Wild Brook Trout

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Spot on Afish! It really is that simple. Even forgetting everything else, your propsal makes so much fiscal sense even a biologist should understand it.

when I said "biologically" above, I was referring to any possible negative, not positive, biological impacts that angler's are concerned about.

Thought I missed something so I did a Google search, couldnt find a single peer reviewed study on how stocking over wild trout has no biological impact. I did find a plethora of peer reviewed science showing tons of negative effects, even down to effects on macro life.

Be the change, write one and see if your peers agree.

 

[Mike]

See #120.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Is post 120 a peer reviewed study showing that when stocking over wild fish, when the time, allocation, etc etc...has no negative impacts?

 

[troutbert]

Stocking less trout and reducing the number of times stocked will certainly help reduce the impact.

It's like smoking. If you smoke 2 packs (40 cigarettes) per day, and you cut down to a half pack (10 cigarettes), that will help reduce the negative impact.

But of course stopping altogether would be even better.

 

[JackM]

What about 30 cigs a day? Is that better then 40?

 

[KenU]

Dr. **** Soderberg (Professor Emeritus, Mansfield University) will be giving a presentation on the effects of stocking over wild trout at the upcoming PATU Coldwater Conference on Feb. 25. (See the PATU Website for information.)

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:
What about 30 cigs a day? Is that better then 40?

It's a start Jack. Go for it.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

Stocking is the new smoking....I love it!

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

:lol:

 

[Mike]

I understand your point Afish, but I think that you may be possibly underestimating the size (number of acres)of the stocking program in urban, metro, and suburban streams and overestimating how many trout are stocked in Class B stream acres.. It is unlikely, if I recall the number correctly, and I think I do, that on a per acre basis the trout taken from Stocked Class B's would even be noticeable if spread across most urban, metro, and suburban streams. I use the term "per acre basis" because that is how allocations are determined within each stocked trout stream classification.

 

[afishinado]

Mike wrote:
I understand your point Afish, but I think that you may be possibly underestimating the size (number of acres)of the stocking program in urban, metro, and suburban streams and overestimating how many trout are stocked in Class B stream acres.. It is unlikely, if I recall the number correctly, and I think I do, that on a per acre basis the trout taken from Stocked Class B's would even be noticeable if spread across most urban, metro, and suburban streams. I use the term "per acre basis" because that is how allocations are determined within each stocked trout stream classification.

Hey Mike,

I realize it's only a start, and the PFBC is caught between a rock and a hard place with trout stocking. Sometimes it's best just to set a policy that makes the most sense and go with it. I would believe setting the bar with a policy of no stocking Class A's and B's would be easier than leaving open the possibility of stocking all streams and having legislators try to influence what streams are stocked in their district.

Further, some streams have not been surveyed in years or even a decade or more. Since wild trout populations are on the rise in PA, I would bet there are many more streams that can be added to the A or B list.

The message would be: Class A and B population trout streams are rewarding fisheries without the stocking of trout. First and foremost, the Commission is charged with the conservation of wild and native trout. Our policy is set to allow native and wild trout to flourish in the streams they inhabit, and stock trout for anglers to enjoy in streams without a fishable population of wild or native trout.

 

[KenU]

I think the Wilderness Trout Stream designation by the PFBC describes pretty well what trout fishing is really all about. It is currently a dormant program that deserves reactivating.

“Wilderness trout stream management is based upon the provision of a wild trout fishing experience in a remote, natural and unspoiled environment where man's disruptive activities are minimized. Established in 1969, this option was designed to protect and promote native (brook trout) fisheries, the ecological requirements necessary for natural reproduction of trout and wilderness aesthetics. The superior quality of these watersheds is considered an important part of the overall angling experience on wilderness trout streams. Therefore, all stream sections included in this program qualify for the Exceptional Value (EV) special protected water use classification, which represents the highest protection status provided by the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP).”

 

[jifigz]

To resurrect the wilderness trout designations wouldn't essentially nothing need to be done anyways? Sure, the list could be updated because there are many, many more streams that meet the specifications but the actual maintaining of the fisheries requires nothing to be done. While the program was in "operation" they still stocked over many native Brook trout populations.

 

[jifigz]

One thing I do like about that list is that they list the biomass class. I'm sure that those samplings are quite outdated but it is cool to see streams that I've fished and see what they are classified as. An example of how the list could be expanded, however, is if Cherry Run (Penns Trib) is listed as a wilderness stream then how is Spectacle Run (Mifflin/Juniata counties) not listed? It is obvious this "program" never received much attention from the get-go.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

If a stream is not already classified as an exceptional value (EV) stream by Chp 93, using the wilderness trout stream classification to try and achieve EV status may get significant opposition from industry, namely oil and gas. Classifications such as this should be as easy as documenting the onsite conditions (water quality, macro and fish populations) but often times politics gets involved somewhere along the line. For a long time there was a back log of streams that had been approved by PFBC commissioners as Class A wild trout streams (with Brown Trout) that were delayed by DEP getting bumped up to EV status.

 

[troutbert]

jifigz wrote:
One thing I do like about that list is that they list the biomass class. I'm sure that those samplings are quite outdated but it is cool to see streams that I've fished and see what they are classified as. An example of how the list could be expanded, however, is if Cherry Run (Penns Trib) is listed as a wilderness stream then how is Spectacle Run (Mifflin/Juniata counties) not listed? It is obvious this "program" never received much attention from the get-go.

There is a road right along nearly all of Spectacle Run.

The only section of Cherry Run (Penns) that is listed as Wilderness is the headwater roadless section. Not the section with the road along it.

 

[salmonoid]

afishinado wrote:

Mike wrote:
I understand your point Afish, but I think that you may be possibly underestimating the size (number of acres)of the stocking program in urban, metro, and suburban streams and overestimating how many trout are stocked in Class B stream acres.. It is unlikely, if I recall the number correctly, and I think I do, that on a per acre basis the trout taken from Stocked Class B's would even be noticeable if spread across most urban, metro, and suburban streams. I use the term "per acre basis" because that is how allocations are determined within each stocked trout stream classification.

Hey Mike,

I realize it's only a start, and the PFBC is caught between a rock and a hard place with trout stocking. Sometimes it's best just to set a policy that makes the most sense and go with it. I would believe setting the bar with a policy of no stocking Class A's and B's would be easier than leaving open the possibility of stocking all streams and having legislators try to influence what streams are stocked in their district.

Further, some streams have not been surveyed in years or even a decade or more. Since wild trout populations are on the rise in PA, I would bet there are many more streams that can be added to the A or B list.

The message would be: Class A and B population trout streams are rewarding fisheries without the stocking of trout. First and foremost, the Commission is charged with the conservation of wild and native trout. Our policy is set to allow native and wild trout to flourish in the streams they inhabit, and stock trout for anglers to enjoy in streams without a fishable population of wild or native trout.

Setting a bar doesn't preclude legislators from influencing how that bar bends around the pet streams of their constituents. And Class A and Class B streams don't always remain the classes they are when they were surveyed. What happens when a population crashes? Or the Class A survey was an anomaly of a year-class? If you don't believe the legislature would not have influence, how many of the hatcheries that the PFBC proposed to close a few years ago are now shuttered?

What I hear the PFBC at times saying is that stocking is not as detrimental to wild fish as some groups make it out to be. But even it is not as detrimental, if it is not helpful to wild fish populations, why not stop it? Manage with policies that enhance wild trout populations, not policies that hurt wild trout populations less. So what if it only means several thousand fish are freed up for restocking in urban areas? The wild fish in the streams that were invaded by those fish previously certainly weren't helped by the presence of those stockers. And maybe they won't catapult to Class A status with the cessation of stocking, but at least one pressure (other piscavore competition) and maybe a second (angling) would be reduced.

The wilderness discussion is a bit of a distraction from the underlying issues. While I prefer to fish in more remote locations, I've had enjoyable angling standing a foot away from a brick factory building, on a stream that probably has a higher biomass of fish than most "wilderness" streams. Face it, there simply are not that many "remote, natural and unspoiled environment where man's disruptive activities are minimized" in Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth is a recovering industrial land mass. "Wilderness" in PA is a marketing strategy, not a management strategy, although certainly streams that qualify for "Wilderness" status likely makeup a subset of quality coldwater fisheries, alongside many suburban, rural, and pastoral streams.

Loss of access because a stream stops being stocked? Are we advocating for the cessation of stocking over native or wild fish populations for the benefit of the fish or the benefit of the angler? If we lose access to streams (i.e. we can't fish there anymore), but the fish biomass increases or the range expands in that stream or watershed, is that a good or a bad thing?

 

[troutbert]

salmonoid wrote:

The wilderness discussion is a bit of a distraction from the underlying issues.

I agree. And there are many ways to get distracted.

The original point was that if and when we get serious about brook trout populations, we will quit stocking hatchery trout over native brook trout.

The potential brook trout population gains from this are substantial because there is a very large mileage of streams where this is done, by the PFBC and coop hatcheries.

Even the freeing up of hatchery fish for stocking elsewhere is a secondary thing. A nice benefit, but not at the heart of the matter.

 

[jifigz]

troutbert wrote:

jifigz wrote:
One thing I do like about that list is that they list the biomass class. I'm sure that those samplings are quite outdated but it is cool to see streams that I've fished and see what they are classified as. An example of how the list could be expanded, however, is if Cherry Run (Penns Trib) is listed as a wilderness stream then how is Spectacle Run (Mifflin/Juniata counties) not listed? It is obvious this "program" never received much attention from the get-go.

There is a road right along nearly all of Spectacle Run.

The only section of Cherry Run (Penns) that is listed as Wilderness is the headwater roadless section. Not the section with the road along it.

I didn't take notice to the small section that was listed for Cherry. The vast majority of Cherry Run has a road along it so I assumed since that qualified that Spectacle should as well. But you are right this is a bit off topic.

On a side note before I let this go as Swattie mentioned Honey Creek in a previous post. Upper Honey has to be one of the poorest brook trout streams in Mifflin County. Just my opinion but I deem that stream as basically unfishable compared to the other brookie streams in the county.

 

[afishinado]

Setting a bar doesn't preclude legislators from influencing how that bar bends around the pet streams of their constituents. And Class A and Class B streams don't always remain the classes they are when they were surveyed. What happens when a population crashes? Or the Class A survey was an anomaly of a year-class? If you don't believe the legislature would not have influence, how many of the hatcheries that the PFBC proposed to close a few years ago are now shuttered?

What I hear the PFBC at times saying is that stocking is not as detrimental to wild fish as some groups make it out to be. But even it is not as detrimental, if it is not helpful to wild fish populations, why not stop it? Manage with policies that enhance wild trout populations, not policies that hurt wild trout populations less. So what if it only means several thousand fish are freed up for restocking in urban areas? The wild fish in the streams that were invaded by those fish previously certainly weren't helped by the presence of those stockers. And maybe they won't catapult to Class A status with the cessation of stocking, but at least one pressure (other piscavore competition) and maybe a second (angling) would be reduced.

The wilderness discussion is a bit of a distraction from the underlying issues. While I prefer to fish in more remote locations, I've had enjoyable angling standing a foot away from a brick factory building, on a stream that probably has a higher biomass of fish than most "wilderness" streams. Face it, there simply are not that many "remote, natural and unspoiled environment where man's disruptive activities are minimized" in Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth is a recovering industrial land mass. "Wilderness" in PA is a marketing strategy, not a management strategy, although certainly streams that qualify for "Wilderness" status likely makeup a subset of quality coldwater fisheries, alongside many suburban, rural, and pastoral streams.

Loss of access because a stream stops being stocked? Are we advocating for the cessation of stocking over native or wild fish populations for the benefit of the fish or the benefit of the angler? If we lose access to streams (i.e. we can't fish there anymore), but the fish biomass increases or the range expands in that stream or watershed, is that a good or a bad thing?

I agree with your entire post.....good stuff.

The one thing we must all realize, the PFBC exists both to protect and conserve our water resources and to serve the license buying angler!

Many (most?) trout anglers prefer to fish for larger, more concentrated and easily caught fish, aka stocked trout. In order for the FBC to change their stocking protocol, they must sell the idea or at least make it palatable to their customers, the license buying anglers.

A slight shift from stocking wild and native trout streams to streams without an appreciable wild population of fish is the best we can hope for at this time.

As the wild trout populations increase (hopefully) from better water quality primarily, as well as less pressure from anglers and introduced fish, less and less streams will need to be stocked for anglers to have decent fishing experience.

We can do both: protect our water resources and as well, everyone can have some good fishin'; whether one prefers to fish in a wild trout stream, or a well-stocked stream close to home.