PFBC to allow stocking of Class A streams?

[Cznymph]

When individuals ask questions on this forum, I assume they are sincere in seeking a response unless the context of the question clearly indicates that the question is rhetorical.

Since in you’re in question answering mood, let me ask you this.

Given your background in biology and conservation, would you feel that it would be appropriate to submit concerns regarding the renewal of a NPDES permit directly to DEP, or would it be better to send those concerns to the factory that has the permit, because they said they would make sure DEP got them?

 

[Bamboozle]

As long as I’ve been concerned with contacting the commissioners, that information has never been available.

Could you show me where and when it was public?

Edited to add: using the wayback machine I was able to locate a saved copy of the PFBC website from 2017. There is no mention of commissioner’s contact information there either.

https://web.archive.org/web/20170719070632/http://www.fishandboat.com/AboutUs/Pages/CommissionerFifthDistrict.aspx

I'm not saying what you are saying about 2017 is not accurate, but I seen more than a few quirky things with the Wayback Machine and the PFBC website where despite indication there is a cache, it redirects to current information...

 

[Cznymph]

I'm not saying what you are saying about 2017 is not accurate, but I seen more than a few quirky things with the Wayback Machine and the PFBC website where despite indication there is a cache, it redirects to current information...

The commissioners match up with the date that the wayback machine is claiming the webpage is from.

 

[tomgamber]

Since my post disappeared, yet the question was allowed up, I'll answer again.

The point that was missed in the original post, or twisted, was that the commissioners (both PFBC and PGC) are appointed by the sitting governor. They serve at the pleasure of the sitting governor. Therefore that's the only entity to which they are held accountable.

I'm gonna gonna go out on a limb and say, wild trout vs stocking, is not the number one priority of the governor of the 5th most populous state in the union. Call it a hunch.

 

[Mike]

Since in you’re in question answering mood, let me ask you this.

Given your background in biology and conservation, would you feel that it would be appropriate to submit concerns regarding the renewal of a NPDES permit directly to DEP, or would it be better to send those concerns to the factory that has the permit, because they said they would make sure DEP got them?

DEP

Tomgamber, I believe it would be an unusual member of the legislature for whom wild trout vs stocking would be a priority. I remind you that I have retired, but I never had contact from or heard of a legislator or his/her aide who didn’t desire stocking. I never had either contact me to say my constituent wants your agency to stop stocking over wild trout. That doesn’t mean that it has not happened elsewhere in Pa, but I never heard of it and I had a pretty good network.

Furthermore, the PFBC has on occasion invited legislators to fish population surveys within their districts when cessation of stocking was on the table in Class A situations. I’m not sure how many minds such efforts changed despite the abundance of wild fish, but the PFBC has made such efforts in the past for specific streams, which probably isn’t well-known among anglers here who oppose stocking over Class A populations. As for Commissioners, they receive the AFM field schedules annually and sometimes join/watch fish population survey crews.

 

[Cznymph]

No longer in the mood.

That’s disappointing but understandable. I’m sure it must get exhausting constantly defending the nonsensical actions of the PFBC.

 

[DGC]

There are no criteria established by the PFBC by which a previously unstocked in the prior year Class A, that is still a Class A, qualifies for regular stocking, i.e. becomes STW, or resumes being an STW.

It is only those that were already being stocked that went from Class B or less to Class A for which the Commission has criteria for consideration to CONTINUE stocking. High angler use is one of the criteria.

One of the commissioners wondered out loud if the criteria were sufficient to take them out of the stream by stream decision process, leaving it to the Executive Director (whom they appoint) to decide using the current criteria.

Of course, they could develop new criteria, but none have been proposed.

 

[Mike]

There are no criteria established by the PFBC by which a previously unstocked in the prior year Class A, that is still a Class A, qualifies for regular stocking, i.e. becomes STW, or resumes being an STW.

Correct. Said another way, AFM’s can’t add unstocked A’s and unstocked B’s to the stocking program

 

[jifigz]

Correct. Said another way, AFM’s can’t add unstocked A’s and unstocked B’s to the stocking program

Really? Even Class B's are not easily added to the stocking program? That's amazing.

 

[Mike]

Really? Even Class B's are not easily added to the stocking program? That's amazing.

That’s was an in-house, Fisheries Management policy for probably 20-25 yrs. I was quite satisfied that we couldn’t add any B’s.

I did not object to the limited stocking of high use, urban and metro, historically stocked by the PFBC, Class A’s. That doesn’t mean, however, that I agreed with the stocking by the PFBC of all 13 or so Sections being stocked. None was in Area 6, but I had surveyed or participated in surveys of at least 8 of them in the past.

As time went on, I experienced a circumstance in which a suburban (but rural in appearance and attitudes) limestoner in Area 6 advanced from a Class D BT in the early 1980’s to a very good Class A BT stream in the 2010+ time period. It was historically stocked to a limited extent by a PFBC Cooperative Nursery with easily harvested ST and much of it was open to public fishing. One landowner volunteered to me that if it wasn’t for the club and his positive relationship with the members, he would not allow fishing. These riparian properties were farms and “gentlemen farms”, so losing any single property to posting amounted to considerable stream length. Limited stocking to keep all of those properties open and long stretches fishable for wild BT was more than a fair trade-off to me, particularly in a well-populated area.

 

[Mike]

Quite frankly I doubt the PFBC has the resources or $$$ to add a gazillion trout stream sections to the Stocked Trout Waters list.

The PFBC has access to some resources if it chooses to use them. It would and should simply reallocate trout stocked in documented low use stream sections and lakes to higher use waters and new waters where anticipated high could reasonably be expected. “New waters” could be never before stocked waters or extensions of section limits on existing stocked streams, or could more closely fit the subject of this thread. The staff has a decades long list of opening day angler use counts conducted statewide expressed for stream sections as anglers per mile from which to work. There are also angler counts from a number of stocked lakes.

As an example of how this could be done, stream sections with opening day counts lower than some percentile, say as a minimum the 10 th percentile of opening day usage, would be removed from the stocking program and their trout reallocated to higher use or anticipated higher use new waters. Angler use was so bad on a very few stream sections that no anglers were present at 8 AM on opening day, so those waters would be the obvious starting point for removal from the stocking program and reallocation of their trout.

Additionally, two very experienced staff (decades) used to have a friendly debate following years of angler count experience regarding how many stocked trout should be stocked in a stream section per opening day angler counted. The answers were 10 - 15 per angler, so 12.5 seemed like it would be a good compromise, bearing in mind some losses that occur prior to opening day on many streams due to natural mortality and movement. Such rules-of-thumb could provide insight into whether a water body, lake or stream, is being overstocked (another possible reallocation opportunity) or understocked ( an opportunity to receive more fish).

 

[troutbert]

The PFBC has access to some resources if it chooses to use them. It would and should simply reallocate trout stocked in documented low use stream sections and lakes to higher use waters and new waters where anticipated high could reasonably be expected. “New waters” could be never before stocked waters or extensions of section limits on existing stocked streams, or could more closely fit the subject of this thread. The staff has a decades long list of opening day angler use counts conducted statewide expressed for stream sections as number of anglers per mile from which to work. There are also angler counts from a number of stocked lakes.

As an example of how this could be done, stream sections with opening day counts lower than some percentile, say as a minimum the 10 th percentile of opening day usage, would be removed from the stocking program and their trout reallocated to higher use or anticipated higher use new waters. Angler use was so bad on a very few stream sections that no anglers were present at 8 AM on opening day, so those waters would be the obvious starting point for removal from the stocking program and reallocation of their trout.

Additionally, two very experienced staff (decades) used to have a friendly debate following years of angler count experience regarding how many stocked trout should be stocked in a stream section per opening day angler counted. The answers were 10 - 15 per angler, so 12.5 seemed like it would be a good compromise, bearing in mind some losses that occur prior to opening day on many streams due to natural mortality and movement. Such rules-of-thumb could provide insight into whether a water body, lake or stream, is being overstocked (another possible reallocation opportunity) or understocked ( an opportunity to receive more fish).

They could also end stocking on native brook trout streams and use those fish for stocking any new waters.

I think there are some potential new waters that could be stocked. Black Moshannon Lake for example.

Sinnemahoning Creek is another possibility. It's big water similar to Pine Creek or Loyalsock Creek. There is some public land access. There's private posted land, too, but some of those landowners might agree to public fishing in exchange for trout stocking.