Register now on! Login


Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users

« 1 2 (3)

Re: NY study on effects of stocking browns in water w/ brookies

2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 2370
Yeah, that's always been my view as well. It's less about direct impact and more about changing attitudes.

To be fair, the C&R mentality has percolated even to much of the bait crowd. There still is a meat hunter crowd out there, and that's even ok, I don't dislike them, but I'd like to see their following shrink. But even on opening day I see far more fish released than stringered, and I do believe the majority of fishermen release most of their catch regardless of tackle choices.

A trout is too valuable to catch only once. I do believe that sportsmen in general appreciate that and are in the process of adopting it as a philosophy.

There is still, though, an amazing ignorance of wild trout. Avid fishermen don't know that wild trout exist in numbers in their own backyards. And yeah, we taught them this by pushing stocked trout for so many years.

It's one thing that for instance, the WBTE streams serve to do, IMO. I fish several of those streams and I don't really think the program made those waters any better, in fact, it made several of them worse. But it begins to highlight to the public that these things exist. These streams definitely saw an increase in angler usage. And those are often anglers that didn't know these opportunities existed. It's still not their focus, but they try it out at some point. And that's how it starts. After a while they try another one that's not on the list, and there are indeed lots of streams that fit that kind of a description without the posters up.

Posted on: 2014/3/4 14:38

Re: NY study on effects of stocking browns in water w/ brookies

2006/9/11 19:52
Posts: 40
The brookie streams that suffer the most from cropping are those adjacent to the road and therefore accessible. Remote streams are protected by their inaccessibility and are little affected by no-kill regulations. I would like to see a few of our better brook trout streams that parallel roads made into no-kill brook trout waters. And, because brookies in these streams move up and down with the seasons, long stretches should be protected. Not just a mile here and there. Jack Dent Branch of Medix Run would be a good start.

Posted on: 2014/3/4 16:28

Re: NY study on effects of stocking browns in water w/ brookies

2013/1/27 10:24
From Sweet Valley
Posts: 165
No kill regulations on brook trout streams, the headwater streams, won't have much effect anyway. They don't live long enough and one bad year class or one great year class will change the fishing more than catch and release.

Posted on: 2014/3/4 19:20

Re: NY study on effects of stocking browns in water w/ brookies

2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 257
ken's comments on jack dent say a lot. there was cropping near a road but there are many places with less cropping to fish for brookies. much like cold run in Schuylkill. instead of just fishing other places, and knowing you'll see the results of cropping if you do fish JDR, why not "win" an angler v angler fight and get the stocking stopped? however clear the cropping was, if you fight for every native fish in every stream without thinking about other anglers, well no wonder TU represents 3% of PA trout stamp buyers. I clearly see cropping in cold run, and ideally it would be stopped, but look at a map, brookies are healthy in the watershed and fighting the stocking along the road would alienate other anglers. in case you guys haven't noticed we wild trout types are a small minority of the states anglers.

Posted on: 2014/3/5 8:30

Edited by k-bob on 2014/3/5 8:58:25

Re: NY study on effects of stocking browns in water w/ brookies

2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 257
Have never seen jack dent branch, so I may be off base, but I see that there are roads along it. JDB shown in the image below; blue lines are nat repro streams. I understand there was clear cropping from stockie fishing in JDB & Medix along the roads. However, the area and headwaters streams seem to have wild trout. so was the cropping in accessible stretches of JDB a preservation issue for native trout here, or more of a native-trout fishing issue? if brookies are established in the area, but cropped along the road by stockie fishing, I might be inclined to just let that go and try another stream away from the roads... (sounds like situation w/ cold run area in Schuylkill)

it might be ideal to end the stocking, but fish biology in PA involves politics. and anglers who lose fights over stocking probably are more annoyed than educated about wild trout fishing?

Attach file:

jpg  jd3.jpg (138.31 KB)
2769_53186f817b870.jpg 1176X791 px

Posted on: 2014/3/6 7:53

Edited by k-bob on 2014/3/6 8:41:03

Re: NY study on effects of stocking browns in water w/ brookies

2006/9/13 10:18
From LV
Posts: 631

troutbert wrote:

KenU wrote:
The statement: "Custom stocking scenarios with Brown Trout introductions at relatively low proportions of resident Brook Trout populations may be able to sustain healthy populations of both species within their present range"

As I pointed out in another post, they also said this, earlier in the abstract:

"New York State contains a large portion of the Brook Trout's native range, where both species are maintained by stocking and other management actions."

In both of these statements they are saying that brook trout and brown trout populations are "sustained/maintained" by stocking.

Does anyone reading this believe that they are? If stocking ended, would brook trout and brown trout populations disappear?


Posted on: 2014/3/11 18:43

Re: NY study on effects of stocking browns in water w/ brookies

2006/10/12 14:03
Posts: 7
Something to consider in discussion of Jack Dent Branch is the fact that the stream isn't just a typical Nat-Repo Brookie stream. Its headwaters area above the previously (before this year) stocked area acutally carries a Class A designation.

The Class A section is just as accessable as the lower section as the entire stream runs close to a forest service road. In fact, the upper end of Jack Dent is the only (up till recently) Class A in the entire area up on the Quhenna plateau. Not sure exactly what reasons, or combination of reasons, there are for this; but in that whole area there is only one class A brookie stream and its lower reaches were being stocked.

Incidently, Jack Dent (lower area) was slated for removal from the stocking roles once and it was put back on due political pressure as part of the list that TB previously mentioned.

This particular case isn't as cut and dry as simply having one of the area's many brook trout stream stocked while the others are left alone to be fished by those who appreciate such things.

In this case its more like: why is the single stream with the demonstrated capacity to be a class A (based on its upper reaches which are no different that the lower) being stocked when there is nearly the entire length of Medix Run thats heavily stocked just a stone's throw away?

Posted on: 2014/3/12 20:07

« 1 2 (3)

You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]

Site Content
Stay Connected facebook instagram RSS Feed

USGS Water Levels
The New Keystone Fly Fishing Book
Where do you most want to fly fish outside the region?
Western US 39% (31)
Alaska 10% (8)
New Zealand 32% (26)
Florida Keys 3% (3)
South America 6% (5)
Elsewhere 7% (6)
The poll closed at 2018/3/17 12:44

Copyright 2018 by | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by