Stocked trout sections: percentage within each biomass class

[Mike]

At this past week's Commission meeting one presentation included the subject info. I thought it would be worthwhile posting it here so that all have the same understanding of PFBC adult (catchable) stocked trout program statistics. This has nothing to do with sportsmen's stockings, private stockings, cooperative nursery stockings, or the variety of fishing rodeo stocking locations.

PFBC stockings:
Class E (no wild trout) and Class D (less than 10 kg/ha wild trout): 85% of the PFBC stocked sections are Classes E and D.

Class C: 10% of the PFBC stocked sections are Class C

IN TOTAL...Making up for rounding, 96% of PFBC stocked trout sections are Class E, D, and C.

Class B: Slightly over 3% of PFBC stocked sections are Class B

Class A: Less than 1% of PFBC stocked trout sections are Class A, represented by 13 stocked sections totaling 40 stream miles.

Regarding stocked Class A sections, it was reported: 1) that all supported high density wild Brown Trout populations and did so despite being stocked at the time of their Class A qualifying surveys. 2)None is stocked at a higher rate than in the past and all are stocked with a species other than than the predominant wild trout species. 3) All are stocked because of high angler usage occurring in these sections, which are either in urban or suburban areas or in close proximity to such population centers.

As for the number of Class A sections statewide, there are presently 1032 sections comprising 2759 stream miles. They represent 3% of Pa's flowing waters.

If you wish to verify the above, see the PFBC web site under "News." There you will find the description of the Commission meeting and a link to the audio and visual aids.

 

[RLeep2]

Good information and roughly about what I figured other than to say that I was under the impression that stocked B sections would have made up a slightly larger percentage than they actually do.

So, from the perspective of the wild trout advocate who is convinced that stocking over wild pops has a categorically negative (regardless of the nuanced effects of variations and gradations in stocking density and frequency) effect on wild trout biomass, the news is even better.

 

[riverwhy]

I see no mention of Brook Trout in this study. How many streams with native brook trout are stocked over? How many class A, B, C, and D? Also, looking at it from a watershed basis is more important than "streams". If a viable brook trout populations exists and is migratory we should be doing all we can to protect that population.

 

[troutbert]

PFBC stockings:

Class E (no wild trout) and Class D (less than 10 kg/ha wild trout): 85% of the PFBC stocked sections are Classes E and D.

What is the breakdown of Class D and Class E categories?

They should be reported separately.

 

[silverfox]

What this doesn't account for, and I think is the reason for the perception of higher stocking in Class A and B "Streams", is that this is referring to "Sections" AND as Mike mentions, does not include private stockings.

I think one of the issues is where the state stocks the downstream "sections" above or below Class A and B waters, and then the fish move into the Class A/B sections. On one stream near me, the Class A cutoff should really be about 1 mile or more further downstream than it currently is. The state stocks right up to that line and then a local sportsman's club stocks an ungodly amount of fish as well. This results in a LOT of stocked fish in the Class A section where they don't belong.

There really should be some kind of buffer from Class A sections, though given how much fish move, I don't know that it would make much of a difference.

I'll mention Yellow Creek since it's near my home and is one of the worst examples (in my opinion) of how the section system fails the stream (in my opinion). Yellow Creek is one of the 13 streams that has a Class A "Section" that is stocked over (in the fly zone). What's more is the stream goes from Class A to Class B to Class A again and then back to B, and some of these sections are extremely small. So, of course, the fish will move from one to the other and up the Class A tribs as well. There was a 12 inch stocked golden rainbow and a few rainbows 3 miles up a Class A trib earlier this year.

I don't know if the people at the yellow creek coalition enjoy catching those rainbows in the fly section or what's going on there, but Yellow Creek is nowhere near a large population center. I personally really hate all the stocked fish in the Class A sections on yellow creek. I don't understand their purpose there. It's not for harvest.

Then there's the Class B (I think) stream near me that I really believe has some Class A biomass in some sections but probably hasn't been sampled in a long time.

Lastly, while some Class A populations may evolve in the presence of stocking, I think it's a little dangerous to assume that it can happen in all streams. It seems to be being used as an excuse to continue stocking over wild trout here, which concerns me. There is scientific evidence that proves stocked trout are detrimental to wild trout and then to have our state fisheries management use the statement that a class a population evolved in the presence of stocking is extremely alarming.

 

[Swattie87]

silverfox wrote:I think one of the issues is where the state stocks the downstream "sections" above or below Class A and B waters, and then the fish move into the Class A/B sections. On one stream near me, the Class A cutoff should really be about 1 mile or more further downstream than it currently is. The state stocks right up to that line and then a local sportsman's club stocks an ungodly amount of fish as well. This results in a LOT of stocked fish in the Class A section where they don't belong.

Fairly certain I know the stream...Enters a roadless area upstream of the lower Class A boundary at a trib. That stream is likely Class A far below the current limit. At a minimum, the lower Class A (unstocked) boundary should be the entire upper forested stretch...Above the bridge on the paved road, where the dirt road splits off and parallels upstream to the current lower Class A boundary. It’s probably Class A biomass for a ways below that yet, but the paved road makes a far more sensible boundary than the current one. Both from a fisheries management standpoint and a practical one for stocked Trout anglers. It’s much easier to get to the stocked fish (if that’s your goal) below there.

There are many examples of this, but that is an excellent one, and one of the first ones that comes to mind for me too. There are a lot of wild fish in that creek. It needs ZERO stocked fish to fish well.

 

[Chaz]

If you stocked trout In brookie streams most often the brookies decline in numbers rapidly even when being looked are stocked. I know the plan is to stop stocking over wild but brook trout but it should be stopped immediately. Don’t wait.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

At this past week's Commission meeting one presentation included the subject info. I thought it would be worthwhile posting it here so that all have the same understanding of PFBC adult (catchable) stocked trout program statistics. This has nothing to do with sportsmen's stockings, private stockings, cooperative nursery stockings, or the variety of fishing rodeo stocking locations.

PFBC stockings:
Class E (no wild trout) and Class D (less than 10 kg/ha wild trout): 85% of the PFBC stocked sections are Classes E and D.

Class C: 10% of the PFBC stocked sections are Class C

IN TOTAL...Making up for rounding, 96% of PFBC stocked trout sections are Class E, D, and C.

Class B: Slightly over 3% of PFBC stocked sections are Class B

Class A: Less than 1% of PFBC stocked trout sections are Class A, represented by 13 stocked sections totaling 40 stream miles.

Regarding stocked Class A sections, it was reported: 1) that all supported high density wild Brown Trout populations and did so despite being stocked at the time of their Class A qualifying surveys. 2)None is stocked at a higher rate than in the past and all are stocked with a species other than than the predominant wild trout species. 3) All are stocked because of high angler usage occurring in these sections, which are either in urban or suburban areas or in close proximity to such population centers.

As for the number of Class A sections statewide, there are presently 1032 sections comprising 2759 stream miles. They represent 3% of Pa's flowing waters.

If you wish to verify the above, see the PFBC web site under "News." There you will find the description of the Commission meeting and a link to the audio and visual aids.

What i gathered from all of that:


Around 4 percent (class a and b stocked) of PFBC's stocked stream sections shouldnt be stocked at all.


The class A's that are stocked, regardless of class a status at the time while being stocked, are hurt or limited by stocking. Because nearly every peer reviewed study tells us so. Stocking is not good for those fish, this happens biologically and regardless of high angler usage, usage is high because of stockings.


An unknown percentage of the 10 percent (class c sections stocked) could become class b if stocking of other factors could be addressed.

This means a number greater than 4 percent but lower than 15 percent of all PA waterways stocked with trout by the PFBC could benefit from the cessation of stocking and monies shifted to habitat and floodplain restoration.

These numbers do not include sportsmen's stockings, private stockings, cooperative nursery stockings, or the variety of fishing rodeo stocking locations. Making the numbers very conservative.
It could be likely that 20 percent of PA waterways stocked could
benefit from the cessation of stocking.

Some of the waters stocked by sportsmen's stockings, private stockings, cooperative nursery stockings, or the variety of fishing rodeo stocking locations could be native brook trout waters.

Thanks for the info.

 

[silverfox]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:

At this past week's Commission meeting one presentation included the subject info. I thought it would be worthwhile posting it here so that all have the same understanding of PFBC adult (catchable) stocked trout program statistics. This has nothing to do with sportsmen's stockings, private stockings, cooperative nursery stockings, or the variety of fishing rodeo stocking locations.

PFBC stockings:
Class E (no wild trout) and Class D (less than 10 kg/ha wild trout): 85% of the PFBC stocked sections are Classes E and D.

Class C: 10% of the PFBC stocked sections are Class C

IN TOTAL...Making up for rounding, 96% of PFBC stocked trout sections are Class E, D, and C.

Class B: Slightly over 3% of PFBC stocked sections are Class B

Class A: Less than 1% of PFBC stocked trout sections are Class A, represented by 13 stocked sections totaling 40 stream miles.

Regarding stocked Class A sections, it was reported: 1) that all supported high density wild Brown Trout populations and did so despite being stocked at the time of their Class A qualifying surveys. 2)None is stocked at a higher rate than in the past and all are stocked with a species other than than the predominant wild trout species. 3) All are stocked because of high angler usage occurring in these sections, which are either in urban or suburban areas or in close proximity to such population centers.

As for the number of Class A sections statewide, there are presently 1032 sections comprising 2759 stream miles. They represent 3% of Pa's flowing waters.

If you wish to verify the above, see the PFBC web site under "News." There you will find the description of the Commission meeting and a link to the audio and visual aids.

What i gathered from all of that:


Around 4 percent (class a and b stocked) of PFBC's stocked stream sections shouldnt be stocked at all.


The class A's that are stocked, regardless of class a status at the time while being stocked, are hurt or limited by stocking. Because nearly every peer reviewed study tells us so. Stocking is not good for those fish, this happens biologically and regardless of high angler usage, usage is high because of stockings.


An unknown percentage of the 10 percent (class c sections stocked) could become class b if stocking of other factors could be addressed.

This means a number greater than 4 percent but lower than 15 percent of all PA waterways stocked with trout by the PFBC could benefit from the cessation of stocking and monies shifted to habitat and floodplain restoration.

These numbers do not include sportsmen's stockings, private stockings, cooperative nursery stockings, or the variety of fishing rodeo stocking locations. Making the numbers very conservative.
It could be likely that 20 percent of PA waterways stocked could
benefit from the cessation of stocking.

Some of the waters stocked by sportsmen's stockings, private stockings, cooperative nursery stockings, or the variety of fishing rodeo stocking locations could be native brook trout waters.

Thanks for the info.

Right on Sal. You touched on a point that I think gets overlooked a lot. I should know the source of this quote, but it's origins escape me at the moment. Take care of the water and the fish will take care of themselves.

In a lot of cases, I wonder what the outcome would be if we stopped stocking the stream and put the money toward improving the water quality and habitat. I understand that it's simply not possible on some waters, but I know for certain it is in numerous cases. Of course, hand-in-hand with that approach needs to be a more stream based regulation management. If the stream can't support the angler pressure based on it's proximity to high density population centers and angler interest, then manage the population through harvest/gear regs.

One of the objections I always hear in regard to the cessation of stocking is that the angler harvest would "wipe out" the wild trout population in short order. I think one of the roadblocks, and the reason for that mindset, is the way our waters are classified and managed. PAFBC has a set of designations and angler management tools, but it seems to me that they're very hesitant to institute changes.

Basically, it seems that the idea is to apply regulations sparingly, and make up for the over use of the resource by stocking fish to make up the deficit. Compare that to some western states that change regulations on waterways throughout a single year based on flow, temperatures, population, harvest etc. That's all in an effort to manage the resource in the absence of stocking.

That approach requires staff and money to monitor populations in a more realtime approach. So it puts us in a catch 22 because we spend all this money rearing and stocking fish, so we don't have the funds to support the staff and work required to manage our waters that way. Unless they transitioned gradually to that management style.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Hard to say.
Average annual expenditures during fiscal years 06/07 and 07/08 for the stocking program totaled approximately $12.4 million.
Since then id say the 161 million spent could have made maybe those class b's , class a's by now.