Unassessed wild trout stream surveys-update-2014

[Mike]

In 2014 PFBC biologists sampled 750 streams and PFBC contractors, comprised primarily of Universities, sampled 351 streams. The five year total is now 4130 streams examined for 8,775 miles. This figure includes a number of dry streams that were found. Depending upon the year, 50-57% of the streams sampled have supported wild trout. As for the pace at which the streams are appearing on the official list, recall what I previously said about certain realities in fisheries.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

If political pressures are keeping the PFBC from properly labeling , listing and protecting these watersheds, then what's the #*$!ing point?

 

[troutbert]

If someone knows the details of this political delaying of listing of wild trout stream, could you please post them?

If there are particular legislators responsible for this, please let us know who they are.

 

[Swattie87]

Don't get me wrong Mike, I fully support identifying, documenting, and protecting wild Trout streams, but to Sal's point, if we're not following through and documenting and protecting them after we identify them, what's the point of this program? It's great work being done but right now all it is is a secret list of streams identified by the PFBC as having wild Trout that does nothing to stop drilling or waste water treatment operations, or whatever else from targeting a watershed. Need to make it official and document (list) them. Otherwise my license money may as well go to more stockies for the Quttie as far as I'm concerned.

Given your figures, it would seem that approximately 2100-2400 streams have been identified as having wild Trout in the last five years. Are you able to say how many of them have been listed?

I'm in no way trying to be critical of you or the work being done here by your colleagues. It is truly great, but it will fall well short of its potential benefit by not protecting these streams.

 

[bikerfish]

we already know that science takes a back seat to political pressure, been proven a number of times, whether it's about the climate, pollution, development, gas and oil, and even trout stocking, political pressure seems to win out everytime.

 

[afishinado]

I recently went to the PA wild trout natural reproduction list and saw it was dated Jan 2015. I don't have a copy of the previous list to compare, but I assume that some recently assessed streams were added. I would doubt any of the 2014 surveyed streams were added, though.

Here is the list: http://fishandboat.com/trout_repro.pdf

 

[Fishidiot]

The PFBC could use some clerical help in getting info like this, or population electrosurveys, up on the website and publicly available in a more timely fashion.
The survey work is getting done, but it can be like pulling teeth to get access to much of the results, in my experience. Perhaps some funding for interns or additional help via contracting out AFM paperwork would be a step in the right direction.

 

[troutbert]

The problem is not with the PFBC. They are doing their job. The problem is elsewhere.

Someone is acting to hold up the listing process. So:

Who is holding the process up?

How?

What can be done about it?

 

[DGC]

You get the code the legislature you vote in writes. Note paragraphs D and E.

Not to mention the commissioners the governor and senate you vote in select.


PA Code Listing Wild Trout Streams

 

[salmonoid]

D

DGC wrote:
You get the code the legislature you vote in writes. Note paragraphs D and E.

Not to mention the commissioners the governor and senate you vote in select.


PA Code Listing Wild Trout Streams

(d) and (e) have to do with requests to evaluate or re-evaluate streams that are already on the list, and an appeal process if you're unhappy about what is on the list. They do not address publication of the list. That is in (a).

a) Maintenance of list. It is the policy of the Commission to accurately identify and classify streams supporting naturally reproducing populations of trout as wild trout streams. The Fisheries Management Division will maintain the list of wild trout streams. The Executive Director, with the approval of the Commission, will from time-to-time publish the list of wild trout streams in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and on the World Wide Web. Persons with comments, objections or suggestions about the classification of streams listed may submit them to the Commission for review.

So, to Dwight's questions, what is blocking "the approval of the Commission"?

 

[DGC]

In post 10 I disagree with the interpretation of that aspect of code in a number of ways, but that's ok; bottom line is if you think there is a holdup on a list the place to start is with your commissioner.

 

[Mike]

See this: New step in the process, allowing earlier announcement of waters being considered and serving as an effort to reduce the backlog. This will allow more time for review and comment.

http://fishandboat.com/wild-trout-designations-step1.htm

 

[streamerguy]

Step 1: Drive to stream
Step 2: Shock and net fish. If wild trout are present, move on to step three
Step 3: Add stream to the list that afternoon, or next possible chance

Simple enough.

And why are these streams "being considered." I mean, the surveys did turn up wild trout. Do they need to make a second trip with the commissioners and whoever to physically show them the fish?? The sooner these streams get classified the better for possible protection purposes.

One more thing. What is the purpose of the comment period? So we can comment saying none of those streams have wild trout? hehe

 

[Chaz]

That is a very long list. that program is relatively new. It's also a good reason why any streams that aren't on the 'Streams with Natural Reproduction List' that have wild trout should be reported to PFBC.

 

[salmonoid]

streamerguy wrote:
Step 1: Drive to stream
Step 2: Shock and net fish. If wild trout are present, move on to step three
Step 3: Add stream to the list that afternoon, or next possible chance

Simple enough.

And why are these streams "being considered." I mean, the surveys did turn up wild trout. Do they need to make a second trip with the commissioners and whoever to physically show them the fish?? The sooner these streams get classified the better for possible protection purposes.

One more thing. What is the purpose of the comment period? So we can comment saying none of those streams have wild trout? hehe

There are interests far bigger than those that are interested in wild trout at play. Meaning those that view wild trout and high quality coldwater fisheries as an obstacle to obtaining a permit to drill a well, or open a mine, or do whatever. That's why it's not as simple as Step 1-3. Politics and Power 101...

 

[streamerguy]

salmonoid wrote:

There are interests far bigger than those that are interested in wild trout at play. Meaning those that view wild trout and high quality coldwater fisheries as an obstacle to obtaining a permit to drill a well, or open a mine, or do whatever. That's why it's not as simple as Step 1-3. Politics and Power 101...

Yeah, that's kinda what I was getting at(from a protection standpoint, not angling). In a perfect world, it should be as easy as 1 2 3 and these streams should receive proper protection right away. Facts are facts. If a stream has wild trout, it is a wild trout stream and should be classified and protected as such.....right away. None of this "being considered" stuff and all these politics. It's a shame...

 

[bikerfish]

Like I said, it's all politics, and very little science. In fact, most politicians would rather not hear about trout streams, since there is no money to be made from them.
I'm afraid the typical point of view is, so what if there are some wild fish, big deal, if we pollute it, we'll just stock it later(maybe!!)
money money money, THE bottom line.
God damn the trout for being in the way of progress.

 

[Chaz]

That's exactly why the program exists, the pols and their supporting extraction industries have asked where these stream are and want them assessed. I'm sure there will be challenges, but that's what the process is for, resolving conflicts.

 

[k-bob]

thanks Mike!

Interesting that more than half of these surveys turned up trout.

A good reminder to me to take a short at a promising little stream, even if it is not on the natural reproduction list, in an area where I want to try new water.

 

[Maurice]

Chaz wrote:
That's exactly why the program exists, the pols and their supporting extraction industries have asked where these stream are and want them assessed. I'm sure there will be challenges, but that's what the process is for, resolving conflicts.

Whut!?!????

So you are saying that the Pols and extraction interests are the ones driving the assessment and generation of a list that impedes their progress and profitability?

The Pols on behalf of the extraction industry have fought to repeal clean water standards(acts). At least in my world they have.