So is float stocking more effective or not? Guys will say they can move you know.
Others say they'll pack up for a while and not move far.
What say you?
Mike wrote:
If you wish to fish a county where most streams see some to a lot of float stocking, you will want to fish Lancaster Co. The WCO and local sportsmen and school teachers are very enthusiastic about it. Lots of student help designing various float boxes and stocking.
tobewan77 wrote:
So is float stocking more effective or not?
Scientific paper read years ago said: float stocking, or spreading the front out, reduces the total catch ( or harvest ), but distributes the catch (or harvest)among more different anglers.
I attempted to spread out the fish with few buckets down stream. The officers were not very happy with how much time that was taking. They seemed rushed, like they needed to empty the truck as soon as possible.
pcray1231 wrote:
Scientific paper read years ago said: float stocking, or spreading the front out, reduces the total catch ( or harvest ), but distributes the catch (or harvest)among more different anglers.
Makes perfect sense to me. Do you want one guy catching 50 and 5 other guys getting skunked? Or do you want 6 guys catching 30 between em?
I'd certainly prefer the latter.
Increasing HARVEST is, errr, should not be the goal. IMO, it's the anti-goal. Increasing CATCH is all fine and good, but certainly not a priority.
Distributing the catch over more anglers/more area should absolutely be a priority. Nobody wants 2 miles of fishless water and 1 pool loaded with fish, with combat fishermen vying for a spot. Even if you can clean up that way. You want to spread people out, give them a true outdoor experience, with the fish distribution as natural as can be reasonably achieved.
Even bucket stocking. More stocking points with fewer fish per spot should absolutely be a priority. I feel for the fishermen on the linked stream. Half the stocking points? Jeebus. Come opening morning there's gonna be a lot of people on unproductive water, having no clue their stretch wasn't stocked. At least there's a reason for it. When they skip spots out of laziness or "not having enough time", that tends to get some people fighting mad, and for good reason.
pcray1231 wrote:
I attempted to spread out the fish with few buckets down stream. The officers were not very happy with how much time that was taking. They seemed rushed, like they needed to empty the truck as soon as possible.
Pretty common in my experiences. They are rushed. They have to stock X amount of water before the day is through. More stops, longer stops, etc., just makes more work for them. They're workers, and don't give a rats arse about creating the optimal fishing experience for as many people as possible.
I can understand that there will always be this trade-off. Employees want to get the job done with as little work as possible. It's the job of the employers (managers) to pressure for the opposite.
The problem arises when it seems to be an intentional management decision to concentrate fish. Because, yes, concentrations of fish result in higher catch/harvest rates. As long as maximizing harvest per fish stocked is a goal, this will be the case. It shouldn't be the goal.
The priority is to get done in 8 hours, so the fewer stops you make the quicker you're done. Given that, how does it make sense to stock Pine Creek from the Bellefonte hatchery, when Oswayo is much closer, and they can be stocking along the way to Pine Creek. It's a very long drive from Bellefonte Hatchery to village of Slate Run for instance. If it's about efficiency you use the least amount of time to get to the spot you're stocking.