Acristickid
Well-known member
This is from today's Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Try not to fall out of your chair as this will certainly ruffle some feathers for some time. Looks like we are heading in the right direction.
"The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission will tackle the future of trout stockings and other issues when it meets June 17 in State College to begin planning how it will execute its new "resource-first agenda."
Adopted at the agency's recent quarterly meeting, the new mission -- not yet a formal plan -- will rely more emphatically on fisheries biology to shape recreational opportunities. It could mean fewer or no hatchery stockings on streams that have wild trout.
"This is not an effort to eliminate hatcheries and stockings," said Fish and Boat Commission board member Bill Worobec of Williamsport. "But we need to better understand whether we should be stocking over wild fish."
Worobec helped to engineer the policy shift.
"It mandates that we approach the resource from a scientific rather than a social perspective," he said. "Without the science, it's difficult to make good environmental and, for that matter, social decisions. That requires the agency to collect considerably more data on our fisheries, evaluate the data over time and use it as coldly and objectively as possible."
What that means for wild trout streams may put the commission in a quandary.
"The issue we're wrestling with is how to define what a wild trout fishery is," said the agency's fisheries management chief Dave Miko. "At what point do we decide that a wild trout fishery doesn't have enough wild biomass to provide recreational angling? If you find one wild fingerling in a stream, does that constitute a wild trout fishery, compared to a Class A stream where there are hundreds of wild fish and we do not stock?"
Current policy doesn't allow for stockings on Class A Wild Trout streams. Whether and where that rule could be expanded will take research, Miko said. "If stocking over a wild trout population is determined to be detrimental, we'll take a close look at removing it from the stocking list."
Pennsylvania Trout Unlimited president Ken Undercoffer has pushed for a more conservation-oriented agency for years and said he was "stunned and delighted" when the commission board voted unanimously to make fisheries protection paramount.
"The agency is saying if they have a choice not to harm a wild trout population in any way, they'll go for the resource, not the recreation," said Undercoffer, who will attend the June 17 meeting as part of a trout study group periodically consulted by the commission. "There are few streams in Pennsylvania that don't have naturally reproducing trout somewhere in the system."
That will make "resource first" a tough sell among many anglers who want to see more, not fewer, stocked streams, he said.
"Wait until people call their state reps and create an uproar. It'll be [like the] deer wars," said Undercoffer.
He was referring to the Pennsylvania Game Commission's deer management plan that increased bag limits on the theory that fewer deer would help regenerate habitat in over-browsed forests. The plan triggered the wrath of many hunters, a lawsuit by Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania and an impending audit of the plan by the state legislature.
"The Fish Commission's going to have to go out and try to sell their agenda, the way the Game Commission did with [former agency biologist] Gary Alt's deer management plan," said Undercoffer. "We'll go with them, although it will probably take a generation. I think the young people get it. It's the old fogies my age that just won't change."
Fayette County tackle shop owner Scott Gates said a plan to reduce stockings would cause license sales, and his business, to plummet.
"All these mountain streams have native fish in them," he said. "Not stocking [on streams with wild trout] would raise more [problems] than the doe-killing thing did. The commission would open a can of worms it can't handle."
Although the Fish and Boat Commission's resource-first agenda is not limited to trout, Miko says that is the species the agency will tackle first, revising both the stocking program and fishing regulations over a period of five years.
"You may see some experimentation, where we're allowing bait [fishing], say, on 'artificials-only' waters, or lures-only where there had always been bait."
Where and how many trout are planted is seen as a pivotal issue. More than 850,000 anglers bought licenses in 2007, and 70 percent of them also bought trout stamps, providing the agency with the bulk of its revenue. Despite occasional rumblings about a merger with other state agencies or developing alternate sources of income, the Fish and Boat Commission continues to operate on a user-pay system. Even the federal funds the agency receives are based on the number of licenses sold. Some of that revenue pays to operate the state's 12 working fish culture stations, eight of which are dedicated to trout.
And trout-rearing has become more expensive. Aside from infrastructure maintenance, the commission is now paying almost four times as much to fuel stocking trucks, forcing it to scrutinize whether it is getting the most bang for its buck.
Agency biologists recently concluded a three-year study of 270 stream sections across the state to determine whether trout move quickly from the areas where they are planted. It found that in 28 percent of streams, less than 40 percent of trout remained where anglers expected to catch them on opening day, and just a few streams retained half their fish. While Miko said the problem is greatest in the northeast and northcentral counties, Whiteley Creek fared poorly in the southwest.
The agency also has recently finished a phone survey of 1,400 anglers to determine their fishing preferences, which also could be factored into future stocking decisions.
"[Hatchery] trout are expensive, and they're going to die anyway," said Worobec. "We've got to put them where they can be enjoyed ... take them to the people, if you will. It may mean going into brand new waters, like a park in the center of a city somewhere that is easily accessed by children. There's some talk about focusing on lakes, where movement isn't an issue."
Undercoffer agrees that stocked trout have a place in the state, especially where water quality is marginal, but it shouldn't include streams where natives exist, he said. He cited Young Woman's Creek in Clinton County, once a Class A Wild Trout water the commission added to the stocking schedule two years ago under pressure from a local rod and gun club. The group had been planting trout on its own for years.
"Pennsylvania has been called the Montana of the East," said Undercoffer, "but that's only if we bother to create wild fisheries and protect them ... if we don't stock over them ... if we educate the public."
"Wild fish give us the opportunity to create more fishing experiences for people, but in a different format," said Worobec. "But we'll have to go to great lengths to educate the public."
All fisheries can provide leverage against pollution and sprawl, said commission environmental director John Arway.
"Whether it's a proposed mall on Deer Creek impacting stocked trout or logging at the headwaters of a native brook trout stream, we have to evaluate risks, emphasizing protecting the resource."
Arway also pointed out that resource-first applies to all of the species the commission manages, including those that anglers don't give much thought.
"Our decisions have to be driven by protecting animals," he said, "whether it's a rare fish, a rare mussel, a turtle, a stocked trout or a muskellunge."
First published on June 1, 2008 at 12:00 am
"The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission will tackle the future of trout stockings and other issues when it meets June 17 in State College to begin planning how it will execute its new "resource-first agenda."
Adopted at the agency's recent quarterly meeting, the new mission -- not yet a formal plan -- will rely more emphatically on fisheries biology to shape recreational opportunities. It could mean fewer or no hatchery stockings on streams that have wild trout.
"This is not an effort to eliminate hatcheries and stockings," said Fish and Boat Commission board member Bill Worobec of Williamsport. "But we need to better understand whether we should be stocking over wild fish."
Worobec helped to engineer the policy shift.
"It mandates that we approach the resource from a scientific rather than a social perspective," he said. "Without the science, it's difficult to make good environmental and, for that matter, social decisions. That requires the agency to collect considerably more data on our fisheries, evaluate the data over time and use it as coldly and objectively as possible."
What that means for wild trout streams may put the commission in a quandary.
"The issue we're wrestling with is how to define what a wild trout fishery is," said the agency's fisheries management chief Dave Miko. "At what point do we decide that a wild trout fishery doesn't have enough wild biomass to provide recreational angling? If you find one wild fingerling in a stream, does that constitute a wild trout fishery, compared to a Class A stream where there are hundreds of wild fish and we do not stock?"
Current policy doesn't allow for stockings on Class A Wild Trout streams. Whether and where that rule could be expanded will take research, Miko said. "If stocking over a wild trout population is determined to be detrimental, we'll take a close look at removing it from the stocking list."
Pennsylvania Trout Unlimited president Ken Undercoffer has pushed for a more conservation-oriented agency for years and said he was "stunned and delighted" when the commission board voted unanimously to make fisheries protection paramount.
"The agency is saying if they have a choice not to harm a wild trout population in any way, they'll go for the resource, not the recreation," said Undercoffer, who will attend the June 17 meeting as part of a trout study group periodically consulted by the commission. "There are few streams in Pennsylvania that don't have naturally reproducing trout somewhere in the system."
That will make "resource first" a tough sell among many anglers who want to see more, not fewer, stocked streams, he said.
"Wait until people call their state reps and create an uproar. It'll be [like the] deer wars," said Undercoffer.
He was referring to the Pennsylvania Game Commission's deer management plan that increased bag limits on the theory that fewer deer would help regenerate habitat in over-browsed forests. The plan triggered the wrath of many hunters, a lawsuit by Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania and an impending audit of the plan by the state legislature.
"The Fish Commission's going to have to go out and try to sell their agenda, the way the Game Commission did with [former agency biologist] Gary Alt's deer management plan," said Undercoffer. "We'll go with them, although it will probably take a generation. I think the young people get it. It's the old fogies my age that just won't change."
Fayette County tackle shop owner Scott Gates said a plan to reduce stockings would cause license sales, and his business, to plummet.
"All these mountain streams have native fish in them," he said. "Not stocking [on streams with wild trout] would raise more [problems] than the doe-killing thing did. The commission would open a can of worms it can't handle."
Although the Fish and Boat Commission's resource-first agenda is not limited to trout, Miko says that is the species the agency will tackle first, revising both the stocking program and fishing regulations over a period of five years.
"You may see some experimentation, where we're allowing bait [fishing], say, on 'artificials-only' waters, or lures-only where there had always been bait."
Where and how many trout are planted is seen as a pivotal issue. More than 850,000 anglers bought licenses in 2007, and 70 percent of them also bought trout stamps, providing the agency with the bulk of its revenue. Despite occasional rumblings about a merger with other state agencies or developing alternate sources of income, the Fish and Boat Commission continues to operate on a user-pay system. Even the federal funds the agency receives are based on the number of licenses sold. Some of that revenue pays to operate the state's 12 working fish culture stations, eight of which are dedicated to trout.
And trout-rearing has become more expensive. Aside from infrastructure maintenance, the commission is now paying almost four times as much to fuel stocking trucks, forcing it to scrutinize whether it is getting the most bang for its buck.
Agency biologists recently concluded a three-year study of 270 stream sections across the state to determine whether trout move quickly from the areas where they are planted. It found that in 28 percent of streams, less than 40 percent of trout remained where anglers expected to catch them on opening day, and just a few streams retained half their fish. While Miko said the problem is greatest in the northeast and northcentral counties, Whiteley Creek fared poorly in the southwest.
The agency also has recently finished a phone survey of 1,400 anglers to determine their fishing preferences, which also could be factored into future stocking decisions.
"[Hatchery] trout are expensive, and they're going to die anyway," said Worobec. "We've got to put them where they can be enjoyed ... take them to the people, if you will. It may mean going into brand new waters, like a park in the center of a city somewhere that is easily accessed by children. There's some talk about focusing on lakes, where movement isn't an issue."
Undercoffer agrees that stocked trout have a place in the state, especially where water quality is marginal, but it shouldn't include streams where natives exist, he said. He cited Young Woman's Creek in Clinton County, once a Class A Wild Trout water the commission added to the stocking schedule two years ago under pressure from a local rod and gun club. The group had been planting trout on its own for years.
"Pennsylvania has been called the Montana of the East," said Undercoffer, "but that's only if we bother to create wild fisheries and protect them ... if we don't stock over them ... if we educate the public."
"Wild fish give us the opportunity to create more fishing experiences for people, but in a different format," said Worobec. "But we'll have to go to great lengths to educate the public."
All fisheries can provide leverage against pollution and sprawl, said commission environmental director John Arway.
"Whether it's a proposed mall on Deer Creek impacting stocked trout or logging at the headwaters of a native brook trout stream, we have to evaluate risks, emphasizing protecting the resource."
Arway also pointed out that resource-first applies to all of the species the commission manages, including those that anglers don't give much thought.
"Our decisions have to be driven by protecting animals," he said, "whether it's a rare fish, a rare mussel, a turtle, a stocked trout or a muskellunge."
First published on June 1, 2008 at 12:00 am
