silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
Yes. The problem is, I've seen the effects of a zero creel for brook trout program (Maryland). It's incredible what happens to the quantity and size of brook trout when you protect them and don't stock over them.
The state actually stocks 5+ lb brown trout well up into brook trout territory on the PA stream I was talking about in my original post. A local club stocks rainbows that the state gives them as fingerlings to grow out. That is insane as far as I'm concerned. It also shows a complete disregard for the effects of stocking on native trout.
This stream should be 100% native brook trout. Why they started stocking it at all is beyond me. This is kind of the problem in general. We've destroyed (and still are) native trout streams in pursuit of creating this artificial trout fishery.
I'm sure the vast majority of April anglers wouldn't be thrilled if the only trout we had were 6 inch brook trout. The reality is, that's exactly what it should be. 26 inch rainbow trout would never actually happen in this state.
This is all a paradigm shift that will never happen I'm sure.
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,186
Actually, I think the put and take for turkeys was tried a long time ago, or at least stocking of pen raised "wild" turkeys to increase or re-establish wild turkeys. The problem was, they didn's stay wild. Complete failure.
So instead, they trapped and relocated birds.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
Mike,
We had this discussion a while back about the average size and population of trout fish in special reg streams. Here is the discussion >
Wisconsin Trout Study
From the link above. The conclusions from the multi decade study are complex but is as follows:
Streams with catch and release and slot limits had higher densities of large brown trout compared to streams with low minimum length limit, high daily bag limits.
We had this discussion a while back about the average size and population of trout fish in special reg streams. Here is the discussion >
Wisconsin Trout Study
From the link above. The conclusions from the multi decade study are complex but is as follows:
Streams with catch and release and slot limits had higher densities of large brown trout compared to streams with low minimum length limit, high daily bag limits.
jifigz
Well-known member
They do that with things. You know, pheasants? After all, there is a pheasant stamp now so they are basically doing the same thing as the PFBC is with trout and the special stamp that funds that stocking.
I'll make a separate post to chime in with the rest of this thread.
jifigz
Well-known member
This debate comes up often. Yes, I would like to see less stocking over wild trout. No, I don't think all of these unstocked wild trout waters should be C&R artificial lures only. I also don't think that there should be a season closed to fishing. I also don't think that I should be looked at with scorn if I harvest a wild trout or a smallmouth bass or any other game fish. Over all there are less anglers than other times in recent history and there are more and better wild trout. I may not even keep a fish at all all yeah but if I do I don't want to be looked down upon. I used to be the one that did the judging but now I realize that is so ridiculous.
krayfish2
Well-known member
Save the money on trucks, fuel, manpower, etc. Let the freezer fillers come to the hatchery and limit out. Let them pick the size of the fish, utilize them in the appropriate raceway and they can even pay $10 extra for getting the milk right from the cow. Guaranteed success, bragging rights and keeps the misfit fish out of wild streams. At least give them the option and see if it flies.
F
FCP
Member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2011
- Messages
- 40
Some more food for thought.
Why Montana Went Wild - Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks
Montana Outdoors, May June 2004
fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2004/****Vincent.htm
Enjoy, FCP
Why Montana Went Wild - Montana Fish, Wildlife & Parks
Montana Outdoors, May June 2004
fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2004/****Vincent.htm
Enjoy, FCP
S
supervdl
Member
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2018
- Messages
- 61
+1 and stop stocking over wild trout in Class A waters.
MKern
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 3,822
If you keep looking at the fish commis. as a business and not a service in there lies the issue. They are not to make money, they are to regulate the waters and promote conservation of the waterways and aquatic species.
And to say that the majority of license buys are first weekend warriors (which is a true statement) supply the dollars and there fore should get what they want is just irresponsible of the resource and the money brought in.
And to say that the majority of license buys are first weekend warriors (which is a true statement) supply the dollars and there fore should get what they want is just irresponsible of the resource and the money brought in.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
It's not just about the money. It's about doing the right thing.
You're right though, the Fish and Boat Commission is setup more like a business. Their funding is almost entirely dependent on the revenue they generate through license sales. That incentivises pushing license sales over all else.
Their mission; "The mission of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission is: to protect, conserve, and enhance the Commonwealth's aquatic resources and provide fishing and boating opportunities."
and the "Resource First" philosophy seems like little more than lip service to be brutally honest.
I'd like someone to explain to me how stocking fish over naturally reproducing fish is beneficial to the resource. Simple question. If the first priority truly is "to protect, conserve and enhance the resources", how on earth is stocking triploids, genetically modified ("golden trout") etc. in any way beneficial to the long term success of the resource?
You're right though, the Fish and Boat Commission is setup more like a business. Their funding is almost entirely dependent on the revenue they generate through license sales. That incentivises pushing license sales over all else.
Their mission; "The mission of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission is: to protect, conserve, and enhance the Commonwealth's aquatic resources and provide fishing and boating opportunities."
and the "Resource First" philosophy seems like little more than lip service to be brutally honest.
I'd like someone to explain to me how stocking fish over naturally reproducing fish is beneficial to the resource. Simple question. If the first priority truly is "to protect, conserve and enhance the resources", how on earth is stocking triploids, genetically modified ("golden trout") etc. in any way beneficial to the long term success of the resource?
Fly-Swatter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,243
I don't pretend to know the minutiae of how funds are gained and allocated in the PAFBC, but I do know a thing or two about business and marketing.
MKern: I agree. The PAFBC should not be viewed as a business. Rather, they should be viewed as a not for profit company (as an analogy). Their goal should be to break even or make a small profit that gets put back into the "company". If it was run like this, increasing license fees and other revenue sources to keep pace with increasing costs would be SOP.
I believe the error being made by the PAFBC is they operate as if there is a direct cause and effect between stocking fish and angler engagement (ie, revenue increases throughout license sales, equipment tax, etc.). It would be wise for them to segment the angling public by fishing days per year and equipment purchases by anglers per year. I am convinced there is a direct correlation between the number of days one spends fishing and the willingness one has to buy fishing related equipment, regardless of angling technique.
Further, as I mentioned in a previous post, segmenting anglers by target species would help to determine the need for and impact of stocking more and larger trout vs. reducing stocking and shifting the cost savings to waterways conservation. I can't imagine why anyone who fished, "boats", or just recreates on, near, or in our waterways would not want those waterways to be cleaner.
Also, being proactive about engaging the next generation of anglers makes whatever model they use more sustainable.
Finally, using various inbound marketing channels to promote initiatives and events, and to bring in out of state revenue just makes good business sense. Think awareness, engagement, and promotion. If the state legislature has some oversight of the PAFBC (Arway), then engaging the non-angling public but promoting non-angling / non-boating benefits of waterways conservation just makes sense.
MKern: I agree. The PAFBC should not be viewed as a business. Rather, they should be viewed as a not for profit company (as an analogy). Their goal should be to break even or make a small profit that gets put back into the "company". If it was run like this, increasing license fees and other revenue sources to keep pace with increasing costs would be SOP.
I believe the error being made by the PAFBC is they operate as if there is a direct cause and effect between stocking fish and angler engagement (ie, revenue increases throughout license sales, equipment tax, etc.). It would be wise for them to segment the angling public by fishing days per year and equipment purchases by anglers per year. I am convinced there is a direct correlation between the number of days one spends fishing and the willingness one has to buy fishing related equipment, regardless of angling technique.
Further, as I mentioned in a previous post, segmenting anglers by target species would help to determine the need for and impact of stocking more and larger trout vs. reducing stocking and shifting the cost savings to waterways conservation. I can't imagine why anyone who fished, "boats", or just recreates on, near, or in our waterways would not want those waterways to be cleaner.
Also, being proactive about engaging the next generation of anglers makes whatever model they use more sustainable.
Finally, using various inbound marketing channels to promote initiatives and events, and to bring in out of state revenue just makes good business sense. Think awareness, engagement, and promotion. If the state legislature has some oversight of the PAFBC (Arway), then engaging the non-angling public but promoting non-angling / non-boating benefits of waterways conservation just makes sense.
bigjohn58
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,355
I've said it for years that class A streams (especially small class As) need to be treated differently then the rest of the streams. Protect what resources we have. I don't think they need to be all C&R but definitely down to a 2 fish limit. I won't lie though if you find someone who is catching and keeping fish on these Class A streams very often having rules in place will mean nothing to them. Those type of people do what they please and do not seem to have much respect. The amount of trash also seen on Class A streams is really disturbing. Often I see pull off areas where people just throw out all kinds of garbage. No one ever bothers picking it up. You would think the Fish Commission, Game Commission, DCNR, DEP, someone would be seeing this and doing what they can to clean up these situations. They usually do nothing until someone calls and complains. There is a lot broken with the system. Some of it just comes down to educating people which I feel is a near impossible feat to accomplish.
MKern
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 3,822
2 fish should be the limit, even for stocked fish. Catch what you can eat in a short amount of time. If you want to feed the family, then they should fish too (and buy a license).
S
springer1
Active member
Yep. And it’s not just class “A” trout waters, there are numerous warm water SEPA streams that had healthy populations of panfish and smallies until stocking started back when I was a kid. For instance, Darby & Ithan were full of sustaining fish populations.
bigjohn58
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 23, 2006
- Messages
- 1,355
I know a Class A stream that is larger than most that gets stocked. It is beneficial due to the number of meat hunters that come to this stream. If it wasn't stocked I have a feeling the wild numbers would also drop in the section that is stocked. People are hogs on the stream. They will catch a limit take them to the vehicle and will be back at it again. They have made steps to help improve the stream such as making it catch and release from Labor Day to end of February but its a 5 fish limit the rest of the year. People still catch and keep them though after that date just because they are uneducated or just do not care. Until just a month or so ago the county didn't have a WCO for the last several years. Hopefully this new WCO will help with the illegal activity. Regulations do not mean anything if there is no one around to enforce them.
salvelinus
Well-known member
Do you think it would still receive the same pressure if it was not stocked? i know two streams that the PFBC stopped stocking due to good wild populations and I never see anybody on them anymore.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
Eventually the meat hunters would stop fishing it. I know this to be 100% true. How? The few blue lines I fish and have never seen another person there, nor any sign people are near them or fish them. That's usually where I go on opening day. A few of these are decent sized streams that are on par with typical stocked streams in terms of size. Full of fish, and yet on opening day, there's never anyone there.
Similarly, the stream I was talking about in my original post has several very high quality tributary creeks with excellent populations of brook trout. I never see anyone fishing them. Even on the first day.
The stocking draws the crowds.
K
KenU
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 209
We have the most and some of the best wild and native trout fishing east of the Mississippi. And one doesn’t need a plane ticket to get there. Forget the stream classification system. We have a lot of Class B, C, and even D trout waters that can provide a great day of wild trout fishing – providing they are not being stocked. I know, because I fish them and so do some of the others who post here. Just put back what you catch. We don’t need to eat the baseballs to enjoy the game.
