Your plan to end Stocking over Wild

Stenonema said:
Every person on here has a platform provided. Many people on this forum are strongly opinionated and are of the anglers in the state perhaps some of the most knowledgeable. Its a fair assumption that all or most at this stage in the game recognize that stocking over wild trout is irresponsible management.
The question that I have for the Forum members is: what is your plan? Do you have an actionable plausible plan to change this practice.
I have read threads where every single hurdle or problem with the PFBC and anglers has been defined. adnausium.
With such a clear understanding of the issues, Does anyone have a plan?

the Blame and Complain campaign isn't cutting it. We need a plan.

If you are one of those anglers that doesn't believe there is anything we can do.... Please decline to comment.

This state needs a leader. Someone needs to take the lead and get it done. Trout Unlimited stands as a Cold Water resource group incapable of accomplishing this goal. Any person or organization that has been in a position to change this disaster is part of the problem.

This Forum and it's vocal members have the ability to brainstorm a solution.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence that PFBC plans to end stocking over wild fish, as they have over the last several years kept stocking 8 Class A streams because of tradition or they are urban. They don’t listen to a reasonable request to a know issue. Holy crap they still stock brook trout streams.
When the Big Spring hatchery was closed they had the opportunity to remove invasive rainbows and let the brook trout population grow. They clearly believe their purpose is to stock trout, not protect wild populations.
They have only in the last ten years responded to demands to survey un-surveyed streams, because the oil and gas folks challenged their records. It was not because they were meeting the demands of the new world order.
Even with the old guard all gone they are more beholden to politicians demands than what is best for wild trout and especially native trout. I’ve sat in meetings with PFBC leaders and they show no capacity for listening to what’s best for wild trout.
The solution involves getting the ridiculous politicians out of the equation.
 
I would end the idea of the trout stamp. It was introduced to support the hatchery system and stocking. Raising funds solely to support the hatcheries will keep hatcheries running forever. The second thing is make the commissioners all at large, it will separate some of the political attachments that are prevalent on the commission. Take power away from WCO’s to approve and recommend where trout should be stocked. End stocking on all public land except places like Pine Creek below the gorge. Enforce the management of co-op hatcheries taking away their privileges to raise and stock trout if the stock over wild trout. Co-op hatcheries receive little oversight in that regard.
 
Chaz said:
Enforce the management of co-op hatcheries taking away their privileges to raise and stock trout if the stock over wild trout. Co-op hatcheries receive little oversight in that regard.
Click to expand...
Agree. Second to the PBFC stocking over wild trout populations, co-op stocking is the next biggest problem.
 
Chaz said:
I would end the idea of the trout stamp. It was introduced to support the hatchery system and stocking. Raising funds solely to support the hatcheries will keep hatcheries running forever. The second thing is make the commissioners all at large, it will separate some of the political attachments that are prevalent on the commission. Take power away from WCO’s to approve and recommend where trout should be stocked. End stocking on all public land except places like Pine Creek below the gorge. Enforce the management of co-op hatcheries taking away their privileges to raise and stock trout if the stock over wild trout. Co-op hatcheries receive little oversight in that regard.
Click to expand...
Or a stocked trout permit that is 100% responsible for the hatchery system. Don't sell enough hatchery stamps to support the system? That means you didn't have the level of support you thought you did and you start closing hatcheries.
 
Chaz, The unassessed waters program was generated from within and initiated prior to the Marcellus Play.

Chaz, Continuing to stock urban Lehigh Valley Class A equivalent streams was the reason why all of the other Class A’s were allowed to be removed from the stocking program in 1982. One could even argue that all that were removed in following years in response to Class A biomasses also benefitted from that compromise. Without that compromise, FUTURE may never have seen the light of day. Wild trout anglers and wild trout populations have benefitted from responding to “political realities.”
 
Mike said:
Chaz, The unassessed waters program was generated from within and initiated prior to the Marcellus Play.

Chaz, Continuing to stock urban Lehigh Valley Class A equivalent streams was the reason why all of the other Class A’s were allowed to be removed from the stocking program in 1982. One could even argue that all that were removed in following years in response to Class A biomasses also benefitted from that compromise. Without that compromise, FUTURE may never have seen the light of day. Wild trout anglers and wild trout populations have benefitted from responding to “political realities.”
Click to expand...
"Compromise" is just another word for sacrifice, but with heavy sprinkles to hide the turd. Had the agency not become a stocking regime looking to cash in on the overfishing they allowed and the logging industry destroying native populations, no sacrifice would had to have been made.

Regardless, it was that mentality bred into anglers that has led to "political realities".

So the fishing benefited from being destroyed, then saved by being destroyed more by destroying it less so it could be continually destroyed.

Seems legit.

In reality and ideally, the fisheries would have recovered on their own and our native populations would have benefited from it.
 
silverfox said:
Or a stocked trout permit that is 100% responsible for the hatchery system. Don't sell enough hatchery stamps to support the system? That means you didn't have the level of support you thought you did and you start closing hatcheries.
Click to expand...
You would have to look at that on a regional basis.😉
 
Mike said:
You would have to look at that on a regional basis.😉
Click to expand...
True. Which is a whole mess. You'll sell a bunch of trout permits in Pittsburgh, but that doesn't mean those people are fishing for trout in Pittsburgh or that's where the fish should go. Overall though, you'd find out if the want justifies the expense. That's essentially what PGC did with the pheasant program.
 
Chaz said:
There is no evidence that PFBC plans to end stocking over wild fish, as they have over the last several years kept stocking 8 Class A streams because of tradition or they are urban. They don’t listen to a reasonable request to a know issue. Holy crap they still stock brook trout streams.
When the Big Spring hatchery was closed they had the opportunity to remove invasive rainbows and let the brook trout population grow. They clearly believe their purpose is to stock trout, not protect wild populations.
They have only in the last ten years responded to demands to survey un-surveyed streams, because the oil and gas folks challenged their records. It was not because they were meeting the demands of the new world order.
Even with the old guard all gone they are more beholden to politicians demands than what is best for wild trout and especially native trout. I’ve sat in meetings with PFBC leaders and they show no capacity for listening to what’s best for wild trout.
The solution involves getting the ridiculous politicians out of the equation.
Click to expand...
Spot on and this is why we have moved from collaboration and asking nicely to accountability and exposure of waste fraud and abuse.
 
Fish Sticks said:
Spot on and this is why we have moved from collaboration and asking nicely to accountability and exposure of waste fraud and abuse.
Click to expand...
Fraud?

fraud

  1. wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain:

 
troutbert said:
Fraud?

fraud

  1. wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain:
Click to expand...

Are you kidding me??? Am i missing something

They literally tell people invasive trout species are not an issue despite mountains of research so they can cover their use of then to SELL licenses for financial gain.

Does the challenge of meeting the definition come from you thinking the wrongful part is missing?
 
WASTE FRAUD AND ABUSE no mincing words here all definitions met many times over with multiple individual or systemic examples
 
Here I thought all those pensions and salaries were financial gain. Go figure🤷

"Making political realities real for state retirement plans since 1866."

Give them bread, circuses and stocked trout and they will never revolt.
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20230304-215203.png
    Screenshot_20230304-215203.png
    414.8 KB · Views: 29
Last edited:
All semi joking aside.
Definition 2 seems to fit even better when coupled.

a person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.

Used in a sentence:

The PFBC's class A and Resource First mission statement, when considered together with the stocking of class A's, prove them to be frauds.

Or

The "secret Class A waters that are still stocked" list got leaked once and exposed the frauds for what they are, just looking to sell licenses and appease the Joe Angler.

I think deliberately not surveying streams, not releasing results of others, surveying during summer drought times on some watersheds, voting for exemptions after the fact, having secret lists that got leaked, all designed to keep some waters off the class A list so they can still be stocked seems fraudulent to me.

Yellow Breeches, Young Woman's?
 
I think stopping stocking over all Class A streams is a no brainer. Stopping stocking over all wild fish is impossible. I know of several well known, heavily stocked streams in the state that have no natural reproduction, but have migratory wild browns and native brookies that pass through the waterway over the winter. Few people are aware that wilds are in these waters.

We need as much easily accessible water to fish for trout that we can get to keep the weekend warriors and opening day brigade away from wild/native streams. I am in favor of stopping the stocking of brookies in general as to no deplete the gene pool.
 
streamerguy said:
You know if they still tag trout up there?
Click to expand...
Kind of.. Its not just Strains anymore... Ridgway- Elk County Chamber of Commerce tags fish for the Elk County Trout-A-Thon. Straubs is one of the sponsors. I've heard the prize money is bigger at St. Leo's "Lucky Leo" trout derby in Ridgway
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages
Wayward Trading”/> </center> </div> </div> </div> <div class=


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top