PFBC proposes less oversight for Class A stockings.

[Cznymph]

The below is taken from todays press release after the PFBC Commissioner meeting.

The PFBC is proposing to do away with having the all Class A stocking exemptions presented before the board of commissioners, and allowing approval by the executive director only in most instances.

Commissioners voted to approve the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking pertaining to Class A wild trout streams (58 Pa. Code § 57.8a). There are very few Class A wild trout streams where supplemental trout stocking has been considered or warranted; however, there are rare circumstances where stocking a Class A stream could be considered. As such, criteria have been developed within the PFBC’s Operational Guidelines for the Management of Trout Fisheries in Pennsylvania Waters that provide direction and guide decisions regarding stocking trout in Class A wild trout streams. Under current processes, when an entity, such as a sportsmen’s club, requests permission to stock trout in a Class A wild trout stream and that stream meets the criteria for stocking, the Executive Director is required to obtain Board approval before granting an exemption to allow the stocking. Under these proposed changes, the Executive Director would have the authority to approve stocking exemptions on Class A stream that meet the criteria without Board approval. Approval from the Board would only be required when an entity requests stocking on a Class A stream that does not meet the criteria. If given final approval at a future meeting, this amendment would go into effect upon a second notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin

 

[wildtrout2]

The below is taken from todays press release after the PFBC Commissioner meeting.

The PFBC is proposing to do away with having the all Class A stocking exemptions presented before the board of commissioners, and allowing approval by the executive director only in most instances.

Sounds like a dictatorship. 😉

 

[troutbert]

Who came up with this proposal? The Commissioners, the Executive Director, or "staff" (fisheries managers/biologists?

At first glance it reads like it's coming from the Commissioners. Is that correct?

 

[Cznymph]

Who came up with this proposal? The Commissioners, the Executive Director, or "staff" (fisheries managers/biologists?

At first glance it reads like it's coming from the Commissioners. Is that correct?

The agenda notes that it is being presented before the commission by the director of fisheries, and they are recommending that the board approve the proposed rule making changes.

If I understand that correctly, it’s coming from the within the agency and not the board of commissioners.

 

[HopBack]

Sounds like someone got tossed a lot of money to push this proposal 🤨

 

[Mike]

I’d agree with this proposal in an instant.

 

[HopBack]

I’d agree with this proposal in an instant.

Do you think this new criteria would disqualify most attempts to stock class A water? Why do we have to consider the total biomass of of the qualifying class A stream when determining whether or not a class A stream is eligible to be stocked. Kinda defeats the purpose of that classification.

I just don’t think it’s a good idea to give all of the authority to one person. It makes it that much easier to push one’s own agenda or to be influenced by someone else’s agenda.

 

[troutbert]

I’d agree with this proposal in an instant.

Why? What are the pros and cons?

So far neither side is giving us much to go on.

 

[The Rodfather]

I'm usually all for less regulatory red tape and less levels of scrutiny.

This seems like a bypass of the board on one of the most controversial topics the board has to take up.

The board voting to take oversight power away from the board is some wild stuff.

 

[riverwhy]

Why? What are the pros and cons?

So far neither side is giving us much to go on.

I am sure they like it that way.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

if it meets the criteria that was set by the or a prior board, right? how often has, and can, the board deny the request if it met criteria?
Seems to me the better fight is over the criteria, no?

 

[Nocktavius]

How about this: no class A stocking, period. Should not even be a conversation. When you’ve got natural reproduction that could sustain a population within a system, to pollute it with inferior mush mouth genetics flies in the face of any scientific or conservation-based ideal that this organization alleges to uphold.

.

 

[Cznymph]

if it meets the criteria that was set by the or a prior board, right? how often has, and can, the board deny the request if it met criteria?
Seems to me the better fight is over the criteria, no?

Shouldn’t “Class A” be the only criteria needed?

 

[Roofin' Trouter]

How many Class A streams meet the criteria to receive stocking exemptions in the future?

 

[Cznymph]

How many Class A streams meet the criteria to receive stocking exemptions in the future?

There are currently 13 Class A streams being stocked.

I do not know how many others would meet the criteria.

 

[CRB]

PFBC Executive Director has just a few more years left before a new one is appointed/hired.

 

[Mike]

There are currently 13 Class A streams being stocked.

I do not know how many others would meet the criteria.

It’s 13 Class A stream sections rather than 13 streams that are stocked. A couple of streams have more than one Class A section being stocked. Monocacy and Little Lehigh each have two Class A sections being stocked. This is not a critique of the comment; it’s a means of pointing out that AFM’s have been conservative about placing Class A’s in this program and I would expect that to continue.

 

[Cznymph]

It’s 13 Class A stream sections rather than 13 streams that are stocked. A couple of streams have more than one Class A section being stocked. Monocacy and Little Lehigh each have two Class A sections being stocked. This is not a critique of the comment; it’s a means of pointing out that AFM’s have been conservative about placing Class A’s in this program and I would expect that to continue.

Thanks for the clarification.

 

[mgmunson]

There are currently 13 Class A streams being stocked.

I do not know how many others would meet the criteria.

There are 13 sections being stocked by the state, right?

I’m a member of a club that was stocking a class a privately. I encouraged them to stop and now that stocking notification is required and they’ve skipped a few seasons I think they’d need approval to start again.

I’d think this scenario is the bigger issue. If a club has a direct line to the individual who can approve it rather than needing a board to sign off it could turn out certain people/groups are getting favorable treatment. But then again, I only know what’s been stated in this thread…

 

[Roofin' Trouter]

So, the 13 sections that PFBC will continue to stock are under C & R regs for wild trout but sections that clubs would stock wouldn't receive the C& R regs on wild trout under this proposal. Am I understanding that right?