Trout Unlimited is a "fringe environmental group"

[troutbert]

Maurice wrote:

troutbert wrote:
Lots of people on here fish streams such as Big Spring, Letort, Falling Spring, Fishing Creek, Penns Creek, Little Juniata, Spring Creek, Slate Run, Cedar Run, Lyman Run.

All streams managed under "fringe" fisheries management principles.

Many on here also like to fish unstocked wild trout streams. Many of those streams were on the stocking list in the past. Now many of them are unstocked, because of "fringe" fisheries management ideas. Would you fish them if they were stocked?

Not that many people on here fish Kish Creek for example. If it was managed under "fringe" principles, many more of you would fish it.

Most of the flyfishers on here who like fishing small, forested freestoners tend to go to streams that are unstocked, i.e. under "fringe" management.

PATU boasts about 12,000 members. Some of whom don't fish. But others who flyfish or target wild fish on these streams may not be TU members.

PF&BC Sells (guessing here conservatively) 500,000 trout stamps.

That's 2.4%

What percent of the 500,000 are members of organizations that are on the other side, i.e. that advocate stocking over wild trout?

We've got 12,000, how many are members of groups like Western Clinton Sportsmen, Potter County Anglers, Traditional Anglers of PA, etc.?

That would be the apt comparison, not 12,000 compared to the rest of the 500,000.

The number of members of those groups is likely more than 12,000, but it is also surely a very small percentage of 500,000.

The vast majority of the 500,000 are not members of any group.

You have to compare fringe to fringe. ;-)

 

[Mike]

Based on a contracted telephone survey of 1562 Pa trout anglers, only one percent of the anglers answered that all of their trout fishing trips were made to unstocked or wild trout waters and 23 percent said half or more of their trips were made to the aforementioned types of waters.

 

[troutbert]

23 percent said HALF or more of their trips were made to unstocked, wild trout waters.

That's not fringe.

Anglers that fish 49% or 40% or 35% or less are not included in that number. But are still going wild trout fishing. It's part of the mix of their angling recreation.

What would the numbers be for anglers who do 20% or more of their fishing on wild trout streams?

What would the numbers be for anglers who average one or more trips per year on unstocked, wild trout waters?

The numbers for both would be far higher than 23%.

 

[Mike]

Troutbert,
The link provided by the op included an assertion that TU is a fringe environmental group. In my post above I was not suggesting that wild trout anglers are a fringe group. I don't automatically associate TU with wild trout.

 

[rrt]

Thankfully, TU, the "fringe environmental group," is out there. TU is responsible for repairing many of the ravages that have been inflicted on many streams over the years. TU supports the progressive policies of the present BOD of the PFBC as these commissioners try to manage streams and try to protect them appropriately.

It has been proven in quite a few studies that hatchery fish actually have a deleterious influence on populations of trout in streams. Many streams, notably Spring Creek and recently the LJR (where fingerling stocking was proven to be worthless), have seen their populations of wild trout increase dramatically after the ending of stocking. This provides better long-term fishing than the stocking of hatchery trout does.

I admit that hatchery fish serve their purpose in a catch 'em and kill 'em environment where trout cannot reproduce. But, I am one who believes that hatchery dumbbells should NOT be stocked over Class A or B populations of wild trout because the stocked fish depress the total population of fish over time for multiple reasons.

Anyhow, kudos to TU, that "fringe environmental group," for what it does and for its support of the present far-sighted group of fish commissioners.

 

[Maurice]

Hmmmmm, TU represents 2% (12,000) of Trout Stamp buyers in PA. But 23% (Over 100,000) have interests in line with TU's mission but 88% of them are not members of TU.

So from a numbers stand point TU is only about 12% anglers interested in this faction of fishing. Thats fringe.

And members of TU may or may not mind catching hatchery fish.

Sounds like some of us are carrying the load for all these freeloaders fishing for wild trout.

Hey I love to fish for wild trout, but most of my fishing through the year is on stocked waters with wild trout. Most of these would be bleak prospects for wild trout if not stocked. I am affraid I wouldn't even fall into the 23% category. But more than 50% of my catches are wild fish.

I ain't saying stock the class A's or even B's so that put's the line at C's for me. And especially where there is heavy angler use. Plenty of fish means plenty of fun after the crowds die out.

If you push back on the convention to unreasonable levels you get labeled as fringe. Look at PATrouts stocking policy compared to the National policy. It goes a step beyond native trout to ALL wild trout. Extreme...Fringe. From a philosophical standpoint.

Its not surprising that TU is perceived as such.

 

[k-bob]

Wild and native trout face many issues in PA - AMD, habitat loss, physical barriers incl dams and culverts, acid rain, channel damage, harvest in stocked streams, etc. TU does some great things on these. But the history of TU may play role in what imho is an overemphasis on stocking today given the current policies of the pfbc and the political realities of PA... History of TU from TU's website, first two sentences:

"July 2009 marked the 50th anniversary of TU's founding on the banks of the Au Sable River near Grayling, Michigan. The 16 fishermen who gathered at the home of George Griffith were united by their love of trout fishing, and by their growing discontent with the state's practice of stocking its waters with "cookie cutter trout"—catchable-sized hatchery fish."

When TU works on AMD, habitat loss, dams and culverts, acid rain, channel damage, etc., probably few of the state's fishermen would mind, and many would probably approve.

And I am sure TU did great things in getting the resource based class A system etc., set up in PA, and imho it's a good system.

But where TU continues to work against stocking today in a state where the vast majority of trout anglers do at least some stockie fishing, they may wind up in angler v angler disagreements that TU as a relatively small group may not win. Even where TU does win against stocking in PA today, it may be at the cost of alienating other anglers.

I give a few clams to the TU/Orvis culvert replacement program, where gifts are matched, and have spent some time surveying streams with a TU biologist, hope to do it again.

But stocking may not be the only or even the major issue facing our state's wild and native trout today, and spending too much energy on it may not always be the most productive path, imho....

 

[Chaz]

Well thankfully only a few chapters of TU stock fish. To put it into perspective, there are 67 counties in PA of which 63 have at least one will trout stream, according to the Wild Trout stream list. there are 53 TU Chapters, but too much of their efforts are directed to streams that will always be stocked, diverting funds from otherwise worthy projects.
If you were to go to the Chapter 93 list, you would find the overwhelming number of wild trout streams have some kind of impairment. These streams need advocates and restoration help, that would expand the wild trout opportunities and raise awareness among the general public about wild trout, education, and hopefully improve fishing too. That's what should be focused on, not some project where PFBC has and will continue to stock.
I'm not against stocking, I strongly feel that directing TU funds to stream sections that are stocked is NOT part of the overall TU Mission.

 

[shortrod2]

Chaz wrote:
Well thankfully only a few chapters of TU stock fish. To put it into perspective, there are 67 counties in PA of which 63 have at least one will trout stream, according to the Wild Trout stream list. there are 53 TU Chapters, but too much of their efforts are directed to streams that will always be stocked, diverting funds from otherwise worthy projects.
If you were to go to the Chapter 93 list, you would find the overwhelming number of wild trout streams have some kind of impairment. These streams need advocates and restoration help, that would expand the wild trout opportunities and raise awareness among the general public about wild trout, education, and hopefully improve fishing too. That's what should be focused on, not some project where PFBC has and will continue to stock.
I'm not against stocking, I strongly feel that directing TU funds to stream sections that are stocked is NOT part of the overall TU Mission.

I agree with the exception of places like the Yough tailwater. The Yough tailwater is currently a stocked fishery, but it has everything needed to be a wild fishery except good spawning habitat. I think TU can and should lead the way on finding a way to make the Yough a wild fishery.

 

[troutbert]

shortrod2 wrote:

I think TU can and should lead the way on finding a way to make the Yough a wild fishery.

Have you brought this up with your chapter president and other chapter leaders? And/or state-wide PATU leaders? And given them ideas on how you think this might be accomplished?

 

[troutbert]

It is kind of interesting that on paflyfish you have these two common types of posts regarding TU:

1) TU is fringe, extremist, bad, I cannot support them, etc.

2) Whenever someone wants something improved, i.e. better fisheries management, cleaning up the water, riparian or habitat improvements, etc., then the message is: "TU should do X, Y, Z."

 

[shortrod2]

troutbert wrote:

Have you brought this up with your chapter president and other chapter leaders? And/or state-wide PATU leaders? And given them ideas on how you think this might be accomplished?

Dwight,
It was not my idea but, I was referring to work already done by Chestnut Ridge TU. I used it as an example of TU working on a stocked fishery in an honest attempt to encourage a wild trout population. I think this is a valid en devour for TU. Does anyone not agree?

 

[troutbert]

shortrod2 wrote:

troutbert wrote:

Have you brought this up with your chapter president and other chapter leaders? And/or state-wide PATU leaders? And given them ideas on how you think this might be accomplished?

Dwight,
It was not my idea but, I was referring to work already done by Chestnut Ridge TU. I used it as an example of TU working on a stocked fishery in an honest attempt to encourage a wild trout population. I think this is a valid en devour for TU. Does anyone not agree?

It would be great if the Yough could be made a wild trout fishery. What would it take for that to happen?

 

[shortrod2]

troutbert wrote:
It would be great if the Yough could be made a wild trout fishery. What would it take for that to happen?

Only mother nature knows for sure, but the belief at least was that the proper sized gravel for spawning was not present. The work by Chestnut Ridge TU was to sink boxes that contained what was thought to be the right gravel.

 

[JackM]

Just an opinion, but I cannot see the Youghiogheny ever being a viable recreational resource without stocking. Not unless the dam were removed-- in other word, never.

 

[Chaz]

shortrod2 wrote:

troutbert wrote:

Have you brought this up with your chapter president and other chapter leaders? And/or state-wide PATU leaders? And given them ideas on how you think this might be accomplished?

Dwight,
It was not my idea but, I was referring to work already done by Chestnut Ridge TU. I used it as an example of TU working on a stocked fishery in an honest attempt to encourage a wild trout population. I think this is a valid en devour for TU. Does anyone not agree?

I don't agree, the reason being that stocked fish seldom successfully spawn, meaning that even if they do, because they are stocked they haven't the ability to produce fish that have the skills to survive and reproduce. Now if you were going to stock wild fish from a drainage nearby, that's another story. But the habitat and water quality has to be suitable for wild trout and spawning.

 

[RyanR]

k-bob wrote:
Wild and native trout face many issues in PA - AMD, habitat loss, physical barriers incl dams and culverts, acid rain, channel damage, harvest in stocked streams, etc. TU does some great things on these. But the history of TU may play role in what imho is an overemphasis on stocking today given the current policies of the pfbc and the political realities of PA... History of TU from TU's website, first two sentences:

"July 2009 marked the 50th anniversary of TU's founding on the banks of the Au Sable River near Grayling, Michigan. The 16 fishermen who gathered at the home of George Griffith were united by their love of trout fishing, and by their growing discontent with the state's practice of stocking its waters with "cookie cutter trout"—catchable-sized hatchery fish."

When TU works on AMD, habitat loss, dams and culverts, acid rain, channel damage, etc., probably few of the state's fishermen would mind, and many would probably approve.

And I am sure TU did great things in getting the resource based class A system etc., set up in PA, and imho it's a good system.

But where TU continues to work against stocking today in a state where the vast majority of trout anglers do at least some stockie fishing, they may wind up in angler v angler disagreements that TU as a relatively small group may not win. Even where TU does win against stocking in PA today, it may be at the cost of alienating other anglers.

I give a few clams to the TU/Orvis culvert replacement program, where gifts are matched, and have spent some time surveying streams with a TU biologist, hope to do it again.

But stocking may not be the only or even the major issue facing our state's wild and native trout today, and spending too much energy on it may not always be the most productive path, imho....

You may want to believe it badly but I hate to tell you that TU does not "work against stocking" or continue to spend too much time or energy on the stocking issue. The fact is TU's point about stocking is that it's not much of an interest or issue to TU or it's mission and I believe that is a point of the policy in the first place. It's not the that Tu actively works against stocking, it's that stocking is not really a part of TU's mission and it wants to make sure chapters are aware of that and in line with the mission and their efforts consumed by stocking. sure, where it makes sense Tu may advoctate for no stocking but it does not spend much time or money campaigning against it.

 

[RyanR]

Chaz wrote:

shortrod2 wrote:

troutbert wrote:

Have you brought this up with your chapter president and other chapter leaders? And/or state-wide PATU leaders? And given them ideas on how you think this might be accomplished?

Dwight,
It was not my idea but, I was referring to work already done by Chestnut Ridge TU. I used it as an example of TU working on a stocked fishery in an honest attempt to encourage a wild trout population. I think this is a valid en devour for TU. Does anyone not agree?

I don't agree, the reason being that stocked fish seldom successfully spawn, meaning that even if they do, because they are stocked they haven't the ability to produce fish that have the skills to survive and reproduce. Now if you were going to stock wild fish from a drainage nearby, that's another story. But the habitat and water quality has to be suitable for wild trout and spawning.

I'm pretty sure that's what he's talking about, improving the habitat of a currently stocked stream enough so conditions are favorable enough that a wild population can exist or flourish. I don't think he's saying stockiing to produce a wild trout fishery. The PFBC has already named several rivers where they want to explore or further this possibility. The Lehigh is one on tyhat list (wild as well as stocked trout already exist.) I'm not sure why the Yough didn't make the list. It sounds like wild trout do exist in some tribs and I know the Chestnut Ridge chapter & other organizations have been involved in a lot of AMD abatement projects there so maybe that needs to continue some more for a thriving wild trout population to be more of a reality?

 

[k-bob]

RR: "I hate to tell you that TU does not "work against stocking" or continue to spend too much time or energy on the stocking issue."

I think you have a point: PATU is 13000 people, of course there's diversity of opinion w/in TU. Imho PATU president B Wagner takes a reasonable and realistic position below, as quoted, given everything involved in the proposed rule change:

http://www.lehighvalleylive.com/sports/index.ssf/2014/01/theres_changes_in_the_water_in.html

"Pennsylvania Trout Unlimited Council President Brian Wagner, a Forks Township resident, said that TU sees the new proposal as a positive step by the PFBC toward conservation of wild trout.

"While Pa Trout Unlimited generally believes that streams with a self-sustaining Class A population should not be stocked, the appropriate designation of these stream sections as Class A will provide the streams with the higher water quality protections that they deserve.""

 

[Chaz]

troutbert wrote:
It is kind of interesting that on paflyfish you have these two common types of posts regarding TU:

1) TU is fringe, extremist, bad, I cannot support them, etc.

2) Whenever someone wants something improved, i.e. better fisheries management, cleaning up the water, riparian or habitat improvements, etc., then the message is: "TU should do X, Y, Z."

An excellent point TB, the other thing offered is something like Why doesn't T.U. do something about----