Your plan to end Stocking over Wild

[streamerguy]

My God that's brilliant..... Sponsored by Straubs

You know if they still tag trout up there? I know they used to.... would get a case of beer if you caught one of the tagged ones they stocked. Thought it was the best thing ever hahaha

 

[troutbert]

How to we make something like that happen?

How does the other side get their way?

Some years ago, the PFBC biologists proposed taking 63 Class B stream sections off the stocking list. The other side actively opposed that, and they won. The PFBC Commissioners listened to those people, and voted against it.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Oh, absolutely. And we shouldn't stop doing that stuff. But I'm talking about large-scale, statewide management changes. Small victories here and there are great and need to happen, though it's all just happening at a snail's pace. How do we make these large-scale trout stocking practice changes happen in our lifetimes?

Ending stocking on Class C's and above was proposed. That's a lot of water. I'd personally extend that to Class D's for brookies....since those fish are barely hanging on as it is. How to we make something like that happen?

public visibility of the issue to the constituency + demand accountability from legislators. The more the former increases to the more the latter succeeds. As the public awareness of this issue increases it becomes harder and harder to condone/continue PFBC’s financial waste thats bankrupting them and causing them to hog growing greener money in some instances. PFBC is essentially a failing business that has not adapted with the times. The only reason they have not gone the way of boscovs, J-penny, and blockbuster is their using your tax dollars to cover their losses from the hatchery program. Then ya add on that their hatchery program is essentially functioning as a tool of local stream by stream extirpation for brook trout in some cases.

If we get any significant amount of the public cognizant of whats going on it’s essentially impossible to defend. I am not saying it will eliminate all stocking but it will reform it and PFBC because financially this CANNOT continue.

 

[silverfox]

How does the other side get their way?

Some years ago, the PFBC biologists proposed taking 63 Class B stream sections off the stocking list. The other side actively opposed that, and they won. The PFBC Commissioners listened to those people, and voted against it.

Not a solution, and I guess I'm pointing out the obvious, but the single biggest problem with PFBC, which is projected into every single problem we identify, is that they're managing the state's aquatic resources based on the popularity of decisions by the largest demographic of license buyers rather than the resource.

Until they stop looking at everything through the lens of how it MIGHT impact license sales and start managing based on what's best for the resources, this will continue to be a losing affair for any demographic smaller than the majority.

 

[streamerguy]

How does the other side get their way?

Some years ago, the PFBC biologists proposed taking 63 Class B stream sections off the stocking list. The other side actively opposed that, and they won. The PFBC Commissioners listened to those people, and voted against it.

I suppose we need to figure that out.

How can we get biologists to make that proposal again? Maybe this time make it Class C?

Our comments, letters, emails, phone calls, and in-person discussions with the PFBC aren't resulting in such proposals in recent years.....even though many of us have been submitting our views to the PFBC.

 

[silverfox]

I suppose we need to figure that out.

How can we get biologists to make that proposal again? Maybe this time make it Class C?

Our comments, letters, emails, phone calls, and in-person discussions with the PFBC aren't resulting in such proposals in recent years.....even though many of us have been submitting our views to the PFBC.

On the recent private stocking reform change, the ag lobby and private stocking fans wiped the floor with "wild trout fans" regarding letter writing. See post #64. I believe it was something like 1,000 opposed to 2 or 300 in favor. I don't recall off the top of my head.

It's the right thing to do. That's why the staff proposed it. Instead, because of the uproar from people who don't want change, it's stalled, watered down, and defanged—the perfect case study for the whole issue.

 

[streamerguy]

Does anybody have any ideas on how to get the PFBC staff to propose the cessation of stocking on Class C and higher streams?

It seems like that's basically where we're at right now. That's the next step..... persuading the biologists to make such a proposition.

 

[joebamboo]

Personally, I believe that some people fishing for stocked trout aren’t really fishing for “trout”, they’re fishing for just another fish to eat. I don’t think they care if it’s a rainbow, brown, brook, etc, only if it tastes good. In Maryland, they don’t stock brook trout so the only ones here are wild/native or swim over from PA or WV, and frankly that has worked quite well. If they were to keep stocking, I guess they should only stock the parts of the state that don’t have any trout, or large and popular streams and stop stocking brook trout. That way, more fish stop getting wasted and the PFBC doesn’t have to go through the effort of stocking mountain streams. More fish are also concentrated for the people too, that way the meat anglers, urban fly fishers, and those who want to catch large stocked trout win, along with the brook trout.
This are just my thoughts though.

How dare anyone fishing for stocked trout!!! How dare they enjoy just getting out to the local streams and fishing for (oh the horror) "stocked trout. Get a life.

 

[silverfox]

Does anybody have any ideas on how to get the PFBC staff to propose the cessation of stocking on Class C and higher streams?

It seems like that's basically where we're at right now. That's the next step..... persuading the biologists to make such a proposition.

I suspect staff scopes the likelihood of something passing the commissioners before introducing it. They won't spend time writing recommendations they know won't pass the board. This brings us back to post #64 again. If what I said in #64 doesn't change, then the only other avenue is to get the plurality of anglers in PA on the same page.

 

[krayfish2]

Krayfish for president!

Krayfish for president!

What, the rest of the post was trash ?? 🤔

 

[streamerguy]

I suspect staff scopes the likelihood of something passing the commissioners before introducing it. They won't spend time writing recommendations they know won't pass the board. This brings us back to post #64 again.

So in other words, there is no hope. And it'll just be the status quo, and us beating our heads, continuing to submit comments resulting in no large-scale changes in stocking practices. 10 years from now brook trout will still be getting stocked over.

If what I said in #64 doesn't change, then the only other avenue is to get the plurality of anglers in PA on the same page.

Yeah......I don't see that ever happening, in a timely manner, that results in significant change.

It's just frustrating all around.

 

[streamerguy]

I suspect staff scopes the likelihood of something passing the commissioners before introducing it. They won't spend time writing recommendations they know won't pass the board.

I suspect the same. And that brings us to my earlier comment about PFBC staff stepping up and pushing for such changes. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. If that is the case, to me it shows that the PFBC staff doesn't genuinely care enough about the fisheries to push for something that isn't likely to pass. If they try hard enough, with the help of us anglers and conversationists, we may be able to get something done. But we won't know unless the PFBC puts in some effort in their end, if they aren't willing to do that, then it's a lost cause.

I understand that they have duties while on the clock, but how many PFBC staff members do you see pushing for management changes on their own time with the rest of us? I suppose it may be a way to get fired....idk.

There are moments I wish I went back to school to be a biologist... though I'd imagine I'd get kicked out fairly quick if I got a job with a state agency.

 

[Acristickid]

This is timely!

Does anyone get this magazine? I do not.

Did anyone on here write the article.?

Does anybody know who did?

I haven’t put enough serious thought in any kind of plan I think abolishing stocking is not gonna happen and just from my perspective if you’re around the Pittsburgh area, there would be holy hell to pay because there’s really no native trout within an hour or so. And yes I am aware of where they are. Nobody loves more native trout fishing than me but to be honest, I rarely even think about the brookie much since it’s not on my list.

 

[silverfox]

I suspect the same. And that brings us to my earlier comment about PFBC staff stepping up and pushing for such changes. You miss 100% of the shots you don't take. If that is the case, to me it shows that the PFBC staff doesn't genuinely care enough about the fisheries to push for something that isn't likely to pass. If they try hard enough, with the help of us anglers and conversationists, we may be able to get something done. But we won't know unless the PFBC puts in some effort in their end, if they aren't willing to do that, then it's a lost cause.

I understand that they have duties while on the clock, but how many PFBC staff members do you see pushing for management changes on their own time with the rest of us? I suppose it may be a way to get fired....idk.

There are moments I wish I went back to school to be a biologist... though I'd imagine I'd get kicked out fairly quick if I got a job with a state agency.

What's shocking to me is that this isn't how things are done in other states. Nobody lobbied Maryland DNR to do any of the things they've done.

Agencies like PFBC aren't supposed to function like a representative democracy. They're not supposed to be influenced by politics or anything else. So this really shouldn't be about what anglers or the general public have to do to get the agency to do whats right. They're supposed to do it on their own with no prodding. If they were a federal agency like the EPA, SCOTUS would have put a stop to this decades ago.

This is the result of a few things. #1, they're almost entirely self-funded, so they're focused on what generates money rather than conservation. #2, they have a large board of commissioners who has to vote on darn near everything. Those appointees aren't supposed to be influenced by anyone. The way the agency is structured isn't designed with a fair mechanism in place to allow for influence and there shouldn't be.

 

[Fish Sticks]

This is timely!

Does anyone get this magazine? I do not.

Did anyone on here write the article.?

Does anybody know who did?

I haven’t put enough serious thought in any kind of plan I think abolishing stocking is not gonna happen and just from my perspective if you’re around the Pittsburgh area, there would be holy hell to pay because there’s really no native trout within an hour or so. And yes I am aware of where they are. Nobody loves more native trout fishing than me but to be honest, I rarely even think about the brookie much since it’s not on my list.

I wrote the article, i hope you enjoy

 

[flyguyfishing]

#1, they're almost entirely self-funded, so they're focused on what generates money rather than conservation.

This.

To reduce stocking of some streams (over brookies), one would need to name specific streams. Not paint with broad strokes like all ClassA or B. Specific streams. Then, you would need to demonstrate the reduction in stocking of those streams would not lead to reduction of revenue from license sales.

I would start by asking - in a sympathetic manner - for all data related to license sales and stocking. (With PII removed). Complete data, not summarized reports in annual reports. Including surveys about angler fishing habits especially -with some location data.

Then analyze the data with goal of identifying specific streams to reduce stocking.

There is a middle ground to be found. Some wild streams may need to continue stocking.


Either that or change the structure of funding for PFBC by legislation in Harrisburg.

 

[salmonoid]

Culture trumps strategy and plans every time. Look at it through whatever lens you want - the predominant culture within PA anglers and the predominant culture that currently exists within the PFBC will counteract any plan or strategy that favors wild fish. Dismiss it or not, politics is very much entrenched and in play within state agencies, even if their mission, at least at face value, is to manage for resource first.

This happens at a government level - regardless of what laws are passed (or are attempted to be passed), those laws will be ineffective if and until when the culture supports them. They simply won't gain traction until the dominant culture supports them. It happens within companies - strategic plan all you want, but if the ethos and culture of the employees is different, good luck instigating change.

 

[silverfox]

Culture trumps strategy and plans every time. Look at it through whatever lens you want - the predominant culture within PA anglers and the predominant culture that currently exists within the PFBC will counteract any plan or strategy that favors wild fish. Dismiss it or not, politics is very much entrenched and in play within state agencies, even if their mission, at least at face value, is to manage for resource first.

This happens at a government level - regardless of what laws are passed (or are attempted to be passed), those laws will be ineffective if and until when the culture supports them. They simply won't gain traction until the dominant culture supports them. It happens within companies - strategic plan all you want, but if the ethos and culture of the employees is different, good luck instigating change.

Exactly.

Dismiss it or not, politics is very much entrenched and in play within state agencies, even if their mission, at least at face value, is to manage for resource first.

Therein lies the problem. Imagine if PGC did this, though. Should a hunter petition to introduce Bighorn sheep lead to the introduction of Bighorn sheep? If you surveyed PA hunters and asked if they'd like Bighorn sheep in PA, I bet you could get the vast majority to agree. Does that make it the right thing to do for the resource?

 

[Acristickid]

I wrote the article, i hope you enjoy

Yep, sure.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

It's been a long and hard journey. Finally though everything is starting to come together....

It all started in early in 2017 when it was apparent the squabble with Arway and some of the state legislatures over Arway’s request for a fishing license fee increase would cause havoc.

Arway threatened the closing of some trout hatcheries due to lack of funding and that riled some politicians to the point of introducing legislation that would limit the director to eight years.

Our original plan was to close the hatcheries right then, but we had a plan B for these PFBC Commissioners and Evil Politicians. It had to be Arway was forced out, it gave us the Alliance and leader we would need formed from this bad blood.


Then at the 2017 Wild Trout Summit the plan was set in motion. Inside information from Arway allowed us to befriend Gardners, Car Mechanics, Veterinarians, Gas Station Attendees, Grocery Store Clerks etc, of every Politician and PFBC Commissioner. Now we just had to wait.

Technology eventually caught up and now we have deep fake videos. We are able to now place whoevers face on what ever person we want.

Gaining intimate access to these people has allowed us to place our technology within a proximity to pull off the greatest heist in Conservation history to win one for the good guys.


All we need to do now is sell brown trout. Little by little our operatives are planting seeds of doubt in other agencies. Dep dragging feet on EV status in the name of brown trout, of course all collaborated by our Ace in the hole Arway. We must get the public on board or it will never work!
We can't have people blurring lines between protecting natives and wild trout. It must be the all inclusive term "wild trout." We have a "Network" or people working behind the scenes helping with this endeavour. It must look like the PFBC has a reason to go rouge.

Now, at just the right time, with just the right proposal set before the Commission, we will high jack their vote through live stream. The video will be our operatives looking like each commissioner using deep fake videos tech, and we will be voting to stop all stocking over wild trout.

Imagine their faces when it is our very own Arway that closes the vote!


Sound crazy?
Maybe. But who can stop us!


At least it's not a plan that is to the effect of studying moving loch leven brown trout as a way to sell large fish for public acceptance and consumption, while opening the door to all the resident fish in nursery waters that are black hills strain for harvest, believing this is good for brook trout populations magically. Imagine underestimating the desire of Joe Angler to care about wild trout in general, especially ones harder to catch and in areas harder to access than his stocked fish in his local backyard that he fishes for 3 days out of the year.
Least we didn't fall into that delusion.😳

Our plan might sound out there, but it's attainable, until the day stocking is finally obliterated, our intelligence operators are in the shadows.

🖖<Secret hand symbol or the order.