Where to send my concern...

[Mike]

Krayfish, Valley Creek's recovery was a recovery from environmental damage caused by major sedimentation.

BrookieChaser, your paragraphs 2 and 3 above are not how I interpret those data.

 

[BrookieChaser]

Mike, how would you interpret the data presented in post #38?

 

[krayfish2]

Mike,
When was harvest on Valley stopped, late 70's?? I'm not talking about sediment. Wasn't it poisoned similar to spring?

 

[SteveG]

I'd love to see the data for those studies Mike.

 

[afishinado]

krayfish2 wrote:
Mike,
When was harvest on Valley stopped, late 70's?? I'm not talking about sediment. Wasn't it poisoned similar to spring?

PCB pollution was found in Valley creek in the early 80's which caused stocking to cease because PCB's , a known carcinogen, taint the flesh of the fish, making them unsafe for human consumption.

 

[Mike]

The wild trout population was already recovering before stocking was terminated, having started at zero in the mid-1970's (tribs held wild trout though) and, as I recall, a portion of the stream was already supporting a Class A equivalent biomass before or as stocking was terminated.

 

[jifigz]

All I know is that every single stream around me has wild trout in it. Whenever I go fishing for trout 95% of the time or so I go to a stream that is not stocked. Some of these streams could be considered marginal with a lot of poor habitat, but still I find wild browns. They are an adaptable species that are a "top dog" predator in many streams. Stop stocking, restore riparian buffers, etc and I'm quite sure that they will flourish in many, many places within Pennsylvania.

 

[mr7183]

It's comical to see people defend stocking and put/take fisheries over wild fish. Take politics out of it and it shouldn't be a hard decision to do everything we can to preserve and enhance natural resources.

 

[RLeep2]

I think in the hierarchy of things that adversely affect wild trout populations (browns anyway, brook trout may be another matter on a case by case basis...) in PA streams, the presence of stocked trout is pretty far down the list in terms of size of impact. It can and sometimes does matter, but other factors like habitat, flows, water quality etc. matter a whole lot more. Additionally, there is stocking and then there is stocking. Stocking density rates on PA streams vary widely and as a result, the *potential* for possible detrimental effect on existing wild trout populations also varies widely.

 

[mr7183]

RLeep2 wrote:
I think in the hierarchy of things that adversely affect wild trout populations (browns anyway, brook trout may be another matter on a case by case basis...) in PA streams, the presence of stocked trout is pretty far down the list in terms of size of impact. It can and sometimes does matter, but other factors like habitat, flows, water quality etc. matter a whole lot more. Additionally, there is stocking and then there is stocking. Stocking density rates on PA streams vary widely and as a result, the *potential* for possible detrimental effect on existing wild trout populations also varies widely.

I partially agree, but the whole stocking debate has many nuances. With stocking comes:

1. Additional trout in the waterways (often larger fisher) competing for food.
2. Significantly increased angler presence, often with spin tackle that has higher mortality rates.
3. Catch and kill regs.

So it all adds up and has an effect on trout populations. Whether it's a primary driver in wild fish pops, I don't know. But if stopping stocking has any measurable effect then we should stop. It's common sense. What if all that hatchery money was spent on habitat improvements?

 

[streamerguy]

Why do you think the wild trout populations decreased in those 16 streams? Was it because of catch & keep anglers continuing to heavily fish the stream even though it wasn't stocked? Or just natural population fluctuations, and a down year just so happened to coincide with the end of stockings?

And did the populations decrease enough to make the wild trout fishery not "worthwhile" any more?

In my opinion, even if the population decreased, if there's still enough wild trout in the stream to make it worth fishing(ie. decent chances of hooking wild fish) then it still should not be stocked. There's streams that need stocked but aren't getting as many fish as they used to. Streams with decent wild populations don't need stocked, because they already have fish.

 

[SteveG]

I could really care less about spin fisherman. I see many of them as potential allies. Now, bait fisherman who don't know they have a fish on until it's already swallowed the hook, and then perform 10 minute bankside surgery to remove it, that's another story.

As far as the "decrease" on the 16 streams, that only refers to legal size fish. So, it could be polluted with smaller trout that just need to eat. If anyone has info on this study I'd love to get my hands on it. From what scraps are released, it almost sounds like the results have been slighted to conform with someone's wishes.

 

[salmonoid]

mr7183 wrote:
It's comical to see people defend stocking and put/take fisheries over wild fish. Take politics out of it and it shouldn't be a hard decision to do everything we can to preserve and enhance natural resources.

This is precisely the issue. If you can figure out how to take politics out of it, problem solved. Problem is, politics is intertwined through all of this.

 

[TroutTracker]

There are around 13 state run fish hatcheries and each has about 6-10 full time employees (so about 100 total)

Exact numbers can be found on the PFBC website.

According to the PFBC 2015 Annual Report they have 432 full time employees. So almost 25% of full time PFBC employees work at fish hatcheries. Maybe part of the reason they're not in a hurry to reduce stocking is the fear of losing of jobs.

I don't believe less stocking would or should result in eliminating jobs but rather redirecting those efforts.
There are so many conservation and access issues around the state that could definitely use PFBC employees attention.

 

[KenU]

A presentation was given at a recent PFBC meeting I attended indicating that brook trout are 11.4 times as likely to be caught by anglers as brown trout. This certainly helps to explain why brown trout are able to displace brook trout. There are many other negatives to this practice, most of which have already been mentioned in this string of posts. I think the connection is obvious. Stocking over native brook trout populations is a deplorable practice and should be ended.

Stocking over wild brown trout has similar implications. However, the PFBC Commissioners are being told that its main function is to raise and stock streams. Wild trout are, apparently, no longer in vogue.

 

[salmonoid]

SteveG wrote:
I could really care less about spin fisherman. I see many of them as potential allies. Now, bait fisherman who don't know they have a fish on until it's already swallowed the hook, and then perform 10 minute bankside surgery to remove it, that's another story.

As far as the "decrease" on the 16 streams, that only refers to legal size fish. So, it could be polluted with smaller trout that just need to eat. If anyone has info on this study I'd love to get my hands on it. From what scraps are released, it almost sounds like the results have been slighted to conform with someone's wishes.

Or it could be that there isn't a vast conspiracy to fabricate data and it is just as simple that on half the streams, the population of brown trout went up and on 40% of the streams, the population of fish went down. Rather than being adversarial with the PFBC, which is unlikely to forge any sort of alliance that benefits wild trout, why not focus on identifying and working on the streams that would support an increase in wild trout? Consider what might define a win - just because there is not cessation of stocking on 100% or 50% or even 25% of the streams, every stream that is removed that does support a wild population of fish is a win. Instead of shooting for the total cessation of stocking, target a particular stream at a time, like the OP wrote about.

Spring and Valley Creek are cited as examples of streams that benefited from the cessation of stocking. Not all streams that are stocked would respond in the manner that those two streams did. It almost seems that the sentiment is that if PFBC would just stop stocking, every stream would morph into a Spring or Valley Creek. That simply is not the case.

 

[jifigz]

salmonoid wrote:

SteveG wrote:
I could really care less about spin fisherman. I see many of them as potential allies. Now, bait fisherman who don't know they have a fish on until it's already swallowed the hook, and then perform 10 minute bankside surgery to remove it, that's another story.

As far as the "decrease" on the 16 streams, that only refers to legal size fish. So, it could be polluted with smaller trout that just need to eat. If anyone has info on this study I'd love to get my hands on it. From what scraps are released, it almost sounds like the results have been slighted to conform with someone's wishes.

Or it could be that there isn't a vast conspiracy to fabricate data and it is just as simple that on half the streams, the population of brown trout went up and on 40% of the streams, the population of fish went down. Rather than being adversarial with the PFBC, which is unlikely to forge any sort of alliance that benefits wild trout, why not focus on identifying and working on the streams that would support an increase in wild trout? Consider what might define a win - just because there is not cessation of stocking on 100% or 50% or even 25% of the streams, every stream that is removed that does support a wild population of fish is a win. Instead of shooting for the total cessation of stocking, target a particular stream at a time, like the OP wrote about.

Spring and Valley Creek are cited as examples of streams that benefited from the cessation of stocking. Not all streams that are stocked would respond in the manner that those two streams did. It almost seems that the sentiment is that if PFBC would just stop stocking, every stream would morph into a Spring or Valley Creek. That simply is not the case.

I agree completely. Some streams do not have what it takes to be fantastic wild trout streams, but many in Pennsylvania do. Stock where stocking is needed, and don't where it isn't needed.

 

[krayfish2]

Mike,

Your post #46 would apply to MANY streams in PA, wouldn't it.....wild fish in the feeders and stocking was ended. Are you saying it was a fluke that what happened to Valley?

 

[SteveG]

My issue is that their "findings" are apparently only for legal size fish, and not the actual population. I'm not being adversarial, but when a PFBC biologist admits that a stream would be Class A if surveyed, and then tells everyone that section will never be surveyed due to politics, it's frustrating. If they want to stock fish to appease the truck chasers, do it on lower quality water.

I'm all for trying to work with the PFBC, but there needs to be some transparency, and they need to practice what they preach.

Part of the problem is fishing culture as a whole. Everyone is compartmentalized into fly fishing, spin fishing, bait fishing, etc. I may catch some heat for this, but I think FFO regs are part of the problem. Spin and bait fisherman have animosity toward us because there's a special reg and most FFO water holds fish year round. Then if a mainly FF based group such as TU wants to do some work, or lobbies to have a stream surveyed, they think we're taking "their" water to ad to ours. Likewise, we see atw areas that hold strong wild populations, even in the face of stocking and overzealous harvest, and want to protect it.

My issue with the PFBC is that a talk a big game about conservation, but rarely actually back it up. Instead of surveying "high use" streams that would have Class A populations, they go to some dink stream that no one fishes to appease those who favor conservation, and avoid angering the corn crowd on a high quality high use stream.

 

[JF_]

salmonoid wrote:

mr7183 wrote:
It's comical to see people defend stocking and put/take fisheries over wild fish. Take politics out of it and it shouldn't be a hard decision to do everything we can to preserve and enhance natural resources.

This is precisely the issue. If you can figure out how to take politics out of it, problem solved. Problem is, politics is intertwined through all of this.

This is it....I have no doubt the PFBC would be making most of this board happy if they were not limited in what they can accomplish. It's the real world and that's how it works.