PFBC Fall stocking: angler feedback

[pro4mance]

Common sense answer would be more LIGHTNING TROUT in all class A streams, wild lightning trout would attract so much tourism dollars, it would cover education costs, leading to a more educated demographic.
That could lead to LIGHTNING STEELHEAD stockings, more tourism dollars and less posting, leading to more access for the "Average Fisherman" "Dirty Pinner" "Fly fisherman" "Yinzer" "Mupere" & "Ohioans N'at"
Maybe when all that happens, we could come together and sing hymns about readily available LIGHTNING MUSKIES.
Disclaimer: I saw an Amish Ghost Fisherman at the Steelhead Jam

 

[mikesl]

I have caught stocked trout in the following streams this fall

Pennypack
Little Lehigh
Lehigh

 

[geangler]

CHAZ.......Best idea so far.

 

[Eccles]

I find this an astonishing thread.

When did it come about that any of us has a right to fish for trout? You might argue for a "Right to Fish" (though even that is a bit tenuous) but the right fish for trout? Surely if you are lucky enough to live in an area that has suitable trout water - lucky you. If you don't well - tough luck, get on and enjoy fishing for whatever species can naturally sustain its populations in your local waters.

Is it that the F&BC promised us trout? Or do they seek to provide fishing opportunities - for which there are multiple avenues through which that promise can be fulfilled. And even if the F&BC did promise trout doesn't the expectation that anyone should have trout given to them, and particularly given to them in water that can never sustain the fish for any period of time, just makes the whole process look like lunch time at a fast food chain (as someone else said in an earlier comment - "Resource First? Yea right").

But then if the prevailing attitude is "I paid my license fee and trout stamp so I'm owed some of them trout" quibble away about stocking policy.

Nevertheless, it seems incongruous that, given the environmental credentials we like to wave as trout fishermen, fly fishermen in particular - our catch and release ethic, our advocacy for wild trout - we mutter about stocking. It doesn't strike you as faintly ridiculous? Where is the enlightened attitude to the environment we all say we have as fly fishermen. The creel fillers and the truck chasers appear to have a much more honest attitude, and certainly a more transparent rationale towards stocking it seems.

Reduction in Fall stocking? Good. Lets double license fees (yes I'd wonder how I could afford it too) and give the F&BC's funds to do a proper holistic job of looking after the state's aquatic environments - warm and cold water - to provide a variety of great fishing opportunities naturally. No stocking except for targeted recovery/remedial work (in the case of pollution events for e.g.) and done with appropriate species and strains of fish.

Yup, I can dream.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

.

 

[KeithS]

Isn't it ALL recovery/remedial work? Historically almost every watershed in the state held trout at some time.
Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, don't we need the trout stamp to KEEP trout? If so, the majority of us are essentially making a charitable donation for the love of the sport.

 

[PennKev]

KeithS wrote:
Isn't it ALL recovery/remedial work? Historically almost every watershed in the state held trout at some time.
Also, and please correct me if I'm wrong, don't we need the trout stamp to KEEP trout? If so, the majority of us are essentially making a charitable donation for the love of the sport.

No. See this link to the PAFBC FAQ's page.

When is a Trout stamp required?

 

[troutbert]

Eccles wrote:

When did it come about that any of us has a right to fish for trout? You might argue for a "Right to Fish" (though even that is a bit tenuous) but the right fish for trout?

In which post did someone argue for either a "Right to Fish" or a "right to fish for trout." You're trying to defeat an argument that no one has made.

The PFBC has a hatchery program to provide recreation and that is not going away any time soon. Whether they should or not is an interesting question, but it's not the question being discussed.

As long as they have a hatchery trout stocking program it is definitely appropriate for anyone helping pay for that through purchase of license and trout stamp to make recommendations, provide input, in how the program is conducted. The PFBC themselves often ask for public input.

Providing input on how the DH areas are managed is not advocating for a "Right to Fish" or a "Right to Fish For Trout."

The Logic Police are on patrol...

 

[Chaz]

Eccles wrote:


Is it that the F&BC promised us trout? Or do they seek to provide fishing opportunities - for which there are multiple avenues through which that promise can be fulfilled. And even if the F&BC did promise trout doesn't the expectation that anyone should have trout given to them, and particularly given to them in water that can never sustain the fish for any period of time, just makes the whole process look like lunch time at a fast food chain (as someone else said in an earlier comment - "Resource First? Yea right").

But then if the prevailing attitude is "I paid my license fee and trout stamp so I'm owed some of them trout" quibble away about stocking policy.

When PFBC started stocking in the fall years ago they created the expectation that trout would be in certain streams during the fall, so yes folks expect that the trout will keep coming in the fall. It's their monster, not ours.

 

[KeithS]

I stand corrected. I was never concerned because I always buy the stamp.

 

[troutbert]

KeithS wrote:
Isn't it ALL recovery/remedial work? Historically almost every watershed in the state held trout at some time.

The stocking program currently is not at all recovery/remedial work. It's intended to be put-and-take and is not intended for recovery of wild trout populations. Which was what the other poster was talking about.

The quote was: "No stocking except for targeted recovery/remedial work (in the case of pollution events for e.g.) and done with appropriate species and strains of fish."

So the idea would be to end the put-and-take hatchery program entirely. And not stock at all, except where a stream has the potential to support wild trout, but had them wiped out by some pollution, mine drainage for example, and where there are no connected streams that can act as a source for wild trout. Then put some wild strain trout in there, not for put-and-take, but to get the wild trout population going again.

That is a very rare situation, because most streams that had no wild trout because of pollution very quickly get wild trout after pollution is fixed, because typically there are tributaries and/or headwaters that act as a source for wild trout.

 

[Chaz]

InCahoots wrote:
Deer hunters complain that there are not enough deer but they shoot the does. The Fish Commission has falling revenues but it allows a large number of anglers pay a small fee once and then never have to pay again. Go figure! To increase Fall stockings, we should eliminate the senior license. Seniors are the group with the largest amount of disposable income. Many spent a fortune on fancy rods, reels, and waders. The cost of a license should not be a burden if they really enjoy trout fishing. I write as a senior with said license. Trout fishing is my vice and the enjoyment I've received from it is tremendous. I want to pursue it as long as I am able and I want it to be there for me. A yearly license is to me a small price to play for all the joy fishing brings. I do not feel "entitled" having reached a certain age. Just one opinion.

I've got news for you, anyone who is not working has little or no disposable income. In fact by retiring they have disposed of their disposable income. That's one reason why the guys that like to keep a limit that are seniors, go fishing when they know the truck is stopping by, they can catch a limit or 3 go home and cook them up.

Getting back to the OP, I still think one way to remedy the situation is to allow the Co-ops to conduct fall stockings strictly watches by PFBC to make sure the trout are put where they will be used the most. These fish could come from the regular hatchery program as soon as all the 'Spring' fish are stocked.

The Co-ops could get them as fingerling trout in the spring, and relieve some of the overproduction at the state hatcheries while providing fall stream stockings, of fish that would otherwise be destroyed.

 

[Tigereye]

If one goes back enough years,you can see the philosophy of the PFBC.

On one stream which i have fished for 40+ years, in the late 60's early 70's they would stock >13000 fish 5 times a year. That got cut to 4x per year then 3x per year. Then they cut the amount to 6500 3x per year. Now they dont publish the amts. Hmmmm????.

Then they stocked less fish but larger fish. For those that kept fish, creel limits went from 8 fish to 5 fish. Then they reduced the # of streams and streams sections stocked to enhance the wild fisheries. Then you had to buy a trout stamp. This does not take into consideration all the license fee increases of those years.

Now, don't get me wrong I agree with some of the tactics (enhance wild fisheries) and am all for responsible cost cutting strategies that make sense. But obviously the PFBC has more revenue coming in and stock smaller amounts of trout in less streams. Something doesn't add up.

Some proposals (good and bad i have heard) in no particular order.

1. Fall trout stamp
2. increase cooperative nursery particiaption (fingerling and adult stocking)
3. float stocking in spring
4. reduced creel limits (again)
5. more habitat work on streams with "wild" potential
6. encourage river stewardship groups
7. Spread the pressure. Year round fishing NO FIRST DAY let alone 2 FIRST DAYS.

 

[Eccles]

Troutbert

Apologies I didn't make myself clear. I am not saying that "Right to Fish" has been mentioned in this thread specifically, I was simply using the term (one that has been coined and debated elsewhere though not on this forum) to contrast with the fact that many commentators seem to imply that they not only expect to be able to fish for trout (paid the license fee, paid the trout stamp, always have had trout delivered before) but worse, expect to be able to fish for trout in waters that cannot support trout for any reasonable length of time. Hence my rather badly put summary that many fishermen here seem to think they have a "right to fish for trout".

Even though I may have put that badly I still think the point stands. This thread is discussing stocking practice, its economics, usage etc. Implicit in the "input on how the DH areas are managed" is an expectation that fishermen should be provided with trout fishing opportunities (in the fall in this case). To point out that the discussion seems faintly ridiculous when seen in the context of the longer term goals of sustainable fisheries and naturally reproducing trout populations is I think still valid - patrolling logic police or not.

And of course you're right. As long as PFBC has a hatchery program us license holders should be able to have some input. But actually that is all I'm doing. Arguably the expectation that we should have trout to catch is driven by the knowledge that there are a gazillion of them swimming around a concrete tank waiting to be released. Get rid of that (or change it as I say in my initial post above and as you summarize well in your response to KeithS (#71)) and perhaps our attitude to trout and their place in the PA environment becomes much more in-tune with how a natural system distributes this 'resource'.

Chaz
Yea, surely the point is not to play the blame game but to eliminate what you term to be a "monster". As I said fishermen's expectations and PFBC policy are so hand in glove that it is difficult to see who is the driver and who the passenger. My reply to Troutbert tries to make the point that fishermen's warped expectations are blameworthy. But PFBC's complicity in satisfying the 'customers' in the easiest manner possible is just as unappealing.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Apologies I didn't make myself clear. I am not saying that "Right to Fish" has been mentioned in this thread specifically, I was simply using the term (one that has been coined and debated elsewhere though not on this forum) to contrast with the fact that many commentators seem to imply that they not only expect to be able to fish for trout (paid the license fee, paid the trout stamp, always have had trout delivered before) but worse, expect to be able to fish for trout in waters that cannot support trout for any reasonable length of time. Hence my rather badly put summary that many fishermen here seem to think they have a "right to fish for trout".

Incorrect. We are discussing the Fall Stocking program that takes place in October. These fish can live from Oct. - June if not harvested. They may also live longer in some of the DH streams if not harvested.
Not all DH streams are created equal.

Even though I may have put that badly I still think the point stands. This thread is discussing stocking practice, its economics, usage etc. Implicit in the "input on how the DH areas are managed" is an expectation that fishermen should be provided with trout fishing opportunities (in the fall in this case). To point out that the discussion seems faintly ridiculous when seen in the context of the longer term goals of sustainable fisheries and naturally reproducing trout populations is I think still valid - patrolling logic police or not.

Of course it's ridiculous in the context of sustainable fisheries and naturally reproducing trout populations. It's also ridiculous when discussing where to buy the best steak sandwich. We are NOT discussing anything about reproducing trout populations.
I do think however that some DH streams can hold trout over many years.

perhaps our attitude to trout and their place in the PA environment becomes much more in-tune with how a natural system distributes this 'resource'.

Actually I think most posters on this board have a much better grip on how the natural system distributes trout in the wild than the average PA trout angler.

The few points your missing are:

DH streams are not all on public land. In fact most are on private land. Changing the regs, allowing early harvest and the use of bait could anger landowners and cause previously unposted land to be posted.

The fall stocking provides reasonably decent trout fishing in some streams from October till June where there is none. Spreading pressure and giving natural reproducing populations a break during spawning and allows redds not to be trampled on.

#1 The key point:

Give up the damn blanket regs!!!!
Let's look at falling springs. The DH area supports a wild trout population that I believe to be class a, even though it is not documented as such.

Do you think bait fishing by kids and encouragement of early harvest is a good thing here?
What applies to the tully, does not apply here.
Not all streams are created equal.


#2 key point:

The DH streams are popular among anglers.
If it ain't broke, don't fix it!!!

 

[outsider]

"Seniors are the group with the largest amount of disposable income. Many spent a fortune on fancy rods, reels, and waders. The cost of a license should not be a burden if they really enjoy trout fishing."

While it is a statistical fact that senior citizens have the largest amount of disposable income, the wealth is FAR from being equally distributed across the senior population. Many (like me) don't have "disposable" income. Oh, I did splurge 2 years ago when I paid $60 for an old Fenwick glass rod. It was a Christmas and birthday present rolled into one.

And Sal, I agree with your thought of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". But I have a feeling our voices are falling on deaf ears. I believe the ship already sailed.

 

[CRB]

I think bait is a thing of the past with the non native spices spreading. I hear grass carp young make fantastic trout bait.

 

[outsider]

Voice your opinion:

Thank you for contacting the PA Fish & Boat Commission. While we are not formally in the comment acceptance period for this topic at this time, I have forwarded your comments to our legal counsel and I have been told your comments will be included for distribution to the Commissioners prior to their decision on whether to change the regulations on the Delayed Harvest Artificial Lures Only sections.

 

[Camp]

Taking an early look at the 2015 Trout stocking schedule it would appear that less trout will be placed in the fall months than 2014 by the PFBC. This is an unfortunate policy shift that does not extend the season or distribute the opportunity for stocked trout over a greater time frame. Any reason to hope the fall stocking will be increased any time soon?

 

[JackM]

PFBC know that very few people buy licenses in order to fish the fall-stocked waters. Very little additional revenue is gained by the fall stocking. Unless year-round stocked-trout anglers refuse to buy the license of 2016 because of reduce fall stockings, you can bet this is simply a money saving effort.