NO MORE STOCKING!!!!!

Yeah, my fishing career went something like this:

Farm ponds --> stocked trout in spring, farm ponds in summer --> stocked trout in spring, wild trout in summer, occasional trips to bass rivers and such --> Switch to fly fishing, mostly wild trout year round, occasional outings for stockies and bass.
 
Mine went:lakes-->rivers and streams for bass, carp, catties, etc.---->stockies in the spring (tolerated), rivers and streams for smallies in the summer--->introduce fly fishing, stockies in the spring, smallies on rivers in the summer, stockies in the summer on vacation (Kettle, Pine)--->introduced to native and wild trout-game over. Now its wild trout year round, pre-spawn smallies and smallies in the summer, sometimes carp just for fun! I love fly fishing. I really don't care anymore what I'm targeting. The summer is my favorite time because the bassing is good and the trout is good. Some days my moods are different and I can do whatever I want!

All this to say that just because stocked trout wouldn't be in the picture doesn't mean you can't teach kids about fishing and get them into the sport. I was 12 years old before I caught my first trout, but I was 2 or 3 when I first picked up a fishing rod (Zebco 33, I still have it!)

Jack's right. The commission exists, not only for conservation, but also for recreation. Recreation shouldn't come at the expense of conservation though, and I think that's where some of us get a little squirmish with stocking over wild populations. It's certainly a tricky balance. The stream I keep thinking of here in Lancaster is our most popular ATW. It's strong w/ natives, a few wild browns, but it gets pounded for a few weeks in April. It's bigger water and although it lacks structure, it has great hatches, an ample supply of bait fish, it's spring fed up at the head waters, and I can't help but wonder how big some of those natives and wilds could get if they survive the harvesting. The PFBC has stopped stocking browns now, based on the numbers of natives that have turned up in recent surveys (I think that's what Mike said, anyway), so now its stocked w/ bows. That at least shows that the commission is considering the native population there, but they also have to deal w/ the fact that its such a popular ATW. I can see how its a tricky balancing act.
 
Stockies are what got me into the sport. I may not appreciate it that much now, but it has its place and importance.
What would happen? Not Montana, that I assure you. Spring Creek would still be well. Wonder why that would be? :)
 
Sasquatch.... Dumb question i
I'm sure.... ATW???
 
I think my hangup with the "no stocking over wild fish" crowd is that few realize just how many streams have a extremely small population of wild fish. I kind of agree in principle. But there's so many streams out there that have a very small handful of wild fish, that maybe wondered in from a trib or something. But would NOT be much of a trout fishery without stockies. It'd be a waste of resource not to stock them.

So to me, you gotta draw a line. The policy ALREADY is that they don't stock what they consider to be viable wild trout sport fisheries. i.e. class A. So nothing has to change in regards to philosophy. I just think they set that bar way too high.

And yeah, you have to draw the line somewhere. There's no perfect way to do it. But biomass is the best method we have. IMO, all of the class B's, and most of the class C's and even many D's I consider to be good sport fisheries for wild trout. I'm not even sure exactly where I would draw it, probably low C, high D range.

But certainly lower than the current class A/B line. That's the direction I'd like to go. All that has to be done is to lower the biomass line required to be considered class A. And the current environment of reduced stocking numbers is the perfect excuse. You remove streams from the stocking list starting with the highest biomass. The result is, that on the streams that we all agree should be stocked, the reduction in fish would be less harsh.
 
I was thinking about that, especially w/ streams like Kettle or Pine. You're right, there are some wilds that come up into streams from tribs and such. The line is too high though. You're probably right-between D and C would be fine with me. As, Bs, and Cs are pretty strong populations in my opinion.
 
pcray1231 wrote:
I think my hangup with the "no stocking over wild fish" crowd is that few realize just how many streams have a extremely small population of wild fish. I kind of agree in principle. But there's so many streams out there that have a very small handful of wild fish, that maybe wondered in from a trib or something. But would NOT be much of a trout fishery without stockies. It'd be a waste of resource not to stock them.

So to me, you gotta draw a line. The policy ALREADY is that they don't stock what they consider to be viable wild trout sport fisheries. i.e. class A. So nothing has to change in regards to philosophy. I just think they set that bar way too high.

And yeah, you have to draw the line somewhere. There's no perfect way to do it. But biomass is the best method we have. IMO, all of the class B's, and most of the class C's and even many D's I consider to be good sport fisheries for wild trout. I'm not even sure exactly where I would draw it, probably low C, high D range.

But certainly lower than the current class A/B line. That's the direction I'd like to go. All that has to be done is to lower the biomass line required to be considered class A. And the current environment of reduced stocking numbers is the perfect excuse. You remove streams from the stocking list starting with the highest biomass. The result is, that on the streams that we all agree should be stocked, the reduction in fish would be less harsh.
Click to expand...

Your position is the same as the "no stocking over wild fish" crowd.
 
If we were to not stock over wild trout would these streams fall into sqecial artificial regs or catch and release only. I know a lot of guys that enjoy tossing worms and such to brookies that would be pretty ticked if they would shut these streams down to bait fisherman.
 
mike_richardson wrote:
If we were to not stock over wild trout would these streams fall into sqecial artificial regs or catch and release only. I know a lot of guys that enjoy tossing worms and such to brookies that would be pretty ticked if they would shut these streams down to bait fisherman.
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone ever suggested that or implied that would happen.
 
mike_richardson wrote:
If we were to not stock over wild trout would these streams fall into sqecial artificial regs or catch and release only. I know a lot of guys that enjoy tossing worms and such to brookies that would be pretty ticked if they would shut these streams down to bait fisherman.
Click to expand...

Look at the brookie streams that are currently unstocked. There's your answer.
 
There is no need for tackle restrictions on most wild brookie streams, but we ought to be looking at the use of circle hooks in order to cut the accidental mortality rate.

A 2 fish per day (no size) limit would be nice. It would discourage those who feel they have to come home with a basket of trout every time they go out.
 
PennKev wrote:

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

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

thats what i was getting at with my questions above, ie if you can't create a sustainable trout fishery through stocking, would it be more economic to stock it just once with bass, perch etc - which when stocked in Europe grow to huge sizes - 6lbs + :

4_5_MAR30_fullSize.jpg


(who'd wanna fry that...)

in Spain, they stock smallies all the time to create permanent viable warm water fisheries for all types of anglers. annual stocking is minimal but the fishing is superb.

i'd rather see that and the money saved spent on enhancing the marginal wild fisheries - by habitat improvement, planting trees, insect harchery boxes, riparian strips, and stream 'washing' - where water flows throw a crushed limestone barrier etc.

why not maximise all fisheries, rather than trying to force just one where nature doesn't want it.

i think we all agree we want to see wild trout enhanced and not stocked over if possible, so in my mind creating an alternative viable sustaining fishery that's more economic is the best way...

just my .02.
 
There'd be no reason to change any of the regs on the wild streams that exist, Mike. In fact, I'd be against putting regs on those streams, as regs tend to draw attention to waterways. I think most native streams are fine with the current regs in place.
 
I keep getting the feeling that these discussions are really about wild trout fishermen, more than the welfare of wild fish.

It's a political reality that there will be some stocking in PA. To protect wild fish, you would first stock where there are no wild fish. Then, maybe you should stock some class A streams, and some Bs, where the wild fish can take the impact. You should not stock the class C & D streams where the wild fish are not as strong. Wouldn't that be the way to protect fragile wild trout populations?

What I keep hearing is that the stocking should be in the other order, stock the class C and D streams, but not the As and Bs. Which would put the stocking impact over the weaker wild fish populations, but makes for better wild trout fishing on the As and Bs.

Cool. But (Belushi voice here) Who do we care about, wild trout or wild trout fishermen?

Of course I am not really serious about wanting to see stocking on class As, but I really don't think we have it so bad. Lots of great wild trout fishing here, just using maps.

 
KenU wrote:

A 2 fish per day (no size) limit would be nice. It would discourage those who feel they have to come home with a basket of trout every time they go out.
Click to expand...

I agree. And the 2 fish per day proposal is not for a special regulation, but for a general state-wide regulation.

That's the way it is done in MD. The limit on unstocked trout waters there is 2 fish per day, state-wide.

That way it does not draw attention to particular streams.
 
Your position is the same as the "no stocking over wild fish" crowd.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. Their view is basically that if it's on the natural reproduction list, it shouldn't be stocked. And that list includes not only classes A, B, and C, but also D and E. Our views differ on the lower end of this scale. Class E, low class D, etc. SHOULD be stocked, IMO.

And that's an awful lot of stream miles where we differ. Probably the majority of the stocked water in the state.
 
But (Belushi voice here) Who do we care about, wild trout or wild trout fishermen?
Click to expand...

I make no bones about it. Fishermen. The goal of the PFBC is/should be to maximize the recreational opportunities available to anglers.
 
pat yeah I could name some schuylkill cty streams that I'd wish were not stocked... if I were the only one involved. but people like the stockie fishing, and I can find unstocked wild trout water, or just hike away from the road on the ones that are stocked.

real world; there will be stocking. there are many more stockie-only than wild-only fishermen. there are so many streams with some wild trout that there will be stocking over wilds. calls to stock over the weaker C&D wild trout populations but not the stronger A&B populations seem to be based on concern over wild trout fishermen versus wild trout fish!

I actually think that the status quo isn't too bad.

 
pcray1231 wrote:
Your position is the same as the "no stocking over wild fish" crowd.
Click to expand...

I don't think that's true. Their view is basically that if it's on the natural reproduction list, it shouldn't be stocked. And that list includes not only classes A, B, and C, but also D and E. Our views differ on the lower end of this scale. Class E, low class D, etc. SHOULD be stocked, IMO.

And that's an awful lot of stream miles where we differ. Probably the majority of the stocked water in the state.
Click to expand...

I'd certainly be happy with ending stocking on high Class D and above. And I think most other wild trout advocates would too. That would be a huge benefit to wild trout populations.

Class E means no wild trout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top