PFBC Meeting regarding proposed fee increases - Friday June 10 2022

[silverfox]

Just making it clear that we didn't oppose something that resulted in protections for brook trout. We opposed the petition posted above because of the way it was written and because it was completely outside of our mission, and as noted, counter to our mission. We didn't oppose TU for publishing the petition, we opposed the petition as worded.

As I said, I do support the regulation change as it does benefit brook trout. Just want to make sure anyone reading this is clear on the facts. You implied we opposed something positive for brook trout and I'm just trying to clarify exactly what we opposed and why.

Since I posted the petition and you mentioned our opposition, here's the opposition so people can judge for themselves.

Mixed Messages Work Against Us... — Native Fish Coalition

In all matters of trout management, we want to know that we are substantially correct, both morally and biologically…

nativefishcoalition.org

I'm not entirely sure why this is coming up over a year after the fact.

 

[Tom1980]

Egos and axes to grind

 

[silverfox]

Egos and axes to grind

It's about the fish

 

[Stenonema]

Just making it clear that we didn't oppose something that resulted in protections for brook trout. We opposed the petition posted above because of the way it was written and because it was completely outside of our mission, and as noted, counter to our mission. We didn't oppose TU for publishing the petition, we opposed the petition as worded.

As I said, I do support the regulation change as it does benefit brook trout. Just want to make sure anyone reading this is clear on the facts. You implied we opposed something positive for brook trout and I'm just trying to clarify exactly what we opposed and why.

Since I posted the petition and you mentioned our opposition, here's the opposition so people can judge for themselves.

Mixed Messages Work Against Us... — Native Fish Coalition

In all matters of trout management, we want to know that we are substantially correct, both morally and biologically…

nativefishcoalition.org

I'm not entirely sure why this is coming up over a year after the fact.

It’s coming up because the target has not been reached. We still stock over Wild trout.

 

[Stenonema]

It's about the fish

#ItsAbouttheFish

 

[silverfox]

It’s coming up because the target has not been reached. We still stock over Wild trout.

sadly

 

[Stenonema]

sadly

You recognize the problem. What part have you been playing in the solution. You failed to support something that has benefit based on wording. You spend time justifying and when that doesn’t work you dismiss our successful efforts. I don’t need told about the value of our native species and ecology. My position is not from a place of that mid-understanding and nothing you have said or written dismisses anything I have said of written. Ok n fact preaching to me about their value is hard for me not to see as an intellectual insult.

 

[silverfox]

I’ll defer to Bob’s article on this. That’s my response as well and I have nothing more to add.

 

[Stenonema]

Bobs article was a word by word critique of a petition written to the targeted audience of the average trout fisherman in Pennsylvania. The line between being a wild trout advocacy and an anti brown trout group is blurred by the excuse of words as a reason to feel threatened as a group by a movement that like it or not achieved or (if it makes you feel better) helped to achieve wild trout protection that includes native trout. Unless no native trout is made more protected by changing from three trout over seven inches to catch and release or no native trout live in waters governed by this regulation.
You and your founding member both have known from the inception and I have made it clear the reasons for the brown trout being the target for protection. Don't pretend now you don't know. How you feel about the brown trout does not change anything here. In fact everything about this conversation is a good demonstration of how things don't change and why. Dividing the ranks of conservation along these lines when we introduce invasive non-native trout over our wild trout without a plan to change that is unconscionable. The opinions of other anglers in the state must be respected by the PFBC. Before making the decision to rotenone a stream for reintroduction of native species the anglers who cherish these waters and fish them as home-waters are not consulted. Where is the respect?

 

[Stenonema]

TU never published the petition.

 

[FarmerDave]

Stenonema, I am not a member of either of the groups talked about. Heck, I don't even live in PA anymore. I do favor Book trout, but that doesn't mean I hate Brown Trout any more than you hate Brook Trout. Brown trout are here to stay. My preference for the Brook trout is likely due to where I grew up. So now you know where I am coming from.

I just read the petition mentioned, and I am going to give you a somewhat unbiased opinion. I wouldn't have signed it. Heck, I might not have even read past the title if not for this discussion. But I did read it and it didn't get any better.

IMO it is unreasonable to even ask a native species organization to sign something like that when it clearly gives the invasive more protection at the expense of the natives. It is even more unreasonable to be offended by the refusal.

If you really want to better protect all trout, why not reflect that in the petition? How hard would that have been? I mean if that was really the intent.

I also read the response to the petition above. I don't see a problem with it. The objections were very reasonable.

This almost makes me regret mentioning the big white elephant. Key word: "almost."

 

[Stenonema]

Stenonema, I am not a member of either of the groups talked about. Heck, I don't even live in PA anymore. I do favor Book trout, but that doesn't mean I hate Brown Trout any more than you hate Brook Trout. Brown trout are here to stay. My preference for the Brook trout is likely due to where I grew up. So now you know where I am coming from.

I just read the petition mentioned, and I am going to give you a somewhat unbiased opinion. I wouldn't have signed it. Heck, I might not have even read past the title if not for this discussion. But I did read it and it didn't get any better.

IMO it is unreasonable to even ask a native species organization to sign something like that when it clearly gives the invasive more protection at the expense of the natives. It is even more unreasonable to be offended by the refusal.

If you really want to better protect all trout, why not reflect that in the petition? How hard would that have been? I mean if that was really the intent.

I also read the response to the petition above. I don't see a problem with it. The objections were very reasonable.

This almost makes me regret mentioning the big white elephant. Key word: "almost."

No one asked the native species people to sign it. There is no offensive refusal. Their opposition to it with the recognized mutual goal and the division created by their actions in the world of conservation is not offensive, it is unconscionable when paired with the fact that they possess no plan to stop the intentional spread of non-wild adult trout through stocking. I don’t know what you mean by big white elephant. Quite honestly I didn’t read any other comment you wrote.

 

[silverfox]

No one asked the native species people to sign it. There is no offensive refusal. Their opposition to it with the recognized mutual goal and the division created by their actions in the world of conservation is not offensive, it is unconscionable when paired with the fact that they possess no plan to stop the intentional spread of non-wild adult trout through stocking. I don’t know what you mean by big white elephant. Quite honestly I didn’t read any other comment you wrote.

Huh?

At the birthing of your organization I reached out to you for support to stop the spread of non-native, non-wild invasive and non-wild native species, to use your language. You and your organization chose to draw lines in the sand for identity and validation over supporting a movement that led to non-species specific wild trout centric catch and release regulations that govern all waters outside of stocked sections for nearly six months out of the year in this state.

You most certainly did, and we refused, and have been painted as the boogeyman ever since.

 

[FarmerDave]

No one asked the native species people to sign it. There is no offensive refusal. Their opposition to it with the recognized mutual goal and the division created by their actions in the world of conservation is not offensive, it is unconscionable when paired with the fact that they possess no plan to stop the intentional spread of non-wild adult trout through stocking. I don’t know what you mean by big white elephant. Quite honestly I didn’t read any other comment you wrote.

The white elephant is where I pointed out that part of the problem is that many, including TU favor the brown trout. Those were not my exact words.

Recognized mutual goal> Recognized by who? The recognized goal is to stop stocking over wild trout. The petition wasn't about that.

I only go by what people write and you wrote that you reached out for support and were rejected. Now you appear to either be splitting hairs or denying your own words. Substitute support for sign.

Same with the petition. I went by what it said, and not what you think it says. Didn't he say why he couldn't support it? Even if he didn't, shouldn't it be up to the author to make it more agreeable.

I do not see their rejection as unconscionable. What's unconscionable is one organization bulling another with similar objectives simply because they don't toe the exact same line. It is now clear to me that the word you are looking for is incomprehensible.

Did you not realize written words do not disappear?

Here is another takeway. They did not support the petition which favored a non native species. They do support the separate plan that was actually voted on and is advantageous to all wild trout in PA.

Compromise is a two way street. They did not like it as presented. If you want their support, don't throw stones. Put your heads together to make it more agreeable.

Have a nice trip.

 

[nomad_archer]

For the most part it looks like +$2.50 for an annual license and +$2.50 for your trout stamp and most everything else other than your senior lifetime. Thats really nothing. I'm ok with it. Then again I buy 10 year licenses so in 2026 I'll buy another 10 year license if its offered at the going rate. But $5-$10 a year increase overall really isn't much. I know there is a lot of negativity here over stocked fish but to be honest where I live, if there wasn't stocked fish to take the pressure off of the very sparse wild fish, I'd have no fish to catch. So I am for one ok with stocking but I mostly fish marginal streams in Lancaster county.

 

[Fish Sticks]

There is research/examples from hear in Pa and the now famous dick vincent study from Montana that shows stocking actually harms wild trout populations. But heres about 40 papers that demonstrate the harms of stocked trout on our wild native brook trout with a graph at the top grouping the type of concern. This was put out by the USGS so anglers such as yourself can get an idea of how harmful it is dumping brown trout and rainbow trout in our PA waters. -click green overview bar

Effects of introduced species on native brook trout: a guide to the scientific literature | U.S. Geological Survey

Issue: Native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) are of great ecological, cultural, and economic importance in eastern North America, and their restoration is a focus of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Introduced, non-native species can jeopardize native brook trout, and more information on these...

www.usgs.gov

And the stocked fish actually increase pressure on wild fish in many cases by drawling large amounts of angler effort. Other states DNR departments have echo’d that to me as well.

I can respect that you want an opportunity to catch fish. I just want people to recognize stocked trout no matter what kind, come at a great financial and ecological cost. None of this is my opinion. If you would like to learn more about this topic here are some more good fisheries science publications related to effects of the species stocked on native brook trout.

Brook Trout Related Publications — EBTJV

easternbrooktrout.org

Reading peer reviewed articles can be way more time than your average angler can tolerate. So to decrease the barrier to learning about how native brook trout should be managed/restored for I did a literature review after reading some of the most impactful/significant research on this topic. I avoided anything that was my opinion and just quoted what the studies found or provided a lay person translation. I have gotten good feedback from a few PhD’s on the accuracy and clarity of the information presented so explore the topic surrounding your comment some more please give it a listen and think about what experts know ablut these fish and how that compares with what’s circulating in the angling community.

PA NFC Board Member James Suleski Talks Brook Trout with Rob Snowhite — Native Fish Coalition

Pennsylvania NFC board member Dr. James Suleski talks brook trout with Rob Snowhite on Fly Fishing Consultant podcast.…

nativefishcoalition.org

also heres a visual that shows how the threats are ranked including stocked invasive trout falling into two categories(4 & 7) . You will also note invasive species are ranked as the number 1 biological threat to native brook trout on this threats assessment by the EBTJV

https://easternbrooktrout.org/about/reports/eastern-brook-trout-status-and-threats%20%282006%29/at_download/file

 

[Fish Sticks]

For the most part it looks like +$2.50 for an annual license and +$2.50 for your trout stamp and most everything else other than your senior lifetime. Thats really nothing. I'm ok with it. Then again I buy 10 year licenses so in 2026 I'll buy another 10 year license if its offered at the going rate. But $5-$10 a year increase overall really isn't much. I know there is a lot of negativity here over stocked fish but to be honest where I live, if there wasn't stocked fish to take the pressure off of the very sparse wild fish, I'd have no fish to catch. So I am for one ok with stocking but I mostly fish marginal streams in Lancaster county.

I agree i would pay alot more for a fishing license. Its not about how much money to le its about how their using and what i am being forced to fund against my will. My goal is not to be preachy or criticize peoples fishing preferences this comes from a place of pure conservation. Consider my position as someone who volunteers to do conservation with native brook trout in a state where the agency that is responsible for managing them ignores some of the most important scientific principles of management, has created a messaging issue that devalues our species of greatest conservation need to hatchery and other fish, wants to manage some invasive species but not others or leaves them off their aquatic invasive species web page, and focuses on reinforcing the recreational value of its stocked trout program(which I personally don’t enjoy) and ignores the harms. If you realized the truth was not what you are being told by PAFB in regards to how we manage these fish and what holds us back and federal science agencies, universities , Conservation NGO’s with chief science officers and others were pointing out holes jn their management strategy left and right what would you do? What the public has heard and seen from the fish commission in regards to invasive trout species and stocking is so inaccurate and counter to the science they have negative reactions to it or don’t want to believe it and its tough. Thats not your fault nomad and I don’t criticize your fishing . The people educating us need to do better you shouldn’t have to get this from me.

 

[Stenonema]

The white elephant is where I pointed out that part of the problem is that many, including TU favor the brown trout. Those were not my exact words.

Recognized mutual goal> Recognized by who? The recognized goal is to stop stocking over wild trout. The petition wasn't about that.

I only go by what people write and you wrote that you reached out for support and were rejected. Now you appear to either be splitting hairs or denying your own words. Substitute support for sign.

Same with the petition. I went by what it said, and not what you think it says. Didn't he say why he couldn't support it? Even if he didn't, shouldn't it be up to the author to make it more agreeable.

I do not see their rejection as unconscionable. What's unconscionable is one organization bulling another with similar objectives simply because they don't toe the exact same line. It is now clear to me that the word you are looking for is incomprehensible.

Did you not realize written words do not disappear?

Here is another takeway. They did not support the petition which favored a non native species. They do support the separate plan that was actually voted on and is advantageous to all wild trout in PA.

Compromise is a two way street. They did not like it as presented. If you want their support, don't throw stones. Put your heads together to make it more agreeable.

Have a nice trip.

In spite of strong encouragement to avoid the negativity that comes with this engagement in a moment of poor judgement I ventured in. I have been asked to do a podcast with Matt Supinski this week and decided to spar a bit. As you stated you have a side in this. That is the problem. There does not need to be sides. The person my comments were directed at have a different understanding than you. You are entering at the end. I apologize but have no interest in entertaining this discussion further. The bridge to the lodge I work for washed out yesterday. Another member here posted the video of it washing away. Thankfully there is another way to the lodge. Yellowstone and Montana is a harsh environment. I look forward to it, Thanks. Funny thing, when out there I cannot break myself from referring to the Brook Trout as Native Brook Trout. The word association is so strong in me. There are some amazing Brook trout streams in the park. Interestingly with the right habitat they out compete much larger trout of different species. Again, thanks and please allow me the opportunity to bow out gracefully from a conversation that goes far to deeply and adds to arbitrary division which I wish to avoid.

 

[FarmerDave]

In spite of strong encouragement to avoid the negativity that comes with this engagement in a moment of poor judgement I ventured in. I have been asked to do a podcast with Matt Supinski this week and decided to spar a bit. As you stated you have a side in this. That is the problem. There does not need to be sides. The person my comments were directed at have a different understanding than you. You are entering at the end. I apologize but have no interest in entertaining this discussion further. The bridge to the lodge I work for washed out yesterday. Another member here posted the video of it washing away. Thankfully there is another way to the lodge. Yellowstone and Montana is a harsh environment. I look forward to it, Thanks. Funny thing, when out there I cannot break myself from referring to the Brook Trout as Native Brook Trout. The word association is so strong in me. There are some amazing Brook trout streams in the park. Interestingly with the right habitat they out compete much larger trout of different species. Again, thanks and please allow me the opportunity to bow out gracefully from a conversation that goes far to deeply and adds to arbitrary division which I wish to avoid.

Yea, I am losing interest in arguing about what is really a tangent.

But please understand that my preference is and has been for as long as I can remember to stop stocking over viable wild populations. Not just brook trout and not just Class A. Stop stocking them and let nature sort them out. These discussions have come around on here many times over the past 25+ years since I discovered this site. Don't be fooled by the "joined" date. For me and some others, it is a re-joined date after the format changed. I have been consistent on this subject since the early days. Maybe more abrasive at time in the past, but consistent.

The flooding out there is crazy. Reminds me of Agnes in PA about 50 years ago. Too bad about that bridge. Even with the flooding, I still envy you in a good way. I haven't been out there since a family vacation when I was about 13. I would like to return some day now that I am retired, but it isn't looking good. Stuck on the farm these days. On the bright side, it's way better than stuck in the burbs.

Soon I will be restocking one of the ponds once I correct a couple problems. I think I will go with native species. 😁

Stay safe.

 

[silverfox]

Yea, I am losing interest in arguing about what is really a tangent.

But please understand that my preference is and has been for as long as I can remember to stop stocking over viable wild populations. Not just brook trout and not just Class A. Stop stocking them and let nature sort them out. These discussions have come around on here many times over the past 25+ years since I discovered this site. Don't be fooled by the "joined" date. For me and some others, it is a re-joined date after the format changed. I have been consistent on this subject since the early days. Maybe more abrasive at time in the past, but consistent.

The flooding out there is crazy. Reminds me of Agnes in PA about 50 years ago. Too bad about that bridge. Even with the flooding, I still envy you in a good way. I haven't been out there since a family vacation when I was about 13. I would like to return some day now that I am retired, but it isn't looking good. Stuck on the farm these days. On the bright side, it's way better than stuck in the burbs.

Soon I will be restocking one of the ponds once I correct a couple problems. I think I will go with native species. 😁

Stay safe.

We're way off topic and have been for quite some time. I know I have a hand in that and I can't help it.

I'm a "rejoiner" too. I'm glad this site is still thriving. These colorful discussions keep things interesting in my opinion.

One comment on the "let nature sort them out" idea, I think we know how that story ends. I wish it was that simple. We would've lost several subspecies of cutthroat if we just let nature run its course.