Which best describes you? -- Wild Trout

[BrookieChaser]

“One of the penalties of an ecological education is that one lives alone in a world of wounds. Much of the damage inflicted on land is quite invisible to laymen. An ecologist must either harden his shell and make believe that the consequences of science are none of his business, or he must be the doctor who sees the marks of death in a community that believes itself well and does not want to be told otherwise.” -Aldo Leopold

I voted option 2.

 

[steveo27]

I just recently started fishing for non-stocked fish and its become VERY addicting.

However, at the same time. I dont always have the option to drive an hour+ to fish for trout, especially after work. All the local streams around me contain a minuscule amount, if any wild/native trout, so I see no issue with stocking them. It gives the option to fish closer to home. Without stocking, most of us would have never learned to fish I feel.

The past few outing chasing native brookies have all been in streams that are stocked. Ive had a ton of success and its been surprising how of native fish survive/strive in these stocked streams.

I feel that these streams that contain native/wild fish should be surveyed/reevaluated and if they meet certain criteria they should be removed from the PFBC stocking list.

The hard part is determining what the criteria consists of. What all should determines if the stream supports a successful population of wild fish? How many fish is considered "successful"? Where do you draw the line?

My biggest complaint about fishing stocked streams is the amount of garbage I see. Nothing sucks more than hiking up and down a stream that is littered with trash and old tires and whatnot. Maybe limiting the stocking will limit the litter?

 

[Fly-Swatter]

(Warning: mini-hijack alert)

"Maybe limiting the stocking will limit the litter?"

If only. I think the litter issue is cultural. Clearly, bait containers and discarded mono is part of the opening day landscape. This is only true because that's the culture in which we live.

I fished many opening days with my dad and brother. we were clearly instructed by dad to not only pick up after ourselves but after those less considerate. This is something I still practice even though I don't fish on opening weekend.

If most trout fishers were raised with a similar ethic, we would see few pieces of litter after the hoards plunder the stocked trout.

It's sad, really, this culture if entitlement.

(Hijack ended)

 

[troutbert]

steveo27 wrote:

Without stocking, most of us would have never learned to fish I feel.

There isn't any sort of movement to end the stocking/hatchery program.

Why do people think that there is? What evidence is there of that?

You have to watch out for the distortion, the spin, the strawman stuff.

 

[pcray1231]

I chose the judicious one. But it's not really my view. None of them are.

Like the second one, I do think it should be based on the wild trout situation. But not just the mere presence, but abundance. Saying they can't stock ANY stream with wild trout is going way too far.

I'd probably draw the line somewhere within the current class C designation.

And to do it, I'd probably do away with class A, B, C, D, etc., and go to a simpler, dual designation. Put the biomass line somewhere within the current class C designation. All above that point, call "blue ribbon" or whatever you want to call em. Off-limits to stocking. Everything below that line can still be on the natural reproduction list but would be open to stocking (on a judicious basis).

Class C's may not be "great" streams, but they are solid wild trout streams with stable populations and can offer good fishing.

 

[Swattie87]

pcray1231 wrote:
And to do it, I'd probably do away with class A, B, C, D, etc., and go to a simpler, dual designation. Put the biomass line somewhere within the current class C designation. All above that point, call "blue ribbon" or whatever you want to call em. Off-limits to stocking. Everything below that line can still be on the natural reproduction list but would be open to stocking (on a judicious basis).

This is essentially my “ideal” thought too. Set the maximum kg/ha for stocking to be allowed. (I agree somewhere in the current C (15 kg/ha-ish) range seems about right based on my fishing experiences, cross-referenced with stream biomass data.) D’s are rarely good and often have unstable populations. C’s are a bit of a mixed bag, but some fish quite well…halfway into the C biomass range seems reasonable to me. No stocking above this threshold. Use stocking resources as wisely as possible in areas with no wild trout, or biomass under the threshold. You’d essentially have 3 classes then…

For example, using 15 kg/ha as the threshold:

Class A – Over 15 kg/ha wild biomass – No stocking.
Class B – Wild Trout present, but less than 15 kg/ha – Stocking allowed.
Class C – No Wild Trout present – Stocking allowed.

Stocking resources will go further in the areas that need their support to provide a quality (even if just seasonal) Trout fishery. Viable, quality wild Trout streams will no longer be impacted by stocking. No matter which side of the fence you fall on, under this idea, it seems to me like a win for everyone.

Edit: The above should apply to stream sections IMO, not the entire stream length. Kettle Creek for example. The headwaters down to Ole Bull or so have a decent enough wild population to merit no stocking under this plan I would suspect. Downstream of Ole Bull, this isn't the case...stocking should be ok there. There's many others like this, but Kettle is a prime example of a stream that would have significant public backlash if stocking ceased. We should be open to doing what makes sense...in a case like Kettle, stock where the fish are needed, don't stock where they're not. Most of the current popular spots on Kettle would still be stocked. I see far more anglers below Ole Bull, than I do above.

 

[RLeep2]

I think what Pat and Swattie propose makes sense, for the most part. Although, if a biomass level were to be set where stocking would cease on a given stream section and it were up to me to set it, I’d probably put it a little higher than what the guys are suggesting, say in the lower third of current Class B, around 23-25 kg/ha or so. Doing so might serve to somewhat insulate newly removed sections from pressure to recommence stocking during the downslope side of the normal boom and bust population cycles in the typical PA freestone. Simply put, a stream that is at say, 25 kg/ha and has a couple consecutive years of mediocre recruitment and falls to 12-15 kg/ha as a result, might still fish well enough to remain defensible as an unstocked fishery until it rebounds. One that falls from 15 kg/ha to say, 5-8 for the same reasons may not be able to escape the pressure to begin stocking again. Setting the bar a little higher in this way could save a little wear and tear on Commission staff as well as the concerned anglers who would stand with the Commission on this. At least, hopefully they would stand with Commission staff on this if it were implemented and be willing to make more noise than their attitudinal opposites. Because if they are not prepared to do so, it would flat out never fly and may as well be forgotten about.

Just a final thought… Isn’t it wonderful to live in a state where there are so many wild trout that “problems” like this are possible…?

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Completely agree with Swattie and Pat. It makes sense and RLeep2 has some good points also.

 

[FarmerDave]

I voted for whatever the 4th one was. None were a perfect match, but I spose that was the closest.

Almost went with the third one, but too late to change now.

Second one was close too, but that would eliminate most trout streams that are currently stocked. There are a lot of really lousy class D's out there that are currently stocked, and I have no problem with that. Many streams will support adult trout, but not necessarily reproduction, or at least not much.

That is why I chose the 4th one, it was kind of in between 2 and 3.

Frankly, it wouldn't bother me if they simply retired the white trucks and just opened the hatcheries for the freezer fillers, but I digress.;-)

 

[JJZ]

No stocking over wild trout.

 

[PocketWater]

Question to the board, and I guess, in my mind, harvesting is part of the equation too. If you don't stock wild trout streams, should you be able to harvest from them? Or what level of trout population could handle harvesting and what level of harvesting should be allowed?

Not trying to hijack the thread or anything. Just a question that popped into my head as I was reading responses.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Many unstocked wild trout streams fall under general regs and see very low angler useage and harvest, per the PFBC study.

 

[RLeep2]

The allowable level of harvest question is a good question and worth asking. Problem is, the answers are a little bit like religion. Viewpoints vary and are often highly contentious, occasionally absolutist and are not always supportable other than as articles of faith....

Take my viewpoint, for example...

I think harvest can have a significant impact on wild trout populations in some streams. But I think there are a lot more streams where harvest is either moot due to negligible fishing pressure or all but occluded by the combined factors we call "natural motality" than there are streams where harvest actually suppresses wild trout numbers.

I know I'm going to h--- for this, but what can I do? Its what my faith tells me is the truth....

 

[Stenonema]

I'm not usually sarcastic but, here it goes.

Class D streams are too hard for me to catch fish and I don't have a good time when I fish them. Stock them so they are more fun for me!

Really ?? That is what I am hearing.

A good question might be,"How much do you like to fish?"

If you like easy take up something else or fish for a different species. Everyone likes it easy but it isn't as rewarding and it comes at a price.
The thing about Conservation is it is supposed to have the best interest of the animal or environment above your own.
Where does stocking fit into this when we accept the fact that it is detrimental to wild trout?
How many wild naturally self reproducing trout does it take to make a stream special?
I think that may be another good question.

 

[Swattie87]

Steno - Can't speak on behalf of the other guys in the thread, but my own personal opinion is that I don't really care for stocked Trout anywhere. Wouldn't bother me one bit if all stocking in PA stopped. That being said, I realize that's not a realistic or practical possibility in PA right now. I also realize that while I don't particularly enjoy fishing for stocked Trout, other people do. The solution Pat and I, and others, are advocating tries to take this into account and reach the best compromise between protecting quality wild Trout resources, and offering stocked Trout to those who enjoy fishing for stocked Trout, or are in areas where wild Trout are not terribly abundant, or present at all.

I'm not in favor of such a plan because it will make fishing a stocked Class D stream easier...I still would probably avoid that stream altogether in favor of a better, unstocked wild Trout option. Truth be told, I'm equally as bad of a fly fisher on a Class D stream as I am on a Class A. Why do I catch more fish on a Class A than a Class D, all other things being equal...because there's more fish there.

I'm not saying fishing should be easy, or made easier by stocking. I enjoy just getting out and the opportunity to fish, but we all gotta admit...we like catching fish, or at least having the opportunity to catch fish. If the fish aren't there to catch, you can't have the chance to catch them...If you're gonna stock, why not stock into a stream that lacks a significant amount of wild fish on its own?

I don't know if the magic number is 15 kg/ha, but that's about the point in my experience where all other things being equal (conditions, size of stream, habitat quality, etc) you begin to notice you're not catching fish, or at least getting action and seeing fish in places and situations you should.

 

[PennKev]

Fishing over fish that are tough to catch is far different than fishing over fish that don't exist. The later is an exercise in futility. But hey, exercise is good for you, right?

 

[Stenonema]

Stocking trout. Just another government program creating a dependency. The most dangerous part is the line of thinking it creates. The easiest path, immediate gratification and short shortsightedness
Ask not what the trout can do for you but what you can do for the trout.
Plant trees don't stock trout.

What good is it to plant a forest if it does not produce fruit?
Now I'm just having fun.

 

[PennKev]

Swattie87 wrote:
I'm not saying fishing should be easy, or made easier by stocking. I enjoy just getting out and the opportunity to fish, but we all gotta admit...we like catching fish, or at least having the opportunity to catch fish. If the fish aren't there to catch, you can't have the chance to catch them...If you're gonna stock, why not stock into a stream that lacks a significant amount of wild fish on its own?

Exactly.

 

[Swattie87]

Stenonema wrote:
Now I'm just having fun.

I gave you a good, honest response to what I assumed was a legitimate question or misunderstanding of the sentiment of the thread. You won't get any more fun out of me in this one.

 

[Stenonema]

I never said don't stock trout. They serve a purpose as a distraction.
To know what our streams are capable of you must first see them un-stocked for a number of years and that number is a variable that is presented by so many factors that it doesn't have an equation. If a farmers field isn't producing he fertilizes it, he doesn't plant weeds instead. Bottom line is we don't know until we know. Stop stocking over wild and find out what is possible.

As trout farmers we till the land and use fuel, tires, gasoline, funds to plant a crop in the tillable soil and the best crop is growing in the fence rows and gullies where we can't plow.