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


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 (2)


Re: why stock over wild trout

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13423
Offline
Mike, I think a lot of people spout without thinking it through. Personally, I recognize that there are an awful lot of streams that have very minor wild trout populations that would NOT make them a viable sport fishery without stocking.

To me, that's really gotta be the criteria. If it could be a viable sport fishery without stocking, then it should be. If it can't, then stock it. But I recognize the difficulty in defining that line, and that you'll never get everyone to agree on it. I also recognize that you already do this to some extent, with the class A rating and not stocking those streams. My $0.02 is that this line is drawn too high. Perhaps far too high.

Since you don't publish the class of streams B-E, it's hard to say exactly where the line should be drawn. I have a list, including class designation, of a select few counties. It may be out of date, I dunno. But based on only that, and my personal experiences on those streams, I'd say all of the class B's, most of the class C's, and some of the class D's I'd consider to be viable sport fisheries. Just my personal take.

Posted on: 2013/3/7 9:10


Re: why stock over wild trout

Joined:
2006/11/10 8:32
Posts: 1718
Offline
pcray: I understand you point. One thing that needs to be remembered by any angler who debates this issue aside from the nuances surrounding the wild trout density and biomass issue is that the PFBC does not consider stream sections that average less than 4 meters in width for trout stocking. This eliminates (eliminated) the vast majority of wild trout streams with attractive fish populations and size (fish length) structures from ever having been stocked or considered for stocking(s), now or in the future. Furthermore, no Class B's may be added to the stocking program, and it has been that way for over a decade. It would not surprise me to see an attempt to remove the vast majority of Class B's from stocking in the near future, but as troutbert says, it was tried before and failed. That's called being prepared to accept political realities as a fisheries manager. I would not predict that any Class C's would be removed from the stocking program based solely on the fish population size or length distributions, but I can say that there is a Class C in SE Pa that is so good (and wide) that I would not have considered adding it to the stocking program. That is a rare C, however. Additionally, I once (about 1981) removed a B from the program (Northkill above I-78) in deference to the good population of wild trout. It once went to a low Class A and then slid back through the B's. Then a freak thunderstorm hovered overt the basin and dumped a tremendous amount of rain, destroying most of the habitat that had held larger fish. It slid to a high Class C. I still would not stock it.

Posted on: 2013/3/7 9:59


Re: why stock over wild trout

Joined:
2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 1807
Offline
"the PFBC does not consider stream sections that average less than 4 meters in width for trout stocking. This eliminates (eliminated) the vast majority of wild trout streams with attractive fish populations and size (fish length) structures from ever having been stocked or considered for stocking(s), now or in the future."

Didnt realize this and I like it.

Posted on: 2013/3/7 10:11


Re: why stock over wild trout

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13423
Offline
Many of the B's and C's I'm talking about in those few select counties are stocked. Generally lightly, and only at a spot or two where they cross roads. But stocked nonetheless.

Posted on: 2013/3/7 12:01


Re: why stock over wild trout

Joined:
2011/7/6 12:30
From Ephrata, PA
Posts: 6368
Offline
Quote:

k-bob wrote:
"the PFBC does not consider stream sections that average less than 4 meters in width for trout stocking. This eliminates (eliminated) the vast majority of wild trout streams with attractive fish populations and size (fish length) structures from ever having been stocked or considered for stocking(s), now or in the future."

Didnt realize this and I like it.


That makes two of us!

Posted on: 2013/3/7 12:09


Re: why stock over wild trout

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13423
Offline
Quote:
destroying most of the habitat that had held larger fish. It slid to a high Class C. I still would not stock it.


Would be interested in the latest surveys. I never knew what "class" that stream was, but I like it, and IMo it has good numbers and some with size. Only been fishing it for 4 or 5 years, though, so I don't know what it all went through before that.

Even aside from the wild trout thing, I would favor removing streams from the list in preference to reduced numbers per stream. Especially for the bigger waters like Pine, Oil, Yellow Breeches, Kettle, 1st Fork, etc. etc. IMO those make the backbone of the stocked trout fishery. They have seen considerably reduced numbers over the years. And the reduced numbers have had an effect on the fishing. These streams can take a large number of anglers with plenty of elbow room. And the fish spread out allowing this. It's an enjoyable experience for all. But the fishing is very much dependent on having a lot of fish.

And then you drive over a little 10 foot wide stream which gets stocked at the bridge hole, and fish are stacked like cordwood in that pool and the one below it. In those two pools are 10 guys fighting for position to snag em, and at any given time, 3 of them are covering 80 fish while the remainder are looking for a straggler or two, and basically waiting in line to get at the "hotspot". And you just have to ask yourself "why" is this encouraged? Would it make a difference if there were 30 in that pool instead of 80? And if you just walk a quarter mile from the bridge it's a fair wild fishery in much more pleasant surroundings.

Now, when you do actual numbers, even if they're stacked in that bridge hole, ultimately, there aren't many fish there, and their addition would be a drop in the bucket on the big streams. But I think this is where a lot of people are coming from. We see places that are stocked which encourage the worst behavior, and frankly just don't make any sense to stock. And then we see declining stocking numbers on the streams that do make sense.

Part of it is the long held impression of PFBC policy that an "unharvested fish is a wasted fish". I very much disagree with that kind of a view. All it does is concentrate the fish in places where it's easy to surround them. i.e. it encourages "combat fishing", which gets old real quick. And may have a lot to do with declining license sales. To me the goal should be to spread the fish and the anglers out and create more acres of decent trout fishing water. You are trying to add additional sporting opportunities, not replace the grocery stores.

Posted on: 2013/3/7 13:55


Re: why stock over wild trout

Joined:
2006/9/13 10:18
From LV
Posts: 7608
Offline
Well if PFBC doesn't consider streams under 4 meters wide let's take off Cold Run. I'd bet if you went to the Northkill you'd find it's Class A now both in Sand Spring Run and the Northkill.
Itend to agree with Pat on the streams that should be taken off, but I also have to wonder if PFBC were in part financed from the general fund if reductions in stocking would ever happen?
Also I think the Big freestone streams should have hundreds of thousands of fish stocked from Sept to about mid-May, they all attract a lot of anglers and they attract them all year.

Posted on: 2013/3/7 15:16
_________________
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: why stock over wild trout

Joined:
2013/3/7 9:02
From Boilingsprings
Posts: 137
Offline
Talking with some WCO's recently and the removal of stocked fish in better than marginal waters is being considered. I know of two or three that have section that would hold there own.However the dollar will win at least part of the fight as to who gets and who does not get there fish. At least this is being considered by the decision makers. Most anglers would not catch trout if they had to rely on wild fish. This would hurt license sales and more cut back. It would be a victory for quality trout in Pa but not for Pa fish and Boat.

Posted on: 2013/3/7 18:16
_________________
Tony Dranzo


Re: why stock over wild trout

Joined:
2011/9/14 18:16
From South East pa
Posts: 35
Offline
so spouting off? does that count about three or four rambling posts ?

Posted on: 2013/3/7 18:57
_________________
Love em' and Leave em' Support catch and release


Re: why stock over wild trout
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/11 8:26
From Chester County
Posts: 8960
Offline
Quote:

pcray1231 wrote:
Quote:
destroying most of the habitat that had held larger fish. It slid to a high Class C. I still would not stock it.


Would be interested in the latest surveys. I never knew what "class" that stream was, but I like it, and IMo it has good numbers and some with size. Only been fishing it for 4 or 5 years, though, so I don't know what it all went through before that.

Even aside from the wild trout thing, I would favor removing streams from the list in preference to reduced numbers per stream. Especially for the bigger waters like Pine, Oil, Yellow Breeches, Kettle, 1st Fork, etc. etc. IMO those make the backbone of the stocked trout fishery. They have seen considerably reduced numbers over the years. And the reduced numbers have had an effect on the fishing. These streams can take a large number of anglers with plenty of elbow room. And the fish spread out allowing this. It's an enjoyable experience for all. But the fishing is very much dependent on having a lot of fish.

And then you drive over a little 10 foot wide stream which gets stocked at the bridge hole, and fish are stacked like cordwood in that pool and the one below it. In those two pools are 10 guys fighting for position to snag em, and at any given time, 3 of them are covering 80 fish while the remainder are looking for a straggler or two, and basically waiting in line to get at the "hotspot".
And you just have to ask yourself "why" is this encouraged? Would it make a difference if there were 30 in that pool instead of 80? And if you just walk a quarter mile from the bridge it's a fair wild fishery in much more pleasant surroundings.

Now, when you do actual numbers, even if they're stacked in that bridge hole, ultimately, there aren't many fish there, and their addition would be a drop in the bucket on the big streams. But I think this is where a lot of people are coming from. We see places that are stocked which encourage the worst behavior, and frankly just don't make any sense to stock. And then we see declining stocking numbers on the streams that do make sense.

Part of it is the long held impression of PFBC policy that an "unharvested fish is a wasted fish". I very much disagree with that kind of a view. All it does is concentrate the fish in places where it's easy to surround them. i.e. it encourages "combat fishing", which gets old real quick. And may have a lot to do with declining license sales. To me the goal should be to spread the fish and the anglers out and create more acres of decent trout fishing water. You are trying to add additional sporting opportunities, not replace the grocery stores.


Very good point (above) by Pcray.

Posted on: 2013/3/8 7:24


Re: why stock over wild trout

Joined:
2011/9/14 18:16
From South East pa
Posts: 35
Offline
do I smell a fly fishing elitist among us? lol

Posted on: 2013/3/8 8:01
_________________
Love em' and Leave em' Support catch and release


Re: why stock over wild trout

Joined:
2006/9/10 22:25
Posts: 136
Offline
Stocking also helps keep streams open to fishing. The PFBC gets permission to stock which they then do which opens up private land for us to fish on. If you look at a stream like Martins Creek whose banks are 95 % private, if it weren't stocked, I doubt access would be allowed. Same goes for stretches of Pocono, McMichael, Pohopoco, Bushkill, Monocacy, Little Schuylkill, et al. All have wild trout of varying degrees and we non truck chasers can fish there only because they are stocked waters.

Also bare in mind streams can only support so much trout and most of their capacity is dictated by flows, temps, food, cover, etc. Stocking IMO has little to no affect on much wild trout a stream holds.

Posted on: 2013/3/8 9:25



« 1 (2)



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