Possible Hatchery Closures/ License Hike

[LetortAngler]

The PFBC is in the process of trying to get more revenue, considering a vote on a license hike, closure of some WW hatcheries, and a quarter million less trout. All would go in effect in 2019 if passed.

Here's the link




http://triblive.com/sports/outdoors/12774447-74/commissioners-vote-to-allow-closing-of-fish-hatcheries-reduced-trout-stocking

 

[afishinado]

From the FBC site:

http://www.fishandboat.com/AboutUs/Documents/ArwayLastCastSB30.pdf

http://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Documents/StreamsLakesRemovedStocking2019.pdf

http://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Documents/StreamsLakesRemovedStocking2019-list.pdf

 

[jifigz]

I haven't read those links yet, but I would rather see them close trout hatcheries than cut into their warm water program. I realize that you pointed out that they were cutting both to some degree, but I'd rather have it be a from the trout than from their musky, walleye, and other WW stocking pursuits.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

On the list is section 4 of Bald Eagle Creek. From what I found, this is the section between the inlet of Spring Creek in Milesburg and Salyers Lake. This is referred to as the Lower Bald Eagle by fisherman. This section supports wild brown trout populations and some reproduction. Repo occurs in at least two significant tribs and there are two areas that I have observed redds
I'm excited.
It will be very interesting to see the local's response. This is a very popular opening day (and beyond) put and take area.

From what observed, the progression went this way. A few years ago they stopped stocking browns. After sometime, I believe they did a survey. Starting this fall they listed as regulated waters (no harvest after labor day). Now this.

 

[afishinado]

jifigz wrote:
I haven't read those links yet, but I would rather see them close trout hatcheries than cut into their warm water program. I realize that you pointed out that they were cutting both to some degree, but I'd rather have it be a from the trout than from their musky, walleye, and other WW stocking pursuits.

Reality is, by far the most costly service performed by the PFBC is trout stocking. In comparison, the WW programs are a much smaller part of the budget. I too believe it would be unfair to the many WW anglers to spend such a disportionate amount of their license dollars to fund trout stocking. Any cuts in the WW programs will make this inequity even greater, since as we stand right now, more than half of your $30+ resident license fee + trout stamp goes to pay for the trout stocking program.

It comes down to satisfying and keeping the marginal license buyers that fish for trout on opening day and only a few times in the early season. That's what it really boils down to, IMO.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

IMO, trout stocking for opening day is akin to a drug addiction. If we don't get our stringer-filling fix, we go into withdraw. It is dysfunctional and destructive to both the local environments of hatcheries/stocking sites and to the learning curve of anglers.

It's a form of pollution to dump hundreds to thousands of adult fish into a local waterway. Lakes seem to be better able to withstand that stress, but I'm sure there is an impact. Imagine not only the amount of food the freshly stocked trout eat and crap, but also the impact of all the anglers concentrating on a select number of hapless fisheries. And, how many fish die and decompose in those still waters? Decomposition contributes to heat-of-the-summer low oxygen stress.

What if PA adopted a trout stocking program that is similar to its WW stocking. In other words, stock only waters that have the potential to nurture hold-over trout and stock with fingerlings. Also, do not stock wild trout streams (maybe class c through a), especially those that are "small" (definition TBD). Then measure survival and growth rates of both wild and stocked trout in all classes of stream. Finally, only continue stocking those waters that show good year to year survival as compared to accepted standards.

For example, PA stopped stocking musky fingerlings in the North Branch of the Susky due to very good repro rates as compared to WI and other musky states. Win!

This may not be a perfect plan, but it's far better than dumping a bunch of raceway raised fish into a lake or stream with extremely low survival rates.

The name of the game needs to be efficiency. Letting 1-2 week per year anglers determine long range policy is essentially letting the inmates run the asylum. Everyone will adapt and (consulting crystal ball) we will enjoy more out of state license revenue because both WW and CW fisheries will be far better for it.

 

[Hook_Jaw]

A lot of big browns in bald eagle and fishing creek this will however **** a lot of people off it's a circle jerk those streams the first couple weeks of season.

 

[Dave_W]

The PFBC is really over a barrel.

If you'll recall, a few years ago, due to budget cuts, there was an effort to close a trout hatchery or two, with the main effort targeting the hatchery at Fisherman's Paradise. Local angler complaints about reducing stocking got the legislature involved, and the closure, for better or worse, didn't happen. I think this struggle is likely to repeat itself.

With respect to WW vs trout stocking....we can all agree that cessation of stocking on creeks like lower Bald Eagle would be beneficial, but such cessation can result in posting. A more likely scenario, would be to continue stocking the same ATWs, but just reduce the allocation of fish per section.

I'm not sure where the largest doller amount in the WW program goes to. Muskies are expensive to raise and I suspect more lakes and streams will be dropped from this program, unfortunately. Moreover, the incipient program to raise yearling muskies instead of fingerlings may also get impacted. Walleye fry/fingerlings may also be reduced, although it has been difficult to ascertain how effective natural repro of walleyes actually is, especially on the big river systems.

Whatever the case, it's tough to see how this plays out. "Do more with less" is ultimately unsustainable and something eventually has to give.

 

[bigjohn58]

I won't lie and I don't care what people think of me...if lower Fishing Creek stops getting stocked I will patrol the stream and harass the greedy fishermen that over harvest the stream. I grew up on the stream and I will protect it the way I see fit. I feel it needs stocked due to the uneducated population that rape the stream to fill their freezer. I'm ok with the stream not being stocked if it stops the uneducated freezer filling people from fishing but this isn't going to happen. Now if they completely change the regs and enforce them I won't be as hostile.

 

[bigjohn58]

Quite honestly I see a lot of the average people not buying a license if this all goes through...

 

[Hook_Jaw]

They will continue to harvest fishing creek I believe that and I also think the average fisherman will probably not buy a license.

 

[SteveG]

The 2015-2016 report that I have in front of me shows that PFBC stocked 4.9 million trout, and 51.4 million warmwater fish. Of the warmwater fish, 45 million were walleye fry and 1.7 million were walleye fingerlings.

I understand the stocking of fry and fingerling because of the lower cost, but given the mortality of hatchery fish that size (see Little J study on fingerling survival), what's the point lol.

Until some big moves towards more sustainable programs and a culture change among anglers start to happen, this is only going to further spiral out of control

 

[bigjohn58]

SteveG wrote:
The 2015-2016 report that I have in front of me shows that PFBC stocked 4.9 million trout, and 51.4 million warmwater fish. Of the warmwater fish, 45 million were walleye fry and 1.7 million were walleye fingerlings.

I understand the stocking of fry and fingerling because of the lower cost, but given the mortality of hatchery fish that size (see Little J study on fingerling survival), what's the point lol.

Until some big moves towards more sustainable programs and a culture change among anglers start to happen, this is only going to further spiral out of control

Most definitely!

 

[bigjohn58]

SteveG wrote:
The 2015-2016 report that I have in front of me shows that PFBC stocked 4.9 million trout, and 51.4 million warmwater fish. Of the warmwater fish, 45 million were walleye fry and 1.7 million were walleye fingerlings.

I understand the stocking of fry and fingerling because of the lower cost, but given the mortality of hatchery fish that size (see Little J study on fingerling survival), what's the point lol.

Until some big moves towards more sustainable programs and a culture change among anglers start to happen, this is only going to further spiral out of control

Where are these walleye being stocked? I had a conversation with a few guys a couple weeks ago on the Susquehanna that were walleye fishing. They kept one and I didn't care. Told them that the majority of walleye in the river are stocked anyways. They told me it hasn't been stocked in years. I know I saw a study somewhere that said a huge percentage of the walleye in the river were stocked. Any info on that?

I also say do away with the shad program. Until the dams have better fish ladders or passage ways for the fish its a joke and complete waste.

 

[afishinado]

bigjohn58 wrote:

SteveG wrote:
The 2015-2016 report that I have in front of me shows that PFBC stocked 4.9 million trout, and 51.4 million warmwater fish. Of the warmwater fish, 45 million were walleye fry and 1.7 million were walleye fingerlings.

I understand the stocking of fry and fingerling because of the lower cost, but given the mortality of hatchery fish that size (see Little J study on fingerling survival), what's the point lol.

Until some big moves towards more sustainable programs and a culture change among anglers start to happen, this is only going to further spiral out of control

Where are these walleye being stocked? I had a conversation with a few guys a couple weeks ago on the Susquehanna that were walleye fishing. They kept one and I didn't care. Told them that the majority of walleye in the river are stocked anyways. They told me it hasn't been stocked in years. I know I saw a study somewhere that said a huge percentage of the walleye in the river were stocked. Any info on that?

I also say do away with the shad program. Until the dams have better fish ladders or passage ways for the fish its a joke and complete waste.

http://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/PennsylvaniaFishes/Documents/WalleyeManagement.pdf

 

[Fredrick]

afishinado wrote:
From the FBC site:

http://www.fishandboat.com/AboutUs/Documents/ArwayLastCastSB30.pdf

http://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Documents/StreamsLakesRemovedStocking2019.pdf

http://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Documents/StreamsLakesRemovedStocking2019-list.pdf

Well it looks like the wild trout in Hay creek will get a break

 

[bigjohn58]

afishinado wrote:

http://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/PennsylvaniaFishes/Documents/WalleyeManagement.pdf

So did I read that right that if the population of walleye in the watershed are less than 67% stocked then they will quit stocking that water? So this means that greater than 67% of the walleye in the Susquehanna River are stocked? Please correct me if I read that wrong.

 

[troutbert]

nymphingmaniac wrote:
On the list is section 4 of Bald Eagle Creek. From what I found, this is the section between the inlet of Spring Creek in Milesburg and Salyers Lake. This is referred to as the Lower Bald Eagle by fisherman. This section supports wild brown trout populations and some reproduction. Repo occurs in at least two significant tribs and there are two areas that I have observed redds
I'm excited.
It will be very interesting to see the local's response. This is a very popular opening day (and beyond) put and take area.

From what observed, the progression went this way. A few years ago they stopped stocking browns. After sometime, I believe they did a survey. Starting this fall they listed as regulated waters (no harvest after labor day). Now this.

I went out to Bald Eagle Cr and looked for redds and spawning trout last fall, and saw some. It was pretty interesting to see in what types of places there were redds, and where there were none. I walked a fairly long stretch without seeing redds. But then I started seeing some, and started to get the "pattern" of the places where conditions were right for spawning habitat. The locations were a little different on a big creek like that, compared to a medium sized stream like Spring Creek, or a small stream out in the state forests.

When I began fishing Bald Eagle at the end of the 1980s, there were wild browns in there then, just like now. And many people knew it.

They've probably been here ever since they were first introduced in the late 1800s.

 

[DaveKile]

PFBC Adds Waters to Popular Keystone Select Stocked Trout Program

ERIE, Pa. (Sept. 26) – For the second consecutive year, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) is adding more waters to the increasingly popular Keystone Select Stocked Trout Program, bringing to 22 the total number of creeks holding the big 14”-20” trophy trout.

The eight new waters, which will be stocked for the 2018 trout season, include:
Armstrong County, Buffalo Creek, Section 03 (3.70 miles) – Little Buffalo Run downstream to 0.6 miles upstream of SR4035 (Craigsville)
Berks County, Tulpehocken Creek, Section 06 (1.95 miles) – Outflow Blue Marsh Lake downstream to SR3008 Bridge (Rebers Road bridge)
Fayette County, Meadow Run, Section 06 (2.20 miles) – Bridge on Dinner Bell Road (SR2011) downstream to the mouth
Lebanon County, Quittapahilla Creek, Section 04 (1.10 miles) – Spruce Street Bridge (T-398) downstream to SR0934 bridge
Lycoming County, Lycoming Creek, Section 04 (1.30 miles) – First overhead utility line upstream of Powys Curve downstream to bridge on old Route 15 (SR0015) near Haleeka
Monroe County, McMichael Creek, Section 04 (1.44 miles) – 1.6 km downstream Beaver Valley Road (T-414) bridge downstream to 1.14 km downstream Turkey Hill Road (T-416) bridge
Snyder County, Middle Creek, Section 04 (1.20 miles) – SR4007 bridge downstream to the downstream boundary of State Game Lands 188
Tioga County, Pine Creek, Section 06 (1.06 miles) – Darling Run downstream to 150 m downstream of Owassee Slide Run
The PFBC announced earlier this year that it was adding six waters to the program, which was first launched in 2016 with eight creeks. Today’s announcement came during the PFBC’s quarterly business meeting held here.

“We were confident when we created the Keystone Select program that anglers would enjoy the opportunities to catch trophy trout and wouldn’t mind driving the additional distances to these destination areas,” said PFBC Executive Director John Arway. “The addition of these eight streams now makes it even easier for anglers to fish a Keystone Select stream within just a few hours of their home.”

Under the program, approximately 6,500 large trout will be distributed among the 22 waters. The trout will be stocked at a rate of 175 to 225 per mile, which is comparable to the numbers of similarly sized fish in Pennsylvania’s best wild trout waters.

The waters are regulated under Delayed Harvest Artificial Lures Only (DHALO) regulations, which provides the opportunity to catch these fish multiple times. Under DHALO regulations, waters are open to fishing year-round, but anglers can harvest trout only between June 15 and Labor Day and the trout have to be a minimum of nine inches. For the rest of the year, these waters are managed on a catch-and-release-only basis and the creel limit is zero. Tackle is limited to artificial lures and flies.

The six waters added earlier this year include:
Berks County, Tulpehocken Creek, Section 7 (1.84 miles)
Cambria County, Chest Creek, Section 3 (1.80 miles)
Fulton County, Big Cove Creek, Section 3 (0.93 miles)
Luzerne County, Harveys Creek, Section 4 (1.70 miles)
McKean County, Kinzua Creek, Section 4 (2.29 miles)
Venango County, Oil Creek, Section 7 (1.55 miles)
The original eight waters include:
Chester County, Middle Branch White Clay Creek, Section 3 (1.67 miles)
Dauphin County, Wiconisco Creek, Section 3 (0.74 miles)
Lackawanna/Wyoming Counties, South Branch Tunkhannock Creek, Section 4 (0.99 miles)
Lawrence County, Neshannock Creek, Section 3 (2.67 miles)
Lycoming County, Loyalsock Creek, Section 5 (1.49 miles)
Potter County, First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek, Section 4 (1.67 miles)
Somerset County, Laurel Hill Creek, Section 3 (2.33 miles)
Westmoreland County, Loyalhanna Creek, Section 3 (1.67 miles)

In addition, commissioners added 99 waters to the list of wild trout streams; adjusted the section limits of two waters; and removed one water from the list. Three stream sections were added to the list of Class A wild trout streams.

 

[PennKev]

Fly-Swatter wrote:
What if PA adopted a trout stocking program that is similar to its WW stocking. In other words, stock only waters that have the potential to nurture hold-over trout and stock with fingerlings. Also, do not stock wild trout streams (maybe class c through a), especially those that are "small" (definition TBD). Then measure survival and growth rates of both wild and stocked trout in all classes of stream. Finally, only continue stocking those waters that show good year to year survival as compared to accepted standards.

I have nearly zero faith in expanding the fingerling program. Streams that already have wild trout, but low populations, usually suffer from physical habitat issues. No amount of fingerlings will have a long term affect on the wild trout population. If there is only habitat to support a handful of adult trout, that's all you will ever have... .... Or a greater number of smaller fish

I'm all for lowering the bar on what is considered a wild trout stream and should be removed from stocking, but I don't think eliminating adult trout stocking is a necessary part of this. I see no problem with stocking larger "marginal" *cough* warm water *cough* streams. These waters do create a significant recreational asset. No, they aren't blue ribbon streams and on locals care to fish them, but that is what they are for. Convenient, seasonal, local trout fishing over decent numbers of adult trout Unless you live with in the wild trout "T" such fishing is not that common, even if you live in a wild trout area, larger streams with larger trout could still be a fair distance away.

I do think that we should, as you said, eliminate very small waters from the program, although I think this has already gradually been happening over the years. However, more likely due to budget issues than any real effort to improve wild trout pops.