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


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 ... 7 8 9 (10)


Re: Wild Brook Trout

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 1930
Offline
Quote:

jifigz wrote:
One thing I do like about that list is that they list the biomass class. I'm sure that those samplings are quite outdated but it is cool to see streams that I've fished and see what they are classified as. An example of how the list could be expanded, however, is if Cherry Run (Penns Trib) is listed as a wilderness stream then how is Spectacle Run (Mifflin/Juniata counties) not listed? It is obvious this "program" never received much attention from the get-go.


There is a road right along nearly all of Spectacle Run.

The only section of Cherry Run (Penns) that is listed as Wilderness is the headwater roadless section. Not the section with the road along it.




Posted on: 1/30 17:23


Re: Wild Brook Trout

Joined:
2007/6/19 21:49
From Lancaster County
Posts: 958
Offline
Quote:

afishinado wrote:
Quote:

Mike wrote:
I understand your point Afish, but I think that you may be possibly underestimating the size (number of acres)of the stocking program in urban, metro, and suburban streams and overestimating how many trout are stocked in Class B stream acres.. It is unlikely, if I recall the number correctly, and I think I do, that on a per acre basis the trout taken from Stocked Class B's would even be noticeable if spread across most urban, metro, and suburban streams. I use the term "per acre basis" because that is how allocations are determined within each stocked trout stream classification.


Hey Mike,

I realize it's only a start, and the PFBC is caught between a rock and a hard place with trout stocking. Sometimes it's best just to set a policy that makes the most sense and go with it. I would believe setting the bar with a policy of no stocking Class A's and B's would be easier than leaving open the possibility of stocking all streams and having legislators try to influence what streams are stocked in their district.

Further, some streams have not been surveyed in years or even a decade or more. Since wild trout populations are on the rise in PA, I would bet there are many more streams that can be added to the A or B list.

The message would be: Class A and B population trout streams are rewarding fisheries without the stocking of trout. First and foremost, the Commission is charged with the conservation of wild and native trout. Our policy is set to allow native and wild trout to flourish in the streams they inhabit, and stock trout for anglers to enjoy in streams without a fishable population of wild or native trout.


Setting a bar doesn't preclude legislators from influencing how that bar bends around the pet streams of their constituents. And Class A and Class B streams don't always remain the classes they are when they were surveyed. What happens when a population crashes? Or the Class A survey was an anomaly of a year-class? If you don't believe the legislature would not have influence, how many of the hatcheries that the PFBC proposed to close a few years ago are now shuttered?

What I hear the PFBC at times saying is that stocking is not as detrimental to wild fish as some groups make it out to be. But even it is not as detrimental, if it is not helpful to wild fish populations, why not stop it? Manage with policies that enhance wild trout populations, not policies that hurt wild trout populations less. So what if it only means several thousand fish are freed up for restocking in urban areas? The wild fish in the streams that were invaded by those fish previously certainly weren't helped by the presence of those stockers. And maybe they won't catapult to Class A status with the cessation of stocking, but at least one pressure (other piscavore competition) and maybe a second (angling) would be reduced.

The wilderness discussion is a bit of a distraction from the underlying issues. While I prefer to fish in more remote locations, I've had enjoyable angling standing a foot away from a brick factory building, on a stream that probably has a higher biomass of fish than most "wilderness" streams. Face it, there simply are not that many "remote, natural and unspoiled environment where man's disruptive activities are minimized" in Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth is a recovering industrial land mass. "Wilderness" in PA is a marketing strategy, not a management strategy, although certainly streams that qualify for "Wilderness" status likely makeup a subset of quality coldwater fisheries, alongside many suburban, rural, and pastoral streams.

Loss of access because a stream stops being stocked? Are we advocating for the cessation of stocking over native or wild fish populations for the benefit of the fish or the benefit of the angler? If we lose access to streams (i.e. we can't fish there anymore), but the fish biomass increases or the range expands in that stream or watershed, is that a good or a bad thing?

Posted on: 1/30 18:33


Re: Wild Brook Trout

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 1930
Offline
Quote:

salmonoid wrote:

The wilderness discussion is a bit of a distraction from the underlying issues.


I agree. And there are many ways to get distracted.

The original point was that if and when we get serious about brook trout populations, we will quit stocking hatchery trout over native brook trout.

The potential brook trout population gains from this are substantial because there is a very large mileage of streams where this is done, by the PFBC and coop hatcheries.

Even the freeing up of hatchery fish for stocking elsewhere is a secondary thing. A nice benefit, but not at the heart of the matter.


Posted on: 1/30 18:54


Re: Wild Brook Trout

Joined:
2013/12/8 21:26
From Granville
Posts: 919
Offline
Quote:

troutbert wrote:
Quote:

jifigz wrote:
One thing I do like about that list is that they list the biomass class. I'm sure that those samplings are quite outdated but it is cool to see streams that I've fished and see what they are classified as. An example of how the list could be expanded, however, is if Cherry Run (Penns Trib) is listed as a wilderness stream then how is Spectacle Run (Mifflin/Juniata counties) not listed? It is obvious this "program" never received much attention from the get-go.


There is a road right along nearly all of Spectacle Run.

The only section of Cherry Run (Penns) that is listed as Wilderness is the headwater roadless section. Not the section with the road along it.





I didn't take notice to the small section that was listed for Cherry. The vast majority of Cherry Run has a road along it so I assumed since that qualified that Spectacle should as well. But you are right this is a bit off topic.

On a side note before I let this go as Swattie mentioned Honey Creek in a previous post. Upper Honey has to be one of the poorest brook trout streams in Mifflin County. Just my opinion but I deem that stream as basically unfishable compared to the other brookie streams in the county.

Posted on: 1/30 19:55


Re: Wild Brook Trout
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/11 8:26
From Chester County
Posts: 3250
Online
Quote:

Setting a bar doesn't preclude legislators from influencing how that bar bends around the pet streams of their constituents. And Class A and Class B streams don't always remain the classes they are when they were surveyed. What happens when a population crashes? Or the Class A survey was an anomaly of a year-class? If you don't believe the legislature would not have influence, how many of the hatcheries that the PFBC proposed to close a few years ago are now shuttered?

What I hear the PFBC at times saying is that stocking is not as detrimental to wild fish as some groups make it out to be. But even it is not as detrimental, if it is not helpful to wild fish populations, why not stop it? Manage with policies that enhance wild trout populations, not policies that hurt wild trout populations less. So what if it only means several thousand fish are freed up for restocking in urban areas? The wild fish in the streams that were invaded by those fish previously certainly weren't helped by the presence of those stockers. And maybe they won't catapult to Class A status with the cessation of stocking, but at least one pressure (other piscavore competition) and maybe a second (angling) would be reduced.

The wilderness discussion is a bit of a distraction from the underlying issues. While I prefer to fish in more remote locations, I've had enjoyable angling standing a foot away from a brick factory building, on a stream that probably has a higher biomass of fish than most "wilderness" streams. Face it, there simply are not that many "remote, natural and unspoiled environment where man's disruptive activities are minimized" in Pennsylvania. The Commonwealth is a recovering industrial land mass. "Wilderness" in PA is a marketing strategy, not a management strategy, although certainly streams that qualify for "Wilderness" status likely makeup a subset of quality coldwater fisheries, alongside many suburban, rural, and pastoral streams.

Loss of access because a stream stops being stocked? Are we advocating for the cessation of stocking over native or wild fish populations for the benefit of the fish or the benefit of the angler? If we lose access to streams (i.e. we can't fish there anymore), but the fish biomass increases or the range expands in that stream or watershed, is that a good or a bad thing?


I agree with your entire post.....good stuff.

The one thing we must all realize, the PFBC exists both to protect and conserve our water resources and to serve the license buying angler!

Many (most?) trout anglers prefer to fish for larger, more concentrated and easily caught fish, aka stocked trout. In order for the FBC to change their stocking protocol, they must sell the idea or at least make it palatable to their customers, the license buying anglers.

A slight shift from stocking wild and native trout streams to streams without an appreciable wild population of fish is the best we can hope for at this time.

As the wild trout populations increase (hopefully) from better water quality primarily, as well as less pressure from anglers and introduced fish, less and less streams will need to be stocked for anglers to have decent fishing experience.

We can do both: protect our water resources and as well, everyone can have some good fishin'; whether one prefers to fish in a wild trout stream, or a well-stocked stream close to home.

Posted on: 1/31 7:56

Edited by afishinado on 2018/1/31 16:21:31


Re: Wild Brook Trout

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 1930
Offline
Quote:

afishinado wrote:

A slight shift from stocking wild and native trout streams to streams without an appreciable wild population of fish is the best we can hope for at this time.


Why do you think so?



Posted on: 1/31 15:41


Re: Wild Brook Trout
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/11 8:26
From Chester County
Posts: 3250
Online
Quote:

troutbert wrote:
Quote:

afishinado wrote:

A slight shift from stocking wild and native trout streams to streams without an appreciable wild population of fish is the best we can hope for at this time.


Why do you think so?



The cessation of stocking in any stream always has been difficult for the PFBC to achieve. Heck, recently the policy of no stocking of Class A's has even been watered down to appease those in favor of stocking.

Do you think the PFBC will make wide-sweeping changes to their stocking policies in favor of wild trout?....and why?

Posted on: 1/31 15:47


Re: Wild Brook Trout

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 1930
Offline
Advocacy can work.

I've seen it work. The Rockview land deal proved beyond any doubt that it can work.


The sportsmens clubs don't take the defeatist attitude that advocacy doesn't work. They express their wishes to their legislators and their Fish Commissioners. And that has an influence.

If we (the wild trout supporters) talked more to our legislators and Fish Commissioners, that would have an influence also.

As I've already said, in 2003 the PFBC tried to take 63 Class B streams off the stocking list. Which shows that they want to do the right thing.

They just need more support.


Posted on: 1/31 16:34


Re: Wild Brook Trout

Joined:
2006/9/20 21:44
From E-Town and Germania
Posts: 385
Offline
On YWC and Cross Fork, it is the sportsmens clubs responsible for advocating the stocking.

Posted on: 1/31 19:17


Re: Wild Brook Trout

Joined:
2010/5/28 0:25
Posts: 603
Offline
salvelinus is correct regarding Young Woman's Creek and Cross Fork Creek. Many of the regulars (including me) that have fished those streams for decades regard it as a bitter joke. Let's dump a bunch of rainbows in Cross Fork Creek at Windfall Run and the snowmobile bridge to appease someone.

Posted on: 1/31 19:27
_________________
I would say he tweets like a 12 year old, but that would be an insult to 12 year old's all over the world


Re: Wild Brook Trout

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 1930
Offline
Quote:

salvelinus wrote:
On YWC and Cross Fork, it is the sportsmens clubs responsible for advocating the stocking.


That's right. As as I said:

"The sportsmens clubs don't take the defeatist attitude that advocacy doesn't work."

They showed very clearly that it does work.









Posted on: 1/31 19:49


Re: Wild Brook Trout

Joined:
2009/1/11 23:54
From Pittsburgh
Posts: 139
Offline
Book trout are not easy to adopt to change.
I wish they go with hydrixide ions of the water easier.
Greater than 7 alkaline solution and various plants in east pa.

Posted on: 2/3 20:45


Re: Wild Brook Trout

Joined:
2006/9/9 16:08
From Erie Co.
Posts: 384
Offline
http://www.fishandboat.com/Pages/default.aspx

The Fish and Boat Commission has scheduled a series of Sportsmens Forums across the state to solicit opinions from anglers and boaters on how the PFBC can best conserve aquatic resources while creating more opportunities for fishing and boating recreation. The forums will feature an overview of the existing programs of the agency and a discussion of its current financial state of affairs.

Info on PAF&BC web page, links to the region meetings on left side to the web page.

Here is a good read:
http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2004/DickVincent.htm


Posted on: 2/11 10:09



« 1 ... 7 8 9 (10)



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
Sponsors
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

USGS Water Levels
Polls





Copyright 2018 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com