Fish Sticks
Well-known member
We can only hope. I heard they might stop polluting little kettle and upper young woman’s with invasive trout. I have to check their class A proposal data
PFBC Quarterly Commission Meeting July 24th
- Thread starter silverfox
- Start date
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
None of the recently proposed Class A’s (or wild trout streams for that matter) are stocked by anyone (that PFBC is aware of). They’ve been very careful to note that none of the proposed streams/sections are stocked after Freeman run was listed.
I still don’t understand what that has to do with anything. Stream classifications are based on biomass surveys. They’re whatever biomass they sample at. It’s absurd that a classification change would, or should be held up or contested because someone stocks it.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
i am sure they are sitting on class A biomass they don’t want to submit because they don’t have the rocks to explain to some sportsmen’s club that conserving a species in our action-less wild life action plan should be a priority over a dime a dozen put and take stocker fishery
Likely streams they would even get mad if the biologists surveyed out there because they might have to get off their knees and stand up to the stocking lobby.
Likely streams they would even get mad if the biologists surveyed out there because they might have to get off their knees and stand up to the stocking lobby.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
I wouldn’t be surprised at all.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
I got a question. Richard lewis said that he just “can’t find data for brook trout c and r regs” which if course there is (maryland DnR and also Jonston et al) but where the heck is the data that shows brown trout populations need c and r protections then? This seems like a tragically ironic double standard.
Obviously brown trout do not need C&R regulations at all, and you know that. Even under state regulations of regular harvest and being stocked over brown trout populations have expanded in many streams across the state. It sounds like they are a pretty resilient species.
How satisfied would you fellas be if they changed nothing but put into place a statewide C&R policy for brook trout?
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
Right, but it was suggested that to entertain the idea of C&R for brook trout, the commissioners want to see some scientific data about the impacts of C&R on brook trout, but that same level of qualification was never requested to implement C&R for brown trout. They're about to vote on C&R for brown trout with no question about data to back up the need.
That's what FS was saying. Why the double standard?
Statewide C&R would be great. Supposedly nobody harvests brook trout anyway, so nobody should be disenfranchised by such a move. So there would be no pushback by anyone.
The problem is brook trout are still widely raised by state and non-gov entities and stocked all over the commonwealth. PFBC doesn't even have a handle on where and how many (hence the stocking authorization). So the argument is, as long as brook trout are stocked,, you can't have a brook trout C&R reg. Again though, kind of odd that the same standard isn't applied to brown trout. Brown trout are stocked too, but apparently a C&R reg for brown trout is fine.
wildtrout2
Well-known member
I'd be very satisfied with statewide C&R for brook trout. I'm not holding my breath for that.
They would still need to stop stocking over wild populations of trout though.
I understood the point of his post. I understood his criticisms. I understood his take on the double standard.
I did not ask about brook trout being raised and stocked all over the commonwealth by private hatcheries and individuals nor did I ask about other hatchery species being stocked over wild brook trout.
If all things stayed the same as they were right now, would you be satisfied if they just implemented a sweeping C&R regulation for brook trout?
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
I said C&R would be great. That doesn't mean there aren't other issues, too (stocking over brook trout). Supporting C&R doesn't mean I think the stocking issue is ok or that some C&R reg would be the end-all-be-all to brook trout management. So, would I be "satisfied" if they "just" implemented statewide brook trout C&R? No. Would it be a good move with tremendous educational and possibly some biological benefits? Yes.
That's part of the issue, though, whether you asked about it or not.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
I’d be very happy as a FIRST step as Silverfox mentioned its gotta be the beginning. It’s free, supposedly would not **** anyone legally harvesting fish off, and HUGELY educational.
It teaches brook trout as the priority game salmonid that is the only one with a conservation need( as Jfigz pointed out) which is what you need to have the next discussion, stocking reform.
It teaches brook trout as the priority game salmonid that is the only one with a conservation need( as Jfigz pointed out) which is what you need to have the next discussion, stocking reform.
I’d be surprised if Richard Lewis knows that planet he’s on. I’ve had several interactions with him in the past and I would firmly plant him in buffoon category.
What is the mostly likely possible order of events?
Is C&R for brookies likely to precede ending of stocking over native brook trout? I doubt it.
I think it's much more likely that ending of stocking over native brook trout would come first.
For cutthroat trout management, I'm pretty sure the first step was ending stocking over them.
Is C&R for brookies likely to precede ending of stocking over native brook trout? I doubt it.
I think it's much more likely that ending of stocking over native brook trout would come first.
For cutthroat trout management, I'm pretty sure the first step was ending stocking over them.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
I disagree completely. I suspect some C&R for brook trout will likely come first.
That said, I also think cessation of stocking will occur in some strategic places. It won't be publicized, but it will happen through reductions in areas within streams that are stocked or classification changes. It's worth noting that those things have already happened. I suspect some stocking will end when PFBC finally enacts a stocking authorization, and they find out where people are putting fish. It might even happen as a result of the notice of stocking.
Once again, it's not like cessation of stocking and C&R aren't mutually exclusive or sequentially tied. One doesn't have to happen before the other. There's nothing wrong with suggesting multiple things need to happen. If I support C&R for brook trout, that doesn't mean I've ignored the stocking issue, habitat degradation, competition from other species, etc..
Yes, stocking over brook trout needs to end. C&R would be great, too as an educational (and biological) tool, and habitat needs improved, movement barriers removed, trees planted, competing species removed. We need to walk and chew gum at the same time. Not insist one thing has to happen before anything else can.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
Hopefully people on this thread will point out right reg wrong species when public comment period opens for all of 5 minutes. Or at-least that they could have made harvest rainbow only to not purposefully exclude brook trout. Those Dip *hits had to try on this one to exclude brook trout and further show their ecologically FUBAR favoritism for invasive species.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
I can't wait to see the signs showing a brown, rainbow, and brook trout and instructions to kill the rainbows and brook trout but release the all mighty browns. That will send an excellent educational message to the angling public.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
If brook trout were on fire PFBC would not pis* on them to put it out.
