Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 (2) 3 »


Re: Potential consequences for the private stocking

Joined:
2006/9/13 10:18
From LV
Posts: 7778
Offline
TG, not exactly, h?*! PFBC doesn't even foloow it. They've been stocking Class A streams for years, of course some have been purposely left off the Class A list so that PFBC may continue stocking.

Posted on: 2011/2/10 10:30
_________________
There is always time to do more to protect wild trout.


Re: Potential consequences for the private stocking

Joined:
2009/5/18 17:57
From Toona
Posts: 559
Offline
First of all, I've called several different WCO's about stocking Class A streams in the past. It is against the law to stock a Class A stream (It is a policy backed by laws that lead to fines and other penalties). However, it is extremly hard to get the stocking shut down. Usually if someone is fined/cited for stocking a Class A the fines and everything aren't very harsh, from what I've been told (I'm working on finding out the actual penalties). If a WCO were to see someone stocking a Class A stream in person, they can be fined and may even be arrested. One of the biggest problems is that our WCO's don't have the time to sit around and watch every Class A stream. I personally know of at least 3 clubs/organizations in my area that were fined and/or shutdown for stocking Class A streams.

There are hatcheries located along Class A streams, run by the PAFBC. Look at Spring Creek, for example. Just because the hatchery is located a long a Class A stream does not mean that the fish will be put in the Class A stream. Sure, there are hatchery escapees, but thats what happens when someone builds a large hatchery along a stream. I don't like the fact that fish can "escape" from the hatcheries, but as long as they're located along said Class A streams it is inevitable.

Last, when is stream is going throught the process of being named Class A, people can vote against it. It takes more than one person to get the rulings/changes overturned, but it does and will continue to happen. I doubt the PAFBC would "purposely" leave a stream of the list so they could stock it. After all, not stocking a stream is a lot cheaper than stocking it, right?

Posted on: 2011/2/10 12:56
_________________
And as far as I'm concerned, it's like I say, drugs are not the problem. Other stuff is the problem.
Jerry Garcia


Re: Potential consequences for the private stocking

Joined:
2007/4/8 20:43
From SEPA
Posts: 11399
Offline
Quote:

TUNA wrote:
I doubt the PAFBC would "purposely" leave a stream of the list so they could stock it. After all, not stocking a stream is a lot cheaper than stocking it, right?


They would. I, and I'm sure many others, will tell you we've been told that from people we've spoken to in the PFBC.

Let's make up some numbers, I don't have ANY idea how off base they are, so don't cry when they're in a world of utter fantasy....

It comes down to money. Sure, you can save some cash not stocking Stream X.. I dunno, $5000?

. Now, the problem is the 1000 guys who primarily visit Stream X will not buy trout stamps, so there goes $6000. Additionally, another 250 guys who ONLY fish for trout on Stream X skip lisences all together, so there's another $8600.

So, there's $14,600 lost, minus the $5000 you saved thats $9600 in the red.

Oh, and since you're down $9600, you need to increase the lisence fees. So, you goto the state reps and say, "hey, we lost some cash, we want to raise fees by $.50 for a trout stamp, dig?" The rep says, "well, Town A has 10 miles of Steam X running through it, and it was VERY popular... How about since you pissed off my constituents, I'll just vote NO and you can go pound sand?"

Neccessary evils.

Posted on: 2011/2/10 14:38
_________________
April 8, 2007 - December 4, 2011.
And why not?


Re: Potential consequences for the private stocking

Joined:
2009/5/18 17:57
From Toona
Posts: 559
Offline
In that case, there could be another 1000 guys who quit fishing said stream because it was being stocked, and therefore quit buying trout stamps too. What if those 1000 guys decided to start fishing again, because the stream was named Class A and was no longer being stocked? The stream itself isn't going anywhere, it'll be there still, so if someone decides to stop fishing it because it is no longer stocked, in favor of it being named a Class A stream, thats their own stupid fault. After all Class A streams are supposed to be self sustaining streams that support a rewarding fishery. They are not Catch and Release streams. Things change over time, and having less stocked trout water in favor of more wild trout water is a better thing, IMO. I don't think the state should eliminate stocking or anything, but if a legitimate Class A fishery exists, let it be a Class A stream. Every year new waters are added and removed from the stocking list, not everyone is going to be happy all of the time. I just don't see where adding a Class A stream is going to cause an upswing in license prices, either.

Posted on: 2011/2/10 15:35
_________________
And as far as I'm concerned, it's like I say, drugs are not the problem. Other stuff is the problem.
Jerry Garcia


Re: Potential consequences for the private stocking

Joined:
2006/9/13 10:18
From LV
Posts: 7778
Offline
Somewhere I have a list of 18 streams that have been surveyed and show class a populations and are not on the Class A list. They are all stocked streams that are Class A, If I find the list I will post it.
If I can name a few, Little Lehigh outside the regs area , at least a couple of miles, Cold Run, Monocacy outside the regs area, ditto Bushkill (Easton), Pocono Creek Headwaters to mouth, there are many more.
As an aside to this whole affair no one really knows what the real cost of raising trout for stocking is because they never include capital equipment and real estate in their estimates.

Posted on: 2011/2/10 19:55
_________________
There is always time to do more to protect wild trout.


Re: Potential consequences for the private stocking

Joined:
2006/9/10 21:53
From Greensburg, PA
Posts: 13629
Offline
I read an article that said they are hoping to classify 97 new stream sections as Class A...why? Because now that they are all in danger of being affected by gas drilling, this designation may afford them some protection. Funny how that works.

here it is...

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pitts ... ts/outdoors/s_720458.html

Posted on: 2011/2/10 22:44


Re: Potential consequences for the private stocking

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 6463
Offline
Quote:
First of all, I've called several different WCO's about stocking Class A streams in the past. It is against the law to stock a Class A stream (It is a policy backed by laws that lead to fines and other penalties). However, it is extremly hard to get the stocking shut down.


Its only hard to get it shutdown because often the PFBC supports it. evidence? Wyomissing in the middle of the Class A section. Stocked by Wymossing residents with permits from the PFBC.

Posted on: 2011/2/11 1:37
_________________
http://cvtu.homestead.com/





Re: Potential consequences for the private stocking
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22426
Offline
I think those claiming they were told by PFBC it is illegal to stock class A streams should ask the informant under what section of the regulations they claim this. I posted above the only regulations that seem to effect the issue and as I noted, I don't think it is clear at all. Co-op fish cannot be stocked in Class A, at least without specific permission of the PFBC and I doubt they give it, even if it is true as alleged that they turn a blind eye.

The law does not seem to define "wild trout management waters." If anyone can find what that means, let us know.

These may be applicable and the Class A one may be applicable:

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/058/chapter71/s71.5.html

http://www.pacode.com/secure/data/058 ... er57/chap57toc.html#57.8a.

Posted on: 2011/2/11 7:24
_________________
Peace, Tony


Re: Potential consequences for the private stocking

Joined:
2006/9/13 10:18
From LV
Posts: 7778
Offline
Well the local Coop Hatchery Still stocks the Class A section of Perkiomen Creek. And what about Western Clinton Sportsmen stocking all those Clinton County Streams and getting PFBC to say a survey on Young Womens Creek says it's not Class A anymore? And what about Cross Fork, Class A Headwaters to mouth. It's still stocked. Must I go on.
Bucket biologists dump stockies caught elsewhere in to the West Branch of Perkiomen.
There are Class A Streams all over PA that are stocked and stocked fish migrate into them from all over. Some of these fish are miles from stocked water, you're telling me in doesn't happen? Get real!

Posted on: 2011/2/12 0:42
_________________
There is always time to do more to protect wild trout.


Re: Potential consequences for the private stocking

Joined:
2006/11/10 8:32
Posts: 1768
Offline
Cold Run, mentioned twice above as being a stocked Class A stream, is not stocked in the Class A section. Section 02, located downstream from Section 01, is not class A and is stocked.

Also probably appearing on Chaz's list of Class A streams that are stocked is Sacony Ck., Sections 02 and 03. Neither section is Class A. Section 01, which is not stocked, is Class A.

Posted on: 2011/2/13 11:04


Re: Potential consequences for the private stocking

Joined:
2006/9/11 13:05
From Lewistown
Posts: 3629
Offline
I have had experience with WCO fining people who stock Class A streams. The officer told me they would rather go after the hatcheries, who are supposed to check into where their fish are going, than the clueless guy who stocked the stream.

Posted on: 2011/2/13 12:34
_________________
><(Mkern{( ‘ >


Re: Potential consequences for the private stocking

Joined:
2006/9/9 16:08
From Erie Co.
Posts: 507
Offline
Any one write the man in charge, John Arway?
http://www.fish.state.pa.us/inform.htm

I was told the boys at the clubs buy fishing licenses. The more the cage rattles the more importance the issue becomes with the powers at be.

Posted on: 2011/2/13 21:04


Re: Potential consequences for the private stocking

Joined:
2006/11/10 8:32
Posts: 1768
Offline
Tomgamber: The article says 97 streams will be added to the wild trout list, NOT to the Class A list. Three of the streams will be added to the Class A list as well. As for your remark about gas well drilling and the stepped up pace of wild trout stream surveys, the article clearly states that surveys are being precipitated by gas well drilling AND the impacts of urbanization. In fact, the program initially keyed in on areas of rapid growth, not areas where gas well drilling was taking place. Now both types of area are being examined.

We have been surveying and finding new wild trout streams in the SE part of the state for 25 years or more with the idea of trying to stay ahead of development. The only thing new about this for our region is that the protocols have been streamlined; therefore, more surveys can be conducted per unit time than had been conducted in the past.

Statewide, I suspect that new Class A streams not are being added to the statewide list at a faster pace than they had been in the past.

Posted on: 2011/2/13 21:11


Re: Potential consequences for the private stocking
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22426
Offline
Mike can you answer plainly, or ask a colleague to do so, this question:

May a private citizen of the Commonwealth plant hatchery raised trout in Commonwealth waters designated "Class A" without the PFBC's permission? If not, what regulation or regulations support the prohibition?

This would mean placing the trout within the boundaries of any section designated Class A.

I think you answered PFBC's feelings about stocking in adjacent sections.

Posted on: 2011/2/14 9:03
_________________
Peace, Tony


Re: Potential consequences for the private stocking

Joined:
2006/9/10 21:53
From Greensburg, PA
Posts: 13629
Offline
Thanks for the clarification Mike. As for the explanation as to why they are doing this...I find it unfortunate that I was incorrect in understanding that the potential effects of drilling are not the reason. The PFBC is missing an opportunity to help stop a negative impact before it occurs.

Posted on: 2011/2/14 12:24



« 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
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Will you be fly fishing this autumn?
Yes 95% (139)
No 0% (0)
Thinking about it 4% (6)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/10/31 17:56
1 Comment





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com