Wild Trout (trout camps 2.0)

[Swattie87]

Which gets at one of my other sticking points. Is fish management in PA a direct democracy? Should it be?

Probably not. I agree, conservation should be prioritized, with conservation of native species being prioritized first.

But, that’s in an ideal world. In the real world in PA right now, the PFBC, given how it is funded, is serving its constituents (license buyers). The majority of which, when it comes to Trout angling, are still advocating for a stocked Trout “Opening Day” type angling experience.

I sincerely think the PFBC understands what is best from a conservation perspective. Maybe not the nitty gritty details, just like we’re discussing to death here, but the big stuff. I think their current MO is one of attempted balance…Don’t **** off the majority (stocker fans), and drop enough crumbs to appease us, and keep our agenda at least on the table. We need to shoot for bigger crumbs right now, and go from there. Again, real world in PA right now.

 

[pcray1231]

But, that’s in an ideal world. In the real world in PA right now, the PFBC, given how it is funded, is serving its constituents (license buyers). The majority of which, when it comes to Trout angling, are still advocating for a stocked Trout “Opening Day” type angling experience.

Everything I said, and many of us are saying, really is that they need to take less of a reactive and more of a leadership, visionary role.

Instead of "we're doing what people want" it should be "we're showing people what they should want, and they will, they just don't know it yet."

And you actually can do that without pissing too many people off. It's PR, messaging. Those guys with the camp that want their hole stocked, you can still stock it. Have a ball boys.

Instead of highlighting that stocking truck, highlight the barrier and removal work, advertise the shining city on a hill up on public land. Every picture on your website should be a big, beautiful, WILD fish, or backgrounds of the natural reproduction map, etc. In Pennsylvania Angler, avoid all articles about fishing for stocked fish, and make it all about wild fish (brookies and browns), with blurbs and ads about brook trout project work. Make facebook posts saying, "wanna get away from the crowds and the stocking truck, try searching out one of Pennsylvania's 3000 wild trout streams!" or "did you know that wild trout in Pennsylvania outnumber stocked trout 10 to 1?" or whatever the number is. When a newspaper interviews a WCO for an opening day of trout season blurb, have him mention all of the non-stocked, wild trout waters in that area.

It's PR!

 

[Fish Sticks]

Everything I said, and many of us are saying, really is that they need to take less of a reactive and more of a leadership, visionary role.

Instead of "we're doing what people want" it should be "we're showing people what they should want, and they will, they just don't know it yet."

And you actually can do that without pissing too many people off. It's PR, messaging. Those guys with the camp that want their hole stocked, you can still stock it. Have a ball boys.

Instead of highlighting that stocking truck, highlight the barrier and removal work, advertise the shining city on a hill up on public land. Every picture on your website should be a big, beautiful, WILD fish, or backgrounds of the natural reproduction map, etc. In Pennsylvania Angler, avoid all articles about fishing for stocked fish, and make it all about wild fish (brookies and browns), with blurbs and ads about brook trout project work. Make facebook posts saying, "wanna get away from the crowds and the stocking truck, try searching out one of Pennsylvania's 3000 wild trout streams!" or "did you know that wild trout in Pennsylvania outnumber stocked trout 10 to 1?" or whatever the number is. When a newspaper interviews a WCO for an opening day of trout season blurb, have him mention all of the non-stocked, wild trout waters in that area.

It's PR!

Messaging is and has been a huge isue at the PA fish and boat comission.

Taking kids to tour the palamino hatchery instead of any number of brook trout streams, have an event in Ole Bull, BiG spring where the brook trout are all on display in the ditch. If your going to take the time to offer a filmed tour of aometbing to kids and post on your social media pick literally ANYTHING else than a hatchery.

Social media posts about wild native brook trout can count on one hand in past few years. Thats an issue

They post about dangers of AIS/ NZ mudsnails and then open a few fish up to check, clean some raceways and stock trout that only require one asexually producing snail in their stomach to seed a new waterway and continue to produce stocked fish in two hatcheries where re contamination at somepoint is likey. All for the sake of stocming an invasive species over brook trout……..that could be carrying another one inside of it. Its like the movie inception or AIS squared. But you should take every precaution not to spread AIS according to them(which is true, you really should. their just not truly practicing what they preach by prioritizing the stocked invasive species over risk of spread)

Me and silver fox have harped on the W.A.P to death and that i stead of any removal(which we are not really even talking about for vast majority of streams) they are stocking(the opposite). If thats not a messaging problem what is?

Your right Pat its messaging and PR is exactly why the PA climate swatty describes is the way it is. I am actually convinced there is a small amount of anglers in this state that are actually not aware a trout can come from anywhere but a white truck or hatchery.

 

[RLeep2]

They didn't give the sampling sites by name, but given what I know about the area, most of the brookie sites were probably in the Brokenstraw drainage. Oil and French drainages are pretty devoid of brook trout. Oil has a few on the far eastern edge.

I'll dissent from this, especially the part about the Oil and French Creek drainages being "pretty devoid" of brook trout. It may seem logical to suggest that the majority of wild ST pops would be in the Brokenstraw drainage because of higher gradients and higher percentages of forestation as you go east, but this misses an equally potent predictor of viable ST populations (at least in this area of PA): the "Alder Hell"/wetlands with strong spring input type of streams. The middle Oil Creek drainage is rich in this stream type and most, so far as I know, are strongly dominated by brook trout and perhaps even achieve the magical "allopatric". In addition, the state park section of Oil Creek hosts a pretty fair number of virtually all brook trout tribs.

The "Alder Hell" stream type is also a notable producer of wild ST in the French Creek drainage, if somewhat spotty in coverage. The upper South Branch (above Union City) has several of these streams, including two ST Class A's. Perhaps the most potent ST watershed in the entire three drainage study area is Sugar Creek, a subbasin of French Creek The upper third of the main stem of Sugarand probably half or more of the tribs are "Alder Hells" and at least decent brook trout fisheries. Then as French Creek traverses the final dozen or so miles to its junction with the Allegheny, there are also a good number of small ST streams more of the conventional, higher gradient/forested variety.

Actually, it wouldn't surprise me if the best ST waters in the Brokenstraw drainage are also "Alder Hell" type streams in the greater Spring Creek drainage. It is almost all completely posted these days, but the Whitney Run watershed in particular had several strong brook trout streams (for the region).

If I were a betting man, I'd bet that the French Creek watershed probably has more streams that produce wild ST than either of the the other two simply as a function of length and numbers of tribs with potential.

My two cents, anyway...

 

[streamerguy]

I second what RLeep2 said, at least regarding French and Oil (I have very little experience in the Brokenstraw watershed).

Messaging is definitely a big issue with the PFBC. It's been gradually getting better on the anglers' part via social media and such, especially in recent years, but if we're ever going to see a significant culture shift in the general trout angling community (especially the opening day crowd and casual "a couple times a year" anglers) the PFBC is definitely going to have to play a MUCH bigger role than they have been. Pcray1231 hit it spot on with his last paragraph. That's exactly what the PFBC needs to do.

Back on the topic of chemical reclamation...
My knowledge on such projects is limited to the little news articles that come out. When they start these projects, do they shock X amount of each of the other fish species (various dace, chubs, shiners, sculpin, etc.), place them in holding tanks at a hatchery somewhere, and re-stock them as well? Can't remember if crayfish and other stuff is impacted too, but if they are, them too....
I understand that the insects repopulate on their own fairly quickly from what I've read.

Sure there are some streams, especially high elevation ones in the Rockies, where the only fish species are Salmonids, so it's not as much of an issue at those locations. Though in most streams that is not the case.

I'd imagine that's why many people are or would be against such tactics. Maybe they do take all the measures to preserve the other fish species populations, though it certainly isn't mentioned in the articles (or at least the ones I've read). If they indeed do it it's important that it's mentioned, if they want any type of support, if public comment has any role in the decision.

 

[troutbert]

There is still very widespread stocking over streams with native brook trout populations.

Talking about poisoning streams and taking PIne Creek off the stocking list will not help end stocking on streams with Class B brookie or Class B mixed brookie/brown populations.

And it's likely to actually HURT our prospects of making progress.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

There is still very widespread stocking over streams with native brook trout populations.

Talking about poisoning streams and taking PIne Creek off the stocking list will not help end stocking on streams with Class B brookie or Class B mixed brookie/brown populations.

And it's likely to actually HURT our prospects of making progress.

Agree 100%.

If the goal is to end stocking on brook trout streams then identify those remaining streams and make a push to remove them from the stocking schedule.

 

[Mike]

Agree 100%.

If the goal is to end stocking on brook trout streams then identify those remaining streams and make a push to remove them from the stocking schedule.

Remove the stream sections with documented low opening day use counts in Pa regardless of the fish community composition. It is possible, maybe even probable, that some are wild ST stream sections. These should be low hanging fruit and no-brainers for removal, but you’ll most likely get an education on the strength of resistance to even such practical and economically wise changes.

 

[TimMurphy]

Remove the stream sections with documented low opening day use counts in Pa regardless of the fish community composition. It is possible, maybe even probable, that some are wild ST stream sections. These should be low hanging fruit and no-brainers for removal, but you’ll most likely get an education on the strength of resistance to even such practical and economically wise changes.

Dear Mike,

The traditional angler and their desire are the main issue. I'm sure you know all too well the pressure that the State legislature puts on the PA Fish and Boat Commision when changes are proposed.

The Commission is self-funding, but that doesn't stop the legislature from exerting pressure on the management hierarchy of the commission. Because of the way the system works in PA things are extremely difficult to change. It has frustrated me for my lifetime and will never change.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[wildtrout2]

Agree 100%.

If the goal is to end stocking on brook trout streams then identify those remaining streams and make a push to remove them from the stocking schedule.

One of them should be Drakes Creek (Carbon). A real small creek, but it's got natives. It's pretty tough to access in a lot of spots, and I rarely see anybody fishing it.

 

[silverfox]

Agree 100%.

If the goal is to end stocking on brook trout streams then identify those remaining streams and make a push to remove them from the stocking schedule.

It would be great if there was a way for us common folk to understand species composition in the blue lines. That way, we could find and focus on those streams based on actual data rather than what anglers perceive to be the case.

Dear Mike,

The traditional angler and their desire are the main issue. I'm sure you know all too well the pressure that the State legislature puts on the PA Fish and Boat Commision when changes are proposed.

The Commission is self-funding, but that doesn't stop the legislature from exerting pressure on the management hierarchy of the commission. Because of the way the system works in PA things are extremely difficult to change. It has frustrated me for my lifetime and will never change.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

I understand the frustration. Once again, you're getting at really fundamental issues here that are overlooked when we limit the discussion to single-issue topics like stocking over wild trout, which is a valid issue but is a symptom rather than the cause (IMO).

As with the executive branch agencies at the federal level, PFBC is granted authority to make regulations and policies within the mandated scope of its responsibility. The whole reason this type of structure was made was to insulate it from political interference. The only things that are supposed to impact its actions are its mission and public input (not via political lobbying). If the agency is being influenced by "politics," then we might as well abolish it and return the responsibility to the legislature so it can properly function as a political tool. That's not the answer.

Look at the EPA. Imagine if the EPA was influenced by politics. ACME industries could lobby the EPA to ignore the toxicity of the chemicals they produce. There have been attempts (a lot of them) to influence executive branch agencies, and it typically results in investigations and legislative action to prevent any further meddling in the agency.

Here, I keep hearing these tales of politics driving the bus at PFBC. I certainly hope that's not true. Think of how badly things could go if you based natural resource management on the amount of money some politician receives for a campaign. Insert analogies about the PGC stocking Bengal tigers in Potter county etc.

I believe the issue is a little "simpler," though. PFBC's mandate is to "manage" Pennsylvania’s fisheries resources and to regulate recreational fishing and boating. There are some innate conflicts within that mission. It implies that the agency has to balance conservation and social entertainment. Two directives with opposing goals in some cases. Then factor in that the agency is self-funded (as you mentioned), which introduces supply & demand economics into the equation, further complicating their ability to perform conservation duties effectively. So changing direction has to be extremely difficult for PFBC.

All of that I can excuse, and I really am sympathetic to the situation there. The relative rate at which our state agency is changing and adapting (relative to brook trout specifically) compared to all the other states is the issue for me. It is Pennsylvania, after all, though. We're not exactly known as leaders regarding policy change across the board. I appreciate pragmatism, but not to the point it causes inaction while others are moving ahead.

 

[pcray1231]

Remove the stream sections with documented low opening day use counts in Pa regardless of the fish community composition

Disagree strongly.

Stocking only already crowded areas is already a trend and a major problem. It concentrates pressure even more, and leads to the idea that trout fishing is a shoulder to shoulder, put em in and yank em out affair.

Whether wild fish are present must be taken into account.

Where there are no wild fish, and we agree stocking is ok, the goal should be to spread the fish, and fisherman out as much as possible. Not a huge number in the bridge pool. But an even number of fish over the full stocking lengths. You want anglers to wonder away from the road and still have success. You want to approximate a more natural, wild experience. Anglers in time lose the "I wanna yank out my 5 and leave" mentality and start to seek that out, and you want to encourage that, encourage more to do that, and not disgust them with the crowd scene. Those are anglers on the progression to wild trout.

The scene where you have large crowds over a small area because there's a bunch of fish there and nowhere else. Thats exactly what you want to avoid. That you want to discourage people from. That you wanna teach em another way.

Agree with removing stream sections with wild trout, even if it is below class A, where possible. But if its gotta remain on the stocking list, spread em out. Destroy the bathtub, circus scene, we want to kill that and stomp on its heart, that isnt what fishing is and we dont want to teach that. Make people search and wonder away from roads. Make people fish, thats how you make fishermen. Make it as natural as you can.

A lot of casual anglers quit buying licenses because they feel the only way to be successful is to fish crowded areas, and they want nothing to do with that scene.

 

[Stenonema]

https://easternbrooktrout.org/science-data/science-publications/evaluating-the-trade-offs-between-invasion-and-isolation-for-native-brook-trout-and-nonnative-brown-trout-in-pennsylvania-streams

In Paradise Valley there are a number of small wild trout streams that run into the Yellowstone river. These streams are dewatered for irrigation in the lower ends. The entire stream is diverted. The streamed is dry. This is obviously done for different reasons than protection of native species from invasion but it is entirely effective. If we are to only consider the effectiveness of our impact to correct the imbalance of preferred species into the equation without concern it is an effective option. Quite a nuclear option it is but just for the sake of conversation.

I also read the study. Everything I read points directly to brown trout, not stocked trout. I wonder if all the stream miles identified were wild brown trout or stocked brown trout and what about rainbow trout?.

 

[Stenonema]

Remove the stream sections with documented low opening day use counts in Pa regardless of the fish community composition. It is possible, maybe even probable, that some are wild ST stream sections. These should be low hanging fruit and no-brainers for removal, but you’ll most likely get an education on the strength of resistance to even such practical and economically wise changes.

We need a sales pitch for the angling community prior to making change. A sales pitch that is attractive to the average or novice anglers as well as the devout wild trout anglers and conservationists. A few needs are being identified here.
1. A Sales Pitch. (scientific studies not yet done targeting the impact of stocking to wild trout.)
2. A salesman

 

[coyoterahn]

We need a sales pitch for the angling community prior to making change. A sales pitch that is attractive to the average or novice anglers as well as the devout wild trout anglers and conservationists. A few needs are being identified here.
1. A Sales Pitch. (scientific studies not yet done targeting the impact of stocking to wild trout.)
2. A salesman

Yea, a salesman with some stones and the authority to make it happen. Start with small steps and go from there. I’ll agree with Mike concerning starting on streams with low opening day use.

 

[Stenonema]

As I read all the comments to this great post I realize that I am just a Peckerwood who lives in the mountains with too many fly rods. I am not formally educated. My grammar is slack and I have difficulty expressing myself in this format. I have been active on this forum at random times. I am amazed by this conversation. It is rare that a community has so many passionate and enthusiastic amateurs. I found I agreed with virtually every comment on this thread.

 

[Stenonema]

Yea, a salesman with some stones and the authority to make it happen. Start with small steps and go from there. I’ll agree with Mike concerning starting on streams with low opening day use.

Me too. We gotta start somewhere and the least painless is the best for sure. Say we do and it is successful. That success must become part of the sales pitch. More anglers like it and more anglers want it. The momentum shifts and we are on our way to changing the culture from stocking to wild trout.

 

[jayxman]

The "Alder Hell" stream type is also a notable producer of wild ST in the French Creek drainage, if somewhat spotty in coverage.

I set up an account mainly because I was curious what Alder Hell was. What is it? It took me a minute to figure out that ST was brook trout. RT and BT was a no brainer, but I couldn't for the life of me think of what ST was.

 

[troutbert]

I set up an account mainly because I was curious what Alder Hell was. What is it? It took me a minute to figure out that ST was brook trout. RT and BT was a no brainer, but I couldn't for the life of me think of what ST was.

It's like a Rhododendron Hell, only with alders instead of rhododendron. A place that is so thick that it's very difficult to cast, or even walk.

 

[jayxman]

It's like a Rhododendron Hell, only with alders instead of rhododendron. A place that is so thick that it's very difficult to cast, or even walk.

Thanks. I was searching alder hell with no help 😂 I'm back on track to reread the above.