Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

[afishinado]

Proposed a change to the stocking policy for Class A wild trout which would permit stocking to continue on certain Class A waters that meet specific conditions. Currently, stocking is prohibited on all Class A waters, which represent the best of the naturally reproducing trout fisheries. The PFBC has identified nine waters which meet Class A standards, but are currently stocked and receive heavy angler use.

The proposed policy amendment would allow stream sections which are designated as Class A after 2013 to remain eligible for fingerling stocking or preseason-only stocking of adult trout by the PFBC or cooperative nurseries as long as certain conditions are met. The stream section must have been stocked during the year immediately prior to its Class A designation, and angler use in the stream section must equal or exceed the 75th percentile, statewide, of angler use for the opening weekend of trout season as documented by PFBC staff.

The PFBC is soliciting public comment on the proposal for 90 days. If adopted, the amended statement of policy would go into effect on Jan. 1, 2015.

Link to source: http://www.fish.state.pa.us/newsreleases/2013press/pfbc-q4-wrap.htm

Dear Mr. Arway,

I am against the proposed change to the stocking policy for Class A wild waters that would allow the stocking of Class A streams.

The definition of Class A Waters (as per the PFBC) is:
“Streams that support a population of naturally produced trout of sufficient size and abundance to support a long-term and rewarding sport fishery.”

Why stock them? Use the fish not stocked in these Class A streams to stock additional streams without a viable population of wild trout and/or stock current Approved Trout Waters more frequently or with more fish, thus increasing angler opportunities and actually enhancing trout fishing in Pennsylvania.

Thank you.

I plan to send the above to the PFBC when I figure out exactly where and how public comments about proposed policies are sent.

I encourage all anglers to send in their comments on the above proposal.


Edit: Found it!:

http://www.fishandboat.com/promo/form/regulation_comments.htm

 

[jdaddy]

FWIW, I have been told by more than one person that a physical letter is much more powerful to Mr. Arway than electronic communication. So there is that.

 

[phiendWMD]

Why would they do this? Just to put more fish in heavily pressured water? I don't understand what they are trying to accomplish. Mostly everything that could come from this seems like a negative overall.

 

[BrookieChaser]

I wholeheartedly disagree with this proposed legislation.

In fact, I find it preposterous, and quite frankly idiotic.

 

[PennKev]

phiendWMD wrote:
Why would they do this? Just to put more fish in heavily pressured water? I don't understand what they are trying to accomplish. Mostly everything that could come from this seems like a negative overall.

After reading it, it seems that the streams in question are ALREADY stocked. So, ironically, if anything increases pressure, it will be ADDING THEM TO THE CLASS A LIST.

That said, if they are Class A they should be added to the list and stocking should cease IMO. I don't like the idea of making exceptions to the rules or changing the rules due to an unforeseen or underestimated situation such as this. It opens the door for ever expanding and ever increasing "exceptions."

 

[geebee]

thats counter intuitive - if there's no enough class A fish to go round, make Class A , class A+ i.e. make it catch and release, don't taint the wild fish experience with stockies...

ffs.

 

[dc410]

I feel this proposal is being brought up because certain fisheries that have been classified as ATW's for many years have established wild trout populations that have sustained themselves over the years to reach Class A status due to improving water quality conditions or whatever may be the reason. I think the biggest issue here for the PFBC is the amount angling pressure these streams have historically received. Reclassifying as Class A and terminating the stocking program on a given stream could lead to a decrease in license sales which is something the PFBC has been trying to find ways to battle for years. Revenue generation is on the front burner more now than ever. Don't get me wrong, I am totally opposed to this proposed change to the Class A regulation. I feel if it is determined to be Class A it should not be stocked according to the current regulations. I don't think you can have it both ways on this one. Maybe the money and resources in stocked fish could be used to establish a brand new ATW in the area of the newly classified Class A stream to create a new put and take fishery to actually increase angling opportunities. Just a thought.

 

[BrookieChaser]

Letter sent.

Afishinado was a lot nicer than I was.

 

[5x9]

I don't think it's a big deal. The Class A designation will protect the water quality. The wild trout populations are apparently already thriving in the streams despite stocking, so I would assume they'd continue to do so. Also, the presence of stocked fish may keep the angling pressure off the wild fish. The wild fish occupy the prime lies and out compete the stockies who aren't as adept at feeding themselves. Nor are the stockies as adept at protecting themselves from predators.

There are streams I fish in NJ which are classified similar to "Class A" in PA. They also happen to be stocked. I catch an occasional stockie, but the wild populations are thriving.

 

[SBecker]

Is there a list of streams that they have identified?

 

[dc410]

5x9 wrote:
Also, the presence of stocked fish may keep the angling pressure off the wild fish.

The presence of stocked fish is generally what precipitates the increased angling pressure and the desire to take a limit home.

 

[tomitrout]

Is there a list of streams that they have identified?

^---This is something I'm curious about.

And dc410 makes a good point, are these 'new' Class A streams, or existing Class A streams that are already being stocked over?

Stop stocking them, and all those opening week(s) traditionalists will most definitely put a hurtin' on the wild fish until they complain about how there 'ain't no more feesh' and quit buying licenses. Or continue to stock over the wilds in those ATW sections and keep the status quo.

Which makes Becker's query kinda pivotal to the discussion...which (9) streams out of all of them are they talking about?

 

[SBecker]

My theory is that they are new streams that have garnered or will in the coming months garner class A status. I am prettt sure it will include the stream by me. ::sigh:: can not take away a stockie recepticle from the meaters.

 

[Mike]

They are all stream sections that have been stocked for years...very popular based on opening day angler counts. Some are in urban parks. As with all proposed rule makings, it would be educational to review the entire proposal before commenting.

 

[afishinado]

Mike wrote:
They are all stream sections that have been stocked for years...very popular based on opening day angler counts. Some are in urban parks. As with all proposed rule makings, it would be educational to review the entire proposal before commenting.

Mike,

The only thing I can find is the summary of the proposal found in the link. Where can we find the "entire proposal" detailing the proposed rule change which includes the streams mentioned in the proposal? One can only make a public comment based on the information put forward.

 

[albud1962]

Well we know the Little Lehigh is or was on the Class A list and this stream receives heavy stocking. Maybe this will be a vehicle for more Class A streams being listed as such? Spruce Creek probably has more Class A water than what is listed but because of political pressure only the George Harvey section has Class A status. I hope there is more to this proposal as Mike indicated because this seems to be a reversal of the direction PA FBC was heading.

 

[afishinado]

Okay, I went through the PFBC Meeting summary and found the exhibit listing the nine streams. Here they are:

 

[afishinado]

To clarify, at least from the best of my understanding, the above streams listed are currently stocked and currently have a Class A population of wild trout. I can only assume they were recently surveyed as being Class A. Unfortunately, the actual stream sections are not identified in the listing.

If the proposal put forth by the FBC (found in the OP) is approved, these streams will continue to be stocked. If not approved, stocking will cease in all the above streams since the current policy is to not stock Class A designated wild trout streams.

 

[SBecker]

Yep, all that hope I had for my fine stream actually becoming class A, getting some restrictions, and having the stocking stop was just a pipe dream.

 

[geebee]

Okay, so they have class A biomass, but it sounds like due to angler demand that it's not self sustaining enough to maintain itself.

Class A is defined as self sustaining AND wild..

it still seems to me that you need to reduce the harvest rather than add stockies to supplement the wild fish being harvested ?