Latest PFBC Meeting

[KenU]

I was at the PFBC meeting in Harrisburg on Monday. There was a pretty lively discussion about the decline in fishing license sales and the financial pressure on the Commission. The PFBC is proposing that some money could be saved by eliminating stocking in some of our better Class B wild trout waters and moving these fish to waters more in need of stocking in order to support a trout fishery.

As would be expected, there was some very stiff resistance to just the mention of this proposal. One commissioner (who just happens to be the one for my district) was adamant that he wouldn't support such a move. He harked back to the massive resistance the PFBC got whenever Operation Future was introduced. He said he had received a mountain of calls and resistance when streams were taken out of the stocking program and wasn't about to go thru that again. A gentleman sitting next to me spoke up because he felt that children would be deprived of the opportunity to fish for trout and never become trout anglers if stocking in his area were cut back. He is from the north central area, which is home to some of the best wild trout fishing in PA, by the way. They have such good trout streams that if stocking were cut back they wouldn't get their "fair share," is a position I have heard expressed many times in the past.

At that point, Executive Director Arway commented that there were studies showing that there is no connection between the number of fishing licenses sold and stocking. I have seen those studies, by the way.

As you can guess, I am all in favor of halting stocking on streams that are perfectly capable of supporting a fishery. It just makes common sense. Why stock a perfectly good trout stream?

So those of you who favor taking some of our Class B waters out of the stocking program will need to make their positions known. The PFBC is going to get plenty of pressure from the other side. So please write, call or email your commissioner and let him know that you support this proposal. Talk to your area manager, as well, and tell him what you think.

 

[BMarx]

I think that if they curtail stocking on those waters they better change the bag limit too. You can't just stop stocking and keep the same regs in place. Trout are good at reproducing, but they aren't magical.

 

[pcray1231]

Thanks for the heads up.

 

[csoult]

BMarx wrote:
I think that if they curtail stocking on those waters they better change the bag limit too. You can't just stop stocking and keep the same regs in place. Trout are good at reproducing, but they aren't magical.

+ 1

 

[rrt]

I agree. Thanks, Ken, for the heads up.

 

[RLeeP]

I'll write in favor of the proposal as Ken has detailed it here, noting that while I'm still currently out of state, I'll be doing my bad penny imitation and returning, probably in 2014 or 2015 at latest.

That said, I have a wonderment...

Often, these sorts of proposals are made in the interest of saving some money, but that isn't how they are perceived by a pretty large chunk of the stakeholder base (license buyers). They are usually perceived as something that is being "taken away" from them, or as someone ramming a particular philosophy down their throats. Resentments develop and the entire process becomes more difficult.

So, what I wonder is: What if the Commission didn't take a single additional stream off the stocking list in order to achieve the same cost reductions? What if, instead, they broadened the candidate streams to include *all* currently stocked Class B waters and made across the board reductions in the numbers of fish stocked so that the total reduction met their cost reduction goals? In the meantime, they could continue to stock much smaller numbers of trout (and mostly RT at that to additionally reduce potential conflicts with existing wild pops of BT and ST) in all of these streams, say pre-season and (in some cases) again once shortly before Memorial Day (just to pick a date). This could potentially defuse a lot of the resentments that almost always come up and gum up the process and (IMO, of course) at the levels I have in mind, the impact on existing wild trout populations in these streams would be virtually nil. They could even come up with a snazzy new designation for these streams like "Minimally Augmented Wild Trout Streams". I recognize that current management on some Class B streams already involves reduced numbers of stocked trout. I'm talking about ratcheting it down even more and across a larger number of streams, basically anywhere that has sampled as a B the last two times it was shocked.

My thinking is that with something like this, both sides would get a piece of what they'd like to see. There would be stocked fish for "the kids" on opening day and there would be additional reductions in the number of stocked trout being dumped in over fair to good wild pops. And, unless the big money suck hole is more the transport than the raising of the fish, the same desired cost reductions could probably be achieved.

I'm throwing this out because frankly, I do not believe the notion that (in a typical PA freestone anyway) that a wild fishery is interchangeable with a stocked fishery and that anglers used to or preferring the latter will consider the former to be adequate or commensurate. We who have spent a lot of hours fishing for wild PA freestone trout know that a wild fishery is highly variable and will probably never carry the numbers of fish in the so-called "desirable" size class (say 10-14" or so) that a stocked fishery probably would. So, unless we can completely re-educate the trout anglers of this state to accept a redefinition of trout fishing as a day of catching fish that average in the 5-9" class with some up to 12" and an occasional 14 incher, I have my doubts that they will ever be happy. And the Commission probably needs them be happy, if not for the sake of license sales, then certainly to retain as many allies as possible in these tough times and perhaps avoid being subsumed into DCNR or merged with the Game Commission.

But you could meet them halfway and perhaps both the well being of PA's wild trout fisheries and the conditions that produce "happy opening day kids", not to mention the Commission's liquidity would be the benefactors. And all with perhaps a lot less adversarial flopping and moaning and groaning.

Just a thought (or 20..)

 

[TYoung]

With the decline in fishing license sales, I think that it is inevitable that fewer and fewer trout will be stocked in all streams. People that get upset when the idea of stocking less streams in order to save money is brought up are assuming that keeping the current stocking program is possible. With the financial problems that are ongoing at the PFBC, this assumption is incorrect. The fish commission has to make it very clear to fisherman that the current rate of trout stocking isn't financially sustainable. The two options that people most way are having fewer stocked fish in all streams verses having current numbers of stocked fish in fewer streams, while having just wild fish in others. Fisherman need to decide which option is the preferred one for them. I think if the commission focused the debate towards how to make use of the fewer trout that they can afford to stock, instead of whether or not it is right to take fish away from the fisherman, then I think that fewer people would get upset. With the current economy, I think that most people understand that during tough economic situations, you have to make tough decisions.

 

[tyeager]

Just to play devils advocate......why not change the license price

Increase the cost of the trout stamp $5 dollars. Take that extra money and keep it aside for 5 years.

Balance the operating budget on what current license sales are. This may mean decreasing stocking, overhead, etc. (I'm not advocating for people to lose jobs).

In 5 years revisit the budget with the saved money and spend it on habitat improvement and stocking for trout. In the Class B streams maybe fingerling stockings are a viable option (costs less than raising a trout to 10").

You can do the same for warm water species with the regular license.

If you sell 1 million trout stamps every year for 5 years with a minimal yearly return on investment you could probably have close to 5.1 million dollars to invest in the future of trout stockings and habitat and jobs in the state.

 

[k-bob]

Is there a class b list?

 

[pcray1231]

To follow on what RLeeP brought up, what if you kept the stocked trout allocation for each region consistent? So, those in NC PA think that they'd be adversely affected by this and that they're being targeted. Show them that it's a faulty line of thinking. If you're going to decrease the overall number of stocked trout, say, 20%, then do it 20% in each region. Thus no region is being "targeted".

And then, once that concern is removed, now you can enter the discussion on whether it's preferrable to stock less fish per stream, or less streams.

I realize it's not biologically the best way to go about things, as there's more streams capable of sustaining wild trout in some areas than others. But it does remove the appearance of unfairness and the perception of political shenanigans, and makes it clear that reducing costs are actually necessary and that everyone will feel the pinch evenly, it's merely a discussion on how to best absorb that pinch.

Just throwin it out there as a topic for discussion, I'm not necessarily saying I advocate that approach.

 

[JackM]

Simplest and least notable (and consequently objectionable) would be to incrementally reduce the length of stream deignations as ATW by a few hundred yards every year for 5 years on those streams with good wild populations. Typically, but not always, these are the upstream areas.

Stock the remaining ATW water more densely, or as RLee suggested, reduce the stocking levels proportionally. This will drive the stocked-trout fans into the areas of less successful spawning and still allow Jake and Elmer to fish YMC for stocked trout if they please.

 

[bikerfish]

or the commish could grow a set and tell the naysayers this is how it's gonna be, your not going to get stockies, be happy fishing for wild fish! :-D
I think if people are properly educated about wild fish, trying to reduce the "stocking mentality", they may just figure out that the fishing for wild fish will be better and much more rewarding, not to mention better to eat! but, the truck chasers are a stubborn bunch, very resistant to change and very close minded. "been that way for years, why change it now"
bottom line, if there is no money for these stocking programs, then there aren't gonna be stocking programs, and the old guard needs to understand this.

 

[afishinado]

The FBC will not have the ability to eliminate stocking in any or many streams based on their wild trout population classification (Class B,C or whatever).....the politicians won't let 'em.

I have no doubt that the FBC budget crunch will result in stocking essentially the same ATWs with less fish and less often. Go back and read Rleep's post about how this would likely work. Half a loaf is better than none.

Reduced stocking would benefit many WT streams. The missing element for increasing wild trout populations is habitat enhancement. It is not likely that many FBC dollars will be freed up for this purpose. I guess that's up to us through organizations such as TU.

 

[franklin]

pcray1231 wrote:
To follow on what RLeeP brought up, what if you kept the stocked trout allocation for each region consistent? So, those in NC PA think that they'd be adversely affected by this and that they're being targeted. Show them that it's a faulty line of thinking. If you're going to decrease the overall number of stocked trout, say, 20%, then do it 20% in each region. Thus no region is being "targeted".

And then, once that concern is removed, now you can enter the discussion on whether it's preferrable to stock less fish per stream, or less streams.

I realize it's not biologically the best way to go about things, as there's more streams capable of sustaining wild trout in some areas than others. But it does remove the appearance of unfairness and the perception of political shenanigans, and makes it clear that reducing costs are actually necessary and that everyone will feel the pinch evenly, it's merely a discussion on how to best absorb that pinch.

Just throwin it out there as a topic for discussion, I'm not necessarily saying I advocate that approach.

I'd ask where are the most licenses sold and where are the declines seen? My guess is that the southern tier of the state is where a large number of licenses are sold. These areas also contain the least density of wild trout streams and have many streams that only support the spring season with stocked trout.

At the same time this may be an opportunity to take some streams that support wild trout off the stocking list in the SE area. They would likely not be missed as there are many stocked marginal waters nearby.

 

[pcray1231]

biker, I agree with you in the end. I think you may have to ease into it a bit though, it takes time to change minds, and you don't want a rebellion on your hands in the mean time.

 

[KenU]

Some answers to the questions:

I agree that most wild (especially native) trout streams would need to have a sharp reduction in the creel limit in order to maintain viability as desirable sport fisheries. After all, hatcheries were built and stocking began in order to satisfy anglers' demands for more than streams can supply. I'm not sure, that satisfying angler demands, however, is a sustainable argument for continuing the practice, considering the current state of environmental awareness. Anglers are much more fortunate than hunters. Catch and release hunting is just not an option. We can have our cake as long as we don't eat it too.

Something that I am seeing in streams that I fish is that even very light stocking seriously diminishes wild brook trout numbers and average size in small, infertile brook trout waters. This is not really surprising. Brook trout are now pretty much confined to small streams with low alkalinity and fertility. They are living on the edge of survival anyway. I suspect that the added fishing pressure (and subsequent harvesting) that stocking encourages is the dominant factor in the serious decline in brook trout populations that I am seeing. If breeding-size trout don't survive in large enough numbers for their offspring to overcome natural losses, the population crashes. Competition for resources has been identified as a problem with stocking over wild trout, and that is undoubtedly true. But overharvesting of the larger (legal sized) trout may occur long before these effects kick in.

 

[MKern]

Look at trout stamps sold per county or region and allocate that many trout to those areas. Use the previous year's data.

 

[Mike]

Reduced or no stocking in at least a segment of the Class B streams is not something for which you need to contact AFM's. They have favored it for years. Based on wild trout population creel census and angler use data, no reduction in the creel limit or change in the size limit would be necessary across the board to improve these wild trout populations, although there might be an occasional stream where that would not be true. Stop stocking and the angler usage will largely disappear in a few years as well.

 

[JackM]

Mike, if they have favored it, making it silly to contact them, who should we contact to make sure this philosophy begins to be implemented in practice?

 

[Mike]

The Commissioner who serves your region.