Trout Stocking Numbers

J

JeffP

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 21, 2007
Messages
1,033
Location
Lititz, Pa
Does anyone know when the Fish Commission stopped publishing numbers? I'm guessing at some point when the numbers started going down. What % do you think the average stream has dropped since peak stocking?
 
It was long before that.
 
2017 annual report
13 hatcheries and just under 6 million trout




2017 Penn State Smeal college of business telling PFBC their trout hatchery program unsustainable in a business audit and that they need to cut fish and close hatcheries to stay afloat long term.


See executive summary page









2021 annual report- 13 hatcheries just under 6 million trout


Around page 27-don’t forget to count the “warm water trout” that go in erie



I do not see any hatchery closures as recommended by smeal college of business and over all number of trout produced seems not significantly changed. The only reason their not broke is because they are using grant money to cover what the license money should so they can use the license money on stocked itrout. They used a growing greener grant on a hatchery effluent instead of just closing the hatchery and saving some money. They jist gave a coop in potter 65k to get up to code. PA fish and boat has a spending problem with YOUR license money and its not going towards any comparatively significant amount conservation like the “resource first” would imply.
 
Last edited:
JeffP said:
Does anyone know when the Fish Commission stopped publishing numbers? I'm guessing at some point when the numbers started going down. What % do you think the average stream has dropped since peak stocking?
Click to expand...
I think it was around the time they started listing exact time and date inseason stocking data. Some co-op hatcheries list numbers but you really have to do some digging to find it.
 
JeffP said:
Does anyone know when the Fish Commission stopped publishing numbers? I'm guessing at some point when the numbers started going down. What % do you think the average stream has dropped since peak stocking?
Click to expand...
You meant adult trout numbers stocked in each stream section during each preseason and each inseason stocking when you said. “stopped publishing numbers,” didn’t you?

The total number of adult trout stocked by the PFBC statewide is published. At least that has been my experience. I have usually seen that number in various articles leading up to opening day.
 
Last edited:
Fish Sticks said:
They used a growing greener grant on a hatchery effluent instead of just closing the hatchery and saving some money.
Click to expand...
Fish Sticks,

I’ve seen you mention this before. Do you know what year or grant number was used for this project? Growing greener is distributed by DEP, mostly for stream restoration work. Id be surprised if a grant was given that wouldn’t have larger implications than just treating effluent. I could be wrong though.
 
JeffP said:
Does anyone know when the Fish Commission stopped publishing numbers? I'm guessing at some point when the numbers started going down. What % do you think the average stream has dropped since peak stocking?
Click to expand...
You are referring to the practice of the PFBC publishing the number of approximate fish that each stream got, right? I remember this well and used to find it a fascinating bit of info. This was long before I cared about trout, wild trout, their habitats, etc but Kish Creek reportedly used to get close to 10,000 fish. I would say that streams that are still stocked have declined by at least 20%. There are obviously many small streams that only saw minimal stockings that are no longer stocked, too.

The slow decline in stocking is a blessing.
 
jifigz said:
You are referring to the practice of the PFBC publishing the number of approximate fish that each stream got, right? I remember this well and used to find it a fascinating bit of info. This was long before I cared about trout, wild trout, their habitats, etc but Kish Creek reportedly used to get close to 10,000 fish. I would say that streams that are still stocked have declined by at least 20%. There are obviously many small streams that only saw minimal stockings that are no longer stocked, too.

The slow decline in stocking is a blessing.
Click to expand...
I don’t think stocking has declined though, if you add up adult trout, fingerlings, coop, and erie trout its always just less than 6 million looking back around 10 years ago. I think in the past they decreased adult trout but didn’t they just do more fingerlings?
 
silverfox said:
Also: https://www.fishandboat.com/AboutUs/AgencyOverview/Funding/Documents/GG-annual-report.pdf
Click to expand...
Om*g its like PRBC has a straw in growing greeners pot of money. Sorry wet land that needed to be created, flood plain that needed to be reconnected, 8 foot tall dirt cliff, PFBC took the money that was going to fix you for a problem they purposefully pay to create in perpetuity. This is ridiculous look at those numbers, look how much growing greener has SFH (state fish Hatchery) next to it!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Fish Sticks said:
I don’t think stocking has declined though, if you add up adult trout, fingerlings, coop, and erie trout its always just less than 6 million looking back around 10 years ago. I think in the past they decreased adult trout but didn’t they just do more fingerlings?
Click to expand...
Honestly Fish Sticks, I have no idea if overall stocking has increased or decreased. My guess was that, just a guess. I don't really keep track of the amount of fish stocked or where they're stocked, etc. I used to care about these things more but I admit that today I really don't care. I would be willing to wager I have spent more time fishing Kish Creek than than anyone on this forum (or at least 99% of those) as I grew up fishing it and know every inch, every seam, where every hole is, etc and I at one time used to advocate about stocking over those Class A wild browns but anymore I don't care. I figure, well, the brown trout population continues to improve and they still stock a helluva lot of fish over em. Once again, not saying it isn't a concern, but I have started devoting my thoughts and worries elsewhere.

But I think the PFBC should quit stocking over all wild trout. Or maybe even altogether. It seems it is a waste of money to me. But, once again, I'll let others fight that battle.
 
Fish Sticks said:
I don’t think stocking has declined though, if you add up adult trout, fingerlings, coop, and erie trout its always just less than 6 million looking back around 10 years ago. I think in the past they decreased adult trout but didn’t they just do more fingerlings?
Click to expand...
In the past there were decreases from the closing of the Big Spring hatchery near Newville, and reductions in numbers raised at Tylersville to meet water quality parameters. But since then, I think the numbers have been pretty stable.

Many people assume that when a wild trout stream is taken off the stocking list that it means less hatchery trout are produced and stocked. But, not so. Hatchery production is unchanged by that. They just shift some trout to other streams.
 
troutbert said:
In the past there were decreases from the closing of the Big Spring hatchery near Newville, and reductions in numbers raised at Tylersville to meet water quality parameters. But since then, I think the numbers have been pretty stable.

Many people assume that when a wild trout stream is taken off the stocking list that it means less hatchery trout are produced and stocked. But, not so. Hatchery production is unchanged by that. They just shift some trout to other streams.
Click to expand...
Thats what i thought
 
I can’t be reading this correctly in the report silverfox posted

27.5 million of the available 81 million of growing greener funds went to PA fish and boat with state fish hatchery and the overwhelming lions share of the growing greener money going to hatcheries??????

we are going to do something like 27.5 acres of wetland restoration with legacy sediment removal on hammer creek and not create spawning channels with brook trout specific sized spawning gravels for like 7 or 8 hundred thousand projected. That may go up a little but 27. 5 million might have been able to restore the entire stretch of BFC from the tylersville hatchery to the headwaters lol. How many culverts would that be state wide? 400???? Lol??

Holy Santa clause s***!!!!
 
Fish Sticks said:
I can’t be reading this correctly in the report silverfox posted

27.5 million of the available 81 million of growing greener funds went to PA fish and boat with state fish hatchery and the overwhelming lions share of the growing greener money going to hatcheries??????

we are going to do something like 27.5 acres of wetland restoration with legacy sediment removal on hammer creek and not create spawning channels with brook trout specific sized spawning gravels for like 7 or 8 hundred thousand projected. That may go up a little but 27. 5 million might have been able to restore the entire stretch of BFC from the tylersville hatchery to the headwaters lol. How many culverts would that be state wide? 400???? Lol??

Holy Santa clause s***!!!!
Click to expand...
It looks like PFBC was given an “allotment” of 27.5 million (out of 625 million) for facilities and lands owned by the commission. While this is no small amount of money (I’d gladly take 27.5 million) it doesn’t account for the lion share of the funding program. Both DEP and DCNR received over 200 million, each, at the time. I’m not sure if these are annual or 1 time allotments. This was also in 2005, allotments across all programs has definitely gone up since then as the program funding is well over $1 billion.

Not saying that the money that fish and boat received couldn't have been spent in a better way, but when you look at the big picture it could have definitely been worse.
 
Last edited:
C_kreek17 said:
It looks like PFBC was given an “allotment” of 27.5 million (out of 625 million) for facilities and lands owned by the commission. While this is no small amount of money (I’d gladly take 27.5 million) it doesn’t account for the lion share of the funding program. Both DEP and DCNR received over 200 million, each, at the time. I’m not sure if these are annual allotments or over a 5 year period. This was also in 2005, allotments across all programs has definitely gone up since then as the program funding is well over $1 billion.

Not saying that the money that fish and boat received couldn't have been spent in a better way, but when you look at the big picture it could have definitely been worse.
Click to expand...
Why does the document reference 27.5 out of available balance of 81 million of growing greener? Is that 81 of a balance of GG2 funds pafbc has on tap?


Yea 27 million buy ALOT of public land in PA

Basically it could take an entire spring creek watershed and restore for endangered bog turtles, native brook trout, slimy/mottled/checkered sculpin, potentially eastern mud salamanders, log perch whatever

At 50 k a culvert maybe 540 culverts

Lol chop and drop for entire state

I mean yea compared to 600 million its not as much but considering wild native brook trout get $10,000, a PA lottery scratch off, and chiles gift card only redeemable for half off appetizers thats a mega load of government waste of tax payer dollars into a system that creates waste literally.
 
C_kreek17 said:
It looks like PFBC was given an “allotment” of 27.5 million (out of 625 million) for facilities and lands owned by the commission. While this is no small amount of money (I’d gladly take 27.5 million) it doesn’t account for the lion share of the funding program. Both DEP and DCNR received over 200 million, each, at the time. I’m not sure if these are annual allotments or over a 5 year period. This was also in 2005, allotments across all programs has definitely gone up since then as the program funding is well over $1 billion.

Not saying that the money that fish and boat received couldn't have been spent in a better way, but when you look at the big picture it could have definitely been worse.
Click to expand...
And let’s reemphasize for those who may have missed it the first time around, DEP administers the Growing Greener Program. Apparently hatchery and lake improvements met qualifying criteria for the funding. I don’t blame any agency for applying for such funding when the projects proposed meet the requirements. In fact, these funds saved angler dollars while advancing necessary projects that benefitted anglers, and in the cases of lakes, anglers, boaters, and the general public.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CRB
Mike said:
And let’s reemphasize for those who may have missed it the first time around, DEP administers the Growing Greener Program. Apparently hatchery and lake improvements met qualifying criteria for the funding. I don’t blame any agency for applying for such funding when the projects proposed meet the requirements. In fact, these funds saved angler dollars while advancing necessary projects that benefitted anglers, and in the cases of lakes, anglers, boaters, and the general public.
Click to expand...
I am not going to delve into lakes boating because that was very little of the funding, most of it went to hatcheries which you could say “benefited anglers” for bow i guess. It certainly harmed conservation significantly but what about anglers in the future. As development expands cambria, schuyllkill, and these other places that are prime candidates for more public land that could provide angling access arent going to stay cheap forever. You could make a good argument that access is being neglected unless you fish for sTeElHeAd
 
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