Poll - Do You Support The PFBC Stocking Over Class A Streams?

Do You Support The PFBC Stocking Over Class A Streams?

  • Total voters
    168
  • Poll closed .
DaveKile

DaveKile

Administrator
Staff member
Joined
Dec 13, 2021
Messages
7,191
City
Pennsylvania
Many people on the site and throughout Pennsylvania have expressed concern about the stocking trout over Class A waters. If you are not familiar with the term, Class A streams support a population of wild (naturally reproducing) trout of sufficient size and abundance to sustain a long-term sport fishery. Before any stream can be classified as Class A, the PFBC must survey the waterway to determine the type, quantity, and quality (weight) of trout present.

Class A streams are recognized not only for supporting wild trout populations but also for having pristine water quality that maintains this self-sustaining fishery. These waters represent the best of Pennsylvania's natural reproduction trout populations and with some exceptions, are managed for wild trout with no stocking.

The controversy among anglers lies in the continued stocking of some of these streams. If these streams are self-sustaining with wild trout, why is the PFBC potentially jeopardizing these uniquely designated waterways by introducing hatchery-raised fish?

Do You Support The PFBC Stocking Over Class A Streams?

This poll will close on September 3, 2025
 
I realize this is a frequent topic and there are other recent similar threads, but we as of yet have done a poll. No need to reply if you have expressed some views elsewhere. But you can do so again if you like.
 
🙅🏻‍♂️
 
DaveKile said:
I realize this is a frequent topic and there are other recent similar threads, but we as of yet have done a poll. No need to reply if you have expressed some views elsewhere. But you can do so again if you like.
Click to expand...
is this a question also pertaining to the 20 plus streams already being stocked over classs a. as them streams are very heavily fished and traveled to by many people across the country as destination streams. my opinion if they are removed from the stockings as well that heads would explode with outrage
 
flies&brookies said:
is this a question also pertaining to the 20 plus streams already being stocked over classs a. as them streams are very heavily fished and traveled to by many people across the country as destination streams. my opinion if they are removed from the stockings as well that heads would explode with outrage
Click to expand...
Just a poll for now
 
I was looking at the class a list. I think some of the creeks probably have not been surveyed in many years and likely are no longer class a.
I do not support stocking class a water.
 
caddisflyer said:
I was looking at the class a list. I think some of the creeks probably have not been surveyed in many years and likely are no longer class a.
I do not support stocking class a water.
Click to expand...
the pfbc will designate a stream class a and very very rarely return to reinventory the streams or monitor them and once they are on the class a designation they very very rarely will remove one unless it is a major fish kill or polution issue on one of then streams, They drop them like a red headed step child and one would think if they are that great of a stream why doesnt the pfbc go into these streams and do much habitat or stream inprovement work to increase the populations and to sustain them as this is very rarely seen done by the pfbc as they very rarely ever return to them once designated
 
caddisflyer said:
I was looking at the class a list. I think some of the creeks probably have not been surveyed in many years and likely are no longer class a.
I do not support stocking class a water.
Click to expand...
There is probably something to this. Unfortunately, with practical limits on resources (budgets, staff) re-surveying streams more than they already do is probably not happening any time soon. What would be sensible would be some sort of schedule. An idea might be every 5 years. Even something like that seems like it would be a lot to expect and cost a lot of $
 
I think there should be a third option in the poll…that of stocking RT in a select small group of Class A brown trout streams.

For example, while I generally oppose stocking over the vast majority of Class A stream Sections, I fully support the stocking of the Little Lehigh, particularly Section 07, and Monocacy given their locations in urban and metro areas, primarily within public parks, and their high angler use. This was not always my thinking, but my thoughts evolved when it came to stocking urban park Class A’s. Furthermore, stormwater runoff is problematic. A number of sampling sites do not support Class A biomasses.

This does not mean that I automatically felt that all 13 Class A stream sections stocked across the state were necessarily worthy of the exception. I was not knowledgable of the specific considerations for each, but I did ask about the justification for one of them, at first glance the most questionable one, and it was quite reasonable. Having witnessed the recent survey of Little Lehigh, Section 04, stocking it is also quite reasonable.

Additionally, it may not always be realized here that there are many levels of stocking ranging from light to heavy and infrequent to frequent. Not all stockings are the same and with just a low stocking rate per acre, one time per year, stocking could be the factor that keeps a Class A unposted by the majority landowner(s) and open to public fishing.
.
 
Last edited:
wildtrout2 said:
The current poll stands at 98.2% for no and 1.8% (1 vote) for yes. Can we somehow send these results to the PFBC? I don't see these results changing much at all.
Click to expand...
The results of a binary choice poll from this forum almost assuredly will not be a surprise to the Commissioners. And even of my suggested third choice had been considered in advance of the poll’s release, I doubt that even 10% would have agreed with me. After all, often expressed here is that no wild trout streams, not just Class A’s, should be stocked, which by definition means even if wild trout densities are so low that only three YOY or three wild trout from two year classes are collected by electrofishing within 100 ft of stream such streams should not be stocked.
 
Last edited:
troutbert said:
Input on stocking wild trout streams from clubs with coop hatcheries is not a surprise to the Commissioners either.
Click to expand...
I agree with you, but which group do you think is more likely to agree to some form of compromise on that issue? I’m not just talking about Freeman Run.
 
Last edited:
Mike said:
The results of a binary choice poll from this forum almost assuredly will not be a surprise to the Commissioners. And even of my suggested third choice had been considered in advance of the poll’s release, I doubt that even 10% would have agreed with me. After all, often expressed here is that no wild trout streams, not just Class A’s, should be stocked, which by definition means even if wild trout densities are so low that only three YOY or three wild trout from two year classes are collected by electrofishing within 100 ft of stream such streams should not be stocked.
Click to expand...
Mike, normally I would agree with you and if the third option was on the pole I'd likely vote for it.
Part of the issue is that there is a low confidence such exceptions would be strictly based on reason and not on politics.
So, most would simply solve the issue by not allowing exceptions.

Let me add I do value your inputs on there topics.
Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top