Stocking delays???

[salmonoid]

There seems to be so much misconstruing of what is said on this forum these days. I never said anything being spread about invasive species and there harm or lack thereof is yellow journalism. I believe the vast majority of scientific studies are presented in a factual manner and people aim to help the environment, stop invasive species, and preserve native wild animals and habitats.

I can clearly see that is your goal and aim and that is fine. I am glad someone is willing to fight an uphill battle to try to make positive changes to save species and their role in nature. I have said it before and I will say it one more time, everything that happens has a positive impact on one thing and a negative on another. EVERYTHING. And it is all people's fault. It happened at one time due to ignorance to the outcomes and with short-sightedness. Yes, we should educate, but I am going to be a pessimist/realist here and just say that things will continue to decline, species will go extinct at a quick rate, and we can try to stop it and reverse our actions but in the end we, humans, are to blame and we will most likely fail. And as I said earlier, people practically are unable to stop invasive species. Our successes are so infinitesimal to our failures.

Keep fighting the good fight. I am on your side. But I also know that the world ain't going back to like it used to be, not even close.

But inevitably what happens is a vocal minority take the side of the positive impact. Or the negative impact. And they fixate on that and don't live in reality, which is in the gray area in between. There is no compromise and this ultimately results in little progress. We've altered the world in major ways and there is no walking back from some of the changes that have been made. Causes definitely need advocates but those advocates will generally make little progress unless they know how to create broad coalitions of support for their cause, and that generally means some level of compromise.

 

[silverfox]

But inevitably what happens is a vocal minority take the side of the positive impact. Or the negative impact. And they fixate on that and don't live in reality, which is in the gray area in between. There is no compromise and this ultimately results in little progress. We've altered the world in major ways and there is no walking back from some of the changes that have been made. Causes definitely need advocates but those advocates will generally make little progress unless they know how to create broad coalitions of support for their cause, and that generally means some level of compromise.

I think one of the primary causes for what you describe (which I agree with) is that there seems to be no compromise for the issue this vocal minority is arguing for. I agree there needs to be compromise, but I don't think the vocal minority is the one who hasn't or won't.

 

[tomgamber]

not sure why invasive species ever made it to this discussion as it was just an unfounded conspiracy theory aimed at what turns out to be a completely legitimate delay in the stockings. and people say its the news that is sensational.

 

[jifigz]

not sure why invasive species ever made it to this discussion as it was just an unfounded conspiracy theory aimed at what turns out to be a completely legitimate delay in the stockings. and people say its the news that is sensational.

Because the initial post inserted immediate assumptions about placing blame for the stocking delays on the PFBC hatcheries and the possibilities of infestation or spreading invasives......that's why, without any further knowledge other than knowing there were stocking delays, it "smelled like a fish/invasive problem."

This puts the thread on the same track as 99% of the rest of the threads on this forum these days. PFBC bashin', non-native and invasive hatin' good times.

 

[jifigz]

I think one of the primary causes for what you describe (which I agree with) is that there seems to be no compromise for the issue this vocal minority is arguing for. I agree there needs to be compromise, but I don't think the vocal minority is the one who hasn't or won't.

If no one has made concessions to the vocal minority then where have the advancements in native fish management been coming from that are praised in other states? I guess the vocal minority had no part in those successes. Or is the vocal minority not satisfied with those successes and small victories and unwilling to compromise that not all dramatic change happens at once?

 

[silverfox]

If no one has made concessions to the vocal minority then where have the advancements in native fish management been coming from that are praised in other states? I guess the vocal minority had no part in those successes. Or is the vocal minority not satisfied with those successes and small victories and unwilling to compromise that not all dramatic change happens at once?

That's kind of the issue. Nobody lobbied MD DNR to implement regs or create the USR, or carryout extensive research projects aimed specifically at ST. NJ didn't implement regs in half the state because people were asking for it. NPS, WV, VA, CT, NY, ME, OH, MD, NJ, VA, NC, TN all implemented regs, carried out reclamation projects, created watershed level refuges, or otherwise manage brook trout specifically differently than other trout species, and nobody lobbied them to do it (for the most part).

Obviously, Pennsylvania hasn't done what other states have done, and it seems apparent that they aren't going to on their own, so I think it's natural for people to wonder why or even complain about it on public forums.

Or is the vocal minority not satisfied with those successes and small victories and unwilling to compromise that not all dramatic change happens at once?

We are decades behind the vast majority of the native range on ST management. I understand pragmaticism, and thorough research and planning, and even incrementalism, but we're so far behind on this that even if we made tiny advancements now (like the stocking authorization that got watered down), it will be another century before we're at the same point our neighbors were decades ago.

 

[Fish Sticks]

not sure why invasive species ever made it to this discussion as it was just an unfounded conspiracy theory aimed at what turns out to be a completely legitimate delay in the stockings. and people say its the news that is sensational.

I asked a question because the last time there was stocking delays thats why. I admittedly that I had NO IDEA why there delays and that was in-fact the whole purpose of the thread. For someone throwing around the word sensationalism you seem to ignore alot of the objective stuff sitting right in front of you and create your own narrative.

There is a problem at Pa fish and boat, do they not deserve to be called out? Who here is going to stand up and defend their release of harmful invasive species when their own wild life action plan for brook trout says they shouldn’t be doing it. Who hear is going to say the concerns experts have about them stocking over embattled hellbenders that have been ignored is fulfilling their stated mission when it comes to species of greatest conservation need?
Who here is going to defend stocking over some of the last 9 streams on planet earth that contain chesapeake log perch with no research on inpact, who is going to back stocking over invasive darter species in french creek with no research on impact.

When it comes to claims of “bashing” pa fish and boat their own professional incompetence, waste, fraud, and abuse is what some of the people on this thread are standing up for.

You got your $27.5 growing greener 2 money mostly spent on hatcheries while we. Fail to meet our bay goals and species conservation goals PBFC is responsible for managing. Defend that while i “bash” away.

out of all the things on planet earth you could stand up for you picked PFBC, congrats on defending a dumpster fire

 

[afishinado]

I have no actual info from the hatcheries or anything. But, pretty likely.

My understanding is that they'd move fish out of a raceway, clean it, move fish into that raceway, clean the one they came from, etc. I could easily see how that would force them to spread out stockings from affected hatcheries. You've got fish in a verified clean raceway for however long, you stock them, and then move fish from a potentially affected raceway into the clean one, monitor for so long, stock them, repeat.

Let's get this thread back on track based on the OP's inquiry of stocking postponements by the FBC. The brown trout invasive species discussion seems to spill into nearly every thread. Start a new thread if you wish to discuss this topic.

The above theory posted by pcray is the most logical explanation for these postponements. It appears the FBC is not revealing the reason for changes.

From the PFBC:
"The primary reason for the postponed stocking due to hatchery logistics and changes in assigning those changes to a different hatchery."

I agree with what Pat theorized above that since NZ mud snails infected the hatchery(s) therefore the FBC is in the process of trying to clean out the raceways and isolate the trout to try allow trout that may have ingested the NZMS to excrete them.

IMO, if the above is the case, and their plan is not successful, and NZ mud snails are spread throughout the state, this will go down as one of the worst ecological blunders caused by a state agency charged with protecting the environment.

I'm not sure what else can be done, short of the FBC not stocking and destroying the fish to assure the invasive creatures are not spread to many other PA streams and rivers.

 

[Mike]

I have to credit Silverfox in post #15, first paragraph, for considering an alternative scenario. As I said, I have no intel on this issue, but independently of Silverfox I noted the list of streams showing postponements and it seemed quite logical.

Someone else mentioned a pattern of removing some streams from a given load on a given date, but keeping some other specific streams on that load scheduled for that date. That’s also logical in an alternative scenario that I have considered if it is consistent. I didn’t check. Doing so would possibly add to the number of truck trips and impact scheduling.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Regardless of what it is a poster above actually called and the response did not strike me as clear or transparent. I wonder from an organizational standpoint what the reason for not having a clear explanation for the public is. If this is some logistics issue with stocking, knowing PFBC’s priority system with the trout hatchery program, I would see transparency as an opportunity to demonstrate they believe the stocking program is underfunded or to justify the license increases that were a point of contention with some.


Opportunity to say
Need more trucks
Need more volunteers
Need more ect.

Or even just to explain to people complaining about the delays

On the other hand it could be so very mundane as to just “say HATCHERY logistics” and the person responding assumed the public wouldn’t care about the exact reason.

 

[silverfox]

Here's a slightly different response from PFBC. It sounds like a logistics thing to me. It also sounds quite temporary, and I bet the streams listed as postponed get stocked before opening day, but they may announce it at the last minute, if at all.

 

[tomgamber]

Because the initial post inserted immediate assumptions about placing blame for the stocking delays on the PFBC hatcheries and the possibilities of infestation or spreading invasives......that's why, without any further knowledge other than knowing there were stocking delays, it "smelled like a fish/invasive problem."

This puts the thread on the same track as 99% of the rest of the threads on this forum these days. PFBC bashin', non-native and invasive hatin' good times.

Right. Why?

 

[krayfish2]

They need to fix this problem. Daddy's got a new stringer that he's itching to use! Also, there's a lot of guessing or wild ideas for the delays. Wouldn't the smartest thing to do is as the PFBC, wait for the answer and then determine if it sounds valid or like BS? Just a thought

 

[stephenb]

This is from the PFBC web site, notice any connection with the postponed stocking events. Maybe the concern is bringing NZ mud snails back to the Hatchery, or distributing them from stream to stream as they stock.

Until recently, New Zealand Mudsnails were known to occur only in Lake Erie, Erie County; Spring Creek and Bald Eagle Creek, Centre County; and the Little Lehigh Creek in Lehigh and Berks counties. Surveys during 2020 revealed populations of snails in Trindle Spring Run, Cumberland County; Codorus Creek, York County; and Valley Creek, Chester County; prompting expanded surveys.

During 2021 surveys, 16 streams and rivers were found to host populations of New Zealand Mudsnails, including Fishing Creek, Clinton County; Jordan Creek, Lehigh County; Trout Creek, Lehigh County; Bushkill Creek, Northampton County; Saucon Creek, Northampton County; Monocacy Creek, Northampton County; Perkiomen Creek, Montgomery County; Tulpehocken Creek, Berks County; Wyomissing Creek, Berks County; Wissahickon Creek, Philadelphia County; Big Spring Creek, Cumberland County; Letort Spring Run, Cumberland County; Pohopoco Creek, Carbon County; East Branch Brandywine Creek, Chester County; the Schuylkill River, Berks/Montgomery/Philadelphia counties; and the Lehigh River, Lehigh/Northampton counties.

 

[Cznymph]

This is from the PFBC web site, notice any connection with the postponed stocking events. Maybe the concern is bringing NZ mud snails back to the Hatchery, or distributing them from stream to stream as they stock.

Until recently, New Zealand Mudsnails were known to occur only in Lake Erie, Erie County; Spring Creek and Bald Eagle Creek, Centre County; and the Little Lehigh Creek in Lehigh and Berks counties. Surveys during 2020 revealed populations of snails in Trindle Spring Run, Cumberland County; Codorus Creek, York County; and Valley Creek, Chester County; prompting expanded surveys.

During 2021 surveys, 16 streams and rivers were found to host populations of New Zealand Mudsnails, including Fishing Creek, Clinton County; Jordan Creek, Lehigh County; Trout Creek, Lehigh County; Bushkill Creek, Northampton County; Saucon Creek, Northampton County; Monocacy Creek, Northampton County; Perkiomen Creek, Montgomery County; Tulpehocken Creek, Berks County; Wyomissing Creek, Berks County; Wissahickon Creek, Philadelphia County; Big Spring Creek, Cumberland County; Letort Spring Run, Cumberland County; Pohopoco Creek, Carbon County; East Branch Brandywine Creek, Chester County; the Schuylkill River, Berks/Montgomery/Philadelphia counties; and the Lehigh River, Lehigh/Northampton counties.

The PFBC already has hatcheries with Mudsnails in them, and shows little concern about spreading it other places.

 

[C_kreek17]

There’s always the option for a right to know request regarding 2023 stocking operations from hatcheries in question. Or in a broader sense a right to know for all records from the hatcheries.

Legally, if a requester asks for New Zealand mudsnail records from a hatchery from all sources of media (paper records, emails, announcements, memos), all records must be provided. However, the request would have to explicitly name mudsnails and the possible abbreviations (ie. nz, New Zealand, and mudsnails). If the request only asks for “new Zealand” mudsnail records, it would possibly be within pfbc ability to omit records that say “nz” instead of New Zealand.

 

[pcray1231]

Wouldn't the smartest thing to do is as the PFBC, wait for the answer and then determine if it sounds valid or like BS?

They've been contacted and responded, was already done earlier in the thread. The PFBC answer was a pretty wishy washy non specific "logistics problem" at the hatcheries and re-assigning those stockings to a different hatchery. Which leaves things ripe for speculatin, what are the logistics problems, what changed from the original logistics plans that wasn't needed in previous years, and why would they reassign stockings to a different hatchery?

And people are speculatin, which is what people do on a message board. Are the speculations correct? I dunno. But the way to avoid speculation is to give the full specific truth. The PFBC elected to not lie, but not really answer either.

 

[jifigz]

They've been contacted and responded, was already done earlier in the thread. The PFBC answer was a pretty wishy washy non specific "logistics problem" at the hatcheries and re-assigning those stockings to a different hatchery. Which leaves things ripe for speculatin, what are the logistics problems, what changed from the original logistics plans that wasn't needed in previous years, and why would they reassign stockings to a different hatchery?

And people are speculatin, which is what people do on a message board.

Sure, that is true. That is so true. People love a little speculatin'. And, I think it as already mentioned in an earlier post and that it is 100% accurate. I bet the person that answered the questions most likely doesn't even know the real answer or reason and just gave a canned response that will satisfy 99% of those who may inquire.

Lots of employees behind all of these organizations and they certainly don't all know all details of other's jobs within the organization. I am sure they could have found out the real reason if they tried but, once again, figured the canned and simple answer will satisfy the asker.

 

[pcray1231]

To be honest, I'd be a little surprised if it weren't NZMS related. Not shocked, but a little surprised. There's a severe delay, logistics issues, and switching where fish are coming from. Which is highly unusual. In a year where NZMS were detected in several PFBC hatcheries and we were all already asking and expecting some impact.

I'm sure nobody here, including me, hit the detail dead on.

Another speculation. Trying to use fish from affected hatcheries only in already affected streams. A fairly high % of the streams delayed are also streams where NZMS have been detected. So, they already have snails, use fish from the affected hatcheries in only those streams. Would force changing which hatcheries fish are supposed to come from, mostly in affected streams but some unaffected ones as well. If an affected hatchery was supposed to stock unaffected stream, you gotta switch it to stock an affected stream. But now you need an unaffected hatchery to take on the allocation for that unaffected stream. You gotta switch both.

That would create logistics issues, more and longer truck trips, a lot of plan adjustment, similar to what we are seeing. And it'd make some sense from a conservation standpoint as well. And if that is the case, it'd be better if the PFBC acknowledged it. It's actually a feather in their cap. Hey guys, we had this problem at a few of our hatcheries. We did this and this and this to ensure the fish are clean. We believe they are. But we can't be 1000% sure of it. Thus, out of an abundance of caution, we are going to put the fish from those affected hatcheries only in waters verified to already have these snails. This is causing some logistics issues as we adjust which fish are supposed to go where. Some stockings may be delayed and rescheduled. But rest assured, they will all be rescheduled, and the overall state allocation will not be reduced. Please bear with us through this difficult period for the good of our waterways.

 

[jifigz]

To be honest, I'd be a little surprised if it weren't NZMS related. Not shocked, but a little surprised. There's a severe delay, logistics issues, and switching where fish are coming from. Which is highly unusual. In a year where NZMS were detected in several PFBC hatcheries and we were all already asking and expecting some impact.

I'm sure nobody here, including me, hit the detail dead on.

Another speculation. Trying to use fish from affected hatcheries only in already affected streams. The streams that were delayed, and the streams that NZMS have been discovered in, seem to match up pretty well. So, they already have snails, use fish from the affected hatcheries in only those streams. Would force changing which hatcheries fish are supposed to come from, create logistics issues, etc. And make some sense from a conservation standpoint as well.

Sure. Might be. The mudsnail is just showing up everywhere. They don't seem to be overly associate with mud, though. Hmmmmmm......at least not here in their introduced environment. I wonder why they aren't called rocksnails? Seems like they should be rocksnails. I like it. Rocksnails. Oh, here I am just speculatin' again. Heavens-to-Betsy.