Some stocked wild trout streams populations still grow to become Class A

[lycoflyfisher]

Silvefox, Mike's post says that pfbc provided data to ebtjv or Hudy. His study from from understanding was not based on his own data collection. They pulled data from each state, many of which follow different sampling protocols etc. I am sure there are still more brook trout streams out there in PA with no formal fisheries surveys completed on them. I believe a goal in the most recent pfbc trout management plan included setting up methodologies to better track wild trout population trends across the state. It will be interesting to develops.

 

[Mike]

That’s right. They are one in the same with respect to the data upon which the ST map was based. And Lyco is correct, there are a lot more data from newly recorded (since the Hudy/EBTJV study) Pa ST streams now.

 

[troutbert]

The OP of this thread was posted not long after the thread was begun about the petition to end stocking over native brook trout.

Was the intent to persuade people not to sign that petition?

 

[Susquehanna]

It seems to me that most here who condemn stocking over wild trout fail to make a distinction between high and low biomass streams, wild species involved, stocked species involved, frequency of stockings, stocking rates, stocking timing, and extent of angling pressure generated. 

It seems to me that is a rather unusual thing to say.

How can one make the distinction between high and low biomass streams when anything under class a is unpublished. Can you provide some where to find what streams are class B, C & D?

Does the PFBC release stocking rate numbers still or do they not tell us the numbers of fish stocked anymore?

Does frequency of stockings change or something? I figured that number is pretty static on each watershed. Doesnt the PFBC stock for the opener and once inseason on most waters?
They stock in July some places?

Is there a place that keeps track of angling pressure generated by stocking?

How can one make the distinction without the data?

If the PFBC is keeping this data, and they must be unless they are just blanket stocking, why do those that dont have the data have to make the distinction?


Im genuinely confused by this.

 

[Susquehanna]

I think after reading this forum for awhile, that Mike would be fairly comfortable saying a little harvest is not a bad thing, given the results on most studies on the subject.

I also think after reading this forum, most would be fairly comfortable saying stocking over wild trout is a bad thing, again, given the results on most studies on the subject.

If we need to make the distinction down to species, frequency, water chemistry, time, angling pressure, moon phase, rotation of the earth's axis, planetary alignments and what ever restraints, then i would assume that was also already done by the PFBC through studies and should be made available to the public.

Right?

If we do have to or the PFBC already has, i would think the one size fits all regulations we currently have in place wouldnt exist at all.


Some stocked streams become Class A despite still being stocked would seem to be more of an appropriate title given the mass amount of studies done on stocking over wild trout.

I think you are asking joe public to do something even the PFBC has not done for many watersheds.

 

[troutbert]

Susque, it's really not complicated.

It is very difficult for the PFBC to take streams off the stocking list, because the other side, who wants streams stocked regardless of the effect on native brook trout and wild browns, are very politically active with their state legislators and the commissioners.

The legislators twist their arms by shutting off funding by refusing to allow license price increases, and also by threatening to eliminate the PFBC by merging them with DCNR or the PGC.

So, the PFBC currently stocks many miles of wild trout streams that they would prefer not to stock.

So, they try to ameliorate the damage caused by stocking over wild trout, with the methods Mike described.

And those methods do work. Not as well as ending stocking would work, but still beneficial.

Their quandary is that it would be nice for them to get credit for this. But if what they are doing is explained too widely, it would let the other side know what they are doing. Then they would go screaming to their state legislators.

They have to be stealthy in the ways that they help improve wild trout populations, to avoid enraging the people who get enraged by such things.

 

[Susquehanna]

Are we discussing politics or biologically what is beneficial for wild trout?

Your explanation of the "not complicated" sure seems complicated ;-)

 

[troutbert]

Susquehanna wrote:
Are we discussing politics or biologically what is beneficial for wild trout?

Your explanation of the "not complicated" sure seems complicated ;-)

You're right, it is kind of complicated.

But, what I wrote is accurate.