Trout Stocking Numbers

[Fish Sticks]

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

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.

I blame an agency that is supposed to be a resource manager for jot using those funds on something else that would benefit the resource instead of degrade it and waste money, thats no excuse. “Just cause they can”

 

[C_kreek17]

Where are you finding the 81 million? I can’t seem to find that number.

Also I may have misspoken, DEP administers their portion of the allocation as grant money to third party for restoration. The actual growing greener fund is managed by the legislature. It doesn’t appear that DEP gives money to PFBC.

And I agree, it would be nice to see that money directly work on habitat restoration.. but that’s something that’ll have to taken up with the legislature.

 

[Mike]

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.

Yes, GG monies could be spent on all kinds of projects….habitat, organisms, etc, and they are, but I suspect that one has to apply with projects of substance to compete for funding. I doubt that just having a laundry list of ideas, no matter how deserving some might be if developed into projects, is going to get one very far.

 

[silverfox]

Could be worse, I reckon. NHFG used COVID relief money to repair one of their hatcheries that was in constant violation of EPA pollution limits.

Somehow I doubt fixing fish hatchery waste systems was what Joe and Sally Taxpayer had in mind when they voted for increased spending in environmental restoration/conservation/remediation.

 

[Mike]

Where are you finding the 81 million? I can’t seem to find that number.

Also I may have misspoken, DEP administers their portion of the allocation as grant money to third party for restoration. The actual growing greener fund is managed by the legislature. It doesn’t appear that DEP gives money to PFBC.

And I agree, it would be nice to see that money directly work on habitat restoration.. but that’s something that’ll have to taken up with the legislature.

Then if that’s the case, some arm of the legislature or the legislature as a whole must have agreed that PFBC proposed projects were worthy of funding.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Yes, GG monies could be spent on all kinds of projects….habitat, organisms, etc, and they are, but I suspect that one has to apply with projects of substance to compete for funding. I doubt that just having a laundry list of ideas, no matter how deserving some might be if developed into projects, is going to get one very far.

Lol !!!!! Ideas ? Like this would be some abstract concept such as “make world better” lol

There are existing programs that do these things that already exist and PAFB in fact already has a system to fund restoration through PFBC grants. I know because my TU chapter used one. Now while its not done at any significant scale the program is still there.

The work I am doing on the hammer creek with that collective is a tangible fundable effort with deliverables that could be targeted for those growing greener funds instead as either a pass through from PFBC or used to fund supplementary species work in those watersheds like updated surveys, habitat suitability index based restoration approaches ect.

The idea that PFBC had to spend this money on hatcheries because there would be bo way to funnel the money or contribute it to a multi species watershed restoration is laughable and in fact almost everyone else is involved in this DCNR, DEP, Alliance for the bay, army core of engineers, TU, NFC, NRCS, NFWF ect. All the above organizations either are involved in projects to restore or protect native species or fund them.

There is a lot more than a “laundry list of ideas” it seems there is big list of people actually doing this(many I work with) and PAFB just saying “we can’t” “we don’t have enough money” “give us 10 million recovering americas wild life act dollars a year” “then we will do some conservation”

They chose to spend it on stocked invasive species and polluting our water ways with hatcheries and they could easily put that money to work towards native fish and amphibians and create angler access in the process.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Where are you finding the 81 million? I can’t seem to find that number.

Also I may have misspoken, DEP administers their portion of the allocation as grant money to third party for restoration. The actual growing greener fund is managed by the legislature. It doesn’t appear that DEP gives money to PFBC.

And I agree, it would be nice to see that money directly work on habitat restoration.. but that’s something that’ll have to taken up with the legislature.

Bottom of the report silver fox linked under the 27.5 million

 

[Mike]

Resource agencies have broad constituencies and not all groups or individuals are going to agree with everything that each agency does in the name of its mission. A professional pollster specializing in design and application of conservation agency constituency surveys indicated that 70% favorability is good.

Did I misunderstand? Didn’t your Chapter receive PFBC grant money? (#26, paragraph 2 above)

As for money spent on Steelhead fishery easements, I think that’s a great program and I have only fished for steelhead 2X in 30 yrs, and that was because of meetings in Erie. Despite the fact that I may never get there again, I still think the program is outstanding and before anyone complains about it, I would remind them that the Erie permit funds it. It is self-funded.

 

[troutbert]

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.

The water quality improvements projects at the hatcheries really did improve water quality. I think the expansion of wild trout in Yellow Breeches Creek is due in large part to improvements in water quality at the Huntdsale hatchery.

And I've noticed very significant water quality improvements at the Tylersville hatchery on Fishing Creek, and at the hatchery at Fishermans Paradise on Spring Creek.

That Growing Greener money was used for that is surprising to me, though. And so MUCH money. I'm not sure that's justifiable, or the original intent of Growing Greener.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Resource agencies have broad constituencies and not all groups or individuals are going to agree with everything that each agency does in the name of its mission. A professional pollster specializing in design and application of conservation agency constituency surveys indicated that 70% favorability is good.

Did I misunderstand? Didn’t your Chapter receive PFBC grant money? (#26, paragraph 2 above)

Yes they probably hand out leas than 1% of the 27 mill they took from my chapter theoretically from growing greener.

DEP also has a broad constituency and limiting the publics ability to do what ever the *amn well please with the stream(daming it, dumping in it ext.) in their yard probably wasn’t popular but they had a job to do. I would suggest PFBC do theirs

 

[Mike]

Yes they probably hand out leas than 1% of the 27 mill they took from my chapter theoretically from growing greener.

DEP also has a broad constituency and limiting the publics ability to do what ever the *amn well please with the stream(daming it, dumping in it ext.) in their yard probably wasn’t popular but they had a job to do. I would suggest PFBC do theirs

In my experience PFBC worked independently and with DEP various enforcement problems in addition to other related topics, issues, and problems of interest or concern.

My point about what is and isn’t popular, using your vernacular from above, was that conservation agencies in general and their personnel can’t please everyone and that’s something that they have to learn to accept. Nevertheless, trout anglers have given the PFBC good overall ratings in contracted, professionally conducted surveys in the past…

RATING OF THE PENNSYLVANIA FISH AND BOAT COMMISSION, AND RATINGS OF IMPORTANCE OF COMMISSION PROGRAMS
Ratings of the overall performance of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission among trout anglers is positive: 74% give a rating of excellent or good, and only 23% give a rating in the lower half of the scale—fair or poor. Note that most ratings are within the moderate answers (good and fair) rather than the extreme answers (excellent or poor). Only 2% give a poor rating

 

[Fish Sticks]

The water quality improvements projects at the hatcheries really did improve water quality. I think the expansion of wild trout in Yellow Breeches Creek is due in large part to improvements in water quality at the Huntdsale hatchery.

And I've noticed very significant water quality improvements at the Tylersville hatchery on Fishing Creek, and at the hatchery at Fishermans Paradise on Spring Creek.

That Growing Greener money was used for that is surprising to me, though. And so MUCH money. I'm not sure that's justifiable, or the original intent of Growing Greener.

I agree not in the spirit of the grant or not what tax payers would be happy to learn their money is being spent on. i.e purposefully created pollution for something the vast majority of Pennsylvanians don’t care about, stocked trout.

That 27.5 million dollars could have been enough for the purchase of MULTIPLE new access/conservation parcels and thats not some crazy new idea out if left field either.

 

[silverfox]

In my experience PFBC worked independently and with DEP various enforcement problems in addition to other related topics, issues, and problems of interest or concern.

My point about what is and isn’t popular, using your vernacular from above, was that conservation agencies in general and their personnel can’t please everyone and that’s something that they have to learn to accept. Nevertheless, trout anglers have given the PFBC good overall ratings in contracted, professionally conducted surveys in the past…

RATING OF THE PENNSYLVANIA FISH AND BOAT COMMISSION, AND RATINGS OF IMPORTANCE OF COMMISSION PROGRAMS
Ratings of the overall performance of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission among trout anglers is positive: 74% give a rating of excellent or good, and only 23% give a rating in the lower half of the scale—fair or poor. Note that most ratings are within the moderate answers (good and fair) rather than the extreme answers (excellent or poor). Only 2% give a poor rating

I suspect the responses are based on whether those interviewed view the agency as a conservation agency or a trout farm. If the latter, obviously they'll get great marks. I suspect the conservationists are the minority.

 

[Fish Sticks]

In my experience PFBC worked independently and with DEP various enforcement problems in addition to other related topics, issues, and problems of interest or concern.

My point about what is and isn’t popular, using your vernacular from above, was that conservation agencies in general and their personnel can’t please everyone and that’s something that they have to learn to accept. Nevertheless, trout anglers have given the PFBC good overall ratings in contracted, professionally conducted surveys in the past…

RATING OF THE PENNSYLVANIA FISH AND BOAT COMMISSION, AND RATINGS OF IMPORTANCE OF COMMISSION PROGRAMS
Ratings of the overall performance of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission among trout anglers is positive: 74% give a rating of excellent or good, and only 23% give a rating in the lower half of the scale—fair or poor. Note that most ratings are within the moderate answers (good and fair) rather than the extreme answers (excellent or poor). Only 2% give a poor rating

Yea but my point is they should not care about that rating if they have abandoned their core responsibility of protecting and managing the commonwealths aquatic resources.

I think anyone working with species of greatest conservation need or objectively looking at the ecological harms of the hatchery program or fiscal waster would give them a poor rating.

If we are going to look at a survey of lay people who are giving a grade to an agency that in theory is supposed to be using fisheries science and conservation principles to manage the common wealths resources, you might as well ask Britney spears how satisfied she is with the performance of department of the interior.

Its a low bar to point to a bunch of people giving a thumbs up because they can launch a kayak or find stocker meat when an agency is failing to do it’s actual job

 

[Fish Sticks]

In my experience PFBC worked independently and with DEP various enforcement problems in addition to other related topics, issues, and problems of interest or concern.

My point about what is and isn’t popular, using your vernacular from above, was that conservation agencies in general and their personnel can’t please everyone and that’s something that they have to learn to accept. Nevertheless, trout anglers have given the PFBC good overall ratings in contracted, professionally conducted surveys in the past…

RATING OF THE PENNSYLVANIA FISH AND BOAT COMMISSION, AND RATINGS OF IMPORTANCE OF COMMISSION PROGRAMS
Ratings of the overall performance of the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission among trout anglers is positive: 74% give a rating of excellent or good, and only 23% give a rating in the lower half of the scale—fair or poor. Note that most ratings are within the moderate answers (good and fair) rather than the extreme answers (excellent or poor). Only 2% give a poor rating

I think what this ignores is that PA fish and Boat is supposed to serve more than just anglers. Their not the steward of the common wealth’s anglers aquatic resources. Their the stewards of the common wealths aquatic resources. And with the level of threats to habitat, native species, and the constant onslaught of invasive species their job is to put forward a serious effort to prevent species loss, maintain biodiversity, and keep aquatic resources healthy.

I get it the anglers pay the license fees but the general public pays the taxes used in growing greener and the general non fishing public would not be happy to know their tax money going towards conservation is not going towards conservation and in fact funding an invasion that also pollutes streams.

 

[Mike]

I suspect the responses are based on whether those interviewed view the agency as a conservation agency or a trout farm. If the latter, obviously they'll get great marks. I suspect the conservationists are the minority.

Your suspicion (3rd line above) doesn’t seem to hold true. Here is the evidence….see the area highest importance but also note what was of the second greatest importance. Both are quite important to Pa’s trout anglers. Imagine that.

The survey asked trout anglers to rate the importance of seven program areas of the Commission. While all program areas are rated above the midpoint (on a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 is the highest importance), three program areas stand out with markedly higher means than the rest: improving habitat and water quality to make conditions more favorable for wild trout (mean of 9.07), stocking trout (mean of 8.65), and providing trout fishing opportunities (mean of 8.61). The lowest in importance is providing trophy trout fishing opportunities (mean of 6.23).

 

[Fish Sticks]

Well, your suspicion is wrong in my view. Here is the evidence….see the area highest importance …

The survey asked trout anglers to rate the importance of seven program areas of the Commission. While all program areas are rated above the midpoint (on a scale of 0 to 10, where 10 is the highest importance), three program areas stand out with markedly higher means than the rest: improving habitat and water quality to make conditions more favorable for wild trout (mean of 9.07), stocking trout (mean of 8.65), and providing trout fishing opportunities (mean of 8.61). The lowest in importance is providing trophy trout fishing opportunities (mean of 6.23).

well first we gotta stop the line here and say if your “improving habitat for wild trout” thats not even necessarily conservation because as we know “wild trout” is a dog whistle for managing invasive and native species together.

Second, and really where silver fox and i are going with this while thing, is PA fish and boats messaging for decades to the angling public has been that cleaning the water and stocking or promoting invasive species is conservation. Thats why you have so many groups in PA that might do an annual stream litter patrol and stock 3000 invasive trout species over hod knows what and their website says “conservation”.

Hell look at half the TU chapters in this state, “clean the water and stock it”= conservation.

If you take a survey with a bunch of people who don’t actually jnow what conservation is and rely on PFBC’s own warped pseudo definition of conservation of course their going to give it a thumbs up. They have no idea these organisms are responsible for species loss around the globe, are one of the very few fish to make in top 100 invasive species list world wide, and that the stream projects PA fish and boat is encouraging help them invade! So yea they think PAFBC is killing it out there, no surprise there.

 

[troutbert]

Hell look at half the TU chapters in this state, “clean the water and stock it”= conservation.

What?

 

[Fish Sticks]

What?

Well near me anyway, dftu(my home area chapter) has heavy ties to coops. cvtu has a coop I believe , schuyllkill county TU was told to stop stocking over wild trout streams so they just did it under schuyllkill county headwaters they got vibert boxes for brown trout in brook trout streams they got, and headwaters stocked right downstream of class A brook trout in new philadelphia. 5 years ago I was talking to pres of muddy creek Tu chapter and they said they either have a coop or help at a hatchery regularly. I am not saying the TU chapters all have hatcheries or that all members think its ok to stock healthy cold water ecosystems with invasive species . I am just saying a large contingent of members, chapter sponsored events, and volunterring revolve around stocked fish or stocking

 

[Fish Sticks]

What?

I know a lot of people in TU(including myself) who really do strive to do conservation(by definition native species). So I don’t want people to think my statement is discrediting even close to the majority of TU members. But like with all organizations the conduct of a few members can really mess things up. Look at TU national for instance, chris wood and helen neville come out with “native fish first” policy and Kirk Deeter the editor of TU magazine goes on podcasts and sabotages the goals of the organization he works for my poo poo’ing native species conservation.