Should we trust PA fish and Boat with 17 million R.A.W.A dollars a year????

[silverfox]

This reminds me of one of the other infuriating things I've found. In that document, published in 2015, on the last page of the brook trout section, it says; "The brook trout is being monitored by PFBC Fisheries Managers' game fish surveys in certain streams. A formal state monitoring plan is currently being developed to assess population trends".

Where is it? I asked about this a long time ago and got no response which is typical. If there are certain areas that should be prioritized for conservation projects, that would be good to know. I would hope this state monitoring plan was completed at some point in the last 7 years. Usually, this kind of thing is published, which makes me think it probably got axed at some point. Probably took a back seat to slot limit studies for brown trout on Penns creek.

 

[bigjohn358]

Bigjohn, Given the time taken to search through the document, familiarize myself with sections thereof, and then review a few species plans, including ST, I listed the priority one ST items in their basic form, primarily to show that there were important items that fell within a priority one category, not just priority two. Your questions per the document deal with ensuring that state and fed air quality regs are met and setting up monitoring programs, but if you look at the document there is additional info that will further answer your questions.

So I'm guessing this money will be used to monitor our waters doing tests on the acid rain impact. Will this money also go towards fighting to punish other states that are not obeying the regulations or that has higher emissions? The acid rain that falls here has nothing to do with our state.

 

[bigjohn358]

This reminds me of one of the other infuriating things I've found. In that document, published in 2015, on the last page of the brook trout section, it says; "The brook trout is being monitored by PFBC Fisheries Managers' game fish surveys in certain streams. A formal state monitoring plan is currently being developed to assess population trends".

Where is it? I asked about this a long time ago and got no response which is typical. If there are certain areas that should be prioritized for conservation projects, that would be good to know. I would hope this state monitoring plan was completed at some point in the last 7 years. Usually, this kind of thing is published, which makes me think it probably got axed at some point. Probably took a back seat to slot limit studies for brown trout on Penns creek.

Are they still doing that slot limit study on Penns?

 

[troutbert]

To their credit, they are working on the private stocking thing, but in my opinion, far too late, and far too slowly.

The amount of stocking over native brook trout done by the PFBC and their affiliated coop hatcheries is far greater than that done by private stocking.

As long as the PFBC does it, the private people can say "You're doing it, why can't we?"

 

[bigjohn358]

The amount of stocking over native brook trout done by the PFBC and their affiliated coop hatcheries is far greater than that done by private stocking.

As long as the PFBC does it, the private people can say "You're doing it, why can't we?"

Oh I 100% agree with you there...especially on the smaller streams. I'm also seeing more and more sportsmen clubs stocking over native brookies. Something has to change the mentality of a lot of these sportsmen clubs. If you can get through to them you will be hitting a large portion of the kill kill kill mentality and the ones who insist on stocking these small brookie streams. A lot of these sportsmen clubs are headed by the people who strive to keep the traditions alive (stocking wise) and refuse to change their ways. The PFBC isn't going to be able to change anything though until they change their ways. I just keep thinking about the streams in Clinton County like Young Womans, Bakers Run, Hyner Run, etc. I always feel bad for the wild/native fish in those streams. Then there are a number of them like Drury Run that I hear gets stocked by the sportsmen club. There are some people fighting to have Cross Forks (Potter Co) stocked again I've heard.

 

[silverfox]

The amount of stocking over native brook trout done by the PFBC and their affiliated coop hatcheries is far greater than that done by private stocking.

As long as the PFBC does it, the private people can say "You're doing it, why can't we?"

To be fair, it was the private stocking of private/commercial brook trout that caused the gill lice problem.

 

[Mike]

No worries, Bigjohn, per your post #5 above, American eels have been ahead of the game. They got at least two State Wildlife Grants related to the first version of the Plan about 15 yrs ago in the Delaware Basin.

 

[silverfox]

Oh I 100% agree with you there...especially on the smaller streams. I'm also seeing more and more sportsmen clubs stocking over native brookies. Something has to change the mentality of a lot of these sportsmen clubs. If you can get through to them you will be hitting a large portion of the kill kill kill mentality and the ones who insist on stocking these small brookie streams. A lot of these sportsmen clubs are headed by the people who strive to keep the traditions alive (stocking wise) and refuse to change their ways. The PFBC isn't going to be able to change anything though until they change their ways. I just keep thinking about the streams in Clinton County like Young Womans, Bakers Run, Hyner Run, etc. I always feel bad for the wild/native fish in those streams. Then there are a number of them like Drury Run that I hear gets stocked by the sportsmen club. There are some people fighting to have Cross Forks (Potter Co) stocked again I've heard.

Absolutely. Though I'd argue it's the state's responsibility to TELL these clubs what they can and can't do. If they're getting the green light from the state, it's impossible for anyone else to change their minds. Further, they don't own a lot of these waters that they're stocking. In a lot of cases, they're stocking public lands (waters), which drives me crazy. I'm a public landowner and I don't have a say in what goes on if 15 guys high on purina trout chow decide they want to dump 34,000 rainbow trout in a brook trout stream on state forest land, and PFBC says do it, then that's what's going to happen. You aren't going to find 15 locals who oppose it and I could have 300 nonresidents sign a petition to stop it and nothing will happen.

 

[troutbert]

Oh I 100% agree with you there...especially on the smaller streams. I'm also seeing more and more sportsmen clubs stocking over native brookies. Something has to change the mentality of a lot of these sportsmen clubs. If you can get through to them you will be hitting a large portion of the kill kill kill mentality and the ones who insist on stocking these small brookie streams. A lot of these sportsmen clubs are headed by the people who strive to keep the traditions alive (stocking wise) and refuse to change their ways. The PFBC isn't going to be able to change anything though until they change their ways. I just keep thinking about the streams in Clinton County like Young Womans, Bakers Run, Hyner Run, etc. I always feel bad for the wild/native fish in those streams. Then there are a number of them like Drury Run that I hear gets stocked by the sportsmen club. There are some people fighting to have Cross Forks (Potter Co) stocked again I've heard.

I thought Cross Fork Creek was being stocked from Hungry Hollow Rd to the mouth. But I looked at the PFBC regs booklet, and it doesn't show it as stocked.

Is a club stocking that section? Or is it supposed to be Class A, unstocked water?

That's gone back and forth several times over the years.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Oh I 100% agree with you there...especially on the smaller streams. I'm also seeing more and more sportsmen clubs stocking over native brookies. Something has to change the mentality of a lot of these sportsmen clubs. If you can get through to them you will be hitting a large portion of the kill kill kill mentality and the ones who insist on stocking these small brookie streams. A lot of these sportsmen clubs are headed by the people who strive to keep the traditions alive (stocking wise) and refuse to change their ways. The PFBC isn't going to be able to change anything though until they change their ways. I just keep thinking about the streams in Clinton County like Young Womans, Bakers Run, Hyner Run, etc. I always feel bad for the wild/native fish in those streams. Then there are a number of them like Drury Run that I hear gets stocked by the sportsmen club. There are some people fighting to have Cross Forks (Potter Co) stocked again I've heard.

Potter county is ironically our best place in the state to conserve native brook trout, is the least populated, and they stock or get some of the most PAFB trout in the state. At some point you just have to tell these sportsman’s clubs NO. Those streams and state parks are the common wealths resources. Those clubs tragic ignorance shouldn’t be a deterrent and your absolutely right PAFB needs to lead by example.

But back to what many have said. If PA fish and Boat educated people on more than how banana trout are grown in raceways we wouldn’t have to deal with all this ignorance and angry fishermen. They may not like it in alot of cases but many of them would say “i get it”. PAFB won’t post anything about native brook trout or dangers of invasive species that EBTJV does science communication on despite the fact that PAFB is “technically” a partner(although derelict) in the range wide effort Maine to Georgia to save this fish. They hide the fact that brown and rainbow trout are in the IUCN top 100 worst alien invasive species list and known to be invasive in the scientific community by not listing on their aquatic invasive species page. “ scrub your waders/boots down and freeze em for zebra muscles, don’t transport live bait, ect. (All REALLY GOOD ADVICE) but then they go an stock 2 top 100 invasive species world wide x almost 9 million statewide.

This unwillingness to communicate the science that USGS, EBTJV, TU national’s conssrvation portfolia for brook trout, and countless university academics are trying to so hard to share is a disingenuous purposeful effort to keep the status quo at the known expense of our native fish assembleges and is why I started posting research on here in the first place.

 

[silverfox]

I thought Cross Fork Creek was being stocked from Hungry Hollow Rd to the mouth. But I looked at the PFBC regs booklet, and it doesn't show it as stocked.

Is a club stocking that section? Or is it supposed to be Class A, unstocked water?

That's gone back and forth several times over the years.

Cross fork is stocked.

It's also stocked by a private club.

It's C&R too, so those fish are put there to stay.

 

[bigjohn358]

Cross fork is stocked.

View attachment 1641225745

It's also stocked by a private club.

It's C&R too, so those fish are put there to stay.

Cross Forks is C&R? I was not aware of that. I thought a sportsman's club stocked it. I do not believe the state stocks it though but I could be completely wrong.

 

[silverfox]

Cross Forks is C&R? I was not aware of that. I thought a sportsman's club stocked it. I do not believe the state stocks it though but I could be completely wrong.

It’s stocked by the state, a club, and it’s C&R AFLO

 

[Fish Sticks]

It’s stocked by the state, a club, and it’s C&R AFLO

They will protect the stockers there but if a native brook trout wanders into kettle its fair game. Other states have entire watersheds that are catch and release on native brook trout, you can harvest non natives, and they don’t stock at all in those watersheds. We sabotage crossforks brokk trout population with stockers, protect the stockers, and any brook trout moving into kettle are fair game with banks lined with people looking for meat……makes sense

 

[silverfox]

They will protect the stockers there but if a native brook trout wanders into kettle its fair game. Other states have entire watersheds that are catch and release on native brook trout, you can harvest non natives, and they don’t stock at all in those watersheds. We sabotage crossforks brokk trout population with stockers, protect the stockers, and any brook trout moving into kettle are fair game with banks lined with people looking for meat……makes sense

I don't get the C&R for stockers other than the keystone select streams. It's counter to the often-cited excuse that stocked trout are stocked over wild trout because the expectation is they'll be harvested or just die. If you're stocking trout and making it C&R then I think there's an implied intent that they'll survive which begs the question of why stock over wild native brook trout with the intent of maintaining a population of stocked trout?

I guess this gets at the "estimated" biomass issue where we've decided a Class B or C population of brook trout isn't worth protecting so we'll just overload the section beyond what it can naturally support by dumping stocked trout on top of them. It's so bizarre to me. Then it's defended by the argument that stocking isn't limiting the brook trout biomass. If it can only support Class B or C, why would adding stocked trout and making it C&R result in anything other than the displacement of brook trout? Is it assumed that somehow a 7" brook trout will outcompete a 13" stocked rainbow? Especially when they're probably outnumbered by the stockers.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I don't get the C&R for stockers other than the keystone select streams. It's counter to the often-cited excuse that stocked trout are stocked over wild trout because the expectation is they'll be harvested or just die. If you're stocking trout and making it C&R then I think there's an implied intent that they'll survive which begs the question of why stock over wild native brook trout with the intent of maintaining a population of stocked trout?

I guess this gets at the "estimated" biomass issue where we've decided a Class B or C population of brook trout isn't worth protecting so we'll just overload the section beyond what it can naturally support by dumping stocked trout on top of them. It's so bizarre to me. Then it's defended by the argument that stocking isn't limiting the brook trout biomass. If it can only support Class B or C, why would adding stocked trout and making it C&R result in anything other than the displacement of brook trout? Is it assumed that somehow a 7" brook trout will outcompete a 13" stocked rainbow? Especially when they're probably outnumbered by the stockers.

This is the reason Id like an “Opt Out” for stocked sections because the commission will never change its behavior as long as stocked fish= more revenue. Brook trout could be ESA listed as threatened or endangered and they still wouldn’t do it. Look at whats happening with Chesapeake log perch, there are less than 6 streams on planet earth that still support limited numbers of them and their threatened at risk of extinction AND THE STATE CAN’T NOT STOCK A SINGLE ONE OF THOSE STREAMS.

An “opt out” of the stocked trout program would atleast weaken their hatchery program and prevent some damage.

 

[bigjohn358]

I don't get the C&R for stockers other than the keystone select streams. It's counter to the often-cited excuse that stocked trout are stocked over wild trout because the expectation is they'll be harvested or just die. If you're stocking trout and making it C&R then I think there's an implied intent that they'll survive which begs the question of why stock over wild native brook trout with the intent of maintaining a population of stocked trout?

I guess this gets at the "estimated" biomass issue where we've decided a Class B or C population of brook trout isn't worth protecting so we'll just overload the section beyond what it can naturally support by dumping stocked trout on top of them. It's so bizarre to me. Then it's defended by the argument that stocking isn't limiting the brook trout biomass. If it can only support Class B or C, why would adding stocked trout and making it C&R result in anything other than the displacement of brook trout? Is it assumed that somehow a 7" brook trout will outcompete a 13" stocked rainbow? Especially when they're probably outnumbered by the stockers.

I've never understood why an area that gets stocked year after year ends up being C&R. I think a section of Young Woman's and the Slate Run area of Pine are like this. IF they are C&R I wouldn't think it would need to be stocked and if stocked it would be at a very minimum. To me those areas if they need to be stocked heavily every year should be a Delayed Harvest of some sort. All the Keystone Selects I fish are Delayed Harvest. If an area is stocked I feel harvest should be allowed to an extent such as the Delayed Harvest regulations. The fish in these areas have trouble holding over. They can hold over but in all honesty the ones that are harvested will give the others a better chance of survival and I guarranty quite a few end up dying due to water temps. Any waters that can't hold trout in a normal fashion should have some sort of delayed harvest especially if stocked. This is one major issue I've always had with Pine Creek and its mostly artificial trout fishery. Money talks a lot in that area!

 

[Fish Sticks]

I want a real wild trout stamp where funds can’t be used to support hatchery fish. This way if you do not purchase a traditional trout stamp your not forced to fund the state run demise of native brook trout.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I've never understood why an area that gets stocked year after year ends up being C&R. I think a section of Young Woman's and the Slate Run area of Pine are like this. IF they are C&R I wouldn't think it would need to be stocked and if stocked it would be at a very minimum. To me those areas if they need to be stocked heavily every year should be a Delayed Harvest of some sort. All the Keystone Selects I fish are Delayed Harvest. If an area is stocked I feel harvest should be allowed to an extent such as the Delayed Harvest regulations. The fish in these areas have trouble holding over. They can hold over but in all honesty the ones that are harvested will give the others a better chance of survival and I guarranty quite a few end up dying due to water temps. Any waters that can't hold trout in a normal fashion should have some sort of delayed harvest especially if stocked. This is one major issue I've always had with Pine Creek and its mostly artificial trout fishery. Money talks a lot in that area!

On pine creek we have one of the most pristine environments in all of PA. Pine creek might even support more wild trout than the current amount of stocked trout. The why Montana went wild/dick Vincent study shows this can happen(cue 800 pafb staff prophetically claiming only works in montana….Bull). You could put open harvest on non natives and irony is it might actually be a higher quality fishery WITHOUT stocked fish 3 seasons a year(its not even a great stocked trout fishery in summer).

 

[silverfox]

I've never understood why an area that gets stocked year after year ends up being C&R. I think a section of Young Woman's and the Slate Run area of Pine are like this. IF they are C&R I wouldn't think it would need to be stocked and if stocked it would be at a very minimum. To me those areas if they need to be stocked heavily every year should be a Delayed Harvest of some sort. All the Keystone Selects I fish are Delayed Harvest. If an area is stocked I feel harvest should be allowed to an extent such as the Delayed Harvest regulations. The fish in these areas have trouble holding over. They can hold over but in all honesty the ones that are harvested will give the others a better chance of survival and I guarranty quite a few end up dying due to water temps. Any waters that can't hold trout in a normal fashion should have some sort of delayed harvest especially if stocked. This is one major issue I've always had with Pine Creek and its mostly artificial trout fishery. Money talks a lot in that area!

Right. The issue in places like Cross Fork or upper Kettle is that the C&R regs should be to protect brook trout (all wild trout if you deny biotic interactions resulting in the loss of one species) but we just couldn't bear to stop stocking, so the stocked trout end up with the same protections as the wild trout.

The simple solution there is to make brook trout C&R and everything else harvestable. Assuming there's any appetite to actually protect a SGCN as opposed to any species as long as it's born in the wild. Again, we can't get past the species favoritism and the dependence on stocking so it makes these awkward situations that don't make any sense. Nobody is willing to step up to focus on what's important because we don't want to alienate a demographic, yet anyone solely concerned with native fish gets the dirty end of the stick and nobody cares.