Survey: Go Ahead and Stock Over Wild Fish!

[greenghost]

The article link below highlights the results of an angler survey. Apparently, most of the anglers in the state have no problem stocking over wild fish. The short-sightedness of the anglers is a bit disappointing. I can't help believe that all the facts were not presented to the anglers at the time of the survey.


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08195/896725-358.stm

 

[pete41]

As I mentioned before-
when they did a serious study in Montana about stocking streams with decent populations of wild trout they found out that the stockers were more dominate than the natives and the streams population actually suffered as the newcomers took over the best holds.
However casual fishermen really don't care about that they just want to take a mess a fish home to throw in the garbage can.Why not,they payed for em.

 

[bigjohn58]

Some streams (larger in general) can handle stocking over wild populations while most of your smaller streams I do not feel this is a good idea and is basically a joke. I have no problem stocking over the wild trout on the lower end of Fishing Creek in Mill Hall. The wild and stockies have no problems there and you will not find prettier stockies anywhere else or more holdovers anywhere else. Small streams such as Bakers Run being stocked is a total joke. I feel so sorry for the natives and wild trout in that stream and the stockies have no chance at all. Might as well stock your bath tub.

 

[dryflyguy]

This survey just reinforces my opinion of such things. As the old saying goes, - there's lies, - there's damn lies, - then there's statistics!

 

[bigjohn58]

Hey anyone notice who the agency's chief coldwater biologist is?

Tom Greene

"Daddy want some sausage?"

We need a real guy in there like Michael Myers or Adam Sandler.

If they interviewed people at the streams and Kettle Creek was one of them then me, my brother, nor anyone he knows was interviewed and a lot of the people he fishes with live out there all spring and he's there every single weekend. I guarantee who the people were they interviewed...some of PA's finest I'm sure on their 2nd and last fishing trip of the year lol.

 

[JackM]

This just goes to show how much work has to be done to educate the general license-buying public. Should we put this endeavor ahead of fighting for stream access, or planting riparian buffers, or cleaning up pollution, or, or, or....?

As was noted on the original thread discussing this survey, they randomly selected trout stamp buyers and conducted a telephone suvey in March and April. Once again, those who wish to argue that the results do not adequately reflect the attitude of license-buyers will need to pursue another avenue of criticism.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Well i dont see why one couldnt question the data. They did call trout stamp buyers and are well aware of how the general angling public felt on the subject before giving the survey. I think by now after all the years of stockings and complaining more and more each year about the size, lack of fish or what ever the case may be that year. People want more and bigger fish at all costs.

While they did contact sportsmans clubs, im curious to know if they contacted the TU's to question each chapters feelings on the subject. Surely a good portion of TU members are trout stamp holders. Of course they didnt. They know how each chapter also feels on the subject already and cant spin that data in favor of the agenda.

The data does reflect the feelings of the general angling community. But, and i forget the exact number, X number of high school students dont know where to find Russia on a map, or the capital of the United States. We can all admit that the general angling public is slightly uneducated when it comes to the well-being of trout streams and wild trout. So then why base what we are going to do, from a fisheries management perspective, on the advice of people who just dont know. Interesting enough we have hunter safety courses in PA. Maybe one idea is to include a Angling Safety course. We can teach people about the dangers around streams and the wild. ex: what to do in case you fall in the water in winter, what to carry into the wilderness, general safety practices like thinking before rushing in, what to do in case of a snake bite and the list goes on and on. All the while giving small lessons on fish identification, stream ecology and wild trout health and life studies. Maybe a good way to educate the public. While i dont know how it could be paid for......its just a thought.

While i see no need to put this subject ahead of stream restoration or stream access, there is no reason this couldnt be looked at closer.

 

[bigjohn58]

I didn't read enough of the survey posted to know it was random phone calls. Once I saw Tom Greene in the article my ADD kind of kicked in and I quit reading.

 

[troutbert]

So they surveyed the general angling population about wild trout. But the general angling population doesn't know anything about that topic.

It would be like giving me a survey on which Indian soap opera stars are the best. I've never seen an Indian soap opera, so my survey info wouldn't be of much use, would it?

 

[pcray1231]

Well, I think they asked the right people.

Unfortunately, in surveys, it depends on how the question was asked as to what response you get. For example:

"Do you think trout should be stocked over wild fish?" -- The vast majority, including myself, would say yes, for the simple reason that if you can think of only one example, the answer is still yes. Might as well throw an "ever" between "should" and "be." There's a handful of streams that have very poor populations of wild trout, perhaps only in select spots, but they are wild trout nonetheless. Those fisheries are only useful as a viable fishery if trout are planted. Oil Creek is a great example, it has a tiny, but existing, population of wild browns. Main stem of Kettle is another. Elk Creek in Erie County is another, there's some steelhead reproduction but noone would advocate putting a stop to smolt plantings because of it. Throw the Tulpehocken (I've caught wild browns below the dam), and countless others in this mix.

"Do you think trout should be stocked in the same fishery as wild trout?" -- The answer is most certainly yes and 99% of respondants who listen to the question would say so. First, anyone who answered yes to the first question would answer yes to this one, but the percentage of "yes" answers would be even higher. A fishery includes a whole stream, so if there's wild trout in the headwaters, an answer of "no" would mean you can't stock anywhere on that stream. An extreme example, but look at the Allegheny River. It goes through the progression from a small brookie stream, to a stocked stream with wild browns and brookies mixed (the only area debatable to whether it should be stocked, IMO), onto a medium-large stream completely reliant on stocked fish. Then below Kinzua Dam its a big river completely reliant on a stockings (fingerlings and otherwise). All of it is the same "fishery".

"Do you think adult trout should be stocked in sections with strong and viable populations of wild trout?" - Most would say no (I think/hope). Thats the real question all on this board were reading into. But is it what they asked? I don't know.

Basically, in surveys, how you ask the question makes all the difference, and unfortunately the respondant is more aware of these small language differences than the survey taker.

 

[FarmerDave]

I hear what you are saying pcray, and i gree with some of it, but i don't agree with all of it.

First of all, my opinion on stocking. If they were to ask me questions like that, I'd have to say no because they aren't being specific. Sure there are cases where they should stock over "wild" populations of trout. You stated a couple. But I look at it from the other side. If they are not going to be specific, and i had to answer yes or no, I'd consider all aspects and say no (and let them know what i thought about their loaded question). To me, letting the smallmouth take over Oil Creek is better than stocking a half decent wild stream. Let the fish sort it out. So, you know where i stand.

Now about what the average angler would say. Here is where I disagree. Let me tell you a little story and i will keep it short. My little brother is an avid fisherman. He fishes way more than me, and is not a one or two week angler. He even lives on a Class A stream. One day I was fishing with him on that same stream ( before he moved there)... After catching lots of little fish, he said it sure would be nice if the Fish Commission stocked a few bigger ones in here. Well, after letting him come up for air, I explained to him a few of the many reasons why this is a bad idea and he did agree. I believe his actual words were, "cough cough, gag, spit, gag sniff sniff cough, ... I never thought of it that way ... sniff, caugh, spit, ouch.";-)

I believe that if all trout stamp buyers were asked whether or not the PF&BC should stock all streams that can support any trout the majority would say yes. The vast majority of stamp buyers are only after the stocked trout. The wild ones are only a bonus. Heck, probably half (or more) of the stamp buyers would show up at the hatchery if it were opened to "angling."

Things are getting better. It is all about education. Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to educate the unreasonable or those that don't want to be educated. Therefore you will aways have the slobs.

Pessimist: An Optimist with experience.

The survey was a waste of money. They knew what the answer would be, and only did it to have the statisitcs to rub in our faces and help justify going away from the "resource first" philosophy. Or should I say, they are more worried about their own economic resource (stamp revenue) than they are the natural resource.

Anyway, that is my opinion.

 

[JackM]

pcray1231 wrote:
Well, I think they asked the right people.

Unfortunately, in surveys, it depends on how the question was asked as to what response you get....

"Do you think trout should be stocked in the same fishery as wild trout?"....

"Do you think adult trout should be stocked in sections with strong and viable populations of wild trout?"....

But is it what they asked? I don't know.

I previously linked the actual survey. At the end, they show the questions which were asked. For ease of reference, here are the questions about wild trout and the answers. I'm still working on all the answers and will edit as I can, but for now, I tried to focus on the questions you showed concern about:

94. What percentage of your trout fishing trips in Pennsylvania would you say is made to stocked trout waters?

Simplified results: 78% said they made 51% or more of their trips to stocked waters.

95. What percentage of your trout fishing trips in Pennsylvania would you say is made to unstocked or wild trout waters?

Simplified results: 7% said they made 51% or more of their trips to stocked waters.

100. You indicated that you took [a child/children] in your household trout fishing in 2007. When you take your [child/children] fishing for trout in Pennsylvania, do you fish mostly for stocked trout, mostly for wild trout, or both about equally?

Mostly Stocked 66
Mostly Wild 1
Both Equally 33

108. Do you support or oppose stocking waters that have a high abundance of wild trout?

Strongly Support 24
Moderately Support 28
Neither Support or Oppose 5
Moderately Oppose 24
Strongly Oppose 17
Don't Know 3

109. Do you support or oppose stocking waters that have a high abundance of wild trout in areas where there are currently few stocked trout waters?

Strongly Support 24
Moderately Support 33
Neither Support or Oppose 5
Moderately Oppose 19
Strongly Oppose 14
Don't Know 4

197. How would you rate the performance of the Commission in improving habitat and water quality to make conditions more favorable for wild trout?

The Commission did not include these results in the published survey!
:-(

 

[FarmerDave]

Thanks jack. I didn't have time to read the survey. Wasn't anything i could do about it anyway.

That seems to support my generalization. However, the numbers are actually a little better than I thought they would be.

 

[troutbert]

bigjohn58 wrote:
Some streams (larger in general) can handle stocking over wild populations while most of your smaller streams I do not feel this is a good idea and is basically a joke. I have no problem stocking over the wild trout on the lower end of Fishing Creek in Mill Hall. The wild and stockies have no problems there and you will not find prettier stockies anywhere else or more holdovers anywhere else.

So would you favor the stocking of the REST of Fishing Creek, including the Narrows?

How about Spring Creek? How about Penns Creek? Logan Branch? Honey Cr? Tea Cr? Piney & Clover?

 

[pcray1231]

My answers:

94. What percentage of your trout fishing trips in Pennsylvania would you say is made to stocked trout waters?

I'd say 75%. I like fishing wild trout streams more, but convenience wins out. My after work trips are almost always to a very local stocked trout stream.

95. What percentage of your trout fishing trips in Pennsylvania would you say is made to unstocked or wild trout waters?

Is this a trick question? Lets see, 100 minus 75 is, umm, 25%.

100. You indicated that you took [a child/children] in your household trout fishing in 2007. When you take your [child/children] fishing for trout in Pennsylvania, do you fish mostly for stocked trout, mostly for wild trout, or both about equally?

I don't have children. But if I did, I'd probably take them to a stocked stream when they're young, and introduce them to wild fish in their teens.

108. Do you support or oppose stocking waters that have a high abundance of wild trout?

Strongly oppose.

109. Do you support or oppose stocking waters that have a high abundance of wild trout in areas where there are currently few stocked trout waters?

Strongly oppose.

 

[bigjohn58]

troutbert

Nope...thats why I mentioned the key word "lower" Fishing Creek (Cedar Run down stream). I totally agree with the areas they do stock on that stream and wouldn't want to see any more or any less of that stream stocked. Its a wonderful example of how wild trout and stocked trout can co-exist. Oh and the narrows section I could care less what they did up there. They could drop a bomb on it as long as it doesn't effect the rest of the stream from Lamar down. Only thing I like about the narrows is that it takes people away from the rest of the creek. You can have the narrows, I'll take the rest of the creek.

 

[troutbert]

So if the rest of Fishing Creek should not be stocked. And other streams like Spring Creek, Penns Creek etc. should not be stocked, why should lower Fishing Creek be stocked?

What's your logic here? How should the PFBC make the decision between whether to stock a section of stream, or not?

The section of Fishing Creek you are talking about has many similarities to the other stream sections I mentioned.

Are you just saying that wild trout management is a good idea, in general, but I want them to continue stocking the good wild trout stream section that is close to where I live?

 

[troutbert]

Spring Creek is managed as a wild trout stream and it's very popular. People seem very satisfied catching lots of wild trout and don't seem upset and the lack of stockies.

Stocking on Spring Creek ended somewhere around the late 1970s. If there had been a poll done asking whether people favored continued stocking or ending stocking, what percentage of the pollees do you think would have favored ending stocking?

My guess is very, very low. Probably less than 5%. Because people would have been answering the questions without the benefit of any knowledge on the topic.

Most fishermen know very little about trout populations and related subjects. And most of what they do know is wrong. Which is why we have a fisheries agency, with (hopefully) fisheries professionals.

 

[bigjohn58]

Now if it were just me fishing the stream I'd want it to be all wild browns and native brooks and no stocking and all catch and release or some other kind of regs, but its just not me fishing Fishing Creek. The area they stock is right in and around Mill Hall with very easy access to the stream. This stocking satisfies the meat hunters and occasionally I will harvest a rainbow or two maybe once or twice a year from Fishing Creek. The water is fairly large with lots and lots of feed and good trout habitat and water quality is never an issue. The stockies that are not harvested, and I would be willing to bet almost half of them are not harvested, hold over year after year with no problems at all. It is also amazing the size of some of the wild browns that I catch in the stocked area and with the amount of meat hunters its amazing a trout gets to live that long in the stocked section to get that large. I enjoy catching the stocked rainbows especially when I get a hold over or one later in the year because they really color up so nice but you get that added bonus of the occasional brown and in some areas there's still more browns then rainbows in the stocked section. Its like the best of both worlds. You have the narrows that attracts all the attention of the out of the area people or the purists or whatever you want to call them that go there, then there's the meat hunter section in Mill Hall, and then there's the section from Lamar down to Mill Hall that everyone forgets about...no regs no stocking no nothing so don't bother going there because there's no fish

 

[Mike]

Troutbert said: Most fishermen know very little about trout populations and related subjects. And most of what they do know is wrong. Which is why we have a fisheries agency, with (hopefully) fisheries professionals.

Mike's response: Troutbert, may I quote you on that again, and again, and again, and.again, and................?