Class A stocking proposal by the PFBC

[pcray1231]

I personally would stop stocking them.

All of the above are "destination" streams, though on several, I assume the sections in question are outside of the "destination" area. What better opportunity to highlight wild trout fishing in PA than to have a stream reach the point where it no longer needs to be stocked? If the goal is to highlight wild trout fishing, and slowly chip away at the meat hunter philosophy, well, here's exhibit A.

Don't get me wrong, if they are listed class A and stocking ceased, I support keeping a close eye on the populations there, and setting up some sort of standard like "below class A for 2 consecutive seasons, then stocking resumes". The reverse should likewise be true while stocked (if reaches class A for 2 consecutive seasons, then stocking ceases). Takes some work. But they are heavily used, "destination" streams. You gotta do what's right for the fish and the people, so you can't let the fishery die under any circumstances.

I can't support stocking good wild trout waters. From either perspective. Either potentially harming a wild trout fishery or wasting good stockers where they aren't needed. Stocking numbers have been declining over the years on the true put and take fisheries, and we want to waste them on good streams?

 

[afishinado]

pcray1231 wrote:
I personally would stop stocking them.

All of the above are "destination" streams, though on several, I assume the sections in question are outside of the "destination" area. What better opportunity to highlight wild trout fishing in PA than to have a stream reach the point where it no longer needs to be stocked? If the goal is to highlight wild trout fishing, and slowly chip away at the meat hunter philosophy, well, here's exhibit A.

Don't get me wrong, if they are listed class A and stocking ceased, I support keeping a close eye on the populations there, and setting up some sort of standard like "below class A for 2 consecutive seasons, then stocking resumes". The reverse should likewise be true while stocked (if reaches class A for 2 consecutive seasons, then stocking ceases). Takes some work. But they are heavily used, "destination" streams. You gotta do what's right for the fish and the people, so you can't let the fishery die under any circumstances.

I can't support stocking good wild trout waters. From either perspective. Either potentially harming a wild trout fishery or wasting good stockers where they aren't needed. Stocking numbers have been declining over the years on the true put and take fisheries, and we want to waste them on good streams?

Agreed. A lot of good points made by Pat.

Let's face it, stocking is becoming too expensive for the FBC to continue at the current levels. Hard decisions must be made as to where and how to cut back. Why not cut back on the streams that have a good population of fish without stocking?

A stream reaching the Class A status should be hailed by the PFBC and viewed by PA anglers as a great achievement that wild trout are thriving and a fishery has become self-sustaining!

There are thousands of miles of water that cannot sustain coldwater fish in PA. Like I wrote earlier, use the fish stocked in Class A's to stock streams that are deemed suitable to add to the stocking list and increase stocking numbers and/or frequency in some of the current ATWs. Fishing success and satisfaction would increase in those streams since we would have more fish in the streams and/or more miles of streams to fish.

We had some discussion of this earlier, but heck I would cease stocking Class B's and put them in the "Pcray program" where if they achieve Class A population status in (say) two years, they will remain unstocked. If they fail to achieve Class A status, stocking can be resumed. That would insure, when you put on your boots and string up your rod, every PA trout stream will either be stocked or have a decent population of wild trout.

 

[NickR]

There isn't a single stream on there that needs to be stocked... nuff said.

 

[PhilC]

5x9 wrote:
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.

I fish many of the stocked Class A streams as they are close by...I would question what is meant by "thriving" (more on that below). There seems to be an insatiable need to eat trout around here...I don't understand how people can eat so many trout without going beyond the 1 meal/week limit due to PCB's...or maybe they throw them out due to freezer burn...
The stockies help fill the need since there is nothing preventing the harvest of legal size wild fish, which also happens quite often...

5x9 wrote:
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.

I disagree here. The stockies that adapt will eventually figure out the prime lies, the others will already be on the grill or in the freezer. I've caught plenty of small wild fish in crappy lies due to being pushed out by stockies...a 12-13" rainbow will certainly push a 5-6" wild brown out of a riffle, especially since 'bows like the fast water...

 

[Heritage-Angler]

As much as we'd like to see these streams listed as Class A, and not be stocked, we have to be realistic about it.

Let's use the Little Lehigh as an example. It has had the biomass to EASILY be classified as Class A for heck, forever. So why isn't it designated as such?

Simple. If it was designated as such, and not stocked, the public uproar would be heard in Harrisburg with the naked ear. The Lehigh Valley is the third largest metropolitan area in PA, and it's growing by leaps and bounds. Take away two of the 4 major limestoners here (LL & Monocacy) from the stocking list, and the potential for lost license revenue becomes obvious.

In simpler terms, designating them as Class A and eliminating the stocking isn't going to happen. Period. Wishful thinking, but unrealistic.

However, designating them Class A, and making an exception to allow stocking DOES have some benefits to the streams.

1 - They'll be eligible for the higher water quality standards protection that Class A designation affords. The Little Lehigh could REALLY use that!

2 - Elimination of the extended/reduced harvest season after Labor Day of a Class A designation would protect the spawning fish.

So realistically, while allowing an exception to the Class A designation to allow stocking isn't perfect in a lot of our member's opinions, it's better than nothing, IMO.

 

[Gorosaurus]

The idea that 'public outrage' makes Class A designation impossible is not an honest argument. What about our public outrage?

Changing the stream to Class A doesn't remove the fish- it proves that the resource is already there. While this change doesn't need to be made with huge fanfare, even if they are upgraded I don't see what the meat fishermen would have to argue against.

The meat is there. They're still allowed to fish and they are still allowed to take. I don't see how that would stop someone who enjoys fishing from purchasing a license.

Maybe just a more to-the-point visual campaign would soothe their worries:

 

[Fishidiot]

Heritage-Angler wrote:
As much as we'd like to see these streams listed as Class A, and not be stocked, we have to be realistic about it.
Let's use the Little Lehigh as an example. It has had the biomass to EASILY be classified as Class A for heck, forever. So why isn't it designated as such?
In simpler terms, designating them as Class A and eliminating the stocking isn't going to happen. Period. Wishful thinking, but unrealistic.
However, designating them Class A, and making an exception to allow stocking DOES have some benefits to the streams.
1 - They'll be eligible for the higher water quality standards protection that Class A designation affords. The Little Lehigh could REALLY use that!
2 - Elimination of the extended/reduced harvest season after Labor Day of a Class A designation would protect the spawning fish.
So realistically, while allowing an exception to the Class A designation to allow stocking isn't perfect in a lot of our member's opinions, it's better than nothing, IMO.

Well said HA. This is worth pondering. While we, as wild trout devotees have a point of view - a correct one IMO:don't stock Class As - we need to keep in mind that the PFBC is trying to find a middle path in these particular cases.
I'm not sure about the closure of harvest in the extended season listed in line 2 above. Will this policy be in effect if the stream is still stocked? In other words, will the section be managed as "Class A" meaning no harvest after Labor Day.......or "Approved Trout Water" allowing harvest? Hopefully HA is correct. This is an angle to this debate that needs clarification (My apologies if this is clarified in the link as I didn't read it).

 

[afishinado]

Ed makes some good points and I would bet the proposal gets approved by the FBC.

For me, I really don't like the precedent it sets. A policy of not stocking coldwater streams with a thriving population of wild trout (unless it's popular place) doesn't hold much water....so to speak.

 

[Heritage-Angler]

Gorosaurus wrote:
The idea that 'public outrage' makes Class A designation impossible is not an honest argument. What about our public outrage?

We're the minority - angler surveys have shown that we're a SMALL minority. You'd be surprised how many people think that trout in our streams only come from the white truck fleet. The concept of a wild, naturally reproducing, self sustaining trout population is a concept not understood by many anglers.

Looks to me like the PFBC is picking their battles wisely - they can win this one and provide some real tangible benefits for these streams.

As much as I'd like to see Class A designation with no stocking, I'll take the "half full" glass.

 

[afishinado]

Ed is right that we (the wild trout fishers and TU types) are in the minority. Also, I agree with Ed that many of us would be shocked if surveyed many anglers about wild trout, and their very existence.

At some point in the not-so-distant future, I would hope that the PFBC would move in a direction away from the great white fleet we stock'em for you to keep'um direction, and move towards promoting and enhancing self-sustaining fisheries.

We just can't afford to spend our limited dollars on less and less fish. At some point (now?) the amount of fish and frequency of stocking will (has?) become so low that anglers will drop out.

Class A streams offer a great angling experience and need not be stocked. Use those fish to stock other streams with which are not Class A and are stocked very too lightly to satisfy the anglers fishing them.

 

[BrookieChaser]

Off the top of my head, according to the use reports, those of us targeting only wild fish account for $18 million in revenue, where those only targeting pelletheads account for $65 million.

I figured I'd share my letter to the PFBC...

I’m writing this to inform you I am against the proposed legislation to allow stocking in Class A Wild Trout waters. I find the idea of a department whose motto is “resource first” even proposing such a legislation preposterous and, quite frankly, idiotic.

Stocking over a sustaining population of wild trout can do nothing but harm the established wild trout population. I don’t believe a resource as important as wild trout need any more interference from humans than they’ve already had in the past. Have we not learned anything from this state’s history regarding the displacement of native brook trout due to the stocking of non-native trout? I’m not writing this from only a native brook trout standpoint; I don’t think we need to hinder a wild brown trout population by introducing inferior genetics, and more competition for resources, by stocking. Did we not learn anything by the study on Montana’s Madison River on the effects of stocking over wild fish? A study which ultimately led them to cease stocking over wild trout in 1974, and their wild trout recovered exponentially once stocking ceased.

If you are worried about a currently stocked stream that receives too much angling pressure for wild trout, being reclassified as Class A, why not put in catch and release regulations? Why not protect the wild trout instead of putting them in jeopardy?

Ultimately I have a sneaking suspicion this proposed legislation comes from an idea of a loss of license sales if the public does not receive their “instant fishery” provided by throwing stocked fish where the anglers can easily get to them. There is a flip side to that coin; how about the loss if myself, and like-minded anglers, would quit buying a trout stamp if we knew that our trout stamp money was going to fund stocked trout being used to inhibit naturally sustaining wild trout populations? Why not put in a wild trout stamp for those of us that want to support wild trout fisheries? This stamp could go to wild trout habitat management, further studies to determine wild trout fisheries, and to educate the public about the valuable resources that are wild trout.

Thank you for your time.

 

[pcray1231]

We're the minority - angler surveys have shown that we're a SMALL minority. You'd be surprised how many people think that trout in our streams only come from the white truck fleet. The concept of a wild, naturally reproducing, self sustaining trout population is a concept not understood by many anglers.

This is true. IMO, it is THE problem. I'm not overly concerned about 1 particular stream. I mean, I'd like to manage it right and all. But in a bigger picture sort of way, it's not as important as we'd like to think. What is important is educating the public on the angling opportunities this state has to offer. i.e. getting rid of a truck chasing mentality and into a mentality more akin to many western and some eastern states.

We live in one of the best wild trout states in the east. Though many of the streams are small, by pure wild trout miles, we rank up there with many of the more famous western states. And we have plenty of medium and large stream opportunities as well, as most of these particular streams show. It's a GREAT state for trout fishermen even without trucks. In an ideal world, the trucks would serve to supplement the trout opportunities by providing trout fisheries in additional waters, beyond what nature is able to provide.

But somewhere along the line we lost our way. The trucks became the primary source of trout opportunities, not merely supplemental, and many actual fishermen don't even realize wild trout exist. What a shame!

To make things worse, in the face of declining hatchery space, we're wasting a huge gift. Many streams are recovering from pollution. Acid rain is decreasing. Anglers of all types are releasing more fish than ever. Various industries have better standards. Stream protection is better. And as a result of all of this, wild trout streams are generally improving. Many of which are traditionally stocked. They are an opportunity to highlight wild trout fishing to the public by REMOVING them from the stocking list and showing that they do indeed still have quality fishing. Meanwhile, those extra fish can be used to stem the tide of stocking reductions on the streams that need stocked.

What an opportunity to show that fairly large, heavily used streams can be fishing destinations without white trucks!

 

[gfen]

Mike was nice enough to write the most important reason behind this suggestion in his post, however it appears no one picked up on it.

"In urban parks."

Urban parks have high use, which generates not only direct revenue (liscense sales) but also indirect attention ("how come they don't stock this stream anymore, I'll complain to my representive," which in turn means that attention is given to the PFBC, "my constituants are bitching, give them fish or don't expect me to approve a fee hike," etc).

Frankly, allowing only coops and official PFBC fish into a stream does wonders when otherwise you can have people throwng troot rodeos on the stream and throwing in a ridiculously out of proportion of biomass and really throwing it off.

Sometimes, people, you gotta make exceptions for the greater good.

 

[JackM]

Good point gfen, particularly in that many people don't appreciate that anyone can stock trout in any stream where they are already unless the stream is restricted as, for instance, by a designation of Class A.

 

[SBecker]

I see at least 3 streams on that list that are not in urban parks.

 

[Maurice]

This is a "door opener" policy designed to Rationalize or Justify the current conundrum of the Commish stocking over Existing Calss A streams. On its surface you may see it a rational to continue a common practice that is currently against the very rules they have in place. If enacted in Jan '14 not only these streams will be covered under the rulemaking. But future streams as well.

The F&BC has been on a surveying push and have been finding streams capable of reaching class A status while currently being stocked. I presume they find it precarious to designate them as Class A (which they want to do for the protections) when it will cause them to have to quit stocking them. I know of a few in my area that are being "held up" because if it goes A it will cause public outrage when the white trucks stop coming.

This "door opener" will if passed will find a rush of Class A's being added in 2014 that can continue to be stocked based on the language of the rulemaking.

This is where I think its going. And it will go through. The only restrictions will be those "Certain Criteria". This way they can just change stocking frequencies from preseason/inseason to just preseason. It will reduce inseason stockings currently taking place. So there is that. You will basically have the opening weekend slaughter and then a dieoff of pressure due to the lack of inseason stockings.

Here is the proposal again for those coming in late.

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.

Pay particular attention to the language in the second paragraph.

I find the language in the first paragraph to be a violation of the PA Code and should be addressed legally if necessary to rectify the current violation of Pennsylvania law.

 

[BrookieChaser]

Ultimately this comes down to a mentality. The question is will the agency bow to said mentality and go back on their trout management goal of "resource first"?

I feel I already know the answer.

 

[mikesl]

Thanks for finding the list of streams

the stream i immediately thought about beinf on the list is the Po I and must say, I would love for it to stop being stocked...

 

[mikesl]

i do (gasp) tend to agree with gfen though that pfbc may need some flexibility to keep all the different segments of the fishing public satisfied.


I wonder, in the specific case of a popular opening day stocked trout stream... is it better to have that truckload of stockies to spread out the opening day pressure and harvest?

 

[phiendWMD]

Maurice, I had wondered the same thing earlier when I first read this thread. Will this be a one time exception only for these listed streams, or will this be used later to justify doing the same thing in more streams that should be class A?