Why is PA still stocking trout?

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:

Sometimes it's on the Letort. You gotta learn to roll with it but yes some places are still stocked and should not be.

I don't agree that we should "roll with it."

The people want hatchery trout stocked in native brook trout streams don't "roll with it."

They participate in the participatory democracy by advocating what they want to the PFBC, the Commissioners and their legislators.

People who think that hatchery trout stocking should be moved away from wild trout streams and particularly native brook trout towards non-wild trout waters have just as much of a right to express their opinions.

Agreed, well said ^

The PFBC should make a hard and fast policy of no stocking Class A trout streams by the commission or co-ops / clubs, without exception. Class B's should also be considered for stocking cessation based on their potential for becoming a Class A stream.

Further there should be no stocking in streams that hold a Class D or better population of brook trout. The remaining wild brook trout streams should never be stocked.

With all that said, the trout stocking program is very popular and anglers "vote" for stocking by buying a license. Trout stocking should be continued at least the present rate, if financially sustainable, in streams with little or no trout reproduction.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Certainly not at all what I'm suggesting.

In fact I'm sitting on a gold mine of a brookie watershed because they havbt ruined it with stocking.

What Iam saying is, it's not going away anytime soon, so unless you want to rip your hair out, you are going to have to roll with it.
By all means advocate but I wouldn't let it ruin my week either

 

[jmflyfisher]

I think that reducing or eliminating stocking is only part of the equation. If stocking is reduced, I think that the PAFBC also needs to think about how those waters are managed. I'd really like to see more no kill, or limited harvest on these areas. Much is written about the way that Montana has reduced stocking, but I also think they've also managed to regulate the harvest of fish in many rivers, which ensures enough fish to reproduce.

And quite honestly, I think the Montana FWP manages their fisheries with the wild resource in mind. They still stock, but not as a means to attract anglers.

 

[tomgamber]

jmflyfisher wrote:

And quite honestly, I think the Montana FWP manages their fisheries with the wild resource in mind. They still stock, but not as a means to attract anglers.

from the Montana Governor's website:

"Over 11 million people visited in 2013
Visitors spent approzimately $3.62 billion
Directly supports 30,000 jobs
Indirectly supports 15,000 jobs"

It’s no secret Montana is an amazing place to visit any time of yearbut it may be surprising how powerful the tourism industry is for Montana’s economy. If measured as a service export, travel & tourism would be the #3 export for Montana, following bulk grain and mineral fuels. That means communities across the state are seeing stronger bottom lines and more prosperous Main Streets because of the world-class ski resorts, blue ribbon fly-fishing streams, and endless hiking and biking trails we enjoy in our backyards.

right...wouldn't want to attract anglers...

 

[Fly-Swatter]

No, PA is not MT, nor does it have to be. Although our population density is much higher and our proximity to urban centers outside our state is much, much higher! So, there is a relatively untapped gold mine of non-resident angling.

Our stocking problem, as most here have suggested, is cultural.

What is the solution: Marketing!

If we change the hearts and minds of PA anglers with the right kind of marketing campaign, we can erode the put-and-take culture. This seems like a better approach than the current "us against them" approach. Add to that a well executed marketing campaign to non-resident anglers and you have real potential!

For example, look how bass tournament fishing (which I detest) has changed bass angling in PA and beyound:
* Mostly catch & release
* significant increase in boating and angling item sales volume
* significant increase in high value product sales
I'm sure there are other benefits I'm forgetting, but you get the point.

How did that all happen? Organizations like BASS. Our analog is TU.

If we change management to emphasize wild trout reproduction and growth (brookies, browns and rainbows), we could have some of the best fishing in the country....in select streams, of course.

Dare to imagine a cleaner PA because it is in our economic best interest via resident and non-resident license sales, hospitality sales, and improvement in land values. It's not a pipe dream. It simply takes good leadership, patience and resolve.

I'm sure there are variables I did not mention, so feel free to discuss and/or shoot holes in my thinking.

 

[gulfgreyhound]

Marketing: https://online.flowpaper.com/7b150751/FGSpecialissue45Web/
New Zealand is looking at "trout towns " as destinations for tourist anglers. Using Montana as an example. Murray's Bar in Livingston gets a plug. Been there ,Tom?
GG
Interesting site with the Fish and Game Magazine available for reading.

 

[jmflyfisher]

You've nailed it......They've managed themselves right into an economic benefit! The fishing is typically fantastic, and they aren't hesitant to close waters when needed due to heat stress or other issues. As a result, Montana is a destination.

While not on the same scale, there was a time that the Big Woods of north central Pa were a destination. It was good for the local economy and I'd like to think created the need to manage the resource as well.

 

[tomitrout]

Given a couple grand to burn on a vacation, where would you go?

For comparison....

Tip of the iceberg Montana (including Yellowstone due to proximity/gateways):

Glacier NP:

Bitteroot neck of the woods:

Jellystone:

Pennsylvania, other than the Pine Creek Gorge and the Big Spring 'bow, these are dime a dozen out your backdoor anywhere in PA:

Not saying PA doesn't have her charms, but to compare PA to MT as a 'tourist destination' where someone would drop a couple grand for a perhaps once in a lifetime adventure....sorry, but you're talking apples and oranges here....regardless of the state's stocking policy. PA might draw in the more hardcore anglers, which make up the majority of this site's denizens, but to compare it to the draw of Montana for the more 'recreational angler' who's got coin to spend is apples and oranges.


Edit to add:
To attempt to clarify my point....PA is a wonderfully scenic and amazing place, but to compare it to the draw of the Rocky Mtn west is really apples and oranges. I do love it here and think we have amazing fishing and that it could be managed better, no doubt. But to say, well look what Montana did 30 years ago....well, that's just not a realistic comparison when you look at the mind numbing landscape that they're working with. An old fishing buddy once said that the west is awe inspiring, but here in the east, it's a much more intimate experience. You can crawl around on it and through it, and that's not something you feel connected to or inspired by with one week's exposure. Kinda like a one night stand vs a long term intimate relationship. And changing stocking policy ain't gonna change that, would it help? Maybe, maybe not. Look at Penn's creek for example, probably our state's finest trout fishery, and it barely supports two local hole in the wall flyshops, no offense to Jonas & Bruce....when compared to half a dozen shops in West Yellowstone and multiple shops in Gardiner and beyond. Apples and oranges, bushels of apples and a handful of oranges.

 

[bikerfish]

PA is no Montana, that's for damn sure!!! Never heard of anyone from montana saying they were going to move to PA for the fishing :-o

As for stocking issues, sure, we still have problems, but things ARE slowly getting better regarding the wild trout resource. Just look at the progress in 50 years regarding regulations and such. It takes a long time to change minds.

 

[SteveG]

Tom, only speaking of the fly shops is truly missing the forest for the trees. Ask all of the small business owners in the town of Coburn, Millheim, and surrounding areas what Penns, Spring, and BFC do for their economy. While "not Montana", there are plenty of people from out of state that come to fish, even if for short 2-4 day trips.

There are also plenty of people that travel to Montana to fish, that don't spend thousands of dollars on a trip. I'd venture to guess that the high-spending anglers only contribute a fraction of the money compared to travelers with a smaller budget.

 

[tomitrout]

Ok Steve, then compare West Yellowstone or Gardiner as a whole to either Coburn or Milheim or combine the two if you'd like...not like there's only fly shops in any of those places. How many places can you go out for dinner in Coburn, how many places can you book a room?

Forest and trees and all that, as you say....

 

[tomitrout]

It takes a long time to change minds.

Considering that it's probably a generational thing, and the next generation really ain't that much into 'the outdoors' comparatively speaking......interesting dilemma we've found ourselves in, eh?

 

[tomgamber]

You might want to read my post again. Your response has nothing to do with it.

You claim Montana stocking is not to attract anglers. Bull. It's one of the top three reasons to go to Montana according to the governor. So YES, they stock to attract anglers.

 

[afishinado]

tomitrout wrote:
Given a couple grand to burn on a vacation, where would you go?

The vast majority of folks have a couple of hundred $ to spend on a vacation. And most would go on multiple vacations and long weekends closer to home.

But that's really not the point. PA isn't Montana, but it's a nice place to visit to hike and fish. While the fishing is good, I suppose it could be better. Stocking trout should continue in most of the streams that are currently stocked; the ones with no or very few wild trout. Right now this is mostly the case.

I do agree with the marketing part of it, though. The PFBC can do a much better job marketing the beauty of the state and the fishing opportunities. I see way too much marketing for the hatcheries and the white trucks. Every state has hatcheries and white trucks, but not many have wild places and wild stream-born fish.

Just about all the real PA destination places are wild fisheries....duh. Take care of them and make more wild streams C&R. The trend is away from catch & keep; why perpetuate that mentality in streams with wild trout.

Also financial reality dictates stocking must decrease. Why promote something that is destined to decline?.....duh...duh! Fine-tune stocking and turn more focus to wild trout streams and C&R wild trout fishing. Spending more dollars on preserving wild areas and opening public access to wild trout streams would be a great way to start.

 

[troutbert]

afishinado wrote:

Stocking trout should continue in most of the streams that are currently stocked; the ones with no or very few wild trout. Right now this is mostly the case.

A good project for someone good with GIS software would be to bring up the stream mileage stocked by the PFBC. And also the wild trout stream mileage.

Then show on the map the stream mileage that is both. And the software would also give you the total mileage of stocked wild trout streams.

I think that would be fairly easy to do. Both data sets are available from the PASDA website.

There must be some college student with access to ArcGIs who could do this interesting exercise. If so, please report back what you find.

My estimate is that about HALF the stream mileage stocked by the PFBC is on the wild trout list.

The coop hatcheries also stock a very large number of streams, many of which are streams that the PFBC does not stock, and much of which is wild trout water. But I don't think the info of where the coop hatcheries stock is available.

 

[SteveG]

Tom, there aren't only fly shops there bc there are numerous activities that people travel there for. If anything, traveling fisherman probably account for a minority in those areas. There a a couple restaurants in Millheim, notably the Elk Creek Cafe, and there is lodging in the area, in addition to campgrounds. Hell, I was shocked years ago when they put that traffic light in Millheim. If you want more, it's a very short drive to Bellefonte or Stare College.

 

[tomgamber]

i know the area. i have no idea what you are talking about

you mentioned Montana. i pointed out why that MONTANA statement was false. Stocking is done to attract anglers. period. ...i'm out.

 

[SteveG]

Was replying to the other tom.

 

[tomgamber]

That makes more sense.. :lol: :-D

 

[MBWCC]

Here are five points for consideration regarding the MT vs PA discussion:

#1 - In 2018 Montana will stock 36,000 trout in 40 miles of 4 rivers. Those three numbers are the entire river trout stocking planned for all MT in 2018. 36,000 trout in 40 miles of 4 rivers.

10,000 of those trout are cutthroats to be placed in 2 miles of a single river.

Another 20,000 brown and rainbow trout are going into 23 miles of another single river.

The remaining 6,000 trout will go into 15 miles of 2 other rivers.

That's it for Montana's plans to stock rivers with trout in 2018.

#2 - How many million trout will PA stock in how many miles of what number of rivers?

#3 - Most MT streams do allow a limit for trout, normally 5 and no more than 1 over 18". Some popular trout rivers are more restrictive, for example, the Missouri River below Holter Dam (Craig, MT) is more restrictive with a 3 trout limit, only 1 greater than 18".

#4 - I have never, ever, seen a stringer of trout in MT - and I have spent months fishing the state's trout streams where trout could be kept.

#5 - I have virtually never gone a day on a PA trout stream where trout could be kept without seeing one or more stringers full of trout.

In my opinion, we (PA) have an attitude problem -- we need to promote C&R much more extensively. Montana has done this quite well. Stocking huge quantities of trout is just a symptom of our (PA's) attitude problem.

First step towards solving the problem is to stop PA's ridiculous trout stamp pricing policy. Charging someone $8 per year for the privilege to keep >$15 of product per day is not a sustainable business model. PA should have 2 trout stamps, one C&R, one catch & keep. You want to keep >$15 of trout per day? It should cost $45/day or more. No sustainable business plan would consider anything else.

Also in my opinion, if we solved the attitude problem PA trout fishing could equal MT trout fishing.