C&R - Extended Trout Season

[BrookieChaser]

That's it. If you have 2 wild trout and one is displaced by stocking then the population is decimated. If you have 1000 and one is displaced, the population is far from decimated.

 

[krayfish]

My opinion isn't really that important. I'm interested in what Mike has to say.

If you must know, I'll give you an example. Fisherman Joe has enjoyed xxxxx creek for 35 years. He always bragged that he caught nice sized wild brookies in it. Joe says that the wild fish are gone because of stockers being introduced. I would side with Joe if he had data intermittently over the last 35 years showing no degradation of water quality. I'd also like evidence showing no noticeable depreciation in numbers of insects and baitfish. The average angler will quickly draw a parallel between lower wild fish catch rate and the introduction of stocked fish. Joe is completely blind to the lower flow due to shift in aquifers, degraded water quality, less available food for the fish and increased angler use. "it's all because the state dumped pellet heads in on top of the wild fish".

Let's say that in 2007 the state began stocking 2000 fish before opening day. This was due to a dramatic increase in angler use. 1983, a shock survey revealed 206 wild fish per mile. After 6 years of stocking a 2013 shock survey revealed 169 wild fish per mile. I dont see the problem. Fish numbers will fluctuate from year to year. If the recent survey showed 41 wild fish, there would be a problem. My first worry would be water quality and habitat loss, not a stocked fish.

 

[Stenonema]

Your right Kray, a shock survey does not factor in many factors. I have met and talked with some of the biologists of the PFBC. These are very hard working and underfunded men. They are aware of the factors influencing populations. I'm not sure of the use of these factors in the final results or if it just the mass produced. I think the conundrum that we are struggling with is, First knowing that stocking is not beneficial to the overall health and well being of a self reproducing wild trout population. Do we accept that as fact?
Then if the answer is Yes, what is an acceptable threat to the wild trout population for the greater good. The greater good being derived from many factors or all factors not considering the well being of the wild trout population.
It's all just a gamble with a precious community of naturally reproducing trout.
Our sport is a fluid one. Trout are conditioned to the streams. All streams are different in their own subtle ways. The laws of nature dictate the mass capable of being sustained and the better adapted do the best, and grow the largest.
Fisherman are made by the streams we fish. Therefore, we all have different experiences and opinions. We as fisherman want the best possible fishing that suits our fishing. I have learned on streams with relatively small populations of wild trout that grow large. I enjoy the challenge of finding them as well as pursuing them in the difficult conditions they are presented in. That is what I had to learn this great sport on. My opinion is in my signature and that is my opinion for one reason because I like the challenge of adapting to what the stream offers us naturally rather than changing the stream to suit my desires or fishing skill.
Interesting thread here.
Anybody who has Flair as there Avatar is alright with me.

 

[albud1962]

afishinado wrote:

Since the lion's share of revenue for the PFBC comes from fishing license sales, I would say that the circus will continue. Further, what you call a "circus" may be what another person calls a "tradition."

I fished Pennsylvania for trout all my life and opening day has always been a circus. Never considered it a tradition in our household. We would concentrate our efforts with the in season stockings until it became a joke.

Stop stocking fish were there is wild reproduction. There will be plenty of trout to go around for the meat eaters then.

 

[krayfish]

If you don't stock streams with wild reproduction....and keep the standard regs......the guys that limit out multiple times will rape that resource faster than the wild fish can reproduce. That's one stat I think we can all agree on. Dropping pellet heads in gives them something to take home without putting too much of a dent in the wild population (in a perfect world).

OK, given the options, which do you feel is more damaging to a wild trout fishery?

** Stop stocking over wild fish, let all tackle harvest with standard limits applying

** Stock some fish over wild fish. Hopefully, the guys that want to keep fish will pick off these genetic misfits first and not be keeping the wild ones.

I'm all for reducing creel limits on any stream that contains "x" amount of fish (magic number) per acre. If a survey reveals a big drop in fish numbers, that stream goes onto a "no harvest" list for a period and water quality is reviewed. I fish mostly non-stocked / wild fish waters. My stomach turns when I float by a guy on the Delaware that is fishing from the bank and he holds up his stringer to show me the 22" rainbow he took on corn and the 25" brown he took on a spoon. I may not like it but he's also done nothing wrong. He has the write to harvest fish from the resource.

Another question for Mike....... Montana doesn't really do much if any stocking, right? Is our angler use that much higher or our water quality that bad that we can't use a similar type of fish management? If we have 2 streams with equal access, why can't the following happen...... Stream 'a' is marginal so it receives 8000 trout from March 1st to May 1st. Let the blood bath begin. Stream 'b' is quality/cold water with a substantial wild population. This stream gets 500 fish or 0 fish. This stream has a reduced creel limit or slot limit to allow more fish to reach spawning size and reproduce. Pile all the fish you want into a "put and take" fishery and lets try to have the wild fisheries reach their potential and if that requires reduced limits, a size slot limit or no harvest during 9 months of the year, so be it.

Someone will say that the guys that keep fish provide a lot of money to the PFBC and that's true. If dummies like us buy trout stamps and drive 2-3 hours to catch fish and then put them back, what makes you think they won't do the same? It becomes especially more attractive to them when they could go to Manada and catch a stream average of 8" trout or drive to "managed stream" where the trout average 15". I think it could work but I also think I'm handsome and smart but we all know better. LMAO

 

[BrookieChaser]

I agree with what Steno said, it is the stream(s) that shape the man. That's a good way of putting it. So my views are different to others, based on my background and what I fish.

Krayfish, I don't agree with your two options. They are bowing to the public, not protecting the resource. The ATW regs should only apply to put and take fisheries. Therefore they get the fish the trout stamp pays for. Wild trout should be protected by reduced, or no, harvest, depending on the fishery.

Reduced harvest, in my mind, should concentrate on wild invasives on native streams where native populations are threatened.

 

[troutbert]

krayfish wrote:
If you don't stock streams with wild reproduction....and keep the standard regs......the guys that limit out multiple times will rape that resource faster than the wild fish can reproduce. That's one stat I think we can all agree on. Dropping pellet heads in gives them something to take home without putting too much of a dent in the wild population (in a perfect world).

Actually very few people would agree with your opinion that stocking hatchery trout over wild trout results in a higher trout population than if the stream is unstocked.

And the evidence from the field certainly does not support your theory.

Operation Future has been going on since about 1980. You don't have to rely on just speculation and theorizing. They have plenty of info on streams that were stocked in the past, and where stocking has since been ended.

Also, any fishermen can see the situation very clearly on native brookie streams.

You can compare the stocked vs unstocked sections of the same stream. And you can compare stocked vs unstocked streams with very similar characteristics in the same region.

And many of us have fished the exact same stream sections BEFORE, when they were stocked, and AFTER, since stocking has ended.

And we've also seen the other type of before and after comparison. In this case we fished it BEFORE, when it was not stocked, and AFTER, since stocking began.

The difference is like night and day. The fishing for native brookies is FAR better where they are not stocked over.

Most people who are into fishing for native brookies know this from experience.

Also, the PFBC survey data shows this very clearly. Where native brookies are stocked over, they are severely cropped off near the legal size.

And PFBC fisheries staff have commented about this in their reports. Sometimes their advice is heeded. Other times it is over-ridden by political pressure.

 

[PennKev]

krayfish wrote:
If you don't stock streams with wild reproduction....and keep the standard regs......the guys that limit out multiple times will rape that resource faster than the wild fish can reproduce. That's one stat I think we can all agree on. Dropping pellet heads in gives them something to take home without putting too much of a dent in the wild population (in a perfect world).

Show me an unstocked trout stream in PA that gets "raped" by harvest.

Stop stocking and harvest pressure drops dramatically. I don't think you could make a safer bet.

Kev

 

[mike_richardson]

JackM wrote:

Fictional Stream #3.

Southwest PA mountain freestone.

Native Brookies in higher elevations, but not in the final 3 miles of run to the receiving river. Yet this lower portion of the stream, while relatively infertile like the upper reaches, remains cool to trout until early to mid July every year. To be sure, there are likely some wild trout in this lower section during some part of the year, but not enough to be considered a recreational fishery.

Add to this the wide-open access (most on public land), the beauty of the surroundings, and the lack of other similar waters available to the surrounding community, and you have a quality wild trout stream (at least in the upper reaches) that probably could be stocked in the lower reaches without significant harm. And perhaps it probably should be stocked in the lower reaches by the agency charged with trying to conserve a resource while assuring adequate recreational opportunities to the public.

This is the exact scenario that is happening on Benscreek in Cambria County. The head waters are listed as class A. The lower reaches are stocked by the state, and a trout fishing group, and the river that it runs into (lower quality stream) is stocked heavily, and has a fishing rodeo. I still catch a lot of native brook trout in the lower sections of Benscreek, and even at the hole where it flows into the Little conemaugh. I have started catching wild browns in the LC as well, and also some hold overs that have spawned.

I am not sure when and why the cut off boundary was made for Class A and AT, but there used to be a large dam in place that I am nearly certain no natives could get past. Well over 6' tall.

I am leaning more towards the not stocking over sizable wild/native trout populations these days. A far cry from my views a few years ago.I would estimate that the fish that are stocked in the ATW section suffer a 75-80% mortality within a week of stocking them. Guys hammer them, at mostly the easy targeted holes on the small stream, and that is where these fish get stocked. The stocked fish do move, but most of them stay in the holes.The small stream size, and number of holes make them easy targets, and get hammered. These fish do hold over if they are not stupid and lay in the holes. There are a few winter stockings done on the lower ATW section as well by the local trout club.

Now Right below where this dam was in place, homes used to have sewage go directly into the stream. That is not the case any more and the stream is beautiful.

This stream runs into the upper end of the Little Conemaugh River. This stream is definitely on the rebound from the years that raw sewage ran into the stream from the towns of Lilly, and Cassandra. Bleach, dishwater, and such really took its toll. A local trout club began stocking the stream with browns, brooks, and rainbows, about 5 or 6 years ago, and I catch trout there year round. The trout hold over well, but I know that many of them I believe certain areas the temperatures on this stream reach higher levels, but have caught wild trout where Benscreek Flows into this stream in the summer months.

I would really love for a study to be done that will show the effects that stocking over these wild fish. I doubt that Benscreek will ever be Class A the whole way as the state still stocks the lower portion. I imagine that some of the smaller natives fall victim to mouths of the larger stocked fish, and some of the stocked fish that make it do compete with them for food. I am wondering how I could push for a study to be done on this stream, and who the contacts would be to get it done.

Now that my views have drastically changed on this, I would love for Benscreek to be taken off of the stock list, and all of the fish be put into the Little Conemaugh. As the grants get passed on, and the clean up of this river happens, you will see more trout in that stream and a great fishery open up in SWPA. If the state, and local clubs would not be able to stock Benscreek all of these trout would be put into the Little Conemaugh. I feel the potential of this stream is huge, although I got shut down when trying to obtain grants from the fish commission for habitat improvement projects and such. Just not enough money to be put into it these days.

I think that conserving the amazing native trout stream that is Benscreek is important, and more trout could be placed into the Little Conemaugh, a lower quality stream, that could still hold over many of these stocked fish.

I doubt this would happen, as the Cambria County Mentality is mostly TAKE TAKE TAKE. But think that this scenario is very close to Jack Ms scenario almost to a T.

As for the OP I agree with you and would love to see C&R in the "late season".

 

[mike_richardson]

troutbert said:

If we knew the name of the stream, we could have a better discussion about it.

Are there people pushing to end stocking in that section? On a stream section with only a few wild trout, early in the year?

The situation you described is very different than on the streams we've been discussing in this thread. The streams discussed in the OP are all Class A streams.

Young Womans Creek, discussed above, was Class A in most years. It dipped just a bit below Class A after the extreme drought of 1999, and that was when the management was changed.

Lets use this as a stream to discuss I think my post above will lay out the exact scenario Jack was referring too.

I apologize for my views in the past, as well as past arguments I have gotten into with you. My eyes have been opened on wild/native trout, and would like to learn the best ways to protect them.

Are there people pushing to end stocking in that section? On a stream section with only a few wild trout, early in the year?

There is no one pushing for the stocking to end on this stream at all. The state also currently stocks this stream as well as a fishing club.

I will add that the fish that are stocked, are crushed by anglers within the first few weeks. The club that stocks this stream, also has a kids fishing rodeo, on another stream, and any fish left over from this get put into the other stream, and the stream that Benscreek flows into, as well as another stream called Noels Creek.

I am willing to bet that if a study was done, prior to any winter stocking of Benscreek, the amount of "hold over" trout would be relatively low, compared to the number that get put into the stream. See my points above with why I feel this way.

More info about the anglers in the area:

The days after the stream is stocked the stream is lined with anglers. I used to have a picture of this, but have deleted it. I am talking that on roughly a 2 mile stretch of road, and a stream at its widest, maybe 12', 10-20 vehicles.

Most are catch a limit and leave anglers. After the first two weeks after stocking, you may catch on or two anglers there, every other day, if that. The class a section is very under utilized IMO. A few member on here may know the area and member railking, has fished both the stocked and unstocked sections, and could comment on this as well.

I would like to learn others thoughts on this scenario, and if you feel that there should be any push to stop stocking the lower reaches now that proper septic systems have been installed, and the Little Conemaugh becoming fishable within the upcoming years.

I will give you mor

 

[BrookieChaser]

Mike Richardson, good luck with your attempts to save this fishery. Keep at it, the native, and wild, trout need people to look out for them.

There was a stream in my area that used to be stocked, despite a healthy native trout population. The ignorant hillbillies used to throw the natives on the bank (because they were worthless to them). Then stocking ceased on the stream. No one but a select few fish it anymore. It now has a great native population, and good wild trout population depending on where you fish.

 

[mike_richardson]

I think that the fishery can work with the stocked fish, and not sure save would be the best word, as the native fish still survive the stream, just figured it would be a prime example of what Jack M was referring too.

 

[BrookieChaser]

You're saving the native fish from undue suppression, and incidental mortality.

 

[krayfish]

I think some of you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm in favor of stocking over wild fish.....but only if the wild fish are brook trout. God bless and have a prosperous new year.

Might as well fire that one in there since I've been labeled already. You are taking what I've said as a blanket statement for all streams. It's on an individual basis determined by biomass of wild fish, carrying capacity of stream, water quality and angler use. At this point, you make me want to buy bull trout fry and begin stocking all of the brookie streams with them. I don't care either way because I don't waste my time crawling through the laurel to catch a 3" fish. I can go for a hike and the cast flies to 3" shiners in a drainage ditch near my house. Same difference. I wasn't talking about small native streams in general. You do your thing, I'll do mine.

 

[troutbert]

Mike,
It's not clear what your position is.

Do you favor:

A. Ending stocking in that section of Bens Creek?

B. Continuing stocking there?

Or, you're not sure, and want to discuss it to help make up your mind?

 

[BrookieChaser]

krayfish wrote:
I think some of you misunderstand what I'm saying. I'm in favor of stocking over wild fish.....but only if the wild fish are brook trout. God bless and have a prosperous new year.

Might as well fire that one in there since I've been labeled already. You are taking what I've said as a blanket statement for all streams. It's on an individual basis determined by biomass of wild fish, carrying capacity of stream, water quality and angler use. At this point, you make me want to buy bull trout fry and begin stocking all of the brookie streams with them. I don't care either way because I don't waste my time crawling through the laurel to catch a 3" fish. I can go for a hike and the cast flies to 3" shiners in a drainage ditch near my house. Same difference. I wasn't talking about small native streams in general. You do your thing, I'll do mine.

Hahaha!

I'm confused with what bull trout have to do with the price of tea in China? Unless we're discussing displaced native trout in the West.

 

[krayfish]

They would quickly eat all of the brook trout before turning on each other.

 

[BrookieChaser]

I had to reread it. I get it now. The joys of text-based communications.

 

[BrookieChaser]

Since we're on the brook trout subject. The stocking of brown and rainbow trout have created an artificial idea of what trout fishing in PA should be. I've mentioned that before on here.

 

[krayfish]

The end result would be a stream with 1 giant bull trout. That fish would then feed on deer and brookie fishermen.

Brookies are fine, they are pretty and also weak. If you aren't sure, I'll reference big spring. If a so-so brookie fishery can become a great brown trout fishery, let's go!

I am bound by contract to drag Becker into lst of my posts, so here we go. It has been documented that there are populations of wild brookies near the feeders throughout the Lehigh. I want you to spearhead a movement to stop stocking the Lehigh so the brook trout can be protected and the population can reach its potential. I'll be your support system. We should be able to get a webpage up by midnight Saturday. You in? I'll work on Shane in the meantime