Fly Fisherman Magazine Article— Freeman Run
- Thread starter FishTales1
- Start date
flies&brookies
Member
the stocking did not cease and stocking for a childrens derby directly upstream of the survey area where the wild brown trout pictured were found and this stocking of permitted by the pfbc of no more than 600 rainbows has been don since 2021 let alone the whole stream was stocked for 35 plus years prior to it being designated a class a stream
Do I fit the mold?
flies&brookies
Member
haveing a family member that is one of the best fly fishermen in the country but i dont fit no mold myself i just love to flyfish rather it be stocked or wild trout yes i catch the grass catch the trees etc but i still enjoy it and catch fish and have fun doing so but will never be or claim to be a good .bad or the best
I asked permission from @FishTales1 to have his commentary in LinkedIn published here as well.
August 16, 2025
Commentary
Published in Pennsylvania Outdoor News-- 18 August 2025
Stocking hatchery trout over wild trout is always a bad idea
By John Arway
Former Executive Director, Pa. Fish & Boat Commission
I recently testified at the Fish & Boat Commission’s quarterly meeting. This is the first time I’ve been back to headquarters in seven years. I repeated what former director Ralph Abele once said at his retirement dinner at my retirement dinner in 2018 – “I’ll be hovering above the clouds and swoop down when necessary.”
The board is proposing a study to re-stock Freeman Run, a wild brown trout stream in Potter County. Approximately 14 others also testified. All but one person opposed stocking hatchery trout in Class A Wild trout streams. We were limited to three minutes, so I had to shorten my comments but provide a summary below.
This will be the last time I will attend a commission meeting. It is apparent that the current board and administration are not interested in what the public thinks. The limited time given to testify, no interaction with the public and rubber stamping orchestrated staff comments are symptoms of a broken government bureaucracy – 1960’s mentality prevails.
I directed my comments in two directions – to staff and to the board.
To staff: Many of the same staff remain in the agency from when I worked there and some have been promoted to senior positions. It is hard for me to understand how staff who were so committed to Resource First would now agree to a proposal that is contrary to the very essence of the agency’s Protect, Conserve and Enhance mission and the Resource First philosophy.
Since the executive director represents staff positions, I assume that either staff priorities have shifted away from Resource First to Recreation First or the executive director is overriding staff recommendations to support the board.
To commissioners: The Fish & Boat Commission Board of Commissioners affect regulatory actions and Section 322 of the Fish and Boat Code provides that the commission may promulgate rules and regulations concerning “fishing to aid in the better protection, preservation, and management of fish…”
Given this duty and obligation, I question how the commissioners can move forward with an action to regulate fishing (stocking Freeman Run Section 04) with evidence that definitively shows that stocking would degrade the wild trout population?
The decision before you is not logical, and is contrary to the science that staff have produced. Most importantly, it violates the specific language of Section 322 of the law that the commissioners are sworn to uphold.
Specifically, how can re-stocking Section 04 of Freeman Run “aid in the better protection, preservation and management of fish?”
Data show that the stocking of hatchery trout is actually detrimental to the resident wild trout fishery and I would argue that Section 322 prohibits commission actions that are detrimental to the protection, preservation and management of fish.
The law is clear. The commission can pass regulations to improve fisheries but not to harm them. The commission is not and should not be above the law that it is required to enforce.
This action is being driven by a local sportsmen’s group who have the ear of the local commissioner, who has become their advocate to restore their favorite fishing hole.
I urge the board to talk directly to the agency’s staff scientists and not the upper level bureaucrats whose decisions are driven more by politics and feelings rather than facts and truths.
I truly believe that if the board fully understands the true impact of your decision that you will see through the biased political and social agendas and speak for the fish, just as the law requires.
To conclude, I leave you a simple solution. Let’s call it the commissioner’s Hippocratic Oath. I’ll quote from the original physician’s oath, which states, “I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm.”
Taking this oath and following it in all of your decisions provides a mechanism to insure that the Resource First philosophy will continue far into the future.
Comments about the Freeman Run proposal can be emailed to RA-pfbcregulations@pa.gov
(John Arway worked for the Pennsylvania Fish (and then Fish & Boat) Commission for 38 years (1980 to 2018), the first 30 years as a fisheries biologist, and the last eight as the agency’s executive director.)
><(John{(°>
August 16, 2025
Commentary
Published in Pennsylvania Outdoor News-- 18 August 2025
Stocking hatchery trout over wild trout is always a bad idea
By John Arway
Former Executive Director, Pa. Fish & Boat Commission
I recently testified at the Fish & Boat Commission’s quarterly meeting. This is the first time I’ve been back to headquarters in seven years. I repeated what former director Ralph Abele once said at his retirement dinner at my retirement dinner in 2018 – “I’ll be hovering above the clouds and swoop down when necessary.”
The board is proposing a study to re-stock Freeman Run, a wild brown trout stream in Potter County. Approximately 14 others also testified. All but one person opposed stocking hatchery trout in Class A Wild trout streams. We were limited to three minutes, so I had to shorten my comments but provide a summary below.
This will be the last time I will attend a commission meeting. It is apparent that the current board and administration are not interested in what the public thinks. The limited time given to testify, no interaction with the public and rubber stamping orchestrated staff comments are symptoms of a broken government bureaucracy – 1960’s mentality prevails.
I directed my comments in two directions – to staff and to the board.
To staff: Many of the same staff remain in the agency from when I worked there and some have been promoted to senior positions. It is hard for me to understand how staff who were so committed to Resource First would now agree to a proposal that is contrary to the very essence of the agency’s Protect, Conserve and Enhance mission and the Resource First philosophy.
Since the executive director represents staff positions, I assume that either staff priorities have shifted away from Resource First to Recreation First or the executive director is overriding staff recommendations to support the board.
To commissioners: The Fish & Boat Commission Board of Commissioners affect regulatory actions and Section 322 of the Fish and Boat Code provides that the commission may promulgate rules and regulations concerning “fishing to aid in the better protection, preservation, and management of fish…”
Given this duty and obligation, I question how the commissioners can move forward with an action to regulate fishing (stocking Freeman Run Section 04) with evidence that definitively shows that stocking would degrade the wild trout population?
The decision before you is not logical, and is contrary to the science that staff have produced. Most importantly, it violates the specific language of Section 322 of the law that the commissioners are sworn to uphold.
Specifically, how can re-stocking Section 04 of Freeman Run “aid in the better protection, preservation and management of fish?”
Data show that the stocking of hatchery trout is actually detrimental to the resident wild trout fishery and I would argue that Section 322 prohibits commission actions that are detrimental to the protection, preservation and management of fish.
The law is clear. The commission can pass regulations to improve fisheries but not to harm them. The commission is not and should not be above the law that it is required to enforce.
This action is being driven by a local sportsmen’s group who have the ear of the local commissioner, who has become their advocate to restore their favorite fishing hole.
I urge the board to talk directly to the agency’s staff scientists and not the upper level bureaucrats whose decisions are driven more by politics and feelings rather than facts and truths.
I truly believe that if the board fully understands the true impact of your decision that you will see through the biased political and social agendas and speak for the fish, just as the law requires.
To conclude, I leave you a simple solution. Let’s call it the commissioner’s Hippocratic Oath. I’ll quote from the original physician’s oath, which states, “I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm.”
Taking this oath and following it in all of your decisions provides a mechanism to insure that the Resource First philosophy will continue far into the future.
Comments about the Freeman Run proposal can be emailed to RA-pfbcregulations@pa.gov
(John Arway worked for the Pennsylvania Fish (and then Fish & Boat) Commission for 38 years (1980 to 2018), the first 30 years as a fisheries biologist, and the last eight as the agency’s executive director.)
><(John{(°>
Latest posts
-
Poll - Do You Support The PFBC Stocking Over Class A Streams?- Latest: The_Sasquatch
-
-
-
-
