Some Pennsylvania anglers will see stocked and wild trout together on opening day

[Fly-Swatter]

Some of you may have seen this article. Let's discuss.

 

[Mikey2006]

"If the stocking experiment confirms that hatchery trout and wild trout can indeed coexist, he said, those waters could support a two-tier fishery where anglers seeking stocked trout can harvest fish in the spring and spin and fly fishing anglers can tempt wild trout in the summer."

Are they seriously talking about doing that to class a streams? whole idea of stocked trout over wild fish is stupid and notice how the article made it seem like the fisherman's wishes along with what makes more money should be considered over whats best for the environment. How about not doing experiments where they stock over wild fish they instead experiment with reducing or ending stocking in creeks.

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear Fly-Swatter,

A two-tiered fishery? Dump stockers on wild ones, hope and pray that the wild ones don't get caught, and then when the truck chasers stop fishing the wild fish have the whole Summer, Fall, and Winter to recuperate. How ridiculous an idea is that?

I have a better, and far less stupid idea. The hatchery trucks can just stop at a Sheetz, WAWA, or Uni-Mart and just auction off the fish in buckets to solve their fiscal problems. That way the pasty fish lovers get the goods, and the self-sustaining trout can catch a break.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[troutbert]

What factual errors can you notice in this article? There are some.

 

[silverfox]

Purely speculation, but I suspect they'll propose (next Wednesday) to continue stocking rainbow trout only in the Class A + Stocked waters and prohibit the harvest of brown trout in those sections.

Not a bad compromise, in my opinion. If I'm correct.

 

[tomgamber]

 

[TimMurphy]

View attachment 1641229576

Dear Tom,

I'll bet there are natives in the hole!

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[Mike]

What factual errors can you notice in this article? There are some.

Not the cost of the 3.2 million PFBC adult trout stocked specifically by PFBC hatcheries. The article agrees with what I wrote here a couple of days ago. I said about $10 million with individual fish averaging about $3 each….from egg to delivery of the final product to state waters (STW’s). I rounded up to $10 million. Just pointing this out because I was challenged.

 

[krayfish2]

What factual errors can you notice in this article? There are some.

That the PFBC gives a crap. Did I win anything?

 

[Fish Sticks]

Not the cost of the 3.2 million PFBC adult trout stocked specifically by PFBC hatcheries. The article agrees with what I wrote here a couple of days ago. I said about $10 million with individual fish averaging about $3 each….from egg to delivery of the final product to state waters (STW’s). I rounded up to $10 million. Just pointing this out because I was challenged.

Yes your were challenged rightfully so because you left out $27.5 million growing greener dollars that the lions share of provided a tax payer bailout for PFBc’s hatchery repairs. Small details relevant to production of those trout and meeting DEP effluent standards

 

[Fish Sticks]

PA fish and boat getting some real good PR here for their “resource management.”

Are Pennsylvania's trout stocking practices harming the native brook trout?

The Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission is stocking 3.2 million adult trout this year. Nearly 94% are brown and rainbow trout, both non-native to Pennsylvania.

www.fox43.com

 

[pcray1231]

Purely speculation, but I suspect they'll propose (next Wednesday) to continue stocking rainbow trout only in the Class A + Stocked waters and prohibit the harvest of brown trout in those sections.

1. This should be the case when stocking is done over ANY wild trout population, even class D. And I'm in support of making it statewide, really. Just stock rainbows only, and allow harvest of rainbows only would be alright with me. I definitely think they oughta stop stocking brook trout and make them C&R statewide, even if the effect is purely educational. But ESPECIALLY the lower classes.
(often, class A's could actually use a little harvest, but killing a few fish is much more damaging on streams where there are fewer wild fish).

2. Anglers have been complaining for years about lowering stocking allotments on purely stocked streams with no wilds. Why, oh why, do we need to put them in class A's? These are the shining examples of the ideal fishery. The type of fishery, and type of fishing, that you want to steer the public to. The ones you say, look, our stocked fishery is artificial, and doesn't closely resemble a natural fishing experience. It's a gateway drug, it's for kids and beginners, and not the end game we want to encourage. And that's great, everyone was a beginner, we use streams that aren't otherwise good fisheries to provide that gateway drug, and introduce more people. But we don't want you to get stuck there and promote a culture that trout fishing is about stocking. We want as many as possible to progress beyond that, to the real thing. We have the real thing, and these we will jealously protect, keep as wild trout fishing experiences, promote, and advertise as the ideal. The very reason for class A in the first place was to say they are fisheries that are good on their own, and don't need stocked fish to provide a valuable fishery to the public. The overall goal is to get more class A's, less stocked streams. That doesn't mean less stocked fish, you just stock the remaining stocked waters with more fish, more often, with more stocking points, and you end up with better fisheries all around. Nobody's gonna complain about more fish going into lower Kettle, lower Pine, Oil, Brokenstraw, Tionesta, parts of Yellow Breeches, etc etc etc. Why stock the class A portion of Bald Eagle when it doesn't need it, and not doing so allows you to put more fish in other parts of the Bald Eagle?

It just totally misses the point to stock them. It sends the message that our goal is to provide more stocked trout miles. When it should be to create more class A miles, and stock the remaining stocked miles heavier.

3. From a scientific standpoint, no 2 streams are the same. Even if the study says it causes little harm on the Bald Eagle, that doesn't mean the same holds true on any other stream.

 

[jifigz]

PA fish and boat getting some real good PR here for their “resource management.”

Are Pennsylvania's trout stocking practices harming the native brook trout?

The Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission is stocking 3.2 million adult trout this year. Nearly 94% are brown and rainbow trout, both non-native to Pennsylvania.

www.fox43.com

That video wasn't overly negative at all towards any one side of the issue. Just another typical news story. I enjoyed watching it, though.

Be interesting to see where this goes in the future. It is amazing certain streams develop and maintain such strong trout populations even when stocked over so heavily. Bald Eagle is a pretty awesome trout creek and I enjoy it every time I wet a line there.

 

[Mike]

Yes your were challenged rightfully so because you left out $27.5 million growing greener dollars that the lions share of provided a tax payer bailout for PFBc’s hatchery repairs. Small details relevant to production of those trout and meeting DEP effluent standards

Take it up with the legislature. They apparently thought that amortized over the lives of the hatcheries (or the upgrades) and when considering the service that the hatcheries provide to a high proportion of the 70% of adult anglers who purchase trout stamps and the unknown number of children who also fish for stocked trout (we know there are 35,000 kids just on Mentored Youth Days) the expense was worth it.

 

[silverfox]

It just totally misses the point to stock them. It sends the message that our goal is to provide more stocked trout miles. When it should be to create more class A miles, and stock the remaining stocked miles heavier.

3. From a scientific standpoint, no 2 streams are the same. Even if the study says it causes little harm on the Bald Eagle, that doesn't mean the same holds true on any other stream.

Exactly.

 

[jifigz]

It just totally misses the point to stock them. It sends the message that our goal is to provide more stocked trout miles. When it should be to create more class A miles, and stock the remaining stocked miles heavier.

So it is okay to stock the remaining stream miles heavier that are not "wild trout" or "Class A" waters and damage whatever native fish live in those streams with an overabundance of "invasive" stocked trout? Hmmm.....how'd that one get thumbs up? Do native fish only matter once they are endangered or are there only a select few native speceis we'd prefer not to stock over?

In a stream such as Bald Eagle where you are going to reduce stocking points/locations but favorable conditions for trout to thrive and grow exist within the watershed, wouldn't the vast majority of those uncaught stockies find their way to the wild trout water when temperatures and conditions in the stocked parts of the stream become unhospitable? So, now we have concentrated the lion's share of the angling pressure AND those fish will eventually end up with the wild fish, anyways. The only benefit I can see is that the first month of intense angling pressure where people may catch and harvest wild fish is not going to harm the wild population as much because the angling pressure has been diverted to other points in the stream.

 

[Mike]

1. This should be the case when stocking is done over ANY wild trout population, even class D. And I'm in support of making it statewide, really. Just stock rainbows only, and allow harvest of rainbows only would be alright with me. I definitely think they oughta stop stocking brook trout and make them C&R statewide, even if the effect is purely educational. But ESPECIALLY the lower classes.
(often, class A's could actually use a little harvest, but killing a few fish is much more damaging on streams where there are fewer wild fish).

2. Anglers have been complaining for years about lowering stocking allotments on purely stocked streams with no wilds. Why, oh why, do we need to put them in class A's? These are the shining examples of the ideal fishery. The type of fishery, and type of fishing, that you want to steer the public to. The ones you say, look, our stocked fishery is artificial, and doesn't closely resemble a natural fishing experience. It's a gateway drug, it's for kids and beginners, and not the end game we want to encourage. And that's great, everyone was a beginner, we use streams that aren't otherwise good fisheries to provide that gateway drug, and introduce more people. But we don't want you to get stuck there and promote a culture that trout fishing is about stocking. We want as many as possible to progress beyond that, to the real thing. We have the real thing, and these we will jealously protect, keep as wild trout fishing experiences, promote, and advertise as the ideal. The very reason for class A in the first place was to say they are fisheries that are good on their own, and don't need stocked fish to provide a valuable fishery to the public. The overall goal is to get more class A's, less stocked streams. That doesn't mean less stocked fish, you just stock the remaining stocked waters with more fish, more often, with more stocking points, and you end up with better fisheries all around. Nobody's gonna complain about more fish going into lower Kettle, lower Pine, Oil, Brokenstraw, Tionesta, parts of Yellow Breeches, etc etc etc. Why stock the class A portion of Bald Eagle when it doesn't need it, and not doing so allows you to put more fish in other parts of the Bald Eagle?

It just totally misses the point to stock them. It sends the message that our goal is to provide more stocked trout miles. When it should be to create more class A miles, and stock the remaining stocked miles heavier.

3. From a scientific standpoint, no 2 streams are the same. Even if the study says it causes little harm on the Bald Eagle, that doesn't mean the same holds true on any other stream.

One could quibble over where reallocated fish could go, but the stream classification system combined with the angler use and harvest data is designed to handle such decisions. That system that we developed is much more robust than most anglers probably appreciate. One thing that would be tough to argue is that the reallocateed fish should go to larger flowing waters like lower Pine and other waters known as “large rivers”, based on average width, within the trout stream classification system. Return to anglers is generally low on such waters. Furthermore, Pine and Kettle hardly need more fish and given an opening day picture posted once (possibly Tionesta Ck???) showing what I would call low angler use, I’m not sure whatever water that was, if the pic was representative, deserves more fish either. In one tight circle of knowledgable individuals Pine Ck as a whole is characterized as being “the biggest waste of stocked trout in Pa.”

In contrast, the classification that could use higher stocking rates based on angler use and the number of trout stocked per opening day angler in comparison to some other classes on narrower waters with higher stocking rates is the “small rivers” classification. Picture the widths similar to the lower Tully, the lower French Ck, Chester Co section, the Neshaminy in Tyler State Park, and the lower Manatawny in Pottstown if you are familiar with these streams. The Neshaminy, however, is not stocked. There are others around the state as well. Anglers apparently like fishing these larger waters, but not too large, and the return of fish to anglers is good. These appear to be the sweet spot for stocking larger waters.

 

[jifigz]

One could quibble over where reallocated fish could go, but the stream classification system combined with the angler use and harvest data is designed to handle such decisions. That system that we developed is much more robust than most anglers probably appreciate. One thing that would be tough to argue is that the reallocateed fish should go to larger flowing waters like lower Pine and other waters known as “large rivers”, based on average width, within the trout stream classification system. Return to anglers is generally low on such waters. Furthermore, Pine and Kettle hardly need more fish and given the opening day picture posted here once that I suspect may have been Tionesta Ck showing what I would call low angler use, I’m not sure whatever water that was deserves more fish either. In one tight circle of knowledgable individuals Pine Ck as a whole is characterized as being “the biggest waste of stocked trout in Pa.”

In contrast, the classification that could use higher stocking rates based on angler use and the number of trout stocked per opening day angler in comparison to some other classes on narrower waters with higher stocking rates, is the small rivers classification. Picture the widths similar to the lower Tully, the Neshaminy in Tyler State Park, and the lower Manatawny in Pottstown if you are familiar with these streams. The Neshaminy, however, is not stocked. There are others around the state as well.

Interesting information.

 

[pcray1231]

Furthermore, Pine and Kettle hardly need more fish and given an opening day picture posted once (possibly Tionesta Ck???) showing what I would call low angler use, I’m not sure whatever water that was if the pic was representative deserves more fish either. In one tight circle of knowledgable individuals Pine Ck as a whole is characterized as being “the biggest waste of stocked trout in Pa.”

This is always the issue I have. Everything is tied to angler use. It ignores the fact that anglers move.

If you fish stream A and do crappy, but do far better on stream B. Next time you're going to stream B. And so is everybody else. That's a problem. I'm not arguing your numbers, you do very good at data collection. I'm saying your system is screwy. You are assuming angler use determines your actions, when you should be recognizing that your actions determine angler use.

What you do NOT want to see is concentrations of anglers in one place and lack of anglers in another. That's the enemy. That's what you want to avoid. It's the wrong scene to promote. The ideal is catching wild fish with nobody in sight. Where that's not possible, catching stocked fish with nobody in sight is better than catching stocked fish with people every 10 yards. That's the experience you want to sell, and you get it by making more miles of water available where people can have success. They'd rather catch 5 with nobody in sight than fighting crowds to get 20. You have to stop looking at maximizing the % of fish that get caught and kept as the end goal. And start looking at maximizing the number of miles where some degree of success is likely.

If a stream section has high angler use compared to others, that is not good, that's a problem. It's a sign that the management practices are off, and something needs to be adjusted. That something isn't to throw more fish into the crowded spots, and less into the uncrowded spots. That just makes the problem worse. Everybody has to fight to get to the where the fish are. Nobody chooses that unless they see it as the only way to catch fish.

No, if you have a stream section with such high angler use, you want to spread em out. Add more stocking points to that stream. Float stock it if possible. Or add more fish to a nearby stream. Likewise, if you have a largish, easily accessible public stream that can handle large angler use, and they ain't using it, investigate why. If it's because people who do fish it don't do that well, there ain't enough fish there. Put more there. Let everyone know you are.

If a picture has low angler use, then that is a place that deserves more fish. If a place has high angler use, that is a place that deserves less fish. Your goal is to spread the people evenly, and you'll get better experiences and more people. If fishing requires fighting crowds to get nearer to the fewer and fewer spots with larger and larger number of fish in order to be successful, people say screw it and stop fishing. And I know plenty who have done just that. And it's one of the reasons license sales decrease (competing things like youth sports taking greater time, and working longer hours and such play a big part as well, but you can't do much about that).

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Here is an outline of all land masses in the world where stocked trout Co exist with wild trout. They do this by singing kumbaya around spring sources once a year.