Where to send my concern...

[pcray1231]

Agree with SteveG on the criticism of the "legal size" analysis. In a primarily C&R world legal size is almost meaningless. And lots of perfectly good wild trout streams have a relatively low % of their fish reaching the 7" mark. I don't think having large numbers of fish over 7" should be a pre-requisite.

Use total biomass. They already do for the class system, so when doing an analysis like that, why not just stick with it?

I also don't think changing to other measures would greatly change the analysis, so...

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.

Agreed completely. That said, so does the PFBC. The followup question is "where do you draw the line" as being "worth fishing"? The PFBC uses the class system. Class A being "worth fishing", and class B, C, D, etc. not. Yes, there's a few class A's that are stocked but they are the exception rather than the rule and are special circumstances.

IMO, class A is too high a bar. There are a LOT of class B and even C streams that, IMO, are perfectly viable wild trout fisheries. To me all that really has to happen is to lower the bar for being class A. My disagreements with the PFBC on stocking policy is, admittedly, on a relatively small % of PA's trout fisheries and represents an even smaller % of the trout stocked. Those disagreements would be almost completely resolved by lowering the criteria needed to reach class A status. Current Class C or above should be called class A, and unstocked. Current Class D or below should be called class B and stocked. After that point, if there is reason to believe a stocked stream COULD become class A, they should cease stocking for an experimental time frame to see what happens.

 

[troutbert]

SteveG wrote:


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.

What is this in reference to?

What was the stream? When did this happen?

 

[RyanR]

troutbert wrote:

SteveG wrote:


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.

What is this in reference to?

What was the stream? When did this happen?

It's not just one stream. Heck, I can tell you of a couple of streams or stream sections just in one Southeast region county where we've been told the same thing.

 

[troutbert]

RyanR wrote:

troutbert wrote:

SteveG wrote:


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.

What is this in reference to?

What was the stream? When did this happen?

It's not just one stream. Heck, I can tell you of a couple of streams or stream sections just in one Southeast region county where we've been told the same thing.

Please do tell me. I'm all ears!

 

[SteveG]

Yellow Breeches

 

[SteveG]

And no, I'm not referring to the Allenberry - Little Run stretch, which turns up plenty of wild browns regardless.

 

[Mike]

RyanR,
Like Troutbert, I am curious too. Which two streams are you referring to and when you say Southeast, are you using the Law Enforcement SE regional boundaries, which are based on county lines, or are you using the SE regional fisheries management boundaries, which are based on drainage basins? It makes a substantial difference geographically.

 

[afishinado]

Mike wrote:
RyanR,
Like Troutbert, I am curious too. Which two streams are you referring to and when you say Southeast, are you using the Law Enforcement SE regional boundaries, which are based on county lines, or are you using the SE regional fisheries management boundaries, which are based on drainage basins? It makes a substantial difference geographically.

Mike is referring to this SE region, which is for Fisheries Management (Mikes area of responsibility for the PFBC): http://fishandboat.com/dir_afm.htm

Not this SE region which covers Enforcement: http://fishandboat.com/dir_regions.htm

Anyway, I am not aware of any, what I believe to be an unsurveyed Class A stream in the SE Fisheries Management Region.

Mike is the only PFBC Fisheries Biologist, that I'm aware of, to post on here on a regular basis posting valuable info, answering questions and making comments. Let's not make him responsible for all everything that goes wrong in the world as well as the galaxy...like Obama.

 

[Mike]

The "legal size" analysis was appropriate, as that is the group of fish that would be affected by what is known in the fisheries world as by-catch, the catch (and sometimes harvest) of species, or in this case wild fish, when another species (or in this case stocked fish as a proxy for a different species) is being targeted. Sub-legal fish abundance in Brown Trout populations, the species being discussed, is largely determined by year class strength, which is rarely limited by adult trout abundance. (That's one reason why fall fishing in Pa does not phase AFM's). Even the famed Vincent study in Montana, often mentioned by this Board, focused its analyses on three year old fish and older.

The abundance or biomass of sub-legal wild trout is not what primarily interests (or concerns) most anglers when they discuss the harvest of wild brown trout as part of the overall harvest associated with stocked trout fisheries. I have heard many concerns expressed by anglers over the years regarding wild trout harvest in stocked trout fisheries, but I don't believe that I have ever heard over nearly a 40 year period anyone express a concern about the impact on sub-legal wild trout.

 

[SteveG]

Will not those sub-legal trout grow into legal trout? Also, wouldn't adult abundance impact juvenile adundabce via cannibalism? Btw, I'm not trying to come off as facetious.

 

[RyanR]

Mike wrote:
RyanR,
Like Troutbert, I am curious too. Which two streams are you referring to and when you say Southeast, are you using the Law Enforcement SE regional boundaries, which are based on county lines, or are you using the SE regional fisheries management boundaries, which are based on drainage basins? It makes a substantial difference geographically.

Oh I'm talking Northampton County which is in the Southeast Region as far as I know. There are sections of two pretty well known streams that are not officially listed as "Class A" but it's been said that more than likely if surveyed they would be (and that's from the PFBC officials mouths) but they're stocked and there's a history of strong local sentiment to keep them stocked (which even as a conservationist I'm not opposed to keeping those sections stocked for a couple reasons.) I think one of the sections on one of the streams is now recently upgraded to officially Class A and off the stocking list or proposed to be removed from the stocking list (which is not being met well by the Northampton County Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs.)

I'm not debating that any of this is right or wrong. I just commented on the fact that I too was aware that it occurs.

 

[MKern]

I'll ask a more specific question for Kish Creek then...

So the commission deems it okay to stock fish still, even though it's class A. Well, does that mean that the fire company can still hold their tournament? So not only does the commission stock a class A, but will allow an outside entity stock a class A. How's that for conservation?

 

[ebroesicke]

I hear ya Ryan . I live very close to one of those sections, and was very happy it was finally listed as a Class A.

 

[jifigz]

MKern wrote:
I'll ask a more specific question for Kish Creek then...

So the commission deems it okay to stock fish still, even though it's class A. Well, does that mean that the fire company can still hold their tournament? So not only does the commission stock a class A, but will allow an outside entity stock a class A. How's that for conservation?

They stock thousands of fish for that tournament and it actually draws some people from quite a distance to fish it. I'm also sure that the tourney makes the fire company a lot of money, but it also adds more pressure over those wild fish and leaves the stream an absolute mess with litter.

 

[afishinado]

RyanR wrote:

Mike wrote:
RyanR,
Like Troutbert, I am curious too. Which two streams are you referring to and when you say Southeast, are you using the Law Enforcement SE regional boundaries, which are based on county lines, or are you using the SE regional fisheries management boundaries, which are based on drainage basins? It makes a substantial difference geographically.

Oh I'm talking Northampton County which is in the Southeast Region as far as I know. There are sections of two pretty well known streams that are not officially listed as "Class A" but it's been said that more than likely if surveyed they would be (and that's from the PFBC officials mouths) but they're stocked and there's a history of strong local sentiment to keep them stocked (which even as a conservationist I'm not opposed to keeping those sections stocked for a couple reasons.) I think one of the sections on one of the streams is now recently upgraded to officially Class A and off the stocking list or proposed to be removed from the stocking list (which is not being met well by the Northampton County Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs.)

I'm not debating that any of this is right or wrong. I just commented on the fact that I too was aware that it occurs.

I took the time to post a map above of the fisheries management regions and Northampton County is not in the SE region.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

#1 reason why suspected class A streams are not surveyed: money, manpower and time. All intertwined. My reading of comments (not exactly verbalized) from WCOs is the next component is related to the discussion. Survey less controversial projects and ones they think will result in class A designation.
In our neck of the woods what has prompted a formal survey (or at least put it on the list) are requests by local organizations "in-the-know". What accelerates a formal survey is if the organization, for example the LJRA, performs preliminary macro counts and electroshock surveys that suggest such a survey is warranted. Back to the LJRA- it has funded and assisted projects run by Juniata College faculty to monitor and survey tributaries to the LJ to identify those that can be added to the class A list. The formal PFBC survey that lead to the designation of parts of the LJ as class A and other protected designations was initiated by the organizations informal preliminary survey. To accelerate the designation of your stream to class A, work with PFBC, commit volunteers to assist and provide some evidence that such a survey will have the intended result. When budgets are tight, they don't want to survey every stream suggested by a few anglers- it's not a good use of their limited resources.

 

[RyanR]

afishinado wrote:

RyanR wrote:

Mike wrote:
RyanR,
Like Troutbert, I am curious too. Which two streams are you referring to and when you say Southeast, are you using the Law Enforcement SE regional boundaries, which are based on county lines, or are you using the SE regional fisheries management boundaries, which are based on drainage basins? It makes a substantial difference geographically.

Oh I'm talking Northampton County which is in the Southeast Region as far as I know. There are sections of two pretty well known streams that are not officially listed as "Class A" but it's been said that more than likely if surveyed they would be (and that's from the PFBC officials mouths) but they're stocked and there's a history of strong local sentiment to keep them stocked (which even as a conservationist I'm not opposed to keeping those sections stocked for a couple reasons.) I think one of the sections on one of the streams is now recently upgraded to officially Class A and off the stocking list or proposed to be removed from the stocking list (which is not being met well by the Northampton County Federation of Sportsmen's Clubs.)

I'm not debating that any of this is right or wrong. I just commented on the fact that I too was aware that it occurs.

I took the time to post a map above of the fisheries management regions and Northampton County is not in the SE region.

Umm, from anglers and WCO's perspective it's in the Southeast Region. For Mike's work it might not fall under that definition of Southeast Region but it's indeed a Southeast county and the entire county is open for trout fishing on the Southeast opener. Might not be Mike's region for his work but I think as far any licensed PA angler would be concerned it is the Southeast Region. Bureacracy at work I guess.

 

[Mike]

SteveG,

I have only ever seen apparent negative impacts from stocking on YOY trout and forage fish populations when streams have been overstocked with very high numbers of trout in catch and release regulation and DH situations. I have seen it on two streams in the past, one where the stockings were intentional and the other that involved nursery escapement. In both cases the situation was corrected. The funny thing is that when the nursery escapement into the wild trout population stopped, the complaints from some fly anglers began...and the accounts were that complaints were fairly common.

It is also not unusual for clubs to substantially boost the numbers or even overstock special reg areas and this may a contributory reason in some cases why some anglers, unaware of the overstocking, think stocked C&R fishing is so great. The numbers of trout may be obscenely high and stay that way, but that may not be recognized by the clubs or the anglers; perhaps it is just what they are used to. "More is better" is not unique to general anglers and it sometimes even crosses species. To their credit, when the high stocking rates have been pointed out to SE Pa clubs in the past they have willingly cooperated in reducing the rates.

These are, nevertheless, not the images that fly anglers usually present here, especially when it is suggested that the "meat hunters" should just be allowed to fish out of a hatchery raceway. Perhaps the critics are unaware, but there is irony in such comments.

 

[moon1284]

6 Pages of responses here from "pro" biologists and fishery "experts". 0 responses on the 100K grant topic...

 

[troutbert]

The OP was about where to send your concerns.

Have you sent your concerns yet?

Via letters (best choice) or email?

It's easy to get distracted by endless internet discussion, arguing over fisheries ideas that were well understood by the 1940s.

But all that internet yammering does not reach the decision makers.

If you want your views on management of Kish Creek known to the decision makers, you need to send your views directly to them.