What would happen

[SpottedCharr]

if the state simply stopped stocking trout? I'm sure this has been covered, but I can't help but think it would be Wonderful!

 

[mute]

It would be wonderful? Sarcasm i hope heh. No stocking = less people fishing = less pressure = no license sales = bad economy = more poaching = more pressure on wild streams.

 

[pete41]

They stopped stocking in Montana when I lived there.The fishing improved dramatically.It seems that stockers will displace the native born trout and take over the best holds.
However as much of Pa. water is marginal and heavily fished they would probably need to close the streams like the old days to allow for undisturbed spawning and spawning beds.

 

[brookie]

comparing montana to pa when talking about trout fishing is like comparing penn state basketball to UCLA, pennsylvania just doesnt have the habitat to support wild trout everywhere, dont get me wrong pa has awesome trout fishing but out west its on another level, ive read that you can catch wild trout in irrigation ditches out there. without stocking, a lot of the streams that you guys guys frequent would be **** poor in terms of trout population. The only true good streams with wild trout are the little mountain streams and the famed limestone ones everybody knows about, I bet without stocking, all the streams in between would suffer greatly.

 

[Fredrick]

All the aproved trout waters would return to the great Smallmouth streams they are supposed to be :-D

 

[PaulG]

SpottedCharr wrote:
if the state simply stopped stocking trout? I'm sure this has been covered, but I can't help but think it would be Wonderful!

Ain't going to happen, to much money involved. The best we could hope for is, if they would just stop stocking the streams that don't need it.

PaulG

 

[FarmerDave]

mute wrote:
It would be wonderful? Sarcasm i hope heh. No stocking = less people fishing = less pressure = no license sales = bad economy = more poaching = more pressure on wild streams.

I reluctantly agree, except for the "more poaching" part. I don't believe that for a second.

Also, much of the stocking is in streams that can produce some wild reproduction. Nearly all the stocked streams in NWPA would (and do) support enough natural reproduction that they would sustain a population. What we would end up with is more wild trout streams and those that get a little too warm would be even better smallmouth streams (better than they are now). They just wouldn't be posted on some stupid Class A list that too many people rely on, which is fine by me. It often amazes me how some people think it has to be a class A to have a good fishing experience.

I reluctantly agreed because if they stopped stocking all together, it would be "wonderful" for me, because of the "less people fishing = less pressure" part. But it certainly would not be good for the economy and the state.

 

[Padraic]

Fredrick wrote:
All the aproved trout waters would return to the great Smallmouth streams they are supposed to be :-D

Smallmouth aren't native to very much of PA. All the native smallie water is a couple rivers near the Pgn area.

Without stocking, most of PA's waters would return to the native fallfish waters they are supposed to be.

Ending stocking in our better wild trout streams (like Young Woman's) would be great. I think we should also end fall stocking on special regs waters with decent reproduction.

 

[troutbert]

SpottedCharr wrote:
if the state simply stopped stocking trout? I'm sure this has been covered

It has been covered, and the correct answer to the question has not changed since the last time I posted it. :-D

 

[FarmerDave]

Padraic wrote:

Fredrick wrote:
All the aproved trout waters would return to the great Smallmouth streams they are supposed to be :-D

Smallmouth aren't native to very much of PA. All the native smallie water is a couple rivers near the Pgn area.

Without stocking, most of PA's waters would return to the native fallfish waters they are supposed to be.

Ending stocking in our better wild trout streams (like Young Woman's) would be great. I think we should also end fall stocking on special regs waters with decent reproduction.

Padraic, it seems you have been talking to Chaz. :lol:

Contrary to what he may have told you, the western border of PA is quite a ways west of Snowshoe. Sure the smallmouth is not native to the majority of PA waters, but they are for about a third of the state (roughly). The historic range of the smallmount in PA is basically west of the eastern divide, which includes the Ohio and Allegheny river watershed as well. and who is to say that some ducks didn't carry a few over the hump into the Susquahanna watershed. :lol: Brown trout on the other hand have no place in PA waters. ;-)

 

[Fredrick]

Yeah Pad WHAT FARMERDAVE SAID !!!!!! :lol:

 

[SpottedCharr]

I beg to differ, Brookie. Though never having been to Montana, I know enough about our land called, Pennsylvania. We are home to inumerable streams of water. Though only 33rd in size among all 50 states, pa has more miles of streams than each of the others.

If properly managed and loved, all but our largest rivers, would likely hold wild trout. (At least at some time of the year). The smaller the stream, the greater the likelihood of year round habitat.

No indeed, almost beyond belief to me, we live in perhaps the richest land on earth for trout habitat. It's only mismanagement, a few years of drought, etc. that holds us back.

Among other solutions, planting trees along our streambanks, seems the best and most permanent solution.

Stocking must sometime be stopped also, to give our natives their birthright, if you will

jon

 

[tomgamber]

SpottedCharr wrote:
I beg to differ, Brookie. Though never having been to Montana, I know enough about our land called, Pennsylvania. We are home to inumerable streams of water.

There are very few if any that could hold fish that aren;t either stocked or already hold fish...the rest (including some stocked streams) are marginal at best and mostly too warm...

Though only 33rd in size among all 50 states, pa has more miles of streams than each of the others.

We've had this discussion too and while I still claim, against others insistence, Idaho has more miles, more unpolluted miles and more colder miles...but thats another debate.

If properly managed and loved, all but our largest rivers, would likely hold wild trout. (At least at some time of the year).

All...don't think so...actually I bet considering their depth and volume that some of those bigger rivers would hold fish longer than many of our streams that we currently stock if not so polluted.

Among other solutions, planting trees along our streambanks, seems the best and most permanent solution.

While this is a great effort, planting trees, alone, will never solve the problems of many Pa streams

Stocking must sometime be stopped also, to give our natives their birthright, if you will

Well, if you want fish in every stream, even if they would support them, you're going to have to stock. They won't magically emerge from little streams they currently inhabit int he headwaters. Then you'll have to eradicate all the browns, rainbows, bass, walleye, pike and musky and any other predator fish currently in the streams. Its a pipe dream...Current brookie habitat can be improved and to a degree even expanded but it will never fully recover. Man has already seen to that.

 

[FishTank]

They could never stop stocking unless they put no-kill regs on the streams, or put like an 18" min. to keep w\ a 1 fish bag. That would tick off entirely way too many tax payers!!!

Theres entirely too much pressure on streams, and way too many get entirely too warm in the heat of the summer.

NOW, I would love to see an assessment done on waters fertile and cool enough to hold a reproducing self-sustaining population, and made NO-KILL, and have them quit stocking them. The fish they were putting in there could go to put and take streams that either dry up or get too hot, not to mention have fertilizer run-off algal blooms.

 

[skeeter]

Tom,

I couldn't agree more!!! Well said.

I would like to throw a wrinkle to this "stop stocking approach". Of course it has been stated, however I'd like to elaborate, is the fact that streams which are capable to provide year long habitat requirements for brook trout should be managed separately and independently of the state's stocking program. We know the streams which are capable of doing it....Natural Reproduction List... so why over stock? Let it be, and manage it separately through closures, C&R and watershed management (huge task).

We know that trout (rainbow and brown) in general are a species that has been integrated into PA streams. Some studies suggest that stocking is comparable to a "population endemic" - where a species population increases so rapidly to a degree that it disrupts or even eliminates the natural equilibrium of the food web (read it in college- the prof encouraged us to keep and eat). Think about it, trout are carnivores, they eat everything, and in most if not all streams in PA, when stocked, are the top of the food chain (till 3/29 or 4/12). Imagine the impact they are having on native brookies, creek chubs, amphibians, reptiles, insects etc. by out competing for food and eating them as food, when there is a predator population swing like that.

 

[jolie]

One other thought; other kinds of fish are much more resistant to heavy meat-oriented fishing crowds. Usually panfish are limited by structure and panfish fishing limited by convenient access. Crappies are HOT nationally but trivial in PA because PA doesn't invest in it. Catfish is a GREAT fish. it is easy to catch (when abundant) grows to attractive size... eats a wide variety of forage. it is even currently being stocked in many places... but over and over again with warm water- we need more access, habitat and more opportunities. Out of the way hard places don't generate any interest from casual anglers... Casual anglers don't drive dozens- to one hundred miles to fish and roll in with bass boats. (and those that do, certainly don't head to our neglected warm-water fishery).

Warm water fisheries are under managed and under promoted.
More (warmwater) stocking, access, smarter panfish/catfish regulations and habitat could take the crowds off the streams- lengthen the casual anglers season.

the model ISN'T Montana! it is Ohio, that has a very vibrant warm water fishery. I'm part of an email list and many of them have already started to do real well with crappie and catfish.

My own feeling is that in NW Pennsylvania, most of these stocked streams aren't too warm in the summer for a very nice wild trout population.
Jason

 

[SpottedCharr]

Geez Tom,

If I didn't know any better, I'd have to say I was dealing with a real pessimist here. What I wrote stands regardless of your picking apart every detail.

What's the problem? Can't handle a little PA pride?

 

[FarmerDave]

jolie wrote:
One other thought; other kinds of fish are much more resistant to heavy meat-oriented fishing crowds. Usually panfish are limited by structure and panfish fishing limited by convenient access. Crappies are HOT nationally but trivial in PA because PA doesn't invest in it. Catfish is a GREAT fish. it is easy to catch (when abundant) grows to attractive size... eats a wide variety of forage. it is even currently being stocked in many places... but over and over again with warm water- we need more access, habitat and more opportunities. Out of the way hard places don't generate any interest from casual anglers... Casual anglers don't drive dozens- to one hundred miles to fish and roll in with bass boats. (and those that do, certainly don't head to our neglected warm-water fishery).

Warm water fisheries are under managed and under promoted.
More (warmwater) stocking, access, smarter panfish/catfish regulations and habitat could take the crowds off the streams- lengthen the casual anglers season.

the model ISN'T Montana! it is Ohio, that has a very vibrant warm water fishery. I'm part of an email list and many of them have already started to do real well with crappie and catfish.

My own feeling is that in NW Pennsylvania, most of these stocked streams aren't too warm in the summer for a very nice wild trout population.
Jason

I just got around to reading this. you got it right about Ohio. They don't give a damn about trout (for the most part), but there is abundant warm water angling and quite popular. when it comes to stocking trout, it is almost exclusively in lakes. Key word was "almost" and I was not counting steelhead.

Most of those warm water species don't even need stocking.

NWPA also has some great warm water fisheries. They just aren't as popular because of the hype that trout fishing gets. PA actually stocks more walleye than they do trout.