Write to support new wild trout and class A stream listings

[silverfox]

PFBC has two new lists of stream classification changes open for public comment.

The Class A additions: https://www.fishandboat.com/About-Us/Pages/Regulatory-Changes.aspx#ClassAOctober2023

Wild trout additions: https://www.fishandboat.com/About-Us/Pages/Regulatory-Changes.aspx#WildtroutOctober2023

You can submit comments via email: RA-pfbcregulations@pa.gov

Note that there is an error on the proposed regulations page that incorrectly states that the list is for the "wilderness trout streams" list. (NOTICE - Classification of Wilderness Trout Streams; Proposed Additions; October 2023). These are wild trout stream classifications, not additions to the wilderness trout stream list.

 

[Mike]

Class A list: Note that one is Baker Run, Clinton Co, a stocked trout stream (received two stockings in 2023…all RT). Correct me if I’m wrong, but weren’t some of you familiar with the stream discussing this stream within the past year in a thread concerning poor access for stocking, wild trout species present, etc? If so, this is your chance to support a Class A designation and press for a removal from the STW program (due to a Class A proposed designation) in writing when it actually counts.

Wild Trout list: At the very bottom is one extension of a wild trout designation downstream from the previously designated stretch. The proposal, based on a recent survey, is to extend the Paunacussing Ck, Bucks Co wild trout limit downstream to the mouth (confluence w/Delaware R). Our original survey was in about 2008 in which we found wild BT, but only in a relatively short stretch. The extension would be about 2.3 mi. It appears to be another case of a stream getting cooler and the wild trout population expanding in warm SE Pa despite climate change.

 

[silverfox]

Since we're already back to having a new batch of Class A and WT classifications up for consideration (time flies), I think it's worth mentioning that these should never be controversial, regardless of stocking (public or private).

A stream section's biomass is whatever it is based on surveys. Frankly, the commissioners shouldn't even have the opportunity to "vote" on this, and certainly, public input shouldn't impact whether a stream is listed/reclassified. It shouldn't be up for debate at all.

I still don't understand why this process (voting on classification) exists. It only opens up what should be a straightforward process to unnecessary drama.

 

[Roofin' Trouter]

PFBC has two new lists of stream classification changes open for public comment.

The Class A additions: https://www.fishandboat.com/About-Us/Pages/Regulatory-Changes.aspx#ClassAOctober2023

Wild trout additions: https://www.fishandboat.com/About-Us/Pages/Regulatory-Changes.aspx#WildtroutOctober2023

You can submit comments via email: RA-pfbcregulations@pa.gov

Note that there is an error on the proposed regulations page that incorrectly states that the list is for the "wilderness trout streams" list. (NOTICE - Classification of Wilderness Trout Streams; Proposed Additions; October 2023). These are wild trout stream classifications, not additions to the wilderness trout stream list.

Thanks. In a earlier thread I asked about which cricks were getting moved to Class A from STW.. EB and WB Cowley Run( Sizerville SP), Hyner Run, and Baker Run were all STW. Am I missing any?
I've fished the E and W Cowley Run for over 40 years and I'm really kind of surprised to see that the brook trout biomass was that low. There was a higher ST biomass found on East Cowley(swimming pool) than West Cowley (campground).. Could campgrounds be an area where harvest is greater and if so could that be affecting the numbers.? I had heard those two cricks and Big Nelson Run( campgrounds stocked by EF Sportsmen co-op) were on the list to be surveyed this year.
I read a stream assessment of Cowley Run and Sinnemahoning Portage done after the train derailment 15-20 years ago that outlined impairments caused by culverts, gabion fencing, and jack dams thru the park that are still there.
How much public comment will be opposing this ( Cowley Branches), if I could ask you to speculate? They don't flow through a town. Too my knowledge no co-op stocking or kid's derbies.

 

[silverfox]

Thanks. In a earlier thread I asked about which cricks were getting moved to Class A from STW.. EB and WB Cowley Run( Sizerville SP), Hyner Run, and Baker Run were all STW. Am I missing any?
I've fished the E and W Cowley Run for over 40 years and I'm really kind of surprised to see that the brook trout biomass was that low. There was a higher ST biomass found on East Cowley(swimming pool) than West Cowley (campground).. Could campgrounds be an area where harvest is greater and if so could that be affecting the numbers.? I had heard those two cricks and Big Nelson Run( campgrounds stocked by EF Sportsmen co-op) were on the list to be surveyed this year.
I read a stream assessment of Cowley Run and Sinnemahoning Portage done after the train derailment 15-20 years ago that outlined impairments caused by culverts, gabion fencing, and jack dams thru the park that are still there.
How much public comment will be opposing this ( Cowley Branches), if I could ask you to speculate? They don't flow through a town. Too my knowledge no co-op stocking or kid's derbies.

Great questions.

I'm not a fan of the section-based management/classification. Unless they're surveying the same reaches during multiple seasons. It seems like most of the surveys I've seen happen in summer. That could impact what is found in certain reaches. If you fished the lower end of W Cowley in mid spring, you might catch a bunch of brook trout, then in late summer catch none. Not because they're gone, it's just that they moved upstream for colder water. That's just a hunch/example.

I don't know how much opposition this will receive, but I know there are some folks who hate the idea of losing a single mile of stocked trout water regardless of who stocks it. Opposition might be less if there's no co-op/sportsman's club involved.

Again, it's crazy to me that this is even up for debate. It's like a doctor telling you that you have cancer and then going on Facebook and taking a poll of how many of your friends think you have cancer and deciding whether you do or don't based on the poll rather than the doctor's assessment.

 

[Roofin' Trouter]

Great questions.

I'm not a fan of the section-based management/classification. Unless they're surveying the same reaches during multiple seasons. It seems like most of the surveys I've seen happen in summer. That could impact what is found in certain reaches. If you fished the lower end of W Cowley in mid spring, you might catch a bunch of brook trout, then in late summer catch none. Not because they're gone, it's just that they moved upstream for colder water. That's just a hunch/example.

I don't know how much opposition this will receive, but I know there are some folks who hate the idea of losing a single mile of stocked trout water regardless of who stocks it. Opposition might be less if there's no co-op/sportsman's club involved.

Again, it's crazy to me that this is even up for debate. It's like a doctor telling you that you have cancer and then going on Facebook and taking a poll of how many of your friends think you have cancer and deciding whether you do or don't based on the poll rather than the doctor's assessment.

I did my email in support of removal from STW. I suggested that in SPs to give the SP managers and biologists the resource of implementing special regs if populations start to decline. I also suggested a few destinations for the trout that would ve been dumped at those locations.
Yep, the surveys are only but a picture in time,usually a summer snap shot. Fish swim and they know when to skeedaddle and when to hunker down, looking for the right gravel,etc.
My other question/ comment on biomass is why are stocked trout not part of the equation? It takes them a little bit but they do learn to eat food that wild trout would end up consuming. So if stockers are holding over, wouldnt that affect wild trout biomass?
What are your thoughts on leaving public comment of potential destinations for the fish that would've got put there? I ask because the fish allocated will get stocked somewhere else is the way it has happened before. I can think of a few " fake lakes" within 45 minutes that are among the first to freeze and ice fisherman love to eat the catch.
Yes, it is crazy that it is debatable. Either it meets the numbers or it doesnt. Did I read that there will be/ are two new commissioners?

 

[troutbert]

What are your thoughts on leaving public comment of potential destinations for the fish that would've got put there? I ask because the fish allocated will get stocked somewhere else is the way it has happened before. I can think of a few " fake lakes" within 45 minutes that are among the first to freeze and ice fisherman love to eat the catch.
Yes, it is crazy that it is debatable. Either it meets the numbers or it doesnt. Did I read that there will be/ are two new commissioners?

Suggesting alternative locations to stock those hatchery trout seems like a good idea to me. It's like chicken soup, it can't hurt!

It is offering a reasonable, practical alternative.

 

[silverfox]

My other question/ comment on biomass is why are stocked trout not part of the equation? It takes them a little bit but they do learn to eat food that wild trout would end up consuming. So if stockers are holding over, wouldnt that affect wild trout biomass?

Some folks think that's the case.

 

[troutbert]

My other question/ comment on biomass is why are stocked trout not part of the equation? It takes them a little bit but they do learn to eat food that wild trout would end up consuming. So if stockers are holding over, wouldnt that affect wild trout biomass?

The reason the Fish Commission has taken some wild trout streams off the stocking list was because they knew that stocking hatchery trout over wild trout hurts wild trout populations.

The reason they've drawn the line at Class A populations is simply to avoid greater backlash if they also ended stocking on Class B and Class C population streams.

 

[Fish Sticks]

It would sound ludicrous to many but people who buy a trout stamp could be simply eligible to go to a hatchery and be able to catch their limit there instead of having to pollute streams with them. That’s essentially what limestone springs, rainbow paradise and many other pay for play private hatcheries do in PA.

How much less “natural” does it feel than catching rubber trout raised in a concrete raceway that don’t know how to be a fish and were dropped off and stranded in the woods?

The things dang near swim towards you and associate you with them getting lunch either way when their freshly stocked.

 

[Mike]

How much less “natural” does it feel than catching rubber trout raised in a concrete raceway that don’t know how to be a fish and were dropped off and stranded in the woods?

I don’t know; the catch rates for wild trout in the statewide angler use and harvest study were much higher by a long shot than those of the similar stocked trout angler use and harvest studies.

 

[silverfox]

The reason they've drawn the line at Class A populations is simply to avoid greater backlash if they also ended stocking on Class B and Class C population streams.

That's the difference between the folks in Montana and the folks in PA. Montana faced enormous backlash (Vincent says in the video I posted that their work trailer was vandalized) and did what they knew was right anyway. They put the resources over their (and their political handlers') jobs and public image.

Fast forward to today, and the public would be equally (if not more) outraged if Montana announced they would start stocking flowing waters again.

People don't like change. Whether they sacrifice natural resources to avoid that temporary backlash or accept the temporary backlash for the sake of the resources is what defines an agency.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I don’t know; the catch rates for wild trout in the statewide angler use and harvest study were much higher by a long shot than those of the similar stocked trout angler use and harvest studies.

What isn't to know?
So it seems less natural because you catch less fish because they don't know how to act natural.
Also, they suppress wild trout numbers and abundance , eat up good habitat and bring disease in some cases.
Seems like even more reason not to stock wild trout waters.

 

[Mike]

Well, I didn’t say anything about not stocking wild trout waters and, in fact, if you have been reading my comments thoroughly, you would know that I am not a big fan of stocking ST streams and was the first in the agency as far as I know to recommend against it once PFBC data were analyzed pre 2002 Trout Summit. (addendum: Obviously, I meant where habitat seemed suitable to support more wild ST).

Saying they suppress wild trout numbers is a bit of a stretch, however. What is known in most cases is that the attendant harvest (by-catch) of wild trout has been the primary culprit, if not the exclusive one. For example, I stocked the living H out of Codorus Ck and its depressed wild BT pop immediately following transition to a DH Area using the prescribed rate for DH Areas at the time. Wild BT pop went from a D or low C at the time under statewide regs and stocking rates to well beyond the minimum (over twice the minimum) for Class A in 2-3 yrs despite the stocking of 300 trout per acre annually and primarily C&R fishing in the section. There were more stocked fish than most streams now receive and because of C&R being required for much of the year there were many more stocked fish present for a much longer time than if the stream had been a regular stocked trout water under statewide regs. Additionally, Idaho ran an experiment (published) in which they stocked RT over a good wild RT population. No changes occurred in the metrics associated with that wild trout population.

Finally, if anglers don’t fish for stocked trout in a sloppy way that would make them less skillful as wild trout anglers, they can improve their approaches and casting techniques quite readily in stocked trout streams. Furthermore, based on what I have frequently read, some wild trout anglers are not so “above” the common stocked trout angler because they often pass over the tough habitat, choosing to fish the pools. No wonder they think there is overharvest. Lots of fish inhabit structure that some fly anglers apparently by-pass. This behavior reminds me of stocked trout anglers who only fish the direct stocking points.

None of this,however, takes away from the general tone of my first paragraph in #2 above. I commented on Baker Run, but others pointed out that Hyner and two of the other streams up for Class A consideration are also stocked. If all of these stream sections up for Class A consideration are actually the stocked sections, then at face value given their locations, I would favor removal of each from the stocking program. They certainly aren’t urban waters and northcentral Pa is certainly not understocked.

 

[rrt]

Mike -- Common wisdom over the years is that placing hatchery fish in wild trout streams displaced the wild trout, with the stocked fish, which are often larger than wild ones, displacing the wild fish from favorable lies and probably causing the smaller wild trout to starve and lower their numbers. (I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think Larry Jackson was one who suggested this.) Anyhow, on some of the streams where stocking ended during Operation FUTURE, the population of wild trout increased dramatically.

I also have read what you said: that more wild trout were harvested when streams were stocked and the anglers did not practice catch-and-release fishing, which obviously caused lower numbers of trout.

Might it not be a combination of the two factors?

 

[Mike]

Mike -- Common wisdom over the years is that placing hatchery fish in wild trout streams displaced the wild trout, with the stocked fish, which are often larger than wild ones, displacing the wild fish from favorable lies and probably causing the smaller wild trout to starve and lower their numbers. (I'm not 100% sure about this, but I think Larry Jackson was one who suggested this.) Anyhow, on some of the streams where stocking ended during Operation FUTURE, the population of wild trout increased dramatically.

I also have read what you said: that more wild trout were harvested when streams were stocked and the anglers did not practice catch-and-release fishing, which obviously caused lower numbers of trout.

Might it not be a combination of the two factors?

That’s a good point and it might be as you say in some number of cases. I would never say absolutely not and that’s why I chose my words carefully by stating “primary culprit.” Plus, as you suggested, competition among trout is largely size-based, although there are some other factors that I won’t get into here.

Impacts might also be species specific and stream or stream type (limestone vs freestone) specific. I would add that I’m quite familiar with the Bachman BT study, for example, and the competitive interactions. His advisor was my graduate level Fish Behavior instructor and my mentor at PSU at the time that Bob was doing his research.

I’ve commented in the past on the improvement in the majority of ST populations upon stocking termination in stream sections from which data were available at the time of the Trout Summit. In fact, a summary of that is still on the PFBC web site. Likewise, but in contrast, I also presented the data at that time on wild brown trout population responses to cessation of stocking and the results were that about half of the streams showed increases, half decreases, and a smattering showed no responses. Limestoner responses differed somewhat from freestone responses.

I would add that in some unknown number of cases any direct impact of stocking on wild fish survival through competitive interactions or predation may be naturally compensated for, just as occurs with typical levels of angler harvest to a substantial degree, by increased growth and survival of remaining wild fish, such that at the population level no impact is noted over the long term.

 

[rrt]

Mike -- Thank you. I guess I only knew about the streams where the populations increased. I didn't (and really still don't) know about the ones where the trout populations decreased. That they did decrease in half the streams is pretty sad.

Thanks again.

 

[silverfox]

I’ve commented in the past on the improvement in the majority of ST populations upon stocking termination in stream sections from which data were available at the time of the Trout Summit. In fact, a summary of that is still on the PFBC web site. Likewise, but in contrast, I also presented the data at that time on wild brown trout population responses to cessation of stocking and the results were that about half of the streams showed increases, half decreases, and a smattering showed no responses. Limestoner responses differed somewhat from freestone responses.

This is somewhat what I was getting at in the ill-fated Bob's Creek thread.

I think, in some cases, it's a triple, quadruple, or even quintuple whammy on ST populations. i.e.

• Increased pressure/harvest
• competition/*disease (with hatchery fish) *less of an issue now with less/no ST stocking in ST streams.
• habitat manipulation
• competition (with wild nonnative fish)
• water quality

Then in some cases, it might just be one or two of the above factors. This might somewhat explain the variation in the results of the cessation of stocking.

All of this is why I've suggested that stocking low biomass ST streams isn't "justified" in my mind. I personally feel it is more likely that stocking may have a greater impact on those populations than not. i.e., that added stress may be exponentially higher in combination w/ other factors which result in lower biomass in the first place.