Trout Stocking Numbers

[Mike]

“as we know “wild trout” is a dog whistle for managing invasive and native species together”

WOW!!

 

[Fish Sticks]

“as we know “wild trout” is a dog whistle for managing invasive and native species together”

WOW!!

Does wild trout not mean brown trout and brook trout? Is one not invasive and the other native. Is one not the third ranked threat to the other by the EBTJV. Is Pa fish and boat not managing for both in the same place by protecting the invasive one by protecting “wild trout”. Is it not like a confused demented person sitting at a stop light with the RPM’s are 3000 but their foot is on the brake and gas as they simultaneously choose stop and go at the same in their futile effort to move forward.

Why is Mike Kauffman so suprised?

 

[Fish Sticks]

Or explain how “conservation” of an invasive species works and defend your shock and aww of my statement

 

[troutbert]

Well near me anyway, dftu(my home area chapter) has heavy ties to coops. cvtu has a coop I believe

I don't think Cumberland Valley TU has a coop hatchery.

I don't think Doc Fritchey chapter has a coop hatchery either. What is meant by "heavy ties" to a coop hatchery?

Going back a few years, this topic was discussed among PA TU, and I think that then there were 3 TU chapters in the state that had coop hatcheries. That's nowhere close to half. There are 49 TU chapters in PA.

 

[troutbert]

So I don’t want people to think my statement is discrediting even close to the majority of TU members.

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

 

[silverfox]

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).

Interesting. The ambiguous "wild trout" definition could be split and have two different outcomes. I'd give the agency high marks for improving wild brown trout numbers across the state and low marks for improving wild brook trout numbers. However, that's based on my biased view and the absence (for now) of a study that proves whether I'm correct or incorrect about wild ST population gain/loss.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I don't think Cumberland Valley TU has a coop hatchery.

I don't think Doc Fritchey chapter has a coop hatchery either. What is meant by "heavy ties" to a coop hatchery?

Going back a few years, this topic was discussed among PA TU, and I think that then there were 3 TU chapters in the state that had coop hatcheries. That's nowhere close to half. There are 49 TU chapters in PA.

no its just that some members from DFTU volunteer at coop and stock stoney creek where we have brook trout and a diversion well project to treat amd for them. I didn’t mean they all had coops but if chapter members are volunteering at these hatcheries, stocking streams for chapter events, or helping them stock annually then to me who’s name is on the coop is just semantics.

To your issue with what I said a better way of saying it would be that, many TU chapters in PA have some members that volunteer at and help stock trout from private/coop hatcheries on-top of native brook trout.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Interesting. The ambiguous "wild trout" definition could be split and have two different outcomes. I'd give the agency high marks for improving wild brown trout numbers across the state and low marks for improving wild brook trout numbers. However, that's based on my biased view and the absence (for now) of a study that proves whether I'm correct or incorrect about wild ST population gain/loss.

yea if there was an “Eastern Brown Trout Venture” PAFB could say look we have watershed level management, c and r, with little to no stocking in the little J and spring creek. They just won’t do it for brook trout

 

[richmondthefish]

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?

I email the commission many years ago about this. The story they told me was that they claimed they stopped publishing them because anglers were going to the streams with higher published numbers thinking they had more trout in a given location when in fact the commission stocks the same amount regardless of the stream(it's just the length that differs). While I can see some sense to that it also removes transparency behind the numbers. For example I've seen them remove a couple streams and claim the access fish were going to existing streams which I bet never happen since it contradicts their claim that they only stock so many fish in a given area and those other streams did not expand the area.



Anyway they stopped publishing the numbers after 2005. He's an archive here of the last year they published them.

https://web.archive.org/web/20050330094010/http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/stockpre.htm




The total numbers are much lower today(but fish are much bigger). Also I noticed far more palominos today than back in the day.



2006 numbers
https://web.archive.org/web/20060614130001/http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/stock.htm 2006

TOTAL​

Brook​ 799,290​ Brown​ 1,556,910​ Rainbow​ 1,792,900​ Total PFBC​ 4,149,100​ Coop​ 1,067,000​ Grand Total​ 5,216,100​

2024 https://www.fishandboat.com/Fishing/Stocking/Pages/Trout-Stocking.aspx

2024 Summary of Planned Adult Trout Stocking*
Water	Number	Brook	Brown	Rainbow	Total	Trophy**
Streams	695	74,925	669,135	1,803,640	2,547,700	11,838
Lakes	128	56,770	33,340	554,190	644,300	1,945
Combined	823	131,695	702,475	2,357,830	3,192,000	13,783
Cooperative Nurseries (approximately)	1,211,067
Total to be Stocked	4,403,067

 

[blitzinstripes]

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?

If you show up to help stock and strike up a conversation with a friendly driver (most), they will often let you see the manifest if you ask. I'm a curious person by nature. If they find me annoying they never said so. I ask a million questions every time I get a chance with drivers and WWCO's. I try to help a few times a year. Fun experience as well as providing a helpful service.

 

[blitzinstripes]

Also, I could be wrong but I believe a fully loaded stock truck has approximately a 3,000 fish capacity on average. Of course the larger the average fish, the lower that number, but we always figured based on the old published reports and speaking with the drivers and WWCO's, that it was approximately 3000/ truck.

 

[Mike]

For example I've seen them remove a couple streams and claim the access fish were going to existing streams which I bet never happen since it contradicts their claim that they only stock so many fish in a given area and those other streams did not expand the area

There are multiple classifications of stocked trout sections. Within a given classification, which is based on biomass, measurements of access, average width, and human population density in adjacent municipalities, the maximum annual allocation of stocked trout per acre (the “area” in the PFBC response) is the same. Most stream sections are stocked to the max for sections’ classifications, but there are a number of sections that are not stocked to the max based on less than desired angler use, landowner concerns, littering or other past or anticipated social problems, posting problems, histories of low flow or warm H2O temps by mid-spring, history of substantial preseason poaching, etc.

When a stream section is removed from the stocking program, near-by streams’ sections or lakes that are not being fully stocked to the classification’s max per acre are eligible to receive those fish. This recently (2 yrs ago I think) occurred on a grand scale in Bucks Co. Another option is to try to extend an existing section on the same stream or another near-by stream’s stocked section so that the total section area will increase. Adding length and acres to a stream section that is presently being stocked to the max allows additional fish to be stocked in the extended section, as is occurring in Kettle Ck this yr. A third option is to add a new stream or lake to the trout stocking program and stock the reallocated fish there.

 

[richmondthefish]

Also, I could be wrong but I believe a fully loaded stock truck has approximately a 3,000 fish capacity on average. Of course the larger the average fish, the lower that number, but we always figured based on the old published reports and speaking with the drivers and WWCO's, that it was approximately 3000/ truck.

Yes it was somewhere in the 3,000s. Might have been even 3,500 per truck as I know a stream that got 10,700 trout was covered by 3 trucks which is 3,566 per truck. Fish are bigger now so a modern number would be a bit lower than 3,500.

 

[6xAdams(Jones)]

If you show up to help stock and strike up a conversation with a friendly driver (most), they will often let you see the manifest if you ask. I'm a curious person by nature. If they find me annoying they never said so. I ask a million questions every time I get a chance with drivers and WWCO's. I try to help a few times a year. Fun experience as well as providing a helpful service.

You can also ask whoever is managing one of the hatcheries. The guy we met at the one near Carlisle really engaged with us, when we took the kids to see all the trout. He may have been bored, but he told us everything he could about breeding/hatching/stocking in the short time we were visiting. He also gave the kids some pellets to feed the fish.

 

[Mike]

Also, I could be wrong but I believe a fully loaded stock truck has approximately a 3,000 fish capacity on average. Of course the larger the average fish, the lower that number, but we always figured based on the old published reports and speaking with the drivers and WWCO's, that it was approximately 3000/ truck.

Varies with the sizes of the tanks and sizes of the fish, plus the time of year (preseason vs inseason). Inseason max loads ( numbers of fish) are generally less than preseason due to warmer air temps during the truck runs and at some point larger fish. With earlier opening days, however, these differences may not be fully realized until later in the inseason stocking period. Also, inseason stocking rates per acre may be less than preseason, so loads may be lighter on that basis alone.

 

[blitzinstripes]

There are multiple classifications of stocked trout sections. Within a given classification, which is based on biomass, measurements of access, average width, and human population density in adjacent municipalities, the maximum annual allocation of stocked trout per acre (the “area” in the PFBC response) is the same. Most stream sections are stocked to the max for sections’ classifications, but there are a number of sections that are not stocked to the max based on less than desired angler use, landowner concerns, littering, posting problems, histories of low flow or warm H2O temps by mid-spring, history of substantial preseason poaching, etc.

When a stream section is removed from the stocking program, near-by streams’ sections or lakes that are not being fully stocked to the classification’s max per acre are eligible to receive those fish. This recently (2 yrs ago I think) occurred on a grand scale in Bucks Co. Another option is to try to extend an existing section on the same stream or another near-by stream’s stocked section so that the total section area will increase. Adding length and acres to a stream section that is presently being stocked to the max allows additional fish to be stocked in the extended section, as is occurring in Kettle Ck this yr. A third option is to add a new stream or lake to the trout stocking program and stock the “extra” fish there.

When a stream is supplementally stocked by a club with a cooperative or private nursery, do the additional club fish "count" against the number being stocked by the state? (Max allocation.)

 

[Old Town]

Very few if any CVTU members help the YBAC coop nursery. Lets be honest, if Pa did not stock the waters the license sales would drop meaning $ needed by the Commission would not be there for all projects.
When Big Springs hatchery closed many articles were written in local newspapers ( those affected by the stocking) about how negative it would be for the average trout fishermen. I read many commentaries about it during that time period. I do agree it needed some major updates. Also prior to its opening some notable locals were against it and even told the experts that they needed to only raise a smaller portion of fish that they planed on. After a few years production was increased and the treatment plant had major problems. Then many blamed CVTU on the closure and the decline in the trout stocking.
The Pa fish and boat commission use large sums of money to keep water open to fishing in Pa. Some was used in a one time grant for landowners to permit fishing in the future. Also they do stream improvement work on a regular basics. I do not know of any major improvement project that they did not get involved in in some manner. Personally I do not agree with many of the final outcomes of the work done but that is my opinion.
I fish in about 6 states and everyone has a problem with there stocking of fish. Mainly trout stocking. I think Pa does a decent job managing our resources and we should be glad of the job they are doing. I agree that there are changes that could be made in some areas however sometimes we do not see the whole picture.

 

[Cznymph]

Very few if any CVTU members help the YBAC coop nursery. Lets be honest, if Pa did not stock the waters the license sales would drop meaning $ needed by the Commission would not be there for all projects.
When Big Springs hatchery closed many articles were written in local newspapers ( those affected by the stocking) about how negative it would be for the average trout fishermen. I read many commentaries about it during that time period. I do agree it needed some major updates. Also prior to its opening some notable locals were against it and even told the experts that they needed to only raise a smaller portion of fish that they planed on. After a few years production was increased and the treatment plant had major problems. Then many blamed CVTU on the closure and the decline in the trout stocking.
The Pa fish and boat commission use large sums of money to keep water open to fishing in Pa. Some was used in a one time grant for landowners to permit fishing in the future. Also they do stream improvement work on a regular basics. I do not know of any major improvement project that they did not get involved in in some manner. Personally I do not agree with many of the final outcomes of the work done but that is my opinion.
I fish in about 6 states and everyone has a problem with there stocking of fish. Mainly trout stocking. I think Pa does a decent job managing our resources and we should be glad of the job they are doing. I agree that there are changes that could be made in some areas however sometimes we do not see the whole picture.

Big Spring was closed because it couldn’t meet the parameters set forth in its NPDES permit.

Why should a state fish hatchery be exempted from the rules concerning pollution? We should hold them to the same as every other entity with a discharge permit.

 

[Old Town]

Yes you are right on why it was closed down. They needed to put a complete loop in there water system and they could not afford it. However if they kept there treatment system running correctly and reduced the number of fish raised it possible could have remained open. I agree they should not be exempt from the law and perhaps they should be held to a higher standard. However tell that to the fishermen east of the area such as Lancaster and Philly who saw less fish. Personally I think we fishermen get plenty of stocked trout.

 

[Cznymph]

Yes you are right on why it was closed down. They needed to put a complete loop in there water system and they could not afford it. However if they kept there treatment system running correctly and reduced the number of fish raised it possible could have remained open. I agree they should not be exempt from the law and perhaps they should be held to a higher standard. However tell that to the fishermen east of the area such as Lancaster and Philly who saw less fish. Personally I think we fishermen get plenty of stocked trout.

A recirculated facility (I.E. a closed loop) isn’t practical for the type of aquaculture that the state is doing. Most of the states hatcheries are extremely dated, lack any form of technology and are in major need of repair.

While the anglers to the east did receive less fish because of the closing, so did anglers across the entire state.

While the PFBC does make the majority of its money from trout fisherman, it’s also the largest single expense they have. In 2009 it cost over 12 million dollars to raise and stock all the trout. I’d like to see what the number is now.

Using the current cost of the trout stamp, the total trout stamps sold would cover less than half of the entire trout stocking program.