PFBC - slice of gas tax

[Acristickid]

It all gives me a headache.

hehehe

 

[Slate_Drake_9]

Sort of interesting discussion.
So, we stop stocking any water that can support any natural reproduction? Okay. We only stock marginal streams that cannot sustain fish once summer begins (this is the definition of a marginal stream, right?). Okay. What do we have now?

Choice 1. We have a lot of stream sections that once held fishable populations of stocked trout year around that are now occupied by a few 4 inch brookies here and there. Not going to draw too many anglers, except to their headwaters where the brookie population density is high enough to make it worthwhile to fish in. This equals higher pressure on our beloved brookie headwater streams and the few streams presented in Choice 2, which will just **** off many of the people who post on this board. The land owners will probably post this land because why open your land up to people to disturb your privacy and to fish for the relatively few fish left in the streams. Stocking keeps these stream areas open to use, believe it or not.

Choice 2. We have a relative few trout streams in the state on par with Spring Creek that hold an outstanding population of fish that are self sustaining and big enough to pull back when you hook them. (which is what a lot people want from a fishing experience) Probably going to draw a lot of anglers – way more than any of us are willing to fish next to. So now our favorite wild trout waters are overcrowded and many of them probably become posted due to all of the negatives (litter, fights, disturbing landowner privacy, pooping in sight of land owners on their land, etc) that come along with overcrowding on a trout stream more crowding on the open waters left.

Choice 3. We have a lot of streams that are completely troutless once summer starts most years. Who will fish there? Probably nobody. May or may not lead to further posting, but what’s it matter when they’re not a fishery after May in many parts of the state anyway.

Choice 4. Stock lakes. This is a waste of fish to all but a small minority of trout flyfishers in Pennsylvania. These folks will probably go to Choice 2 and the headwaters on Choice 1.

Ultimately, what will be left then when the unwashed masses stop buying licenses because they don’t have any trout fishing opportunities near them? Less and less licenses sold which will equal less and less enforcement of regulations (due to less WCO’s due to funding), which will probably lead to more and more poaching that will lead to a smaller wild trout population. This then leads to fishing as a means to make money in Pennsylvania as a thing of the past and therefore isn’t cared for by the politicians. These politicians will then have an easy time allowing things like the Marcellus Shale industry to destroy our waters because nobody cares about them, except for a small minority of individuals who love 4 inch brook trout. This minority will grow increasingly smaller because many parents will not get their kids involved in fishing to grow the love of it we have.

Please be careful what you wish for.

We’re not Montana. Most of our waters in Pennsylvania don’t stay cool enough year around to sustain trout and the vast majority of the ones that do don’t have the biomass in the food chain to grow fish to what many people who don’t worship the brookie consider a worthwhile size to catch. I wish it were different, but it is what it is.

 

[jdaddy]

Let them fish the hatcheries. That way they get their meat and the PFBC doesn't have the huge cost associated with delivering them to the harvesters.

 

[trowpa]

jdaddy wrote:
Let them fish the hatcheries. That way they get their meat and the PFBC doesn't have the huge cost associated with delivering them to the harvesters.

Brilliant!

 

[FlySwatter]

WildTigerTrout wrote:
Your welcome. I can't understand the logic involved.Stocking hatchery trout over "Wild" trout makes no sense to me. Anybody else out there feel the same as myself and RyanR?

YES!

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Jay said it the best

I want the same end result as you, but I feel that increasing the number of fish will be a nice bit of sugar to sweeten the medicine

I agree, but I'm just trying to state the obvious. For years I have heard that the fish commission uses our dollars to stock trout. That's why people here will say, that people feel like have to keep wild and stock trout, it is there right. After all their license dollars paid for it. If that is true...... I would think the PFBC cutting into their budget by a good margin should have a effect of the stocking program. Most likely they will have to stock less or at the least, smaller fish.

I'm fine with that. Anglers and landowners alike should understand that clean water is first and foremost. If anglers have to foot the bill to make sure it happens then I'm fine with that too.

Since there are less fish and less stocked streams, chalk them full with an insane amount of stocked trout. Let them have at it. Time remove class B wild trout streams from the stocking list. This will make less streams stocked but the ones stocked will have more fish in them than before. Doing this you could still cut back in trout production and save money to stay afloat.

Both sides happy.

Landowners should not post their land because its my money making sure they don't have a polluted back yard. It would just be the nice thing to do.

As someone that grew up on the tradition of fishing for stocked trout (in a wild trout stream) on opening day, I am sorry to say that I think Paul's right.

Unfortunately your right. This will lead to posted land anyway. People don't think with their hearts anymore.

Keep in mind that the average pennsylvanian knows nothing about wild trout. Also keep in mind that many harvest-minded anglers don't care much for "dinks". Your average angler is of that mold.

This is so true its not even funny. PA residents have no idea the vast amount of wild trout within PA.

That's sad too because maybe more people would care.

http://www.pittsburghlive.com/x/pittsburghtrib/sports/s_693958.html

According to Leroy Young, director of the bureau of fisheries, the commission staff this year will be monitoring streams that are known to hold high Class B populations of wild trout, with the goal of determining whether some of those should be taken off the stocking list.

Class B streams are the second-best wild trout streams in the state, based on the quantity of fish on a given section of water. Only Class A streams are better. Class A waters are never stocked, while Class B waters can be, and some — about 19 percent of the total — are.

Fisheries staff want to figure out if any of those 19 percent of stocked Class Bs should be left to their own to provide fishing, perhaps as soon as 2011, Young said.

"There may be some that we'll want to take off," he said.

That might be controversial, he admitted. Any time the commission tries to remove any water from the trout stocking schedule, the resulting "hue and cry" from anglers can be intense enough to stop the change, he said.

Commission executive director John Arway has proposed one solution, Young said.

"He's indicated that if we take a water off the (stocking) list, he wants us to put another one on," Young said.

I still would be willing to bet...........they are going to stock less.

Class B removal.......I'm all for it

 

[gfen]

jayL wrote:
I feel that stocking needs to be increased, but they need to concentrate on lakes, ponds, and streams devoid of trout reproduction.

This, with an increased emphasis on conservation on non-stocked waterways that can support natural reproduction.

More trophy trout, ALO, or C&R, and leave the ATW tag to water that can't support the fist and should be worked over by harvesters.

By making stocked fish a more productive end for harvesters, then hopefully more people will take advantage of these resources; alternately while protecting water and fish that can support wild reproduction, a long term solution is set up for other anglers to continue to enjoy the sport.

I don't know the relative ease of hatchery raising fish like LMB and SMB, but perhaps realignment on these species might also be beneficial, to capture interest in bassin' and try to harness public appeal of these species over native trout.