And yes, DJ is federal money from the sale of outdoor recreation related items. Sadly, manufacturing yellow trout is well within the intended use of those funds because it's "recreation" money, not "conservation" money.
Not true, they would just be driving to Giant.
I’m not so sure about that. Are people fishing the stream or fishing for what the state puts in the stream? Where we’ve stopped stocking due to reclassification, are the streams being over harvested now that theres no stocked trout? Are the same numbers of anglers fishing the stream after stocking ends? I doubt it.
So many people who like to fish are under the impression that fishing, not fish, is the main objective for the masses. Sometimes it is but we forget that for some people the objective is fish not fishing. And for others its in between with quick easy effortless catching being an appealing twice annual novelty and the spectrum progresses towards people like us who make up minority.
I'm positive you don't.
Now you’ve pretty much answered one of your own queries that pertained to special regs, specifically, C&R. This, along with the 2004 wild trout streams angler use and harvest study results, is precisely why special regs for wild trout, including C&R, are unnecessary nearly everywhere in Pa. If the formerly popular stocked trout streams that are now Class A and unstocked are not getting hammered and overharvested, why would other wild trout streams with lesser followings be of such concern? I’m willing to agree that there are probably some very limited exceptions, primarily in some of the existing special reg wild trout streams where special regs are appropriate, but then you have to ask if that would be the case if there were no special regs on some of those waters, given the number of anglers who focus seemingly only on special reg waters. Again, there may be some very limited exceptions and that’s why I said “nearly everywhere.”
I agree, however, if we're going to continue stocking over brook trout, in my opinion, we should make the species C&R where there's overlap (i.e. like MD did in Western Maryland). Additionally, as you noted, I'm sure there are other places where C&R may have a positive impact (i.e., like MD did in Eastern Maryland). I personally don't think C&R in remote 1st and 2nd order wilderness brook trout streams would have much of an impact, in most cases, however, the message that such regulations would send and what that could mean for the support of the species may be more important than any realized biological impact due to the regulations themselves. Edit> I also still stand by watershed level protections for brook trout as they're proven effective. Even with continued stocking in some cases.
I was referring to his obvious suggestion that the people who fish for stocked trout are only shopping and not really fisherman. That, as he tells it, they don't even like to fish and only do it for the meat. That's a bunch high on your horse crap.
I never said everyone and even posted this acknowledging the spectrum.
"Not true, they would just be driving to Giant"
Yes I assumed we were already talking about the sub group of stocked trout anglers who prioritized the fish over the fishing already, not all stocked trout anglers because I assumed that you did not mean every single angler that fishes for stocked fish would go blue lining for meat, but I guess you were?
That’s not true at all.
I’ve done all of that, plus had articles published, podcasts, written formal letters, spoken to countless anglers, offered help, tried to get involved in conservation initiatives all over the state, and speak my mind on social media.
