Petition to end the practice of stocking over wild native brook trout.

[maxima12]

You got the itch for a brookie chase! How many will die from your itch!

Lot's. Your a bad student in a troubled time! You rave on what you show, i rave on what i know!

You will never know, maxima12 secrets, because you can not keep the secret safe


Fish on, angry possum, rainbows are coming your way! you asked, you got!

Maxima12




You could stay away for a while and let nature take course! Hell no, your the nature of all! The naturalist by the tag on your vest!

 

[Swattie87]

It should be clarified that many of the stream examples being discussed here don’t just contain wild Brown Trout, they are predominantly wild Brown Trout. While they do have wild Brook Trout, Brown Trout are already the clearly dominant species in them. I still agree they shouldn’t be stocked, if they have good wild Brown Trout populations, but just wanted to clarify that.

IMO the highest priority areas to end stocking over native Brook Trout are the ones where no, or very limited wild Browns, are present.

Then next, legitimately ending stocking on ALL Class A’s, based on their actual survey data, regardless of species. And I’m not talking about just the dozen or so popular Class A’s listed in the reg book that are openly acknowledged to be stocked. I mean actually objectively designating currently stocked streams that have verified Class A surveys onto the Class A list, and ceasing stocking on them. Some of the streams mentioned in this thread fit this mold. PFBC, you know exactly what I mean.

 

[riverwhy]

How about the Schrader? When I was up last year in June we caught many wild brookies and no wild browns. Not sure if anyone knows if there are wild browns or not. While the main stem seems more like a brown trout stream with its width (past flooding has caused much damage). We got a few stocked browns and brooks. I think maybe low PH is an issue on this stream.
I guess some would argue why not stock browns if the brookies are still holding strong?

 

[Susquehanna]

Does this mean Max isn't signing the petition? :lol:

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Swattie87 wrote:
It should be clarified that many of the stream examples being discussed here don’t just contain wild Brown Trout, they are predominantly wild Brown Trout. While they do have wild Brook Trout, Brown Trout are already the clearly dominant species in them. I still agree they shouldn’t be stocked, if they have good wild Brown Trout populations, but just wanted to clarify that.

IMO the highest priority areas to end stocking over native Brook Trout are the ones where no, or very limited wild Browns, are present.

Then next, legitimately ending stocking on ALL Class A’s, based on their actual survey data, regardless of species. And I’m not talking about just the dozen or so popular Class A’s listed in the reg book that are openly acknowledged to be stocked. I mean actually objectively designating currently stocked streams that have verified Class A surveys onto the Class A list, and ceasing stocking on them. Some of the streams mentioned in this thread fit this mold. PFBC, you know exactly what I mean.

Swatting,

I'd be curious which streams have a verified class A survey that are not designated as such as you indicate?

 

[troutbert]

Swattie87 wrote:
It should be clarified that many of the stream examples being discussed here don’t just contain wild Brown Trout, they are predominantly wild Brown Trout. While they do have wild Brook Trout, Brown Trout are already the clearly dominant species in them. I still agree they shouldn’t be stocked, if they have good wild Brown Trout populations, but just wanted to clarify that.

IMO the highest priority areas to end stocking over native Brook Trout are the ones where no, or very limited wild Browns, are present.

Stocking over native brook trout suppresses their populations. And ending stocking over native brookies improves their populations.

This is true whether the stream is 100% brookies or a mixed population of browns and brookies.

There are many examples of ending stocking over mixed populations resulting in improved brookie populations. Which is just what you'd expect.

 

[Swattie87]

Lyco - There are many across the state that do. And have historically. Not every stream that gets surveyed as Class A, gets designated and removed from the stocking list, unfortunately. There are other forces at play. I get that those forces have a voice in this discussion too, but it’s certainly not in the best interest of the wild Trout resource. This should be a black/white objective type of deal, but isn’t.

Edit: Tried to send you a PM, but my PM feature isn’t working presently. Will try again later.

 

[Swattie87]

troutbert wrote:

Swattie87 wrote:
It should be clarified that many of the stream examples being discussed here don’t just contain wild Brown Trout, they are predominantly wild Brown Trout. While they do have wild Brook Trout, Brown Trout are already the clearly dominant species in them. I still agree they shouldn’t be stocked, if they have good wild Brown Trout populations, but just wanted to clarify that.

IMO the highest priority areas to end stocking over native Brook Trout are the ones where no, or very limited wild Browns, are present.

Stocking over native brook trout suppresses their populations. And ending stocking over native brookies improves their populations.

This is true whether the stream is 100% brookies or a mixed population of browns and brookies.

There are many examples of ending stocking over mixed populations resulting in improved brookie populations. Which is just what you'd expect.

Agree. 100%. Was just offering that if efforts were to be started, focusing on the watersheds without (or very little) current Brown Trout intrusion would be where I’d start. Schrader would be a good example of this IMO.

 

[Baron]

I don't fish trout much. I like to eat wild Brookie but don't out of respect.
I'm afraid that the underlying result of these goals will be akin to asking people to collect wild maize instead of planting corm. Then asking them to collect less of it and to like it as well.
As a member of the top predator group on the planet it would be counter productive and illogical to take this too far. Like shooting yourself in the foot because you don't like the shoe, we will limp for years.
Some of the proposals discussed here will lead to smaller and fewer fish, less freedoms as fishermen, more nuanced and embarrassing regulation, and will cut out allot of fishermen whom currently enjoy these streams. Surely you plan to address this in a favorable way.

 

[silverfox]

Baron wrote:
I don't fish trout much. I like to eat wild Brookie but don't out of respect.
I'm afraid that the underlying result of these goals will be akin to asking people to collect wild maize instead of planting corm. Then asking them to collect less of it and to like it as well.
As a member of the top predator group on the planet it would be counter productive and illogical to take this too far. Like shooting yourself in the foot because you don't like the shoe, we will limp for years.
Some of the proposals discussed here will lead to smaller and fewer fish, less freedoms as fishermen, more nuanced and embarrassing regulation, and will cut out allot of fishermen whom currently enjoy these streams. Surely you plan to address this in a favorable way.

Just to clarify, this petition is about stopping stocking over wild native brook trout. I'm not sure how that excludes fishermen other than to illustrate that the only reason some folks fish certain streams is that they're stocked. To me, that's a problem. So the wild population would have very little angling pressure naturally, but we stock it to artificially, temporarily increase the biomass which increases angling pressure, which undoubtedly increases angling mortality on the wild fish that otherwise wouldn't exist.

This isn't about C&R. Maybe you meant to post in the other thread?

Some interesting info about C&R resulting in smaller fish (this can be true in some streams and a myth in others):

https://www.wildtrout.org/assets/img/general/CR-slides.pdf

 

[flyguyfishing]

This is an interesting conversation to have and it is good to have people who care enough to create petitions like this. After contemplating on the petition, I have decided not to sign. This post will share my point-of-view with no intention of being argumentative. Some have differing thoughts than I, which is fine.

I find the petition to be too broad for my liking. The PFBC’s 2021 plan was to stock 703 streams and this petition is asking to stop stocking on hundreds of those streams. (https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Stocking/Pages/default.aspx) IMO, it is too much of an ask.

It is my understanding the PFBC is primarily a user-supported organization. According to the PFBC annual reports, since 2004, 62.2%-77.0% of Total Expenditures are paid for by License & Fees (including boat fees). Total Expenditures include biologist studying trout.
https://www.fishandboat.com/AboutUs/AnnualReports/Pages/default.aspx

According to 2008 PA Trout Fishing Survey:
83% of anglers bought a Trout Stamp (or combo) (weighted result-see survey for details)
“The survey asked 13 individual questions about things that might encourage the respondent to go trout fishing more often in Pennsylvania. For each item, the survey asked, “Would this strongly encourage you, moderately encourage you, or not encourage you at all to go trout fishing more often in Pennsylvania?” Then the results of the 13 questions were put onto a single graph, thereby showing the ranking of the items. • The top things that would strongly encourage the respondent to go trout fishing more often are having a child ask the respondent to take him or her fishing (84% said this would strongly encourage them to go trout fishing more) and receiving an invitation from a friend (63%). Also notably higher than the rest are if more trout were stocked in Pennsylvania waters (57%) and if more opportunities existed to access trout waters from private land (46%). “
(https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Fisheries/Documents/survey_trout_fishing2008.pdf)

To me, the elimination of stocking on so many streams could negatively impact the revenue of fishing license which could result in less biologists to study the frail brook trout. It is like a giant scale and this petition tips the scale too far in one direction.

I understand the studies the petition cited and they do have merit. I would support a similar petition on a smaller scale. The science certainly indicates stocking hurts brook trout (along with other confounding variables) but I prefer a case by case approach instead.

I appreciate your concern of the brook trout.

 

[silverfox]

flyguyfishing wrote:
This is an interesting conversation to have and it is good to have people who care enough to create petitions like this. After contemplating on the petition, I have decided not to sign. This post will share my point-of-view with no intention of being argumentative. Some have differing thoughts than I, which is fine.

I find the petition to be too broad for my liking. The PFBC’s 2021 plan was to stock 703 streams and this petition is asking to stop stocking on hundreds of those streams. (https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Stocking/Pages/default.aspx) IMO, it is too much of an ask.

It is my understanding the PFBC is primarily a user-supported organization. According to the PFBC annual reports, since 2004, 62.2%-77.0% of Total Expenditures are paid for by License & Fees (including boat fees). Total Expenditures include biologist studying trout.
https://www.fishandboat.com/AboutUs/AnnualReports/Pages/default.aspx

According to 2008 PA Trout Fishing Survey:
83% of anglers bought a Trout Stamp (or combo) (weighted result-see survey for details)
“The survey asked 13 individual questions about things that might encourage the respondent to go trout fishing more often in Pennsylvania. For each item, the survey asked, “Would this strongly encourage you, moderately encourage you, or not encourage you at all to go trout fishing more often in Pennsylvania?” Then the results of the 13 questions were put onto a single graph, thereby showing the ranking of the items. • The top things that would strongly encourage the respondent to go trout fishing more often are having a child ask the respondent to take him or her fishing (84% said this would strongly encourage them to go trout fishing more) and receiving an invitation from a friend (63%). Also notably higher than the rest are if more trout were stocked in Pennsylvania waters (57%) and if more opportunities existed to access trout waters from private land (46%). “
(https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Fisheries/Documents/survey_trout_fishing2008.pdf)

To me, the elimination of stocking on so many streams could negatively impact the revenue of fishing license which could result in less biologists to study the frail brook trout. It is like a giant scale and this petition tips the scale too far in one direction.

I understand the studies the petition cited and they do have merit. I would support a similar petition on a smaller scale. The science certainly indicates stocking hurts brook trout (along with other confounding variables) but I prefer a case by case approach instead.

I appreciate your concern of the brook trout.

Appreciate the candid feedback. Keep in mind that one of the issues we face with regard to identifying where to stop stocking over wild brook trout is that we don't know every stream where it happens.

The PFBC stocking list is only the state-sanctioned streams/sections. Like I mentioned somewhere recently, I just saw a stream that a co-op admitted to stocking that isn't on the stocking list. So it's impossible to identify every stream and defend why it's bad for that stream.

So we simply stated we're opposed to the practice. There is absolutely no chance PFBC will stop stocking over every population. I understand that as unfortunate as it is. Again, this petition is a statement against the practice.

 

[JeffP]

I just brought Havice and Treaster up as examples. In my experience there are definitely more brookies. In fact, I'm not sure I have caught native browns there. Never fished the meadow section of Havice so maybe browns there.

 

[RLeep2]

After some consideration and after passing a couple thousand words of gas here on this thread, I have signed the petition. I'm 99.9% in favor of the intent and probably 62.4% in favor of the means and besides, the relatively good need not be the enemy of the perfect...

 

[troutbert]

silverfox wrote:

The PFBC stocking list is only the state-sanctioned streams/sections. Like I mentioned somewhere recently, I just saw a stream that a co-op admitted to stocking that isn't on the stocking list. So it's impossible to identify every stream and defend why it's bad for that stream.

That stocking list is simply a list of streams that the PFBC stocks.

The PFBC allows the coops to stock many other streams that are not on that list.

So the word "admits" is not appropriate here, because they can stock other streams without breaking any rules.

The coops are not supposed to stock Class A streams or wilderness designated streams.

The coops are required to file an annual report of the streams they stock, for the review of the PFBC.

 

[Mike]

Susquehanna,
I was away out fishing for four days rather than tickling computer keys so if I interpreted the shovel comment properly, it was misapplied. I didn’t really have a horse in this race, so I simply asked why the individual thought Havice and Treaster would be good candidates for removal, primarily because to my recollection they already had mixed populations of ST and BT. Some here were dwelling on BT being stocked over ST pops because of competition, but if BT are already in good quantity, which they were in those two streams back when I surveyed them, that particular point is less pertinent. As a result, I was curious as to what was being perceived as the benefit of terminating stocking over these particular populations by the individual who mentioned them.

But now that you have forced me to think beyond my original question...
Based on classification, if they were Class A’s, I am assuming those particular streams would not be stocked. If they were B’s, they would be stocked once per year at a very low rate. On a relative basis, that is not a concern because the numbers would be low, either as B’s, rural streams, or both or one or the other. They would most likely be stocked preseason only (low frequency) and pressure probably very limited to a week or 10 days at a time of year when the wild trout biomass is much lower than in the summer anyway. If they are Class C’s or D’s then there is a good chance that they receive single pre and single in-season stockings.

I now checked the stocking schedule and Treaster was stocked once and Havice was stocked twice, so more than one scenarios mentioned above may apply. I would add that both received only stockings of RT, which suggests to me that the wild ST may be being recognized in the stocked trout allocation system. I have already discussed stocking RT for potentially positive increases in wild trout biomass in another thread.

There are “bigger fish to fry” in this overall topic than to start with very mixed populations within stocked sections, which is my assumption in this discussion for Havice and Treaster based on my memory of long ago info. I would also add that if either stream has enough of a mixture, then the stream(s) would have to meet the BT 40 kg/ha standard rather than the ST 30 kg/ha standard to be classified Class A.

 

[Mike]

On thing I neglected to mention above is that when a stream receives a single stocking, usually preseason, it can be because its surface area is low, it is a Class B, it has a posting problem or other landowner sensitivities, inseason angler use is low, other stocked streams are close by that already receive inseason stockings, or it can be stocked a single time at the AFM’s discretion.

 

[Susquehanna]

Mike,
Actually that comment was not even directed at you at all, I don't know why you perceived it as such.
But since you are thinking beyond your original question, you got asked a good one. Could you spend that same amount of energy engaging those that asked it?

It seems to me, in the long paragraph you wrote, shows that the PFBC is cutting down on the amount of stockings and fish based on the class A,B,C,D system. Are you are acknowledging there isnt any benefit biologically to stocking over wild trout? Otherwise, beyond what you added at the end, why stock a class b stream less than a C or D? Why stop stocking class A? Why make a class A but still stocked exemption list?

I might redirect the shovel your way soon though :lol:

 

[Susquehanna]

The question:

What are your arguments for continuing to stock those streams (aside from stocking does no harm)? From a biologist's perspective, what are the benefits of stocking?

 

[troutbert]

Susquehanna wrote:
The question:

What are your arguments for continuing to stock those streams (aside from stocking does no harm)? From a biologist's perspective, what are the benefits of stocking?

The reason the PFBC has been reducing the numbers of hatchery trout stocked over native brook trout is pretty obvious. Because they know stocking over native brookies harms their populations. And reducing the numbers stocked reduces that harm.

Why do they not quit altogether? Because of the political pressures from the other side to continue stocking those streams. The other side has close ties to some legislators, who have a lot of leverage over the PFBC.

The petition will hopefully help provide political support for ending / reducing stocking over native brook trout.