they were doomed to fail considering all the factors against them.

RW Fish Wars on the Schuylkill • The Goschenhoppen Historians

Fish Wars on the Schuylkill Robert Wood From the earliest times the Schuylkill and its tributaries were noted for their abundance of fish. Fresh fish from local creeks would have been a welcome addition to the diets of early settlers in the region. In addition to the resident populations of...

goschenhoppen.org

PFBC (or it's predecessor) was created because of the decline of shad... Restoring and maintaining native populations of fish is a good thing. PFBC ability to do that with shad has been an utter failure, for the length of the agency's existence. But they have a lot stacked against them, in trying to restore shad. I'd be happy if the PFBC stuck with restoring and maintaining native populations of fish.

 

[rustbeltwilds]

Kokanee salmon project....it was mismanaged..they are plankton feeders and require pretty slim barriers...if more effort was put into the lakes they introduced them to. ..or i can name 2 lakes in sw pa that would prob work bettwr than the disbanded lakes in ne pa thy tried

 

[Tabasco-Joe]

PFBC (or it's predecessor) was created because of the decline of shad... Restoring and maintaining native populations of fish is a good thing. PFBC ability to do that with shad has been an utter failure, for the length of the agency's existence. But they have a lot stacked against them, in trying to restore shad. I'd be happy if the PFBC stuck with restoring and maintaining native populations of fish.

I think it should depend on the stream and the watershed. Some streams have been altered to the point that no amount of work is going to restore native populations. In these cases, efforts should be around water quality and introducing gamefish that will thrive under current conditions. In some cases, even that may not be feasible.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Allowing TU anywhere near a stream!!!!!!

I'm curious what makes you say this.
I can think of many watersheds that benefited from TUs involvement.

 

[KeviR]

Allowing TU anywhere near a stream!!!!!!

Joe, why do you say that? I am active with Bucks County TU and we have re-introduced brook trout to a SEPA stream that hasn't had any trout in 30 years and probably hasn't had brook trout in over 100 years. We re-introduced brook trout (only) in 2017 and we are trying/planning/working to keep it that way. It's a tiny stream, but it's something we are rightfully proud of.

 

[joebamboo]

I have never been a fan of TU. Pushing that nonsense that only Brook Trout should be protected. Stream improvements that are everything but. The Yellow Breeches "improvements" is a classic example of ruining a once very good catch and release section. We are all entitled our opinions, this is just mine.

 

[Sylvaneous]

Stocking over wild trout.

 

[Sylvaneous]

I have never been a fan of TU. Pushing that nonsense that only Brook Trout should be protected. Stream improvements that are everything but. The Yellow Breeches "improvements" is a classic example of ruining a once very good catch and release section. We are all entitled our opinions, this is just mine.

I have had my head-slapping moments too; mostly on the stream 'improvement' projects that last about 3 years, then leave the project waters worse off than before. Witness: Little Sandy.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I have never been a fan of TU. Pushing that nonsense that only Brook Trout should be protected. Stream improvements that are everything but. The Yellow Breeches "improvements" is a classic example of ruining a once very good catch and release section. We are all entitled our opinions, this is just mine.

Ok but TU doesn't push that only brook trout should be protected. 🤷

 

[Cznymph]

PFBC (or it's predecessor) was created because of the decline of shad... Restoring and maintaining native populations of fish is a good thing. PFBC ability to do that with shad has been an utter failure, for the length of the agency's existence. But they have a lot stacked against them, in trying to restore shad. I'd be happy if the PFBC stuck with restoring and maintaining native populations of fish.

Have you ever seen the condition of the PFBC shad facility?

It’s deplorable and I’ve seen abandoned buildings that look to be in better shape.

 

[Tabasco-Joe]

Some people had issues when TU started taking on projects that were on private waters inaccessible to the public. In a couple cases on large private tracts owned by rich celebrities who posted their land. One can argue (as TU did) that all habitat improvements benefit us all. But the optics are bad and it's tough getting volunteers to improve property of the rich when no access results from the effort.

 

[troutbert]

PFBC (or it's predecessor) was created because of the decline of shad... Restoring and maintaining native populations of fish is a good thing. PFBC ability to do that with shad has been an utter failure, for the length of the agency's existence. But they have a lot stacked against them, in trying to restore shad. I'd be happy if the PFBC stuck with restoring and maintaining native populations of fish.

With shad, they definitely have a lot stacked against them. The PFBC does not have the power to remove the hydroelectric dams on the lower Susquehanna. And that is what shad restoration would require, taking out Conowingo, Holtwood, and Safe Harbor dams.

What is frustrating though is that the dams are not removed in the Schuylkill and Lehigh Rivers, for shad restoration. Those are not hydroelectric dams.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Some people had issues when TU started taking on projects that were on private waters inaccessible to the public. In a couple cases on large private tracts owned by rich celebrities who posted their land. One can argue (as TU did) that all habitat improvements benefit us all. But the optics are bad and it's tough getting volunteers to improve property of the rich when no access results from the effort.

I think that highly depends on the project and location.

As the example of Hammer Creek, multiple entities have licked their chops to restore the upper headwaters, that are entirely on posted land and that the land owner had zero interest in granting future public access. I forget the exact numbers but something like 80 or 90 percent of the sedimentation in the downstream trout area comes from that tract of farmland in the headwaters. Volunteers were never the issue, it was the landowner not wanting to grant future public access. Recently and thankfully after decades, that has finally been resolved and improvements can be made, while he does not have to grant access.

It's a huge win for the public fishing area of the stream .

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Neat history here, I could argue blunder, but smallmouth are so popular and prolific I won't convince anyone.

If you have never read how smallmouth came to be in Eastern Pennsylvania, here is a short story.

The Origin Of Smallmouth Story - Woods & Waters Magazine

A long time ago I read a story about the early French settler’s first discovery of smallmouth bass. They were intrigued by the tenacity and fight of this

woodsandwatersmagazine.com

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I have had my head-slapping moments too; mostly on the stream 'improvement' projects that last about 3 years, then leave the project waters worse off than before. Witness: Little Sandy.

I think there are certainly examples and valid arguments towards some projects being either done poorly or a mistake altogether.

 

[hooker-of-men]

This is not meant to defend the PFBC, but are there shad runs still existing anywhere on the East Coast that are better than PA? Maybe the Connecticut? Down south?

Because of my own location, I just instinctively compare the Susky and Delaware to the Hudson, which has a shad history that is a bit of a horror story.

This, of course, wouldn't mean the PFBC couldn't manage the fishery better (I don't have that expertise); I'm more just curious if the work to handle PA's shad is an instance of grasping the last threads of another species we've pummeled across the board.