Susquehanna wrote:
What are the benefits, biologically speaking, of stocking over wild trout populations?
Since PFBC's mission is "Resource First", I think a more appropriate way to phrase the question would be; "How does the wild trout resource benefit from stocking adult trout over wild trout populations?"
More relative to this thread and my concerns; "How does stocking adult nonnative trout over wild native brook trout protect, conserver, or enhance the wild native brook trout population?"
Note the numerous scientific studies cited on the petition page that answer this question.
Also, on Mike's post #83
1) In a lot of cases, it's not "temporary". According to PFBC, most people practice C&R. A lot of our waters, especially wild trout waters, are perfectly capable of "holding-over" stocked trout. If you're stocking a stream that supports natural reproduction, it's not going to be temporary.
2) Stocking over wild trout doesn't "enhance" the fishery from a biological standpoint. This is a slippery slope. If the goal is to turn every flowing water into an artificial fishery with fish larger than the stream can produce naturally, then all is lost. Every brook trout stream in the state is subject to this failed logic and is maybe the reason the commission stocks over so many wild brook trout populations.
3) Unfortunately, typically with nonnative fish. Rather than restore a watershed or stream to its "original condition" pre-pollution, it's immediately a candidate for stocking. Here's a good example of this: https://youtu.be/OjzuIln9YG0 The water quality is improving due to AMR and the state (and others) are stocking browns and the browns are taking over the existing ST populations in connected tribs.
4) The flip side of this is that my license money is going to raise stocked trout. I supported the Wild Trout Stamp until I found out they were using the funds on Spruce Creek to benefit the Pay-to-play fishery there that 99.9% of the population doesn't benefit from. It's a simple fact that PFBC spends more money on the hatchery program than any other expenditure. So wild trout fans are subsidizing stocking and have no way to opt-out.
5) I bet a large number of people fish for trout
because of stocking and if stocking ceases, they'd fish for something else or go somewhere else. My local stream is a really good example of this. People stomp the banks to mud for a week DUE to stocking then never touch it after that. They would likely never touch it if it weren't stocked. Piney Run that I've mentioned multiple times is a typical relatively small brook trout stream. PFBC states that wild trout streams get little pressure and again, everyone practices C&R, so by that logic, there would be very little pressure on the wild brook trout there if it weren't for stocking. The stocking causes incidental mortality. ST are probably far more likely to be accidentally killed than wild BT when you artificially increase angling pressure due to stocking.
There was an in-season stocking the other day on my local STW and I've fished it or driven along it almost every day since and I think I've seen about 5 people fishing it since it was stocked a second time. Nobody walks more than 15 feet from a bridge or access point there and the fish spread out pretty quickly throughout the stream. In this case, it's mostly a complete waste of money. There's fairly limited public access and people clearly aren't harvesting all the fish stocked. The fish clear out from the heavily fished sections and go hide in the more remote areas along w/ the wild BT/compete w/ the wild BT.
I always hear about this shadow group of heavily influential politically connected stocked trout fan group that comes down hard on the politicians which then come down hard on PFBC to keep stocking. I'm sorry, but I call BS. It's a red herring. The boogeyman. Any politician that thinks they'll lose an election because of stocking needs their head examined.
Besides, who cares what some unruly group of stocked trout fans think? Isn't it supposed to be resource first?
