Stocking Class A's

My poor Kish Creek. Class A yet continues to be stocked. How can I stop this?
 
troutbert wrote:
What we do: Unorganized individuals express our views on internet.

What other side does: Through their organizations (sportsmens clubs), lobby the Fish Commissioners and state legislators.

You can guess which is more effective.
Click to expand...

I'd like to know who these ultra-organized, well connected, super effective "sportsmens clubs" are. I keep hearing tales about their unmatched power at swaying the minds and hearts of "those who be", but I've yet to see any actual evidence that they actually exist.

Over the last several years as social media has increased in popularity, I seem to recall seeing a few petitions circulated online and proposed to PFBC that were arguing against stocking over wild trout. I'm pretty well connected online and I have to say that in that span of time, I don't recall EVER seeing any petition or even a hint of organized lobbying FOR stocking over wild trout.

In my opinion, this idea that there's some cabal of super organized, influential folks pulling the strings of PFBC to ensure stocking continues on top of wild trout is a myth. If this were actually happening, don't you think we would see evidence of it? Unless there is some super shady backroom nonsense going on. Even that could be brought to light with some RTK requests and I HIGHLY doubt PFBC would allow themselves to be caught red-handed doing backroom deals.

I suspect the answer is much simpler than some shadow group pulling the puppet strings. PFBC has sunk incredible financial resources into the hatchery/stocking system. That system is propped up by license sales and most of those license sales come from casual anglers who could care less whether the trout were born in the stream, a concrete trough, or beamed into existence from an alien species from Mars.

FWIW, there is more going on to advocate for the cessation of stocking over wild trout than unorganized internet banter. It's simply not as easy as you might think, and especially when the agency you're lobbying seemingly has no interest in discussing it.
 
Salvelinus beat me to it. It was that group who advocated for getting YWC stocked many years ago.
 
salvelinus wrote:
Western Clinton Sportsmens Association
Click to expand...

So is this the group that is responsible for somehow lobbying fish and boat, the legislative committees, and everyone else to continue stocking over wild trout statewide?

I understand there are small groups that may influence individual watersheds (though they really shouldn't have that power), but we have a statewide stocking problem and I don't see how they're the ones making sure PFBC doesn't alter course anywhere in the state.

Look at the public comment responses for additions to the Class A/WT section lists. 268 comments in favor and 2 in opposition. The "2" were probably from some sportsman's group that has been or wants to stock the stream that is about to be listed.

There's a math problem with this whole support/opposition thing. I'd like to see actual numbers or documentation that supports this idea that sportsman's groups are out-ranking TU and others who are pushing to end stocking over wild trout. I think it's a red herring perpetuated by the people who don't want to stop stocking over WT and also have the power to do it.
 
With all respect to Salvelinus and rrt, I'll agree with silverfox. There's no secret super-organized group with a sinister agenda to ruin our wild trout. It's just a bunch of guys who get together and fish, but aren't as good at it as many of us. They want to catch trout and stocking trout has been part of the sport since the late 1870s, which is to say as natural to them as a baseball diamond or a golf course.

Also, government, especially local government with a sports and recreation component, despite the ranting of a bunch of people who never rant in the right direction, is hungry for public input. Unfortunately, the only time most of us contact anyone in government is when we've got a boil on our butts about something.

Fishing clubs, be they the purists of Trout Unlimited or the meat-hole specialists of {FILL IN CLUB NAME HERE}, generally are able to make contact with government folk and make their collective voice heard. If all others are silent, they speak for all anglers, by default. It's not the fault of the fisheries managers. We all have a First Amendment right to petition the government. If we fail to exercise that right, we do so at our own risk.

On behalf of a youth fishing organization, I have been in contact with state fisheries and town leaders relating to a proposal to establish a youth-only fly-only section on a creek where a small dam is being removed and the stream bed restored (a wild brown trout creek). Without exception, all the folks I have approached have been helpful and enthusiastic about the idea. They warn that it will be necessary to engage the meat-hole guys and find them an alternate location for stocking.

This is by no means a completed project. You don't just shout out what you believe is a good idea and expect others to make it happen. If you want to change policies, make your voice heard.

Also, keep in mind that a lot of the folks who are fisheries managers got into that line of work because they Love To Fish. They know where the wild trout are and what needs to be done to protect them. But they can't do it if there's 100 guys writing emails to the state delegate in a particular district demanding that a wild trout population be destroyed so they can fish for hatchery rainbows.

If, however, there are another 100 guys writing letters to that same legislator demanding that a wild trout population be preserved for purposes of our angling pleasure and for its potential to attract sporting anglers from afar, well that's a different animal. If you're a legislator, do you favor spending more to stock more, or spending relatively little to grow a wild population and generate economic activity (with the support of year-round anglers who vote)?

If you want something done, you've got to do at least part of it yourself. Pick a creek with a solid population of wild trout, find some friends and start making contacts to get it protected. I know there are some fisheries guys who are regulars on this site, and they, no doubt, will be able to point you in the right direction.

Then do it again. And then teach other anglers how to do it. You won't have as much time to watch TV, but you will end up with more good places to fish.

(I learned this from my dad, a school teacher and the son of coal miners. He was in active contact for many years with fisheries managers in Maryland. He provided a lot of raw data and anecdotal evidence and they came to trust his judgment and would follow up with electro-shocking surveys. Over the years, stocking was quietly discontinued on a few creeks while the put-and-take trout were stocked in in a nearby chub stream or bass pond. The wild trout are doing very well, and the meat-hole guys are none the wiser.)

Also, anyone interested in working on the youth-only fly-only project: please send me a PM.

 
This "statewide stocking problem" also has declining fish production and overworked personnel carrying fish too far to be stocked, and no help from the public in the time of a pandemic. The result is declining allocations to streams that nobody opposes stocking, in addition to reducing the number of stocking points on those streams.

IMO, same number of fish, reduce number of streams, stock them heavier and put time into spreading them out rather than loading up the bridge holes.

Small groups that influence individual watersheds is how it works. It's more effective to lobby locally than globally. You're talking about social media and public posturing of conservation organizations, which frankly, doesn't do crap other than make people feel good about themselves and maybe get some donations. More effective? Directly lobby your local state representative. Have bait/fly shops in the area do so. Contribute to their campaigns. Advertise your point of view at the local sportsmens clubs and outdoor stores with paper fliers, not on fb or the comments section of stories that fit your point of view. Attend PFBC meetings. Go help with the stocking and talk to your PFBC pros in the area.

Nobody cares what someone in another county thinks. They want the local point of view.
 
I have also heard the same things about about the lower section of Cross Fork Creek and I've seen them dump more than a few rainbows in there. I guess what bothers me is that I have caught rainbows throughout that entire stream, some with small brookies in them.

It seems that entire stream suffers because it was determined the lower section was not the quality as the rest of it. A very poor decision in my opinion. The same group that insists on stocking that section also insists on putting corn out in deer feeders all over the state forest in the winter/snow season.
 
The problem is systemic. Watershed or even stream level advocacy is problematic for everybody. It's also not to say that opposition isn't happening at local levels too (individual TU chapters).

I like JimKennedy's mention of the cost of hatchery fish vs wild fish and the economic value wild fish can generate at little to no cost. Fishing tourism can be very lucrative to local communities. Likely far more so than the number of resident fishing licenses sold in that area where the money goes back to the state pot to be used statewide. This is another reason I fail to believe that the reason the state (and clubs) continue to stock over wild trout is because the local government wants it.

The most frustrating part about all of this is that it shouldn't be up to individuals, conservation groups, local government or anyone else to determine or lobby for what's best for the resource. That's supposed to be up to PFBC to do what's right.

 
This also isn't just about one group of people wanting something that is contrary to what the other group wants.

One thing is scientifically proven to be sound resource management and the other is a perversion.

I know this mammal management analogy is frowned upon, but we'd laugh off our chairs if a group of hunters lobbied the PGC to stock Bengel Tigers. People want all kinds of stupid things. That doesn't mean resource managers should appease those desires.

Welcome to cabin fever 2021.
 
The problem, like all things political (and most otherwise) is defining "what's right". Our very small PAFlyfish community tends to agree that it's more valuable and more efficient to favor nurturing wild trout and mostly (only?) stock where there is little to no impact on wild trout populations.

So, what percent of license buyers, arguably one of the two target markets for PAFBC, even knows the difference between a wild and stocked trout? I suspect it's tiny. If so, why should they care about this topic?

A solution could be in educating the general angling public about the differences between wild and stocked trout. There are many. Not all of them can be seen. Many, as we all know, are environmental and economic.

All these things are entangled. Add to this complex situation things like traditions (which we are loath to give up) and we have a serious uphill battle.

In other words: It's complicated.
 
RE silverfox:

I think Sal and I were referring to the Western Clinton Co. Sportsmen's Assn in reference to YWC only, not statewide.

I actually attended a meeting outside of Renovo when it was being debated whether or not to lightly stock YWC. The locals were hoping that stocking YWC would attract fishermen to the area and that the fishermen would positively influence the local economy. A couple of us made the point that we drove up to YWC because it was not stocked. But, we were the minority voices. The locals sincerely believed stocking was the correct thing to do, despite evidence to the contrary. Two other fly-fishermen who were active on this board at the time were also in attendance at that meeting. One still posts on rare occasions; the other does not.

Guess I strayed from the main topic again -- sorry.
 
Outsider,
Are you saying you believe the climate in those watersheds changed relative to others in the general region? If so, how would you account for that? Sorry, If I didn't understand your explanation.
It is interesting to hear anecdotal evidence from people who have had much experience on certain streams over a long period. I only ever fished Young Woman's once and it was during a very bad drought. We should not have even fished it. I remember trout stacked up in certain places high up where small runs entered. This was early to mid-90's if I recall. Seemed to be plenty of brookies observed in those spots.
 
rrt wrote:
RE silverfox:

I think Sal and I were referring to the Western Clinton Co. Sportsmen's Assn in reference to YWC only, not statewide.

I actually attended a meeting outside of Renovo when it was being debated whether or not to lightly stock YWC. The locals were hoping that stocking YWC would attract fishermen to the area and that the fishermen would positively influence the local economy. A couple of us made the point that we drove up to YWC because it was not stocked. But, we were the minority voices. The locals sincerely believed stocking was the correct thing to do, despite evidence to the contrary. Two other fly-fishermen who were active on this board at the time were also in attendance at that meeting. One still posts on rare occasions; the other does not.

Guess I strayed from the main topic again -- sorry.
Click to expand...

I know. It's the same at [ insert any other random stream in pa ] and that's my point.

Why should it be up to WCCSA or any other group to say what goes into the water? Is WCCSA a group of fisheries biologists? We've got the same issue where I live. This group of folks took ownership of a stream on state forest property under the guise of being "guardians" while stocking the ever-loving nonsense out of it along with PFBC.

Whether it's state-sponsored (like the article talks about) or any number of other streams in the state where Bob's Fishing Pals decides to buy $5,000 worth of fish from a private hatchery and dump them in the nearest Class A, it's a statewide problem. Not just YWC or Penns or any other stream specifically where this goes on.
 
outsider wrote:

About 10 years or so ago I had a conversation with the NCPA Fisheries Manager and he told me the lower half of both creeks only support warm water species. That is what I was finding for years, the lack of ST in the lower regions.
Click to expand...

Lack of brook trout is not the same thing as only supporting warm water species.

The lower halves of these streams held mostly wild browns back in the early 1970s when I began fishing them. Some native brookies, where small tribs came in, but mostly browns.

And that was probably true since the 1920s or so.

And that is probably still the case now.

If all the smallmouth guys take your 8 weights up there expecting to catch smallmouth, I think you'll be disappointed.

I've fished both of these streams in recent times, but further upstream, not in the lower parts. In both streams I had good fishing for wild trout (brookies).

But that wasn't in the lower halves. We should do some "research" this season. In the interest of science!

My hypothesis is that we will catch trout, including wild trout, and not smallmouth.



 
I hope t/bert is right about the brook trout in YWC's upstream areas. Also, from what I remember, I don't think smallies could get upstream of the water-gauge station's dam. I hope not, anyhow.

Sorry that Silverfox's stream is being negatively influenced by a group of "guardians." Instances such as this are sad ones.
 
These "sportsman" groups pressure their reps in the state legislature. The reps pressure the PFBC. Fish get stocked.
 
riverwhy wrote:
Outsider,
Are you saying you believe the climate in those watersheds changed relative to others in the general region? If so, how would you account for that? Sorry, If I didn't understand your explanation.
It is interesting to hear anecdotal evidence from people who have had much experience on certain streams over a long period. I only ever fished Young Woman's once and it was during a very bad drought. We should not have even fished it. I remember trout stacked up in certain places high up where small runs entered. This was early to mid-90's if I recall. Seemed to be plenty of brookies observed in those spots.
Click to expand...
Some anecdotal evidence, when I fished YWC last year, above the gauge, my catch was 71% Brown and 29% Brook, no rainbows.

Changing the subject to something that seems odd.

In the mid-70s we went to Kettle every first day. I was around 10-12 years old. We fished the hole where Hammersley Fork dumped in. I remember many people chose to fish Hammersley where brook trout were being stocked. I thought that sounded so cool that I chose to do that one year rather than catch big numbers in Kettle. Now no trout are stocked in Hammersley

In that same timeframe, no trout were being stocked in Cross Fork creek. Lots of trout in Cross Fork. About the time Project Future was put in motion, CFC changed to a new special Reg designation (I forget what it was, maybe all tackle no kill). The fishing was terrible in those years. Seemed like steam was decimated. Now the stream is being stocked and there seems to be as many Brook Trout as ever. If they would just quit stocking the rainbows everything would be great.

It’s odd that HF went from stocked to not and CFC went from not stocked to stocked.
 
I fished CF, YW, Slate and Cedar in the mid-late 70's. They were all stocked.
 
Prospector wrote:
riverwhy wrote:
Outsider,
Are you saying you believe the climate in those watersheds changed relative to others in the general region? If so, how would you account for that? Sorry, If I didn't understand your explanation.
It is interesting to hear anecdotal evidence from people who have had much experience on certain streams over a long period. I only ever fished Young Woman's once and it was during a very bad drought. We should not have even fished it. I remember trout stacked up in certain places high up where small runs entered. This was early to mid-90's if I recall. Seemed to be plenty of brookies observed in those spots.
Click to expand...

Some anecdotal evidence, when I fished YWC last year, above the gauge, my catch was 71% Brown and 29% Brook, no rainbows.
Click to expand...

That sounds pretty normal, and it's re-assuring.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top