Something we can do?

[nymphingmaniac]

I wish they would have closed benner rather than bellefonte. Closing benner would have a more positive effect on the quality of the Spring creek fishery- at least that's my opinion. Closing benner would have produced more fishable water upstream of the first hatchery. The reduced moss/weed growth might make the benner/canyon section more fishable in the summer.

 

[Lonewolve]

IMHO... this might be a better option than either reaering fingerlings or stocking fish. I know its about Atlantic Salmon..but just might work out good,and be a very financially win win for all parties involved.

biologists-plant-atlantic-salmon-eggs-in-winterports-cove-brook
http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/egg-by-egg-mainers-bringing-back-atlantic-salmon_2013-01-19.html

 

[TimMurphy]

nymphingmaniac wrote:
I wish they would have closed benner rather than bellefonte. Closing benner would have a more positive effect on the quality of the Spring creek fishery- at least that's my opinion. Closing benner would have produced more fishable water upstream of the first hatchery. The reduced moss/weed growth might make the benner/canyon section more fishable in the summer.

Dear nymphingmaniac,

I agree with what you wrote in theory, but I think I recall seeing that Benner Spring also does work with some warm/cool water fish as well?

Maybe they couldn't lose that aspect of Benner Spring so they opted for closing Bellefonte?

I just hope they keep the Bellefonte hatchery grounds open. Those flush toilets are nice during the Winter while fishing Fisherman's Paradise. ;-)

Regards,

Tim Murphy ;-)

 

[midnightangler]

Its a biomass/NPDES issue. They cannot raise more biomass at existing hatcheries w/o raising the limits of nutrient and suspended solids discharge.

Currently we have three major hatcheries on one of the state's top wild trout streams (Spring Creek). If effluent load is an issue, Spring Creek certainly comes to mind as a place that could use less of it.

 

[bikerfish]

FWIW, I don't see my license money going to stock fish,(although it does) I(would like) to see it going to the property that gets purchased for angler access, the upkeep of existing access, education, etc.
personnally, I can do without stocking. I'd like to see what would happen to the smallmouth population in some area creeks if trout were no longer stocked.
I agree with stocking a recently restored stream to try to establish a population again.

 

[PSUFishMenace]

I never fish for stocked trout anymore, BUT I never would have started fishing for trout if not for stocked fish. There are tons of others who started out like I did, and I would never advocate ending all trout stocking. Stocking over good wild trout populations, that's a different story. So while I would like to see some streams removed, if you cut too many you risk losing quite a few future trout fishermen, not to mention access.

I am comfortable with my license money going towards hatcheries, and would absolutely pay more than the current fee (and I hate spending money on fishing stuff)

 

[Squaretail]

Mo wrote:

Its a biomass/NPDES issue. They cannot raise more biomass at existing hatcheries w/o raising the limits of nutrient and suspended solids discharge. So they could raise more is smaller like fingerlings as you suggest. But to just raise more in not an option.

They might increase fingerlings, but there was an effort not long ago to reduce average size of stockers that was unsuccsessful. This is almost certainly how they will offset the situation and the only option really to appease the bucket brigade.
The "fangerlangs" will only put smiles on folks like us. The ones who will pretty much give them our money every year, no matter the cost or how poor the fishing.

 

[pcray1231]

Midnight,

If you eliminated all class A's and class B's combined from the stocking list, you have reduced the demand by less than 1%. This is reducing the supply by nearly 25%.

I agree with you in principle. But the reason they should stop stocking class B's is for the wild trout populations in those streams. The savings in numbers of fish are almost negligible.

The number of trout stocked per stream has to take a hit, there's no way to avoid that. And yes, Becker, that includes the Lehigh. Are they gonna stop stocking it? No. But it could see about a 25% reduction in the numbers of fish it gets.

 

[Stagger_Lee]

midnightangler wrote:

Honestly, anything that makes it likely for wild trout streams to receive less stocking will have my support.

Why?

I am not being sarcastic or anything; just naive as I'm still new to fishing and usually hit up the beginner forum with my questions but why start a new thread.

Don't wild and stocked co-exist on streams and/or why is this a problem?

Do they mate and is that a problem?

Any other info as to why is much appreciated.

 

[pcray1231]

Stagger,

1. They compete for resources. And stockies are VERY aggressive coming from hatchery environs where they have to compete with lots of fish for everything. So they kick the wild fish out of holding lies, take their food, etc. Think of it this way, if there's wild fish there, it's near it's natural capacity. By stocking, we intentionally throw bigger fish, in greater numbers, than what the stream is capable of supporting. And the wild fish inevitably take a hit because of it.

2. Stockies attract large numbers of harvest minded anglers, which puts a hurting on any wild population in said stream.

 

[Stagger_Lee]

Thank pcray and I see what ur saying ..

I was up in Allentown right b4 halloween to take kids to Dorney. All the times I fished the LL never went to the hatchery so I took the family there prior and yes … those fish are nice in size and that was after fall stocking so I see this and have to agree whole heatedly, outside of the economics, with the problems it can cause with the wild population.

 

[Chaz]

The press release said they will not be making up the numebr of fish from the other hatcheries so it's out of the question that PFBC will move the production.
It need to be done to reduce costs, if you are mad at anyone be made at you state Legislature, they turned down the request for more money, and to compound the issue took away 1,000,000 when they recieved 1,000,000 in Marcellus money.

 

[StarvinMarvin]

Thanks for that info Chaz ill be sure to include that in my letter

 

[SBecker]

Well if they are not going to up production at other hatcheries this could be a big problem for their fishing license sales for the average angler. Knowing Bellafonte stocks the Lehigh Valley they obviously are going to pull a large amount of fish from other areas to supplement those stockings. Those other areas will ne pretty upset. O well, guess we will see in two years.

 

[Chaz]

Yes it could. And in the long run it could impact wild trout streams too.

 

[SBecker]

Chaz wrote:
Yes it could. And in the long run it could impact wild trout streams too.

If you are insinuating those anglers will seek out the wild trout streams they normally would have no intrest in, I somewhat agree. I will do my best to promote brook trout during those times!