Your plan to end Stocking over Wild

[silverfox]

Whatever measure you choose, it's important to remember they're all "estimates." Estimates made by people based on sampling conducted at a certain time of year, infrequently, in limited stretches etc. Hence some Class C's fishing is better than some Class As.

Population sizes change. I used to fish the Bighorn a lot, and that river was (and still is, I reckon) notorious for being cyclic in terms of average fish size and density. All kinds of theories swirled about what that was, from that "all the big fish are washing over the spillway at the afterbay" to "snowpack" to "drought" to "genetics" to "baitfish" to ??? One year it would be all big fish and a lot of them, and the next it would be a bazillion dinks, and you couldn't buy a big fish.

At best, all of these metrics are estimates based on snapshots in time. Which brings up even more questions about how they're managed.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Whatever measure you choose, it's important to remember they're all "estimates." Estimates made by people based on sampling conducted at a certain time of year, infrequently, in limited stretches etc. Hence some Class C's fishing is better than some Class As.

Population sizes change. I used to fish the Bighorn a lot, and that river was (and still is, I reckon) notorious for being cyclic in terms of average fish size and density. All kinds of theories swirled about what that was, from that "all the big fish are washing over the spillway at the afterbay" to "snowpack" to "drought" to "genetics" to "baitfish" to ??? One year it would be all big fish and a lot of them, and the next it would be a bazillion dinks, and you couldn't buy a big fish.

At best, all of these metrics are estimates based on snapshots in time. Which brings up even more questions about how they're managed.

This is true.

But even so, I bet the Bighorn can handle the pressure and harvest better than say, Francis Branch on Slate Run.

It just seems like a no brainier.

Special regulations should deter people from fishing and general regulations should scream, the fish population here is very good and healthy, but we have the opposite.

Just my thoughts on this.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Whatever measure you choose, it's important to remember they're all "estimates." Estimates made by people based on sampling conducted at a certain time of year, infrequently, in limited stretches etc. Hence some Class C's fishing is better than some Class As.

Population sizes change. I used to fish the Bighorn a lot, and that river was (and still is, I reckon) notorious for being cyclic in terms of average fish size and density. All kinds of theories swirled about what that was, from that "all the big fish are washing over the spillway at the afterbay" to "snowpack" to "drought" to "genetics" to "baitfish" to ??? One year it would be all big fish and a lot of them, and the next it would be a bazillion dinks, and you couldn't buy a big fish.

At best, all of these metrics are estimates based on snapshots in time. Which brings up even more questions about how they're managed.

exactly, it seems few states in the east are willing to manage based on the biological realities of the fish and where, when, how they use their habitat and its more about snapshots in time and labeling stream sections because that fits what they want to do socially

 

[wildtrout2]

Most anglers who value wild trout would rarely ever keep one anyways.

Very true. Over the many years, and many hundreds of wild trout, I've kept exactly 4 of them. Two I had mounted, and two were kept for my dad and brother to enjoy for dinner. If I intended to keep trout on a regular basis, I'd fish for stocked trout.

 

[Old Town]

Yes I agree that we should restrict stocking over wild fish. Here is where the problem is. Revenue! All agencies have a budget and for many years the Pa fish comission was stretch way to thin. Cuts were nade but they were still running in the red. I discussed this with the top officials 20 years ago and finally got the real answere from the top dog. He is no longer in the adminastration so I need not keep it to myself as I was told to do.
The YellowBreeches is a great wild brown trout fishery. The upper half has a very large concentration of wild browns. Most fish ore in the 9 to 11 inch class with some larger fish mixed in. When I asked the top dog why they still stock it over wild fish the answere is money. " Are you aware of how much money we would lose if we did not stock that stream" The comission has come a long way in modern times. For those old enough should remember the quote Resource first and was echoed for many years under new leadership.
I have worked in the fly fishing industry for over 40 years and guiding was part and still is part of my job description. I agree stockiong hatchery trout over wild fish is not good but we need a middle of the road aproach to get anything accomplished. Any hard core tatcitcs will only get shot down as in the past. Perhaps only a preseason stocking would be a comprimise the comission would considerand reducing the negative effects of over stocking wild trout water.

 

[silverfox]

Yes I agree that we should restrict stocking over wild fish. Here is where the problem is. Revenue! All agencies have a budget and for many years the Pa fish comission was stretch way to thin. Cuts were nade but they were still running in the red. I discussed this with the top officials 20 years ago and finally got the real answere from the top dog. He is no longer in the adminastration so I need not keep it to myself as I was told to do.
The YellowBreeches is a great wild brown trout fishery. The upper half has a very large concentration of wild browns. Most fish ore in the 9 to 11 inch class with some larger fish mixed in. When I asked the top dog why they still stock it over wild fish the answere is money. " Are you aware of how much money we would lose if we did not stock that stream" The comission has come a long way in modern times. For those old enough should remember the quote Resource first and was echoed for many years under new leadership.
I have worked in the fly fishing industry for over 40 years and guiding was part and still is part of my job description. I agree stockiong hatchery trout over wild fish is not good but we need a middle of the road aproach to get anything accomplished. Any hard core tatcitcs will only get shot down as in the past. Perhaps only a preseason stocking would be a comprimise the comission would considerand reducing the negative effects of over stocking wild trout water.

That tracks with most of the excuses I've heard repeatedly in the past. Here's the problem, though, it's all based on the PERCEIVED fear of losing money as an excuse. Not exactly "natural resource management," then is it?

This is the problem with things like the recent additions of more special exceptions to allow stocking over Class As (regardless of the frequency). Rather than cutting back stocking over wild trout, it appears that the agency is willing to do more of it. Again the messaging is worse than the practice. Is a kid's rodeo on Salt Run held once a year going to ruin the stream? Probably not. What message does it send though?

 

[Fish Sticks]

Yes I agree that we should restrict stocking over wild fish. Here is where the problem is. Revenue! All agencies have a budget and for many years the Pa fish comission was stretch way to thin. Cuts were nade but they were still running in the red. I discussed this with the top officials 20 years ago and finally got the real answere from the top dog. He is no longer in the adminastration so I need not keep it to myself as I was told to do.
The YellowBreeches is a great wild brown trout fishery. The upper half has a very large concentration of wild browns. Most fish ore in the 9 to 11 inch class with some larger fish mixed in. When I asked the top dog why they still stock it over wild fish the answere is money. " Are you aware of how much money we would lose if we did not stock that stream" The comission has come a long way in modern times. For those old enough should remember the quote Resource first and was echoed for many years under new leadership.
I have worked in the fly fishing industry for over 40 years and guiding was part and still is part of my job description. I agree stockiong hatchery trout over wild fish is not good but we need a middle of the road aproach to get anything accomplished. Any hard core tatcitcs will only get shot down as in the past. Perhaps only a preseason stocking would be a comprimise the comission would considerand reducing the negative effects of over stocking wild trout water.

Its tragically ironic that that is the answer you got from him because its the exact opposite of the truth. The hatchery program is killing PFBC financially here is the proof in an independent business analysis from 2017 done by penn state Smeal college of bussiness. Their a failing business BECAUSE of hatcheries. Smallmouth, catfish, panfish, walleye, wild trout, minnow chub species, musky pickerel pike, anglers are going to buy licenses the money they would save by stopping it completely may not ultimately even effect their bottom line if they keep upping licenses to float the failing trout hatchery programs finances.
They are going to see price point based angler drop off, this drop out was projected in same business report.

 

[Old Town]

If you look at how fishing licenses have changed over the years it is proof the comission is very concerned about income. In recent years you can buy a one day fishing license but with restrictions. Example is if you want to fish fo trout you need a trout stamp if fishing in April. After May1 that same license includes a trout stamp.
Also we wild trout fishermen are a very small portion of what fishes and buy licenses in Pa. A very large portion are what may be considered opening day fishermen. They fish opening day and perhaps a few days a year right after a trout stocking. Also the comissions policy for stock trout was something like this. We want 90% of the trout stocked taken ( caught) with 48 hours. Perhaps the exact hours is not correct but the message was the same. Put them in and let the average fishermen catch there limit.
I fish in many other states for trout and all have different options. Va for example has a handfull of streams you pay a daily fee of $8.00 and they stock it 3 plus times a week. Also Va stock of trout is from Otober - May.
Most streams that have oportunities to fish and catch trout would not exist with out stocking. These put and take streams help supply the needs of the average trout fishermen. Wild trout is what I prefer to catch and target if I can. However the average so called trout fishermen really does not care enough to give up catching there limit of trout when they go fishing. Keeping the majority of fishermen happy heeps the boat floating. Making small adjustments may help however large waves sink the boat and will not be accepted. IMO from past experiences.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Very true. Over the many years, and many hundreds of wild trout, I've kept exactly 4 of them. Two I had mounted, and two were kept for my dad and brother to enjoy for dinner. If I intended to keep trout on a regular basis, I'd fish for stocked trout.

See, I think generally this is true, but not always, at least not always in what you were responding to .

Every year, if you go out to wild trout streams in the early season, you will see anglers on them you normally don't. Some of them do keep their fish and they do value them every bit as much as the stocked ones.

I see most years, troutbert, challenges people to go to your local class A on first day and report back what you see.

They get more traffic and harvest than most people realize.

 

[Old Town]

That tracks with most of the excuses I've heard repeatedly in the past. Here's the problem, though, it's all based on the PERCEIVED fear of losing money as an excuse. Not exactly "natural resource management," then is it?

This is the problem with things like the recent additions of more special exceptions to allow stocking over Class As (regardless of the frequency). Rather than cutting back stocking over wild trout, it appears that the agency is willing to do more of it. Again the messaging is worse than the practice. Is a kid's rodeo on Salt Run held once a year going to ruin the stream? Probably not. What message does it send though?

We are stocking less over wild trout then was done 20,30 plus year ago. Yes more streams have a limited amout of natural reproduction then years past. Great and perhaps we are learing to clean our act up so to speak. So there are a few streams that are stocked over wild fish then prior but restrictions are much harsher then years ago.The reason for the kids derby ( stocking) is so more youth are introduced to fishing. More revenue in the future. If you look at outdoor activities you will see numbers have plumited for fishing and hunting licenses in Pa and other state as well. Since covid the picture has changed somewhat but that more then likely is just a temporary spike. I hope not! One example is a good friends son was just hired by a outdoor agancy in Pa. His job is mainly to recrute youth into that field he is working. Mainly inter city residents. I am not sure I am entitled to give exact details so that is why exact details are left out.
I highly doupt one stocking a year will ruin that stream. And it send a message for the future of our sport to intice youg people to put down there cell phnes and get outside to breath some fresh air and enjoy the out of doors.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

We are stocking less over wild trout then was done 20,30 plus year ago. Yes more streams have a limited amout of natural reproduction then years past. Great and perhaps we are learing to clean our act up so to speak. So there are a few streams that are stocked over wild fish then prior but restrictions are much harsher then years ago.The reason for the kids derby ( stocking) is so more youth are introduced to fishing. More revenue in the future. If you look at outdoor activities you will see numbers have plumited for fishing and hunting licenses in Pa and other state as well. Since covid the picture has changed somewhat but that more then likely is just a temporary spike. I hope not! One example is a good friends son was just hired by a outdoor agancy in Pa. His job is mainly to recrute youth into that field he is working. Mainly inter city residents. I am not sure I am entitled to give exact details so that is why exact details are left out.
I highly doupt one stocking a year will ruin that stream. And it send a message for the future of our sport to intice youg people to put down there cell phnes and get outside to breath some fresh air and enjoy the out of doors.

I think teaching youth that stocking over wild trout for derbies is a bad idea.
I also think you don't need trout derbies on wild trout streams to entice youth to fishing.


My daughter loves fishing and we did it with bluegills and sunfish first.
Then I took her wild trout fishing, and told her with her wide eyes that we were going to do special fishing. I explained why I think they are special, the types of places they live, the water they live in and the threats they face from pollution, stocking, displacement, urbanization etc...


She loves brook trout and their beauty and highly values them. I don't think she has ever caught a stocked trout.


Truth be told, she is older now and still loves a big old carp over most trout, but loves the places trout live over the dirty brown water.

 

[Fish Sticks]

If you look at how fishing licenses have changed over the years it is proof the comission is very concerned about income. In recent years you can buy a one day fishing license but with restrictions. Example is if you want to fish fo trout you need a trout stamp if fishing in April. After May1 that same license includes a trout stamp.
Also we wild trout fishermen are a very small portion of what fishes and buy licenses in Pa. A very large portion are what may be considered opening day fishermen. They fish opening day and perhaps a few days a year right after a trout stocking. Also the comissions policy for stock trout was something like this. We want 90% of the trout stocked taken ( caught) with 48 hours. Perhaps the exact hours is not correct but the message was the same. Put them in and let the average fishermen catch there limit.
I fish in many other states for trout and all have different options. Va for example has a handfull of streams you pay a daily fee of $8.00 and they stock it 3 plus times a week. Also Va stock of trout is from Otober - May.
Most streams that have oportunities to fish and catch trout would not exist with out stocking. These put and take streams help supply the needs of the average trout fishermen. Wild trout is what I prefer to catch and target if I can. However the average so called trout fishermen really does not care enough to give up catching there limit of trout when they go fishing. Keeping the majority of fishermen happy heeps the boat floating. Making small adjustments may help however large waves sink the boat and will not be accepted. IMO from past experiences.

Yea but what i am saying is regardless of all that, you have some people that fish bo matter what bass, crappie(huge in Pa), perch, pan fish, catfish. These people will buy licenses.

Total revenue last year $29 million dollars

Cost of hatchery trout program was around $13 million in 2009 PFBC hatchery report, with gas/fuel increases and time imagine closer to $15-20 million now.

If they stopped and saved all that money i have a near impossible time believing enough people would quit fishing to make them lose around 15-20 million in revenue.

Financially i don’t think its the dooms day.

As for the argument that some of these streams wouldn’t be fishable at all thats kind of a lie by omission because they wouldn’t be fishable for trout, pollution tolerant warm water species would likely increase to varying degrees and most stocked trout stream already have enough present to begin with to create a fishery with to begin with.

The only problem is we teach children from birth that lack of trout in a stream is right up there with tragedies like homelessness food insecurity and any species caught besides a trout is labeled most often incorrectly as “just a chub” or “trash fish”

Trout don’t need to be Unlimited for us to fish and enjoy the outdoors. We don’t need adults hiding behind children who don’t care what bends their pole posting pictures of sad toddlers with Puppy dog eyes to Sarah mclaughin’s “in the arms of the angels” song telling us we are snuffing lit their desire to fish if we don’t fill creeks with hatchery raised invasive species.

WE teach them to view their settings with a narrow idea about how they can enjoy themselves and find wonder in the outdoors and set them up for a mindset of scarcity, instead of abundances, when it comes to fishing.

PFBC hatchery trout program is an ecologically defunct dinosaur on financial life support and its time to say good bye pull the plug on a significant portion of the hatchery program as Penn State Smeal college of business recommended.

 

[pcray1231]

I agree fish per surface area is a poor measure. But it's a better measure of fish density than fish per mile.

1D vs. 2D vs. 3D.

And of course fish density isn't always a good measure of how well it will fish, either. You can get skunked fishing over a lot of fish, or you can go on a fairly undense stream but catch dang near every one too.

The question given was whether PA's most famous streams compare to the west's most famous streams in terms of fish density. The answer to that question is, yes, they do. They will compare favorably in fish per volume of water and fish per surface area of water, but less well in fish per mile, because PA's famous waters tend to be much smaller in width.

There's a local limestoner that was artificially channelized. Vertical block walls. Stream is like 5 feet across, and like 5 feet deep, the cross section is almost a perfect square. Naturally that stream is probably 10 or 15 feet across. It still flows the exact same amount of water. Still has the exact same fish holding volume. Just more of it is vertical, and the surface area doesn't capture how much water is really there. By channelizing it, they probably double or tripled it's biomass per the surface area measurement, without adding any more fish. Yeah, that's not a perfect measure by any means.

And like you said, you can have class C's that fish well. The thing is, we're fishermen, and we look at a stream and determine what is good holding water and what isn't. We walk by the bad looking spots without ever throwing a cast, right? Stream A has a good holding spot every 40 feet, and we find a fish in all of them. Everywhere we think should have a fish, has a fish. In 200 feet, we made 5 casts, found 5 fish, and we're through that section in 10 minutes. Wow what a great stream. Stream B has a good looking holding spot every 10 feet. But, there's only a fish in one out of 4 of those spots. We feel much worse about this one. The biomass is the same! And we still found a fish every 40 feet, or 5 every 200 feet. But we through 4 times as many casts. It took 4x as long. And we walked away shaking our heads at all these good spots that have no fish in them.

What anglers really call good fishing is finding fish everywhere we think there should be a fish. That's very possible in a class D!

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I agree fish per surface area is a poor measure. But it's a better measure of fish density than fish per mile.

1D vs. 2D vs. 3D.

And of course fish density isn't always a good measure of how well it will fish, either. You can get skunked fishing over a lot of fish, or you can go on a fairly undense stream but catch dang near every one too.

The question given was whether PA's most famous streams compare to the west's most famous streams in terms of fish density. The answer to that question is, yes, they do. They will compare favorably in fish per volume of water and fish per surface area of water, but less well in fish per mile, because PA's famous waters tend to be much smaller in width.

There's a local limestoner that was artificially channelized. Vertical block walls. Stream is like 5 feet across, and like 5 feet deep, the cross section is almost a perfect square. Naturally that stream is probably 10 or 15 feet across. It still flows the exact same amount of water. Still has the exact same fish holding volume. Just more of it is vertical, and the surface area doesn't capture how much water is really there. By channelizing it, they probably double or tripled it's biomass per the surface area measurement, without adding any more fish. Yeah, that's not a perfect measure by any means.

And like you said, you can have class C's that fish well. The thing is, we're fishermen, and we look at a stream and determine what is good holding water and what isn't. We walk by the bad looking spots without ever throwing a cast, right? Stream A has a good holding spot every 40 feet, and we find a fish in all of them. Everywhere we think should have a fish, has a fish. In 200 feet, we made 5 casts, found 5 fish, and we're through that section in 10 minutes. Wow what a great stream. Stream B has a good looking holding spot every 10 feet. But, there's only a fish in one out of 4 of those spots. We feel much worse about this one. The biomass is the same! And we still found a fish every 40 feet, or 5 every 200 feet. But we through 4 times as many casts. It took 4x as long. And we walked away shaking our heads at all these good spots that have no fish in them.

What anglers really call good fishing is finding fish everywhere we think there should be a fish. That's very possible in a class D!

I can agree with most of that.
However that channelized spring creek might be deep but not as deep as it really seems to be.
It is 90 percent or more filled with weeds.

Id imagine they displace a lot of water and if someone would take them out, it might have half the depth.

It's why you see such a drastic change from it's upper section at the dam to below where it is appears really deep.

It gets entirely too much sun,which is why all the weed growth.

 

[Swattie87]

I can agree with most of that.
However that channelized spring creek might be deep but not as deep as it really seems to be.
It is 90 percent or more filled with weeds.

Id imagine they displace a lot of water and if someone would take them out, it might have half the depth.

It's why you see such a drastic change from it's upper section at the dam to below where it is appears really deep.

It gets entirely too much sun,which is why all the weed growth.

Yeah, it’s not 5 feet deep, even with the weeds and in the channelized section. More like 2.5, 3 max. Or waist height on a 6’0 me. Don’t ask how I know…I’d love to say it’s because I hooked a monster and had to get him out of the weeds, but it wasn’t.

 

[Fish Sticks]

What do you guys guess the % fish biomass in spring is comprised of brown trout

 

[sixfootfenwick]

What do you guys guess the % fish biomass in spring is comprised of brown trout

It that creek?

Not much, it's mostly wild brook trout that seasonally use the lake.

There was a Giant brown in it at one time and a few occasionally turn up but it's mostly brook trout.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Yeah, it’s not 5 feet deep, even with the weeds and in the channelized section. More like 2.5, 3 max. Or waist height on a 6’0 me. Don’t ask how I know…I’d love to say it’s because I hooked a monster and had to get him out of the weeds, but it wasn’t.

I'm sure, and I still hold to what I say, even if 3ft deep, it wouldn't be as much without all those weeds.

You can see this same effect in the well known spring creeks as they summer up and get full weeds.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I'm sure, and I still hold to what I say, even if 3ft deep, it wouldn't be as much without all those weeds.

You can see this same effect in the well known spring creeks as they summer up and get full weeds.

Oh sorry I thought you were talking about spring in state college

 

[Swattie87]

Spring in State College? By biomass…

98% Browns
1.9% Rainbows
0.1% Brookies

I feel like I’ve walked into a trap here.