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

[troutbert]

silverfox wrote:

troutbert wrote:

silverfox wrote:

flyguyfishing wrote:
Currently, how many streams with wild brookies are stocked? Can you name 5-10 examples?

(This is not a ‘challenge your position’’ type of post. I simply do not know which streams have wild brookies and are stocked)

Off the top of my head, there are quite a few I know personally.

Out of curiosity, I just ran a query on the data in GIS to see how many STW overlap NR and came up with 561 overlaps statewide. Now, I'm sure some of those NR streams are NR BT, BUT, there are also obviously quite a few NR brookie streams in that mix.

Unfortunately, the dataset from PFBC doesn't specify species composition in the NR vectors, so I can't definitively say exactly how many cases there are that are brook trout only.

Also, there are many streams stocked by coop hatcheries, which do not show up on the layer you searched.

The PFBC has never published the sections stocked by the coop hatcheries.

The number of streams stocked by the PFBC and the coop hatcheries with brook trout populations on the natural reproduction list goes far into the hundreds.

Right. I think a lot of the STW count as either state hatchery fish or co-op fish. Though I know for a fact that some co-ops are stocking streams that aren't listed as STW.

I doubt even PFBC has a handle on exactly where all the stocking is going on. Until there are some reforms on the legality of stocking public waters, that's going to continue to be an issue.

The PFBC's list of stocked streams are the streams that the PFBC stocks. Some of those are also stocked by coop hatcheries.

But there are large numbers of streams stocked only by the coops, not the PFBC. Those are not on that list.

The streams stocked by the coops, and not the PFBC has never been published on their website or anywhere else.

But, if your organization asks for information on what streams the coops stock, the PFBC will give you the information.

But that information is likely to be not as organized as the PFBC stocking list. When I looked at it around 1989 or so, the info was annual reports filed by the coops, with just lists of stream names. They did not include section limits. So it would take some work to decipher. But maybe, hopefully, the info is more thorough now than in the late 1980s.

 

[poopdeck]

The uncomfortable truth is we should end fishing for wild trout, Period. No more fishing in any stream that has a wild trout population. Just like they closed the herring fishing. I love how some can degrade, abuse and mishandle a resource with impunity simply by blaming the abuse and wrongdoing on other entities charged with the delicate balance of protecting a resource while providing that resource to those who ***** and complain about the methods.

If you really cared about wild trout you should be screaming for the end of fishing on wild trout streams. Everybody seems to want to rally against the meat swingers and truck chasers ruining their wild trout fishing when they should be looking at themselves as a part of the problem as well.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

poopdeck is not wrong. The delicate art of C&R fly fishing is still a blood sport, as is all fishing to varying degrees. The line each of us draws regarding trout stocking draw regard reflects our cognitive bias.

If we want to discourage (ban) stocking Class A wild trout streams I think it would be more effective to demonstrate the financial cost of stocking to create a temporary fishery vs. allowing a self-sustaining wild trout fishery to thrive. There are a lot of variables beyond the cost of raising, transporting and stocking trout. But, that would be a good place to start.

 

[Baron]

poopdeck wrote:
The uncomfortable truth is we should end fishing for wild trout, Period. No more fishing in any stream that has a wild trout population. Just like they closed the herring fishing. I love how some can degrade, abuse and mishandle a resource with impunity simply by blaming the abuse and wrongdoing on other entities charged with the delicate balance of protecting a resource while providing that resource to those who ***** and complain about the methods.

If you really cared about wild trout you should be screaming for the end of fishing on wild trout streams. Everybody seems to want to rally against the meat swingers and truck chasers ruining their wild trout fishing when they should be looking at themselves as a part of the problem as well.

I'm assuming that Poopdeck and flyswatter were "tongue in cheek" when they made their recent remarks. I know that I am tongue-in-cheek as I write the following.
Having watched this stream of comments has been akin to watching teachers argue in 1974 when the Pennridge Teachers struck for the first time in history. As a student it took time for me to get clarity.
The truth being told I fished so infrequently for 40yrs that I only fished for the table. I watched trout fishermen ply their skills and Bass fishermen yank fish all over the place. My perception is that we now have a generation of very skillful fish-hurters. I do believe Mankind is Natural and we are the top predator. We can do as we please. But many of us have gotten so good at fishing that we catch way way more than we would need for the table. so the question is, since we continue to fish and fish and fish, aren't we all just a bunch of fish hurters? Shouldn't all of us be ashamed at trying to preserve certain populations so we can go injure them at will? A typical conversation with todays well clad fishermen often goes like this: a) Ah I caught 20 today, q)how many did you keep, a) oh I don't keep them, q) so you released them all, a) yes of course, protect the resourse. So the argument to go hurt fish turns from a predators view into a self righteous duty. And in defence of this practice of hurting 20-30-40 forty fish a day fishermen often remind others to limit the exposure of fish to the air, horse them in, use rubber or silicone nets, use hemostats and return the fish gently.
I argue that if you really don't want to hurt the fish don't catch it in the first place. Trout guys seem far and away to be the most responsible but Bass guys???? well I won't go there.
At this point I'm glad that I mostly fish for Panfish for the table. I keep every legal size and rarely take one tenth of the limit, no net is used, hemostats are used as I release them ever so carefully into the ice chest.
I'm interested to see where this thread will end up. Whatever the outcome I'll comply. And as for all 13 or 14 fishermen that fish for native Brookies, I hope you get your way as well. In the end we're all on the same envelop.....just shifted to different corners for a bit.

 

[troutbert]

If your goal is ending fishing where wild trout exist, start your petition, and good luck to you. I won't sign it. And I doubt that many will.

 

[silverfox]

Well, this certainly took an interesting turn. I don't know why it has to be one extreme or another. There is a balance between disrupting ecology through mismanagement and ending all fishing to benefit fish.

It's not "end all fishing" OR "make a complete mess of the fisheries".

 

[Susquehanna]

Poopdeck is not wrong. I agree.

Now that the uncomfortable truths are out, we can properly balance the resource first method vs political/social realities.

1. Wild trout should not be stocked over. Period.
2. Exemptions can be made to 1 on a limited basis as it is done now
3. There should be a limited number of Brook trout conservation areas where no fishing is allowed. Sorry guys but it should happen if you believe in global warming. These areas should be studied and improved to help these fish make it past.
4. End the dependancy on stocking trout and focus more on warm water species expansion and propagations as waters warm.
5. Eventually end the stocking program all together as the initial social conditioning of needing stocked trout the PFBC created ends and shifts to more warm water recreation conditioning.


Have fun tearing it apart guys but that is IMO.
I got carp to go harass. Have fun!

 

[troutbert]

silverfox wrote:
Well, this certainly took an interesting turn. I don't know why it has to be one extreme or another. There is a balance between disrupting ecology through mismanagement and ending all fishing to benefit fish.

It's not "end all fishing" OR "make a complete mess of the fisheries".

I don't think they are seriously advocating ending fishing.

They are trying to ascribe that extreme position to us, even though we never advocated it.

It's the old "strawman" thing, which is very common in internet discussions.

Here is a dictionary definition:

"Straw man argument, or straw man fallacy, is a type of logical fallacy that occurs when someone deliberately distorts or misrepresents their opponent’s position to make it easier to defeat. As such, it is commonplace in a wide variety of situations, such as political debates, journalism, and debates on any controversial topics."

 

[Baron]

The theory of Global warming is one of the most mis-used topics out there. Perhaps history is bound to repeat itself, as it always does, and will make fools of us all.
Me: I don't subscribe to it. And if you're heating up come for a swim.

Besides, with a team like this quivelling over details I'm sure the trout will be fine.

Point #3 above already exists in massive massive acreages statewide. Its called "private land"...Lots of little streams that aren't fished and run through the rocks and multiflora strewn streams of properties where no on fishes....certainly not the public.

 

[Susquehanna]

Oh I didn't realize Brook trout streams on private land where being studied and enhanced with the landowners ability to fish it being restricted. My bad.

As far as global warming, the argument is over what is causing it, not that it is happening. Brook trout will be the first trout to go .

 

[Susquehanna]

Just to be clear here as I chuckle, my original shovel comment was directed to silverfox. He does great work with the NFC but once you step into the realm of trying to get fly fishers together and agree on things, good luck.

Troutbert was right about many things in this thread but mostly that the stocking supporters are a well oiled machine. Silverfox may think it is a red herring but I have seen it time and again.
Cross Fork ring a bell?

We all have an opinion on what we think is best. Yes I think a few streams set aside for study and preservation of the species is not a bad thing. Foolish? I dunno, we might actually learn somethings but maybe so.
Would it hurt? Nope.
I gave my opinion on this thread. Anyone is free to disagree but I have no interest in debating for the sake of changing my mind on things.

I signed the petition. I agree with the general premise and couldnt care less about my details vs yours or anyone elses. That is the problem with us. Some people won't sign because of the small details.
Alas, it won't happen any way.

That well oiled machine, it doesn't argue details. They only do and hence we keep digging.

Put away the shovel already .

 

[poopdeck]

Is it the straw man or the hangman? Anglers tend to divide others into fishing splinter groups that they then assign a hierarchy to. There is the worm dunkers, the power bait crowd, the bucket brigades, the spinners, the high stickers, centerpinners and the dreaded ugly stick group that trout fish with carp rods and 6500 series surf reels. Of course fly fisherman are the smartest, most sporting and most ecologically sound and least detrimental to fish while impaling them with sharp hooks of all these groups. So just as in the hangman, sooner or later there will be only one left and we all know what happened to him.

perhaps we should stop stocking trout as has been suggested and let's see what happens. Personally I can't believe that reasonable stocking over wild fish is bad for the wild fish. What some fly fisherman want is to stop stocking and make the fishing regulations such that only a very few select anglers (dry fly fisherman only as an example) can fish the wild trout streams of PA. I say what's good for one is good for all.

I also tend to believe that the fish biologists at the PFBC are actually advocates for our natural resources and are not influenced by politics and money. As such, they have the best interest of fish at heart and they are doing everything they can to manage fish for all anglers not just a select small group of anglers who scream the loudest.

I say don't stock wild streams, nobody fishes wild streams, let's see what happens and we all live with the consequences good or bad and than reassess.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

No, I am NOT suggesting we should not fish for wild trout. That would be self-defeating. I thought only to point out that even the most "elite and gentile" dry fly, bamboo, catgut, silk line C&R fishers are unintentionally harming the resource they love and enjoy. By doing so I had hoped to also point out that what separated us from the "crankers" is often much less than we care to admit.

I also sought to show that we draw the line on harming the resource where it suits us, to a certain extent.

Having said that, how do we win hearts and minds to the cause of cessation of stocking over self-sustaining wild trout populations? I fully support this position. Considering we live in some form of democratic capitalist society, THAT is the key to getting the job done....in my opinion.

 

[Susquehanna]

[d]Democratic[/d] Republic capitalist society

The other side won't value the resource until they experience it.
They won't experience it until they are aware of it.

The mass is not and think that trout come from trucks.
Who here is ready to share with the masses?
;-)

 

[Bamboozle]

Has anyone done a study as to what TRULY impacts wild brook trout more in terms of reducing their numbers; stocking over them versus fishing for them, handling them and releasing them...?

If the answer is the latter, I guess this whole thing is totally self serving and a bit hypocritical...

I mean if you REALLY care about the fish... :roll:

 

[silverfox]

Since we've veered into the realm of angling regulations for conservation, I'll refer to MD yet again. In general, there are numerous scientific studies on the impact of stocking over brook trout AND angling for them.

One of the most important, in my opinion, is this paragraph from the recent regulation change in Maryland;

Catch-and-release regulations for brook trout were implemented in
the upper Savage River in Garrett County in 2007. An anticipated
benefit from the regulation was to protect the largest fish (most
fecund, best spawning success) during low flow and poor
reproduction years to sustain brook trout in subsequent years when
conditions are better. Annual brook trout population monitoring has
indicated that the upper Savage River supports a stable population
even with the normal environmentally driven annual fluctuations.
Furthermore, compared to pooled sites open to harvest by anglers
(two fish per day, no closed season) from around the State, the upper
Savage River has maintained statistically significant greater brook
trout densities for each year of monitoring following the regulation
change

Source: https://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/Reg_Changes/P906-908_Issue_21_10-09-2020.pdf

The BOLD part is key. The most important takeaway here is that unlike the "failed" Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Project in PA where tiny little sections of small headwater streams had experimental regs on them for 10 years to see if it would create "bigger" fish, the USR project set aside 100 + miles of connected waterways w/ C&R for brook trout. The results were pretty clear as stated above.

The biggest impact on brook trout is annual environmental fluctuations. However, angling may have an impact on the watershed in conjunction with environmental impacts. That's really the biggest key w/ the success of C&R on the USR. By itself, angling may not have a big impact. Especially on small individual streams. On an entire watershed, however, C&R may help preserve enough large fish to carry the population.

The migration issue is huge here. As M DNR says, not every fish in the population is migratory, but the ones that are, often the biggest fish, are responsible for the continuation of the population due to their fecundity.

The bottom line with all of that is that you have to look at brook trout populations from a watershed scale. What happens on the 3rd or 4th order streams downstream from some class A trib is important to the population health of the entire watershed. We can't just ignore everything downstream of the class A boundary or try to manage brook trout by stream section.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

Silverfox: Thanks for this info. Science has an unfortunate tendency to be reductionist (think "eating vitamins vs. eating food). THe ecosystem perspective makes sense given how things are interconnected.

Angler education is key. Considering how we are headed into a dry, low water time over the next few weeks, I will not be fishing for wild trout in freestone waters until we get some significant rain. I encourage other to do the same. Water temps will probably spike, especially where there is little shade on the southern side of creeks. A thermometer helps.

I have a few friends I've mentored in fly fishing. I've helped them understand why we should avoid fishing for thermally stressed wild trout. There are plenty of good places to fish for warm water fish.

 

[silverfox]

Fly-Swatter wrote:
Silverfox: Thanks for this info. Science has an unfortunate tendency to be reductionist (think "eating vitamins vs. eating food). THe ecosystem perspective makes sense given how things are interconnected.

Angler education is key. Considering how we are headed into a dry, low water time over the next few weeks, I will not be fishing for wild trout in freestone waters until we get some significant rain. I encourage other to do the same. Water temps will probably spike, especially where there is little shade on the southern side of creeks. A thermometer helps.

I have a few friends I've mentored in fly fishing. I've helped them understand why we should avoid fishing for thermally stressed wild trout. There are plenty of good places to fish for warm water fish.

Amen. I find myself fishing for brook trout less and less in general. Not because I don't like to, but because I'd rather personally not contribute to any population loss due to accidental mortality from hooking/handling. Thankfully we have a ridiculous amount of wild brown trout to fish for.

I agree 100% that angler education is key. It's one of the things that bothers me so much about PFBC's messaging. I mentioned in a thread a while back that on PFBC's social media accounts, they rarely if ever even mention brook trout, and when they did it was in reference to stocked brook trout.

It would be nice to see more conservation messaging from the agency on their social media pages. It would be good to remind anglers about fishing for wild trout when water temperatures reach thermally dangerous levels.

 

[Susquehanna]

Starting to see the Crux of the issue being found. Now that the polar opposites have been exposed with honesty the truth or way is somewhere in the middle.
Social conditioning must change if we are ever going to accomplish the wish of the petition. If not, there will be more push back than it can handle

 

[Susquehanna]

Curiosity question.

If education and outreach is lacking from the PFBC how do we as wild trout anglers fill the void?
I have heard of booths set up on first day and that is all great but not enough.

TU has meetings and presentations and again anyone is welcome but do they try to cater to this crowd that doesn't fly fish?
Does Frank Nale get invited to speak?
Are there presentations on the best bait in high water and how to fish it?
How about wild trout fishing rapalas on Penns?
Or are we only catering to ourselves?

Food for thought.