‘Resource first' for real now at PF&BC

[troutbert]

PALongbow wrote:

Yes the PGC tried this approach and didn't do a very good job at managing the deer herd in some parts of the state.

Yes, I'm going to hate it when they put the antler restrictions on brown trout.

That was deer and this is fish. I see more differences than similarities. A very big difference is that the purpose of the deer management change was to REDUCE populations. And the purpose of these trout management changes will be to INCREASE populations.

So, the programs are essentially opposite.

 

[shultzy501]

I somewhat disagree that the programs are opposite. I think that the goal of both programs is to use scientific decision making to manage the resources. I am confident that this is the goal of Bob Bachman and the PFBC commissioners. However, as said in a previous post, the danger becomes when the decisions are based on politics and money rather than science. Will the scientific decisions be always right? No, but at least the management will be based on research and not on emotions. When the scientific decisions are wrong, we learn from our mistakes and try to correct them based on what we learned. When wrong decisions are based on politics, money, and emotions, it seems that we try to correct them based on more of the same. I truly hope that the commissioners and the PFBC are allowed to complete their task without nonscientific interference!

 

[troutbert]

shultzy501 wrote:
I somewhat disagree that the programs are opposite. I think that the goal of both programs is to use scientific decision making to manage the resources. I am confident that this is the goal of Bob Bachman and the PFBC commissioners. However, as said in a previous post, the danger becomes when the decisions are based on politics and money rather than science. Will the scientific decisions be always right? No, but at least the management will be based on research and not on emotions. When the scientific decisions are wrong, we learn from our mistakes and try to correct them based on what we learned. When wrong decisions are based on politics, money, and emotions, it seems that we try to correct them based on more of the same. I truly hope that the commissioners and the PFBC are allowed to complete their task without nonscientific interference!

Politics will be definitely be involved, just as politics are involved now. The new commissioners will try to do things beneficial for trout populations. And some politicians and their constituents will oppose them. So, people who favor management favorable to trout populations will need to speak up.

Let's look at it more specifically. Take an example of a small stream running through state forest land, that supports a native brook trout population. This little stream flows down into a much larger stream that gets warm and does not support a wild trout population.

Here are two possible options for managing this little stream:

A. Stock hatchery trout on top of the native brook trout. Harvest: 5 fish per day. In other words, manage the little stream as a put-and-take hatchery trout fishery.

B. Stock the hatchery trout in the larger, warm stream, i.e do the put-and-take hatchery trout thing there. Do not stock hatchery trout on top of the native brook trout in the little stream. Harvest: 2 fish per day.

The new commissioners are like to prefer something similar to option B. But there will be people who prefer option A.

So, which way will it go? The people who prefer option A will support that. And the people who prefer option B had better be ready to support it, or they will surely lose. That's politics and there's no getting around it. If people won't be active citizens and support what they think it best, they shouldn't be surprised if they don't get the result they wanted.

It's a like a sports contest. If you show up and compete, you may win or you may lose. If you don't show up, you forfeit the game and the other side definitely wins.

 

[PALongbow]

Be careful for what you wish. The resource first stance can mean just about anything and sometimes "so called science" is not always right. I don't believe that the PGC had done enough research on the PA deer herd and the resource first approach was implemented across the entire state instead of focusing on areas which actually needed the deer herd thinned.

Now will the Fish Commission repeat this? It's yet to be seen.

Ron

 

[tabasco_joe]

We could probably have a long debate about what happened with the deer management plan. But I think one thing is clear. eventually politics came back as the dominant influence. Let's hope the PFBC can charter a better course to letting the experts manage the resources.

(I see a lot of similarities between the old timers who based their deer herd perception on a few nights spotlighting the local corn field and some of the guys complaining that the fishing is off on the local river because they caught fewer fish last month.)