Stocking Wild Trout Streams

[lycoflyfisher]

hard to argue with the kid there haha, I get upset when your on a known class A brookie stream and you see adults with a can of worms and stringer full of fish on their way out. now theres nothing wrong with eating a few fish here and there, I just fish for stockies when I want a meal, but its frustrating to watch a native stream get basically fished out by baitfisherman. Its not like stocked fish are hard to come by in most areas.

 

[LetortAngler]

"I will do you one better...tie up some sulphurs and hexs and make a trip to the rivers edge on a cool night from May thru August...Take the 6 wt."

The Mon River is full of them too. I worked in the town of Donora for 5 years right by the river and every summer our one warehouse would fill up with Hexs, and Cahills by the thousands.

 

[jifigz]

The kid has a valid point...a wild trout is definitely tastier than a stocked trout. But I agree sasquatch, there is no reason that the Montana approach can't be implemented here in PA. And the complaints about lower license sales and decreasing revenue and funding is true, but have you checked the PFBC's website and seen the costs of the state hatcheries per pound of fish raised? With less stocking less revenue is needed and many of those that would be upset and not buy a license are not "true" anglers, if you know what I mean. The state eats a huge deficit through the stocking program so why not slash stocking big time, the license sales will be irrelevant because of the huge savings without the production of those oh so expensive hatchery reared trout.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Man my post sounded angry. I'm not angry, but I'm curious.

The kid DID have a point! I couldn't argue with him. I just laughed! They did have a beautiful pink meat inside.

 

[PennKev]

Ending stocking is all well and good, but if you are anticipating the result to be Montana-like fish populations, don't hold your breath.

Ending stocking should be done because it will help wild populations, it should be done because it makes economic sense, but it shouldn't be done with an expectation that our fisheries will become something they are not.

Personally, I would like to see a baseline wild-trout population requirement that would remove streams from stocking regardless of public opinion. Those stocked trout would then be allocated to other nearby stocked waters. Ideally the baseline would be less than the current Class A requirement. Perhaps, being near the current Class B.

 

[LetortAngler]

Montana does have a great system for there fisheries, and hopefully one day PA will inherit some of its potential, but they also only have a population that just broke 1 million, vs PAs 13 million. PA stocks to keep up with demand for anglers who harvest, even if that means having to stock over class A streams that's shouldn't be stocked.
I don't think Montana has it as bad politically, as we do.

 

[krayfish2]

Wait a minute... Didn't Mike post on here a while back that catch an keep has little more impact on populations than catch and release?

"PA stocks to keep up with demand for anglers who harvest, even if that means having to stock over class A streams that's shouldn't be stocked." supply....reduce limits.

Andy,
You could have talked to that kid all day and gotten nowhere. Freezer filler bragging about catch = macho and that will always trump commonsense or conservation.

 

[PocketWater]

Maurice - I have been in a Pirate game twice over the years when a pretty big hatch has gone on. The mayflies all fly up into the light towers then fall into the crowd. What do you think would hit down there when a hatch is going on? Bass?

 

[ebroesicke]

There was a Bass master Classic a few years ago in Pittsburgh, so yes bass. Probably carp and maybe catfish too.

 

[krayfish2]

+1 on the whisker fish. During white fly on Susky, they can be had on dries. 5-15 pounders which will test your gear.

 

[PocketWater]

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/opinion/the-cost-of-trout-fishing.html?_r=0&referrer=

Here is a good article from the NYT on this topic.
http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/04/11/opinion/the-cost-of-trout-fishing.html?_r=0&referrer=

 

[Chaz]

The_Sasquatch wrote:
Maybe I'm ignorant, or I just don't get it, but apart from PA geographically not being MT, and whatever political crap there is behind the scene, if we truly were a RESOURCE FIRST state, why wouldn't Montana's approach to wild trout management work in PA? Why wouldn't adopting a policy that ceases stocking over all viable wild trout populations work in PA?

Not looking for a political answer, I'm not looking for some cheap crap about license sales (because frankly, they had the same objections in Montana too). From a fishery management perspective, why wouldn't it work, and why shouldn't we do it?

And don't feed us any lines about stocking over wild fish not hurting the wild fish population. I just saw a pair of 10" natives on a stringer today from someone who I would be willing to bet an entire year's worth of pay checks would not have even fished that stream were it not stocked for "opening day" shenanigans.

Addiction to the political process of complaining to the legislators who are ignorant of the fact that we have such a thing as wild trout, and that they need to be protected. And that fact that we wild trout anglers are radical libs who are trout huggers.

 

[RLeep2]

>>Maybe I'm ignorant, or I just don't get it, but apart from PA geographically not being MT, and whatever political crap there is behind the scene, if we truly were a RESOURCE FIRST state, why wouldn't Montana's approach to wild trout management work in PA? Why wouldn't adopting a policy that ceases stocking over all viable wild trout populations work in PA?

Not looking for a political answer, I'm not looking for some cheap crap about license sales (because frankly, they had the same objections in Montana too). From a fishery management perspective, why wouldn't it work, and why shouldn't we do it?

And don't feed us any lines about stocking over wild fish not hurting the wild fish population. I just saw a pair of 10" natives on a stringer today from someone who I would be willing to bet an entire year's worth of pay checks would not have even fished that stream were it not stocked for "opening day" shenanigans.>>

Beyond the politics and the appointments and funding (read license costs, etc..) control the General Assy. holds over the Commission, there is another reason why full bore Montana (or even Michigan or Wisconsin) style wild trout policy would be very difficult to implement in PA. Pennsylvania has many fine trout streams, but regardless of how they were managed, the majority of the best of them would never support a wild trout fishery where wild fish of a commensurate size to those produced by the stocking program would be common. The result would look a lot more like the Southern Appalachian wild trout fishery than the Montana or even Upper Midwest fisheries. This would mean that the nature of trout fishing itself and trout angler expectations in PA would have to be re-defined, and that would be a tough sell in a state where HQ warmwater fishing opportunities, while numerous, also are somewhat regionally clustered and has significant portions where fishing first and foremost is trout fishing.

Personally, I'd much rather catch wild trout all day that average 6-10" with an occasional 14-16" fish than any number of stocked fish. But that just happens to be the doctrine of the Church of Angling Preference I attend and mine is a minority viewpoint compared to the 4,000 seat megachurch of Stocked Trout believers down the street. In questions like this where there is no clear right or wrong, only what we'd prefer, the minority usually ends up relegated to hind teat.

So, not only are we in the minority, we are also not in a situation where we can offer a choice that is clearly better or even close to commensurate with states like Montana, at least not the way most folks define "better".

And that is the long answer to the short question...

 

[troutbert]

Montana stocks no streams at all. Only lakes.

I don't know of any group in PA that advocates that. And very, very few individuals.

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:
Montana stocks no streams at all. Only lakes.

I don't know of any group in PA that advocates that. And very, very few individuals.

^ Agreed.

There are many urban area streams that are stocked and should be stocked for anglers to fish. The same for many streams throughout most of the state.

The one thing we should ask is stocking should be ceased in quality self-sustaining trout streams or potential quality self-sustaining trout streams. The fish not stocked in these Class A's or B's should now stocked in the streams that do not have a wild trout population.

Since each year there are less trout raised and stocked, it would make sense to let the self-sustaining streams stand on their own since they are already viable fisheries. In addition this helps keep the stocked streams viable fisheries by increasing stocking numbers and/or stocking dates.

This makes sense biologically as well as logically...

 

[dsmith1427]

It's culture and cultural changes are the hardest. I have not seen any publications teaching the fishing public the difference between stocked and native trout. Is there anything in the book you get when you get whey you buy your license? Is there anything on the PFBC website? Has TU or any other organization taken up this cause? IMO, if you want to change the culture, first you need to educate the entire population.

Growing up, my family had the "freezer filler" mentality but we changed. Now my family, brothers, and nephews practice catch and release keeping occasional fish for consumption.

Just my opinion.

Don

 

[KenU]

According to at least one of our PFBC commissioners, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania raises trout as a commercial enterprise. So hatcheries are the factories and our cold water streams are the counters where they are distributed to the customers. An "all-you-can-eat" mentality keeps the demand high. So high that what Nature cannot supply must be provided by the State.

 

[streamerguy]

afishinado wrote:

There are many urban area streams that are stocked and should be stocked for anglers to fish. The same for many streams throughout most of the state.

The one thing we should ask is stocking should be ceased in quality self-sustaining trout streams or potential quality self-sustaining trout streams. The fish not stocked in these Class A's or B's should now stocked in the streams that do not have a wild trout population.

Since each year there are less trout raised and stocked, it would make sense to let the self-sustaining streams stand on their own since they are already viable fisheries. In addition this helps keep the stocked streams viable fisheries by increasing stocking numbers and/or stocking dates.

This makes sense biologically as well as logically...

Amen

The PFBC is getting rid of a bunch of fall and winter stockings and cutting spring stockings on streams that need stocked, yet they continue to stock good and potentially good wild trout streams. Makes absolutely no sense. Gotta save money........and Resource First!!!!!!

dsmith1427 wrote:
It's culture and cultural changes are the hardest. I have not seen any publications teaching the fishing public the difference between stocked and native trout. ............... IMO, if you want to change the culture, first you need to educate the entire population.

KenU wrote:
An "all-you-can-eat" mentality keeps the demand high. So high that what Nature cannot supply must be provided by the State.

^^^This is probably the biggest issue. The whole mentality needs to change. People need to be educated, and honestly most opening day catch 'em and rope 'em fishermen don't give a #censor# about conservation, wild trout, selective harvest, etc., etc......

afishinado wrote:
it would make sense to let the self-sustaining streams stand on their own since they are already viable fisheries.

So the question is.............what exactly is a "viable fishery"??

Limiting out on 11in stockies in 15min every April morning at the bridge hole?

Catching a pile of 5-10in trout? Maybe one or two 12+ inchers? After fishing at least a mile of water??

20 gemmies?

And just because a fishery is "viable" or "good" biologically, many people might not think it is because the fish are difficult, spooky, not stacked up at the pool by the road, etc.