Unusual stocking schedule & changes

[Mike]

Why combine the openers? Reread the third paragraph under the topic of MYD’s and Opening Days.

Side note: During the first yr that the regional opening day was implemented angler origin and usage was measured in the borderline counties on the regional opening day and the statewide opening day. Fifteen percent of the anglers had crossed regions from their region of origin to take advantage of the opener in the other region.

 

[larkmark]

swattie- To be clear, this disorganized scheduling happened before any of the Corona virus came to be known. They have been poor in the communication dept for a long time. Second only to the Game comm.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

The drastic stocking changes started this weekend. Any other percieved disorginization is likely due to the fact of how severely shortstaffed the WCOs are. Some regions only have 4 officers and there should be over 10. I can imagine how challenging the logistics are.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

Mike: Do you know when the regional opening day was first implemented?

 

[Mike]

2007.

Side note: It should have been implemented a year earlier, but breaking with any traditions associated with the trout stocking program in Pa is a tough row to hoe.

Some here were skeptical as well.

 

[Dave_W]

Mike wrote:
2007.
Additionally, some here were skeptical as well.

Yes, and I was one of them at the time.

In retrospect, the change to two dates has worked well.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

Thanks, Mike.

Interesting. That same behavioral / cultural inertia seems to be the reason folks are resistant to combining the opening days.

 

[silverfox]

Just wanted to point out that this pandemic illustrates a major problem with the whole, raise trout, close season to stock streams and then release the hoards of fishermen approach. When the majority of the trout fisheries rely on humans, what happens when the manpower fails?

If it's not a pandemic, it might be inevitable financial reasons (insolvency). What happens in the future when this artificial trout fishery strategy is no longer viable? Why not start investing more in wild trout now?

 

[Troutmeister]

Another thing nobody mentioned is a major supplier of fish food for the Fish commision and co-op hatcheries, Melick Aquafeed in Catawissa had a fire that pretty much destroyed the place.

Just guessing here, but maybe the Commision wants to empty out the hatcheries earlier than normal due to a lack of fish food.

 

[wbranch]

Silverfox wrote;

Why not start investing more in wild trout now?

Not trying to be facetious but how do you do that? There are only so many rivers, streams, creeks, and lakes that can sustain wild trout. Many streams and bodies of water that are in the stocking program more than likely never could sustain trout. Maybe they were viable for wild/native brookies in times prior to the 1800's but in today's environment how are streams like the Tully, the lower Yellow Breeches, Muddy Creek, and a 100 others going to be able to support a wild fishery?

It's one thing to invest in streams and rivers and deep cold water lakes that are being managed for wild fish. It's an entirely different scenario when the waters dry up in the summer, the water tempertures soar into the low to mid 70's, and guys want to kill every trout they land.

 

[larkmark]

Right wbranch. What exactly do you invest in? Many of the so called stream improvement projects in my area are little more than feel good projects on marginal or even warm water creeks. They pick a section of stream and throw a bunch of money at it then never follow up to see if the "improvements" even did anything. That is pretty much the extent of it.
Speaking of the tully. It is to be stocked any day now and without being properly floated the fish will be dumped in the few spots they can get the truck close enough. It won't be a good situation. Hopefully they will allow some sort of float stocking there. I think it is a real cop out on the part of fish comm. not to take their responsibility seriously and do a good job. People buy the licenses and people volunteer and through their own disorganization in many cases the stocking is not done well. They call me with a certain tone of expectation because i help every year and then last minute change date on me. Then just dump them in. (This is well before the Corona). They should be darn thankful for all the volunteers. Other states do a much better job. Take Arkansas for example.

 

[troutbert]

wbranch wrote:

Many streams and bodies of water that are in the stocking program more than likely never could sustain trout.

That's true. But there is a very large mileage of streams where stocking is being done over wild trout, including over native brook trout.

A very rough estimate is that about half the miles stocked by the PFBC hold a wild trout population.

The coop hatcheries stock many small streams that the PFBC doesn't. The percentage of stream mileage that they stock that is wild trout water is even higher than that of the PFBC.

But, a good question is what is meant by investing in wild trout? How specifically should the money be spent?

Probably the best investment to help support good wild trout populations into the future is buying the LAND which the streams flow through, and conserving it.

But that has generally been the role of land agencies such as DCNR and PGC, not the PFBC. But that could change.

The PGC has bought land because they realize the importance of land for habitat for wildlife, and for sportsmen access.

The situation is similar for trout. The land must be well managed for the streams to provide good habitat for trout, and the land provides access for sportsmen.

 

[larkmark]

One more thing. They delay the opener for all these weeks and the fish are already in the stream. If we get a good high water event we can kiss a lot of the stockies good bye. I just don't get any of it.

 

[rrt]

I agree with some of what t/bert says about the PFBC acquiring stream sections. I would hope that if the PFBC did buy properties that it would manage it better than the PGC does. Locally, State Game Land 118 has been mismanaged for many years. The clearcuts have grown up with ferns and undesirable tree species (striped maple, birch, etc.). After the clearcutting, the PGC could have fertilized the cuts and managed them for desirable species, such as oaks. It was not done. The PGC allowed the gypsy moths to run rampant, which resulted in the deaths of untold thousands of oak trees. The deer were ruthlessly slaughtered to the point where you can ski in the winter (not this past winter) and see only the tracks of 2 or 3 deer in three miles of jeep road. Local deer hunting is good only on private, posted land where the landowners protected their deer and judiciously managed their timber, at least around here.

If the PFBC ever is in the position to buy sections of streams, the commission would have to manage the waters and riparian areas much more effectively than the PGC has managed ite properties, especially if SGL 118 is typical.

 

[Jessed]

I always found the number of people stocking, especially float stocking to be really low. Could just be the streams I’ve helped stock but I don’t see a problem allowing a few guys to float stock a bigger stream like the tully.

 

[MBWCC]

larkmark wrote:
Speaking of the tully. It is to be stocked any day now and without being properly floated the fish will be dumped in the few spots they can get the truck close enough. It won't be a good situation. Hopefully they will allow some sort of float stocking there.

The current PFBC guidance to WCOs and DWCOs: No float stocking allowed. No public help allowed.

 

[Mike]

It will be fine, particularly in a water as large as the Tully. Trout can swim. I biked past a larger stream yesterday, paralleled by a bike path, an hour after it had been stocked with high numbers at necessarily limited locations where tube stocking was possible. Some of the GRT were already 150 yds downstream from the logical, historical stocking point. If they were on the move, it’s pretty certain that others were too.

As for high water events, the fish don’t move or get “flushed out” as much as angler lore would suggest. The N Branch of Muddy Ck was stocked during a storm under bank full conditions as part of the trout residency study. The follow-up survey a week or so later showed high numbers of trout to still be present in the 300 m around the stocking points. I think the residency rate was 90 percent or thereabouts. It was a great opportunity to document what occurs in a high water stocking situation even though that was not the intent of the study.

If a stream is shallow due to low flow and the trout stocked in high numbers in a pool are reluctant to exit the tail of the pool in daylight due to the shallow nature of the riffle below, they may exit at night or when the stream rises a bit.

 

[larkmark]

Mike- I hope you are right. I do know instances where this was not the case too. I am a bit skeptical because in the one situation you are saying the trout move but in the other one you say the trout do not move.
It surely is preferable in my mind to float stock.

 

[silverfox]

wbranch wrote:
Silverfox wrote;

Why not start investing more in wild trout now?

Not trying to be facetious but how do you do that? There are only so many rivers, streams, creeks, and lakes that can sustain wild trout. Many streams and bodies of water that are in the stocking program more than likely never could sustain trout. Maybe they were viable for wild/native brookies in times prior to the 1800's but in today's environment how are streams like the Tully, the lower Yellow Breeches, Muddy Creek, and a 100 others going to be able to support a wild fishery?

It's one thing to invest in streams and rivers and deep cold water lakes that are being managed for wild fish. It's an entirely different scenario when the waters dry up in the summer, the water tempertures soar into the low to mid 70's, and guys want to kill every trout they land.

I think it depends on what part of the state you're in. In my opinion, a lot of the streams I fish frequently that are stocked, shouldn't be. In fact, I can only think of about 3 streams out of maybe 20 that are truly uninhabitable for trout. Some of the other 17 really have absolutely no reason to be stocked at all. Even the 3 that are "uninhabitable" still have feeders or headwaters that can and do sustain native fish.

One example stream produces brook trout naturally, but not in very large numbers, and only in the upper section. Because it's a poor natural reproduction stream, it gets stocked. In my mind, that's just wrong. Not every stream should be a 2,000 trout per mile stream from March to May and then return to 10 trout per mile naturally. Why can't it just be a marginal native brook trout stream?

What I mean by investing in wild trout is that those streams supporting natural reproduction (not even just class A, but any natural reproduction) be managed differently to enhance the wild trout populations. Whether that be slot limits, more stringent harvest limits, seasonal changes etc. I don't know (I'm not a biologist). Whatever is necessary to increase or sustain the wild trout populations in the absence of stocking.

In my opinion, the whole idea that we should stock streams that only sustain trout for 3 months out of the year is flawed and has created an artificial expectation of trout abundance in this state as a whole. This isn't' Montana. How many of the 80,000+ "trout streams" that are boasted about in this state aren't really trout streams? It's all done to prop up the artificial fishery approach.

You can see the effects of this now with the outrage that some people have in the disruption of the normal stocking/season. We've trained people to expect this artificial fishery to pop up magically out of nowhere every April. People want these trout dumped at their feet so they can "limit out". It's all fake, unsustainable and a misrepresentation of what this state can naturally provide.

 

[wbranch]

Silverfox added;

I think it depends on what part of the state you're in.

That is an excellent point. I commented with very limited knowledge of all PA streams and lakes. I'm most familiar with only a few waters; the Tully, Muddy Creek, the lower YB, and Donegal Creek. Obviously there are thousands of miles of potential wild trout water I know nothing about and it makes sense to me not to stock hatchery trout where a healthy wild trout fishery already exists.

Trout have never been stocked, in my lifetime, on the upper Delaware River. I've fished the WB for fifty years and while there seems to have been a very few stockings of small brown trout it is the exception rather than the rule.

The upper EB has a very strong wild brown trout population yet for some reasons unknown to me and other fishermen it is stocked every year with thousands of 12" - 14" brown trout.

I'm thinking the mind set in NYS, relative to stock or not to stock, might be based on water levels and temperature throughout the traditional fishing season. The Beaverkill and Willowemoc (the Beaverkill below Junction Pool and the Willowemoc below the Rte 17 bridge in Livingston Manor) have been famous in fly fishing circles for over 100 years. Both have been stocked probably ever since the wild brook trout fishery bottomed out in the early 1900's.

Both the BK and Willow have good flows and water temperatures from early April to mid to late June. Then once summer arrives both streams get very low and the water warms to critical levels. NYS realizes those two rivers bring in lots of tourist monies and help local economies. Hence they stock them heavily. Without heavy stockings neither of those two systems could ever support the crush of anglers they get from April to the end of June.

Maybe that same philosophy exists in PA waters that have some natural reproduction but not enough to sustain the satisfaction of thousands of anglers.