Where to send my concern...

[jifigz]

troutbert wrote:
jifigz,

Are you going to write letters about this?

Troutbert, I sure am. Kish has a ton of potential to be one of Pennsylvania's wild trout streams with the ability to hold not only a large number of fish, but large fish. I know this first hand as I have seen and caught wild browns with size that will rival any flowing water in the state.

 

[jifigz]

I would like to see all trout streams in my area stop being stocked. The rest, or at least the vast majority in Mifflin County after Kish, are small. I feel small streams wouldn't pull anglers in for a variety of reasons, but I feel Kish could be a destination stream that would maintain a good population of fish through heavy angling pressure and has enough water and access to acconodate a lot of anglers. Plus, the Lewistown area could use some revenue from somewhere, no matter how small.

 

[PocketWater]

Theoretically, I think any stream in the state that has a wild trout population should be special regulations with a limited harvest or straight up C&R, and absolutely no stocking over the wild trout.

 

[DanL]

Is there a list/press release of just the new adds state-wide? I couldn't find. I saw an article said there was a new wild trout stream in Armstrong County (my home county..) and was surprised....it might be the feeder to Buffalo Creek that I already read about but

 

[afishinado]

DanL wrote:
Is there a list/press release of just the new adds state-wide? I couldn't find. I saw an article said there was a new wild trout stream in Armstrong County (my home county..) and was surprised....it might be the feeder to Buffalo Creek that I already read about but

Here is a list of newly surveyed wild trout streams.

 

[streamerguy]

Stream 1: No wild fish, but can support a good seasonal(fall through early summer) stocked trout fishery. May have holdovers during good years. Fall and/or winter stockings are cut, and less fish stocked in the spring.

Stream 2: Has a good/potentially good wild trout population. Continues to get stocked with hatchery fish.

Random small shallow lake: Gets added to the April stocking list, and the trout are toast by the end of May.

This type of mismanagement really gets on my nerves. Streams that need stocked to support any type of seasonal trout fishery are receiving less fish, but wild streams are still getting stocked. Quit stocking good wild streams and put those fish in streams that need the fish. It's not a hard concept! And the PFBC is low on money, right?? It would make sense to only stock where needed, and not waste money/fish on streams that already have fish, or aren't suitable for trout(other than the opening day rope 'em up festivities). A small lake 25min from me(in PA) just got added to the stocking list a couple years ago. The river up the road, which is a fine stocked trout fishery from October through early June, no longer gets stocked in the winter. A stream about another 20min to the east isn't stocked in the fall anymore.

The topic of "angler usage" is also worth talking about. Many of the small wild trout streams that are stocked are just that........small wild trout streams. They are popular because they are stocked, but banging 20+ 11in trout in the bridge hole just isn't natural. On these types of streams, a "good experience" in my opinion is catching a handful of smaller fish, and maybe a 12 incher or three.......all wild trout. Add one or two other anglers and it becomes crowded, and the wild fish have been worked over/spooked. Let's not turn these creeks into something they aren't. And remember, Resource First!!!

In regards to larger wild trout streams that have good populations......don't stock them simply because they don't need stocked. Let the wild fish be. If it has been proven that the hatchery fish and large numbers of anglers aren't having any negative impact on the wild trout, that's great........but there's other creeks out there that could use those hatchery fish, and get very low angler usage simply because there are very few fish. Continuing to stock a perfectly fine wild trout stream because of "high angler usage" is kind of silly. Ceasing stockings will spread the stocked trout fishermen out to other waters(provided there are other opportunities) and the anglers that continue to fish the creek will have a better overall experience.

 

[PocketWater]

afishinado wrote:

DanL wrote:
Is there a list/press release of just the new adds state-wide? I couldn't find. I saw an article said there was a new wild trout stream in Armstrong County (my home county..) and was surprised....it might be the feeder to Buffalo Creek that I already read about but

Here is a list of newly surveyed wild trout streams.

That lists 628 streams. Anyone know where you could find just a list of the 99 mentioned in this article.

http://triblive.com/sports/outdoors/10107348-74/commission-trout-fish

Through searching I wasn't able to just find these 99.

 

[Mike]

Afish said in #17 above: If streams already have a Class A population of trout, how many trout do you need in a stream?

Afish, I assure you that I have no intention of diminishing your statement within the context of its presentation. I can't resist pointing out the irony, however, in another context that this is exactly what I have been grousing to myself for years when individuals here have promoted (or in tone almost demanded) that Pa's Class A's all be C&R or, worse yet, suggested the same for some of its most productive and very high population density Class A's. How many fish do they need?

 

[afishinado]

Mike wrote:
Afish said in #17 above: If streams already have a Class A population of trout, how many trout do you need in a stream?

Afish, I assure you that I have not intent of diminishing your statement within the context with which it was presented. I can't resist pointing out the irony, however. The irony Afish's quote for me is that this is exactly what I have been grousing to myself for years when individuals here promote or almost demand that Pa's Class A's all be C&R or, worse yet, suggest the same for some of its most productive and very high population density Class A's.

I thought about your statements in the past when I wrote that...lol.

While I am a proponent of having a policy of no stocking over wild fish in streams with a Class A population, I am not a proponent of strict C&R in all wild trout streams everywhere and all the time.

I will go back and use the two streams I used as an example, which have very heavy utilization and high satisfaction by anglers, and have been C&R for that last 35 years or so.....Spring Creek (State College) and Valley Creek (Valley Forge). As I pointed out, pollution in the stream forced the PFBC to make the streams C&R and they became very popular fishing sports shortly thereafter.

I guess my point is, a quality fishing experience with plenty of angler usage can be achieved in a Class A stream without stocking fish. In fact, angler usage is close to 52 weeks a year in a wild trout stream rather than a few weeks or months in stocked streams.

 

[jifigz]

I also do not support C&R regs on all Class A waters. I rarely keep fish, but if I'd like to responsibly keep a few fish, I would like the opportunity to do so. Plus, I feel most anglers pursuing the wild trout will release 99% of their catch anyway out of mere respect and admiration for the wild fish which, ironically, makes me appreciate the occasional harvest more as well. It is much more satisfying to harvest a fish that is raised by mother nature and not by processed food in a concrete pond. That said, I haven't harvested a wild trout in years. Plus, sometimes a l feel that removing a few fish from the system can increase and improve the fishery. The main reason I feel as to not support stocking over Class A trout is that it is wasteful. Sure, you may not receive as many license sales, but you won't spend as much money on putting fish where there is already an abundance of superior trout. Each hatchery lists the price per pound on the PFBC website. Let's say that the average is $2 per lb, which I think is pretty close, and if the state still stocks the same or similar number of fish that they used to into Kish, which used to be published info and Kish received like 7,000 trout, then right there is immediately $14,000 saved or so on fish alone, not counting fuel, trucks, etc. Obviously a rough estimate, but you get the idea.

 

[MKern]

I agree with limited harvest on Class A streams.

So the PFBC saves $14,000 on not stocking fish on the Kish, but how much money comes in license sales in Mifflin County and most of those people would fish Kish? They put fish in to appease license purchasers.

That's only 350 licenses with trout stamps.

(just playing devil's advocate)

 

[jifigz]

MKern wrote:
I agree with limited harvest on Class A streams.

So the PFBC saves $14,000 on not stocking fish on the Kish, but how much money comes in license sales in Mifflin County and most of those people would fish Kish? They put fish in to appease license purchasers.

That's only 350 licenses with trout stamps.

(just playing devil's advocate)

True. And I just looked, there were 6,000 licenses or so sold in Mifflin County. So the question to ask is what percentage of the license sales would still occur without stocking Kish? 4,000 of those 6,000 licenses also had a trout stamp.

 

[ebroesicke]

The notion of a good fishing opportunity being coupled to the stocking of fish has to be undone before we can move away from some of these seemingly contradictory practices.

From the PFBC website, Class A: Streams that support a population of wild (natural reproduction) trout of sufficient size and abundance to support a long-term and rewarding sport fishery. The Commission does not stock these streams.

Guess they need to update that last part?

 

[jifigz]

ebroesicke wrote:
The notion of a good fishing opportunity being coupled to the stocking of fish has to be undone before we can move away from some of these seemingly contradictory practices.

From the PFBC website, Class A: Streams that support a population of wild (natural reproduction) trout of sufficient size and abundance to support a long-term and rewarding sport fishery. The Commission does not stock these streams.

Guess they need to update that last part?

Those words are definitely familiar as I've read them before. Indeed, without stocking it would and is a long-term and rewarding brown trout fishery.

 

[mt_flyfisher]

I think you are right on target to question why PA continues to stock the Kish creek. For a case study in the benefits of stopping state stocking programs, PA would do well to look at MT, where trout stocking in streams and rivers was discontinued, for the most part, many years ago. All it takes is clean, cold water, capable of sustaining trout year round, and people, like you guys, to continue to push in the right direction.

It appears to me that the PA fish commission may be overly immersed in the politics of self preservation, rather than immersed in the facts of science.

I can remember back prior to the 1970's when much of the Kish was heavily polluted and stocking was essential to having what was largely a put and take fishery. A major agricultural manufacturer located in Belleville discharged industrial pollutants into the Kish from a settling pond every time there was a heavy rain, and many of the households along the Kish and its tributaries pumped sewage and other wastes directly into it. I think you'd be hard pressed to find anything like that today. Times change. Sometimes the hardest thing is to get people and beauracracies to change old bad habits.

 

[Mike]

Mt- flyfisher: What are the "facts of science" as you understand them pertaining to the above?

 

[SteveG]

Mike, I believe he is referring to the notion that when rivers which have suitable conditions for naturally reproducing brown trout, which were previously stocked, and stocking has been reduced or ceased, subsequently experience an influx of trout biomass.

Nothing provides a better (high angler satisfaction) year-round fishery than a clean stream with wild fish, be it of any species. The PFBC's antiquated guidelines as to what a "trout stream" is really only take into account stocked trout, because due to their upbringing they are ill prepared to face environmental changes such as temperature fluctuations. Poor hatchery trout mostly run out of energy constantly fighting the current waiting for food, instead of seeking shelter behind a rock.

As has been shown numerous times in PA and beyond, many streams which are considered "warm water", which I can only assume is based of of average stream temperature and does not account for spring seeps or other areas of thermal refuge, have unique, if not "seasonal" populations of wild and sometimes trophy size trout.

I guess the readers digest is that brown trout are one of the most invasive fishes in the world, and one that many value as a sport fish. Due to their fluvial nature, they have the delightful habit of establishing themselves in any connected waterways which provide suitable conditions for living. The "fact" is that an increase in biomass after the cessation of stocking over wild trout has been documented numerous times in other states and PA.

 

[Mike]

Steve G, this is what has been documented in Pa with respect to cessation of stocking over wild brown trout. The picture is certainly not clear and varies from stream to stream. I wrote this in another thread just about a week or so ago.

As for the Brown Trout response to stocking cessation (in Pa), unlike Brook Trout, it was very mixed. Of the 40 streams tested, 20 experienced increases in legal size fish, 16 showed decreases, and 4 had no changes. As someone once quipped here: "It was a crap shoot," referring to what the response of a wild Brown Trout population would be in Pa when stocking was terminated.

 

[BrookieChaser]

Mike, I was the one you directed this response to in the other thread.

I don't buy that a decrease in competition kills trout as evident by your 16 cited streams taken in just the context written above.

I would believe that truck chasers, not knowing the streams weren't stocked or, most likely, didnt care, and killed the legal sized wild fish.

For the record, I'd like to see a study with wild trout biomass recorded not just legal sized wild trout. That's like saying the fish has no value unless it can be harvested.

 

[krayfish2]

It's like PFBC version of welfare........once you get a taste, they'll keep you dependent on them for your trout. They refuse to look at the examples of Spring & Valley and what is potentially possible. They should select 4 decent sized streams (1 in each corner of the state) with good wild populations. Cease stocking and random survey once a year for 3 years. The numbers will either support our or deny the arguments made on this forum that it's hurting the wild populations. Just don't let the same guy that surveyed the Lehigh do the study as his numbers seem to be off by a bit (or a mile)