The PFBC is Puzzling...Question About Stocking Wild Streams

[fishfuzz]

I read the PFBC's proposal to eliminate in-season stockings on some popular streams/stream sections.

If stocking is so detrimental to wild trout, why are there so many wild trout in these streams/stream sections? They have been stocked for years. If the harvest of wild trout is so high during the early part of the trout season, why are there still so many wild trout in these streams/stream sections?

Who does this proposal benefit? It does not sound like a win/win for the anglers or the agency. It seems the PFBC has the right balance right now. They get license buyers to fish for stocked trout and they get license buyers to fish for wild trout in the same stream.

Am I missing something?

 

[DavidFin]

I see your point, but maybe it's becoming a more preventative measure. With the weather so erratic now, who knows what our streams will endure. I've literally lost sleep this fall worrying about my local brook trout fishery because i KNOW many of them couldn't make it upstream very far with the stream being as low as it was.

There were a few fisheries I didn't even fish this fall because it was of how little water there was.

 

[bearfisherman]

My guess would be economics. As the price of stocked trout continues to rise, the PFBC is trying to place those fish in places that don't already support a natural fishery. More bang for the buck.

 

[salmonoid]

If there is X biomass of wild trout in a stream with stocking, and there is X+Y of biomass of wild trout in a stream after stocking ceases, then the PFBC and the angling public has picked up Y for no additional financial outlay. If Z is what the PFBC stocked, you can also quantify Y vs. Z. You may find that Y > or >> Z (win-win for angling public and PFBC) or if Y is just a bit less than Z, then I'd also classify that as a win-win.

The wild card, which I think you are expressing, is PO - public opinion.

 

[Fishidiot]

This thread title was edited so as to better reflect the topic addressed.
Thanks,
Dave W

 

[troutbert]

Would you favor the PFBC stocking Spring Creek, Fishing Creek, Penns Creek, Little Juniata, Letort, Falling Spring, Slate Run, Cedar Run, etc.?

 

[BrookieChaser]

Who does the proposal benefit... how about the valuable resource that is naturally reproducing trout? Stocked trout compete for resources, dilute genetics, and suppress wild trout. It's been proven in studies. The fact that these wild trout thrive even though they have been stocked over is more reason to protect them.

To answer the question of why are there so many wild trout. They obviously found a niche in the biotic community that's allowing them to survive.

To answer the why now question. Why would the PFBC waste their money and further dilute a valuable resource? Maybe they're taken their motto of "Resource First" to heart? Maybe it's as simple as this stream just got assessed and it was now brought to the agency's attention? Maybe something changed in the biotic community to allow the trout to thrive in these streams?

You say "they [PFBC] get people that fish for stocked trout and people that fish for wild trout". As a wild trout enthusiast, if I'm targeting wild trout and I know they put pelletheads in a stream, said stream is no longer in play.

 

[rrt]

For Troutbert: absolutely not. I hope you were being facetious.

For the thread: I am familiar with a number of streams that were removed from stocking lists back in the 1980s. Once removed, the numbers of wild trout exploded in all but one, and that one fluctuated between Class A and high B. However, a local sportsmen's organization put pressure on the FBC, and, sadly, it is now stocked again. But, all of the other streams remain full of wild brown and brook trout. There are, of course, fluctuations in numbers due to spawning success, etc. Sometimes natural factors will wipe out a year class. One stream I am aware of had its fish decimated by kill 'em and grill 'em fishermen during the year of the locust (cicada seems to be such an effeminate term), and only last year did it contain a nice set of year classes as it had before. But, overall, removing stocked trout from streams that can support viable populations of wild trout is a very positive thing.

 

[marcq]

this is one easy problem to solve IMO.

stock the streams that need to stocked. ones that get heavy pressure during the early season. mostly WW streams like wiss and pennypack. locals that have no real trout fishery after July. leave it at the 5 fish that it is.

you put special regs on streams that holdover fish well and have some wild population. streams like the tulp and little skuke. something like 2 fish a day after june. keep stocking them normally.

streams that have wild population you have a CnR. don't stock them and leave them be for anglers to catch take a picture and let them go.

take florida and most of the other southern states for example with redfish. it use to be a ok fishery back in the day. now its the best in the world. cause they managed it well. I am not trying to say the pa fish and game guys don't do a good job. I give them a lot of credit for providing many anglers my self included great fishing in our state. I think there are thing that need to be work out.

 

[afishinado]

fishfuzz wrote:
I read the PFBC's proposal to eliminate in-season stockings on some popular streams/stream sections.

If stocking is so detrimental to wild trout, why are there so many wild trout in these streams/stream sections? They have been stocked for years. If the harvest of wild trout is so high during the early part of the trout season, why are there still so many wild trout in these streams/stream sections?

Who does this proposal benefit? It does not sound like a win/win for the anglers or the agency. It seems the PFBC has the right balance right now. They get license buyers to fish for stocked trout and they get license buyers to fish for wild trout in the same stream.

Am I missing something?

Yes. The PFBC revenues are down and costs are up, therefore the agency must cut both numbers of fish stocked as well as the frequency of stocking. Okay, where should we cut? Well these streams (Class A's) already have a fishable population of trout without stocking, and those streams have no trout at all. Game over for anglers if we don't stock them, so we'll cut down the stocking of the Class A's and maintain or increase stocking in the streams with no wild trout.

The side benefit of this plan for some (and the main benefit for others) is that wild trout populations may even increase. This would make fishing even better in the Class A's and better in the non wild trout waters since stocking numbers are at least maintained if not increased.

Am I missing something?


Okay fishfuzz, the FBC needs to cut 300K trout from the stocking program, statewide and cut frequency of stocking by 25% because of higher transportation costs and personnel cuts. You're the Lehigh Valley Guy and your share of cuts for your region is 50k trout. Where would you make your cuts?

 

[Mike]

Afish, just for clarification and to generalize, this proposed policy change is not about raising less trout or reducing costs.

It is largely a stocking program intensity question in a select group of presently stocked Class A equivalent biomass wild brown trout stream sections in popular, documented high use streams. Some of these stream sections are in urban parks where near-by stream angling alternatives are limited or impractical due to the crowds already present along those waters, particularly on opening day. Additionally, considering the urban situation, alternatives can provide transportation problems for some anglers while others might join the ranks already fishing along streams where there is no public ownership, raising angler density and intensity concerns for landowners.

 

[fishfuzz]

troutbert – I didn’t suggest stocking those streams, but wasn’t Spring Creek “stocked” after one of the Hurricanes…maybe 2004? I think the PFBC may have gone in and took some of the escaped stockers out, but they obviously didn’t get them all and Spring Creek is just fine now. I also recall more anglers around that timeframe…

BrookieChaser – How valuable is a wild trout stream to the PFBC? They may get 10% of their license sales (if they are lucky) from wild trout fishermen. I am with you and agree wild trout streams are a great resource. They deserve protection and are already protected by the PFBC and DEP. However, if you think the general public cares about the value of wild trout show up to a stocking or read HB 1576.

afish – I know PFBC revenues are down, so how does cutting in-season stockings in popular public parks or highly fished stream sections help their revenues? How do you “sell” the potential increase in 5”-9” wild trout (based upon surveys on one of the streams) to anglers that have been fishing the stream for 10, 20, 30, 40 years for stocked trout? How does taking fish from wild/stocked Stream A and stocking more fish in stocked Stream B save the agency money? You still have to get the fish to Stream B. I am also not sure your Lehigh Valley scenario is totally accurate.

I love wild trout – I truly do. However, if streams were not stocked many of us would not be fishermen today. If streams were not stocked we wouldn’t have so many wild browns (and to a lesser degree wild rainbows) which today are considered so valuable. If stocked trout are so bad, then wild trout would not be in the streams/stream sections in question in the numbers they are. If wild trout guys would focus upon stream restoration projects the same way they focus upon the PFBC stocking program they would “potentially” have more wild trout to catch.

This proposal is not a win/win for everyone and it is a shame.

 

[SBecker]

I can understand some of the urban fisheries being stocked. The ones in park systems where there are tons of open space for anglers to use. I completely understand that. Po still makes no sense.


You want to know why the Po gets such high angler use on the first day? Pretty simple really. There are 2 streams in the Lehighton area. There are more, but these are the two main ones. Pohopoco and Mahoning. They are less then 5 miles away from each other, yet opening day is different. Mahoning opens the first opener and Po the second. I guarantee if both those streams were opened the same weekend, angler traffic would be cut in half. The meat hunters would be sooooo torn on which one to go to. You give them both on seperate openers and they can just hit each one.

 

[troutbert]

fishfuzz wrote:
troutbert – I didn’t suggest stocking those streams...

Spring Creek, Fishing Creek, Penns Creek, Little Juniata, Letort, Falling Spring, Slate Run, Cedar Run are all Class A streams. And all these streams were stocked in the past.

The streams discussed in the original post are also Class A streams. That are currently stocked.

So the streams discussed in the original post and the streams I mentioned are in the same category, i.e. they are Class A streams.

Do you favor stocking some Class A streams, but not other Class A streams? And if so, how do you think it should be decided which are stocked, and which not?

These questions aren't just for fishfuzz, they are relevant questions for anyone interested in the topic.

(My view is that Class A streams should not be stocked.)

 

[Mike]

Troutbert,
The proposal is the answer to your last question. The criteria for stocking are included.

 

[Maurice]

SBecker wrote:
I can understand some of the urban fisheries being stocked. The ones in park systems where there are tons of open space for anglers to use. I completely understand that. Po still makes no sense.


You want to know why the Po gets such high angler use on the first day? Pretty simple really. There are 2 streams in the Lehighton area. There are more, but these are the two main ones. Pohopoco and Mahoning. They are less then 5 miles away from each other, yet opening day is different. Mahoning opens the first opener and Po the second. I guarantee if both those streams were opened the same weekend, angler traffic would be cut in half. The meat hunters would be sooooo torn on which one to go to. You give them both on seperate openers and they can just hit each one.

Shane,

I no nuthin bout your waters but from your description above, the po will be stocked for a long time. I recall it being on the "list" so just be glad it will receive only preseason stocking IIRC.

Here in York we have really only two "close" trout streams the EB and SB Codorus. ALthough Both harbor wild trout one pretty good density, they will be NEVER be removed from the list of ATWs and if so will always receive an inseason stocking and Co-op stockings.

But after the middle of may the pressure is reduced to just a few anglers per week and the little wild trouts come out to play. You could argue that the wild trout would be more abundant if not stocked but I would disagree. I think the collateral damage to wild trout is less than what would occur if stocking were to halt in suburban areas.

 

[BrookieChaser]

fishfuzz wrote:

BrookieChaser – How valuable is a wild trout stream to the PFBC? They may get 10% of their license sales (if they are lucky) from wild trout fishermen. I am with you and agree wild trout streams are a great resource. They deserve protection and are already protected by the PFBC and DEP. However, if you think the general public cares about the value of wild trout show up to a stocking or read HB 1576.

First off how valuable are wild trout to the PFBC? According to this they are pretty valuable: - Taken form the PFBC Trout Management Plan -
The “Resource First” philosophy further establishes the ethical principle that the agency’s primary role is that of a conservation organization. Accordingly, its responsibility extends beyond merely providing fishing and boating opportunities to the public. Rather, it establishes a commitment to optimizing those opportunities through the application of good science throughout the Commonwealth. It also establishes the firm expectation that the agency will:
1. Not engage in or support activities or regulations that may bring undue harm to its aquatic resources.

2. Constantly strive to develop and improve upon its ability to make scientifically-informed decisions on the impact of various regulations and practices on the aquatic resources it is charged to protect.

4. Provide the basis for protecting and enhancing viable wild fisheries and other resources under the agency’s jurisdiction.

Remember money isn't everything. Money has destroyed it's fair share of PA's natural resources. Just so we have information correct, it's 1% of trout anglers report fishing exclusively for wild trout, 34% fish exclusively for pelletheads, and the remaing 65% fish for both.

As for the general public comment, I'll be blunt with you, the general public is ignorant.

 

[PelletHead1]

The PFBC can keep stocking my class A wild trout streams all they want. Since they make me buy a trout stamp to fish for wild fish I’ll just keep feeding the raccoons, one limit of pellet heads at a time. ;-)

 

[Stenonema]

I understand the question. We are blessed in this state to have many streams. I don't think you need to provide both stocked and wild trout in the same stream. A short drive will result in Joe fisherman putting himself on a stream worthy of stocking. The number of streams capable of producing wild trout are far fewer than the ones capable of temporarily holding stocked trout populations. I think the question should be why stock trout in a stream capable of producing a wild trout population. To realize the potential of a stream it should not be stocked. We should maximize our resources but not for us in spite of the fish.

 

[lineman]

Stenonema nailed it, I agree 100%