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


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 ... 4 5 6 (7) 8 »


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 1807
Offline
difficult reality: whatever harm comes to wild fish from stocking is mostly due to hooking/catching by fishermen, not competition from the stocked fish.

so, on the stocking issue, you can only really help PA wild trout by reducing the number of fishermen.

I don't fish for stockies, but I am not ready to throw huge numbers of stocked trout anglers under the bus by fighting stocking all over the state, or for that matter, dramatically reducing the number of streams in which they can fish for stockies. as if I could!

I have read the states trout plan, which says that 65% fish for wild and stockies, versus 34% stockies only, and 1% wild only.

not exactly the recipe for "wild trout only" anglers to carry the day politically...

trout plan p 17 "The majority of Pennsylvania’s trout anglers prefer to use bait (53%) followed by lures (16%) and flies (15%). Stocked trout waters are an important resource for Pennsylvania’s trout anglers as 78% spent greater than half of their trout fishing trips fishing for stocked trout. A majority of Pennsylvania trout anglers (66%) agreed that trout-stocked lakes with healthy populations of other species should be open to year-round fishing. Stocked trout waters are important in introducing children to fishing, as nearly 99% of surveyed anglers who fished with children fish for stocked trout at least half of the time (Duda et al. 2008). Duda et al. (2008) estimated that 34% of Pennsylvania trout anglers fish exclusively for stocked trout and 1% fish exclusively for wild trout. The remaining 65% spend time fishing for both wild and stocked trout."

Posted on: 2013/10/10 12:19


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13423
Offline
Quote:
so, on the stocking issue, you can only really help PA wild trout by reducing the number of fishermen.


**or their impact.**

And I'm not saying to make it FFO or ALO, as while that is one method, I do sympathize with those who think it's a bit discriminatory to limit things by tackle choice.

But AT C&R, TT, reduced creel limits, DH, etc. can do the same. As can education on proper C&R techniques. Plus, these types of regs attract C&R minded anglers, while putting off meathunters. The meathunters absolutely should be given a place to fish for stockies, it just doesn't have to be the places where there also exists a thriving wild trout population.

Posted on: 2013/10/10 13:56


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2011/5/6 17:55
From Harrisburg
Posts: 456
Offline
No one is arguing against stocking, k-bob. We're trying to say that stocking is GREAT. I really appreciate the stocked fish that the state offers almost all areas of the state.

Many, like myself, question why any of this limited number of fish would be used on streams that already have a proven biomass of fish to keep up an active fishery. That concern is compounded when we consider that studies show that stocked fish often hurt wild trout populations.


So essentially, it's not just perplexingly unnecessary- it could be harmful. How silly!

Posted on: 2013/10/10 14:09


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2012/4/18 13:53
Posts: 43
Offline
My rant of what the PFBC should do:

1. Dedicate most trout stocking to known put and take trout streams.
2. Increase C&R ALO areas on all streams that can sustain native trout.
3. Increase the price of fishing licenses / trout stamps. A round of golf typically costs ~$50 on the weekends on a nice course. Having the privilege to fish PA's great streams and rivers year round should be at least double the cost of one round of golf.

Posted on: 2013/10/10 14:25


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/9/13 10:18
From LV
Posts: 7608
Offline
Yellow Creek since it has had a history of access issues could end up being closed to fishing if stocking is ended, and I'd venture to say that is not what any of us want.

Posted on: 2013/10/10 16:58
_________________
It's time to stop stocking all wild trout streams no matter what Classification they are, and time to eradicate brown trout in some of our limestone streams and re-establish brookies in them.


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/9/13 10:18
From LV
Posts: 7608
Offline
Quote:

ebroesicke wrote:
i'm more worried about the increased fly fishing pressure from the new class A listing. PFBC spot burn.

There is no spot burning of the streams involved in this proposal, they've been fished heavily for years. All these streams have held good wild populations for years so people know they have plenty of fish. Spot burning not the issue.

Posted on: 2013/10/10 17:04


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/9/13 10:18
From LV
Posts: 7608
Offline
[quote]
k-bob wrote:


so, on the stocking issue, you can only really help PA wild trout by reducing the number of fishermen.

NO! You can help wild trout by reducing harvest, reducing the number of fishermen is not a policy of TU and never has been. Reducing harvest however is, the 2 are separate issues. PFBC reduces the number of anglers, by increasing the cost of fishing. They will deny it until they are blue in the face but the numbers don't lie. Every time they increase the license the number of license buyers go down. Does that improve fishing? One could make that argument, but I won't. It is detrimental to the goals of TU to reduce the number of fishermen, it means fewer anglers to look out for the streams where trout live.

Further there is nothing in TU's policy that says stocking is a bad thing. However science tells us that stocking over wild fish is detrimental to wild populations.

Posted on: 2013/10/10 17:43


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2007/3/29 7:56
From Bethlehem, PA
Posts: 290
Offline
Chaz-

joke. mostly.


Posted on: 2013/10/10 20:24
_________________
www.monocacytu.org


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/11/10 8:32
Posts: 1718
Offline
If you are going to cite the Vincent study in Montana for comparison, then you need to understand the stocking rates, stocking frequency, avg size of fish stocked, length of time during the year that stockings occurred, angling pressure, and harvest rates in the study versus what occurs in Pa. Many of these factors differ(ed), some considerably, between the states, and at least some of those differences would in my view be expected to affect study results. For instance, Montana was stocking monthly from April through August. That has the potential to generate extended fishing pressure and extended interaction between hatchery and wild fish. Pa stocks over a much shorter period, generally resulting relatively quick "put and take" of many of the stocked trout. In the study, the harvest amounted to only 15% of the trout stocked; in Pa, especially in high use streams, harvest rates are much higher, often in the 50% or more range and sometimes as high as 90%. Pa harvest has slowed down in the past decade with the advent of more C&R fishing by the general angling public, but most of Pa's stocked fish are removed by anglers in high use waters much more quickly than were the Montana fish from its study waters. I could go on, but just the two factors that I mentioned means that wild trout/hatchery trout interaction and stocked trout angler/wild trout interaction likely occurs over a much shorter time span in Pa. Coupled with the stocking of relatively naive rainbows in Pa in comparison to the streams' wild browns leads to many of the rainbows being removed at a rapid rate, especially from cold, early spring waters/water temps. Heck, it has been documented repeatedly that even Pa's stocked browns (let alone wild browns) don't hit well in many cases during the opening day, and that was the original reason why there was such a dramatic shift away from intensive stocking of browns prior to opening day going back to the creel surveys of the late 1980's and early 1990's. Conservation Officers who patrol some of these stocked class A candidate waters tell me that they rarely see a wild trout in the creel on opening day.

Posted on: 2013/10/10 20:33

Edited by Mike on 2013/10/10 20:54:27


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2013/8/6 21:44
Posts: 880
Offline
Thanks for the insight Mike! I appreciate that. I've been trying to find all the details of the Vincent study (stocking rates, angler usage etc) but to no avail.

Is there a similar study from PA?

Posted on: 2013/10/10 20:43
_________________
"I think I fish, in part, because it's an anti-social, bohemian business that, when gone about properly, puts you forever outside the mainstream culture without actually landing you in an institution." John Gierach


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2007/4/8 20:43
From SEPA
Posts: 11301
Offline
Quote:

Mike wrote:
Conservation Officers who patrol some of these stocked class A candidate waters tell me that they rarely see a wild trout in the creel on opening day.


They're not looking in the right places. They need to look downstream where the corpses pool after they get tossed back for a larger stocked fish on the stringer, instead.


Posted on: 2013/10/10 21:00
_________________
April 8, 2007 - December 4, 2011.
And why not?


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6120
Online
For Mike (and others who want take a shot at it.)

If these stretches were changed from stocked and state-wide regs to unstocked and C&R, what changes on average would you expect in populations? The populations (biomass) would go up or down, and at what percentage?

Based on the experience with other similar streams. Most of these streams are limestoners. Many PA limestone streams have already gone through these changes. What have the results been?

Posted on: 2013/10/10 21:11


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 1807
Offline
and tb how bout a guess at the # of fishermen per year the streams would see with those changes? the states trout plan says there are many more stockie only than wild only trout fishermen. the clear practical consequence of stocking fewer streams is having fewer people fish. oh the stockie guys can go somewhere else, great that we can speak for them :). maybe with so many unstocked wild streams, stockie guys might say we have plenty of places year round?

we wild trout only types are a clear minority.. without thinking about the other guys we may not have much influence.

fish fish fish.. what about, uh, people? :)












Posted on: 2013/10/11 7:16


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2006/9/13 10:18
From LV
Posts: 7608
Offline
I'm guessing 0%, because the populations of these streams are already very high.

Posted on: 2013/10/11 8:01
_________________
It's time to stop stocking all wild trout streams no matter what Classification they are, and time to eradicate brown trout in some of our limestone streams and re-establish brookies in them.


Re: Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

Joined:
2007/4/8 20:43
From SEPA
Posts: 11301
Offline
Streams in major urban areas, or whatever they called it, will see little pressure change because its local, and the people will still end up going there.

Easy access and open places to fish are the draw to people, not so much the stocked fish. That said, the perception that (almost) all fish are stocked in these places is part of the draw.

The difference is if there's a conspicious absence of fish, then people are gonna complain. They're not going to complain to the PFBC because they don't know what that is, they're going to complain to people who work for the local and state gov, who the PFBC relies on having a good relationship for projects and things like fee increases.

Its political. Deal with it.

You can have this half step, or you can have what we've got now. You can pretend you'll get surveys and class A distinctions and all sorts of awesome things in the future, but you won't because life doesn't work that way.


Posted on: 2013/10/11 8:51
_________________
April 8, 2007 - December 4, 2011.
And why not?



« 1 ... 4 5 6 (7) 8 »



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
Do you keep a fishing journal?
Yes 52% (85)
No 47% (78)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/8/22 12:38
1 Comment





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