NO MORE STOCKING!!!!!

[geebee]

ryguyfi wrote:
I'll put it into the perspective of someone who doesn't live very close to any wild trout streams in PA.

that would be the main drawback.

the question is though, were they once trout waters ? - and could they be so again ?

and my comment about bait guys was very tongue in cheek :-D


personally i think states like PA and CT are very forward looking with their classifications of streams, definitely ahead of MA, RI and VA so we're priviliged in that respect.

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:

And I cringe when I see so much arm-chair quarterbacking from people who only have their own personal preferences in mind when they advocate certain management policies.

I cringe at such statements.

 

[David]

troutbert wrote:

JackM wrote:

And I cringe when I see so much arm-chair quarterbacking from people who only have their own personal preferences in mind when they advocate certain management policies.

I cringe at such statements.

Why? Does one person's opinion carry more weight than any other person's?
I am fine with voicing opinion, and appreciate hearing differing opinions, but should any one opinion become policy?

 

[BigBronco]

ryguyfi wrote:
I'll put it into the perspective of someone who doesn't live very close to any wild trout streams in PA.

Ryan I hear you, that same stream is the same distance for me, but from a different direction. Even with that I prefer to fish for wild fish. I do not fish the streams within an hour of my home. I knew that when I moved from Doylestown to Bridgeville that my fishing was going to suffer. When I moved it was going to be here or Houston TX. The primary reason for SWPA was due to fly fishing for trout.

If you feel passionate about fishing for trout, and making the commitment of travel is too much, moving is always an option. I would like to fish for Peacock Bass after work, but I don't demand/expect a govt. agency to make this possible.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

And I cringe when I see so much arm-chair quarterbacking from people who only have their own personal preferences in mind when they advocate certain management policies.

Said it once and ill say it again.
Next election, vote for the other guy then.

Stocking marginal streams is fine, stocking wild trout streams is like adding hot sauce to a habanero pepper.
Pointless and unneeded.

 

[wildtrout2]

KenU wrote:
I'm all for stocking streams that cannot support naturally reproducing trout. But we stock many miles of streams that have good populations of wild trout and would be much better if they weren't being stocked and plundered every spring.

I'm on board with this thinking.

 

[lv2nymph]

wildtrout2 wrote:

KenU wrote:
I'm all for stocking streams that cannot support naturally reproducing trout. But we stock many miles of streams that have good populations of wild trout and would be much better if they weren't being stocked and plundered every spring.

I'm on board with this thinking.

Agreed...

 

[troutbert]

David wrote:

troutbert wrote:

JackM wrote:

And I cringe when I see so much arm-chair quarterbacking from people who only have their own personal preferences in mind when they advocate certain management policies.

I cringe at such statements.

Why? Does one person's opinion carry more weight than any other person's?
I am fine with voicing opinion, and appreciate hearing differing opinions, but should any one opinion become policy?

David, I agree with you 100%. There are many different options in trout management, and different options are in fact used in other places, so are worthy of discussion and consideration.

I was not cringing about anyone's sincere opinion on trout management. People have their opinions on these things, they have their reasons, and it CAN be a good discussion.

I was cringing at this statement: "I cringe when I see so much arm-chair quarterbacking from people who only have their own personal preferences in mind.."

I also cringed at an early statement that suggested that anyone who held a particular view on trout management must "feel privileged" or be on "a high horse."

And I stand by both cringes!

 

[troutbert]

wildtrout2 wrote:

KenU wrote:
I'm all for stocking streams that cannot support naturally reproducing trout. But we stock many miles of streams that have good populations of wild trout and would be much better if they weren't being stocked and plundered every spring.

I'm on board with this thinking.

Me too. It makes sense from the points of view of recreation, conservation, and saving money.

 

[blueheron]

I cringe when I walk along my local Montgomery County streams , no amount of restoration will bring them near to being self sustaining fisheries, so any cold water action has to be from stocking. I smile when I see rising trout less than a half hour from home, even if it's just for a short time each year. But that's just my personal preference.

 

[Chaz]

Wouldn't work for many reasons. But there are certainly a lot of trout streams that are stocked that shouldn't be stocked.

 

[geebee]

dumb question, but if these streams will never be cold water trout fisheries, what would live there ? - bass, suckers ?

 

[blueheron]

Bass , carp , sunnies , catfish, all the stuff I fished for as a kid , I would ride my wannabe Huffy Stingray and be gone until dinnertime, stalking the ponds and streams with hand dug worms and Zebco rods and reels. I was the lone fisherman in my family and still am to this day.

 

[tyeager]

I understand the statement "don't stock over wild trout populations"
and I mostly agree with it.....I think the issue that the PFBC runs into is most anglers don't fish for wild trout. Particularly brookies that mostly run 5-8 inches in the streams in my area. Some class D streams fish well, some class A streams don't. It is very difficult to delineate what gets stocked just by class and being on the natural repro list.

For instance; I live in Clearfield, PA. Great native and wild trout fishing exists all around me. But within 20 miles of town there may be about 8 ATW give or take. All of these ATW hold native populations (except maybe the West Branch of Susq). I wish most of them weren't stocked, but I also realize license sales and revenue for PFBC from this area would drop off a cliff if these streams weren't stocked. The best native fishing I have found recently is actually not on ATW so it doesn't bother me too much that others get to enjoy something I don't really agree with.

Overall, I am in the minority and I know this. The country/state/local government is run by the majority (or is supposed to be). It is completely out of line to think that my opinion as a wild/native fly fisherman trumps all of the other trout fisherman in my area.

 

[ratgunner]

I'd like to see more "wild trout" streams,DHALO,fly only sections and more protection for them. But the streams that are put and take only that can't support wild trout need to stay. Think of the kids and the future of fishing.

 

[JackM]

While some of you may cringe at my cringing, I ask that you look at who is enjoying the recreation of trout fishing. Are they predominantly wild trout enthusiasts? Clearly the opposite, but you will rationalize that cutting out 90% of anglers from enjoyment is OK because, afterall, you are on the side of nature and goodness. This is how the battles for small victories are lost in my opinion.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

While some of you may cringe at my cringing, I ask that you look at who is enjoying the recreation of trout fishing. Are they predominantly wild trout enthusiasts? Clearly the opposite, but you will rationalize that cutting out 90% of anglers from enjoyment is OK because, afterall, you are on the side of nature and goodness. This is how the battles for small victories are lost in my opinion.

When it comes to angler trips I would bet bottom dollar this statement is incorrect.

I don't think people have an issue with stocking marginal streams. Its not so common sense apparently.

 

[PennKev]

ratgunner wrote:
Think of the kids and the future of fishing.

They'd fish for bluegills, bass, perch etc???

Stocked trout aren't neccesary to teach kids fishing or get them hooked on the sport.

I fished for several years with my dad before even having a desire to fish for for trout. I even fly fished for a couple years before fishing for trout.

Kev

 

[pcray1231]

For me, stocked trout was definitely a step along the way. Yeah, I started on farm ponds, not trout. But I probably wouldn't have kept with it without stocked trout.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

I was definitely a bass guy. In fact, I wanted nothing to do with fly fishing until I heard that you can fish for smallies with a fly rod. I tolerated trout on family vacations and stuff, but my summers were spent on the Conestoga targetting bronze backs.

Everyone is different though. My brother and dad were drawn to trout. Even now, I think I'd have a very hard time convincing my dad to join me on a SMB fishing trip, especially when he knows he could be catching trout instead.