PA fish and boat makes stocking exemption for a class A stream with brook/brown trout

Yup, there has apparently always been ongoing special permit for a children’s derby so people are free to stock away despite class A status.
 
According to the current Operational Guidelines for the management of trout fisheries in Pennsylvania Waters (2022), "No exemptions will be granted for streams where acomponent of the wild trout fishery is comprised of wild Brook Trout." Based on this guidance and that a component of the wild trout fishery in Section 02 of Salt Run in Cameron County currently supports a mixed population that includes brook trout, Salt Run should not be considered for an exemption.
 
There MAY be different guidelines than what you have presented in #6 above when it comes to specifically grandfathering traditionally held derbies in Class A sections. You may want to check that. Just saying. I can’t speak to the ST guidance in that regard since the derbies that I am familiar with (limited number) in Class A waters in SE Pa and the Lehigh Valley are or were all grandfathered on brown trout stream sections.
 
Last edited:
Mike said:
There MAY be different guidelines than what you have presented in #6 above when it comes to specifically grandfathering traditionally held derbies in Class A sections. You may want to check that. Just saying. I can’t speak to the ST guidance in that regard since the derbies that I am familiar with (limited number) in Class A waters in SE Pa and the Lehigh Valley are or were all grandfathered on brown trout stream sections.
Click to expand...
What fishsticks posted was my comment on the proposed exemption that I cc'd him on. According to the Operational Guidelines for the management of trout fisheries in Pennsylvania published in February 2022, that's the language.


Page 110 (of the document/118 of the pdf). That language (component of the fishery is brook trout) is explicitly in the section regarding exemptions for derbies etc. It's directly applicable in this case. Frankly, based on the language, it shouldn't even be up for consideration based on that criteria. Unless they're getting really loose with the definition of "component of," or they just don't care.
 
Two things.

1. This is exactly the type of stream (small forested freestoner, with Brook Trout) that should be the low hanging fruit for removal from stocking. Both from a conservation perspective, and from an angler usage viewpoint. Can the derby not be held 3 miles downstream on the Driftwood Branch?

2. IF (I’m not saying I agree with it) there is a greater good to be realized by allowing stocking for a kids only fishing derby, the stocking (on a stream like this), should be 100% limited to the stocking for the kids derby. Period. Put the fish (an agreed upon number) in as small of an area as is possible, the day before or the morning of so they’re less apt to move, and as many as possible get caught. It should not become a green light to stocking on that stream or stream section being open season and no holds barred. Is that what will happen with this decision?
 
The irony is that this originally proposed auth was supposed to be the most basic step in the right direction that would serve as small start to bridging the huge gap of progress on management of wild native brook trout between PA and other states. Then Laurel Hill trout farms and pine creek brown trout club/slate run tackle shop and all the other people profiting off stocking/invasive species complained and then we get:

“After talking with a diverse group of stakeholders” the stocking auth will be “pushed back several years”

And

A class A stocking exception on a stream containing native brook trout, unbelievable.



There is zero faith in the defunct resource management aspect of the fish comission after today. Its a bunch of commissioner’s with no fisheries science formal training running an invasive species aquaculture operation based on a falsely over perceived notion of the popularity of stocking. It now panders to private for profit groups apparently. The states fish comission should not be making statements about importance of a private businesses revenue stream and then immediately kicking the can down the road on critical stocking reform, this is a joke we just keep losing brook trout populations and we are going backwards not forwards in the case of salt run AND private hatcheries get what they want.
 
Swattie87 said:
Two things.

1. This is exactly the type of stream (small forested freestoner, with Brook Trout) that should be the low hanging fruit for removal from stocking. Both from a conservation perspective, and from an angler usage viewpoint. Can the derby not be held 3 miles downstream on the Driftwood Branch?

2. IF (I’m not saying I agree with it) there is a greater good to be realized by allowing stocking for a kids only fishing derby, the stocking (on a stream like this), should be 100% limited to the stocking for the kids derby. Period. Put the fish (an agreed upon number) in as small of an area as is possible, the day before or the morning of so they’re less apt to move, and as many as possible get caught. It should not become a green light to stocking on that stream or stream section being open season and no holds barred. Is that what will happen with this decision?
Click to expand...
Ya know they just sprung this on everyone so i am not sure. The language used was qualifies for Class A stocking exemption. But under the new “stocking notification” they discussed they defined that as just letting PA fish and boat know without approval or denial as long as it was not a “class A stream without a stocking exemption” so without the stocking auth they originally proposed i don’t think they can say no to any trout on salt run now.
 
Fish Sticks said:
oh my bad i may have worded that unclear. Its the opposite their allowing a class A stream with brook trout in it to be stocked despite operation guidelines prohibiting that. Their making an exception against their own rules to stock over wild native brook trout.
Click to expand...
Looks like it's time to get the oil tanker ready!
 
Silent Ocelot said:
Looks like it's time to get the oil tanker ready!
Click to expand...
What kills me is we were already at the bottom as far as managing for wild native brook trout and the delinquent pariah of the regional conservation effort to protect/restore them. Now we have an unprecedented stocking exception over a class A brook trout containing stream. We are going in the other direction its a race to the bottom.
 
Conservation completely aside and putting on angler/parent hat.

Kids don’t give two wet ducks what bends their pole. Driftwood also probably has a ton of fall fish that can be found year round and will hit worms as readily as stocked trout.

The stream has class A biomass and yes wild trout are harder to catch. But thats what pan fish, cat fish, large mouth, perch, small mouth white suckers, crappie, pickerel, and earth worms are for. Ya know musky are hard to catch maybe we should just breed the most aggressive musky inna hatchery and stock 8-9 million of those and get em from fish of 10,000 casts to fish of 2 casts for 2 weeks.

Changing the animal to suit an unrealistic not attainable in nature fantasy sporting experience is just not smart. We know this level of stocking is not financially sustainable. So what happens when the music stops and our kids have the same catching experience expectations that the current generations have that got us into this mess? What happens when license price rise decreases sale volume because hatchery program expenses continue to grow at a rate that exceeds revenue? Now you no linger have kids interested in fishing because their conditioned to have instant success and entitlement to catch rates often not even achievable absolutely pristine environments.

The problem is anglers/PFBC hiding behind kids with trout stocking and imprinting our pathological conditioning on them….. not lack of opportunity for them in unstocked waters.
 
I'll admit I knew this entire thing would be a joke. I expected can kicking and back pats but I didn't expect them to go backwards.😮

👏 You outdid yourselves, amazing
 
Last edited:
Swattie87 said:
Two things.

1. This is exactly the type of stream (small forested freestoner, with Brook Trout) that should be the low hanging fruit for removal from stocking. Both from a conservation perspective, and from an angler usage viewpoint. Can the derby not be held 3 miles downstream on the Driftwood Branch?

2. IF (I’m not saying I agree with it) there is a greater good to be realized by allowing stocking for a kids only fishing derby, the stocking (on a stream like this), should be 100% limited to the stocking for the kids derby. Period. Put the fish (an agreed upon number) in as small of an area as is possible, the day before or the morning of so they’re less apt to move, and as many as possible get caught. It should not become a green light to stocking on that stream or stream section being open season and no holds barred. Is that what will happen with this decision?
Click to expand...
This is also the type of proposed exemption that every angler concerned about stocking over wild trout (of any flavor) should email PFBC and state their opposition to the exemption.

RA-pfbcregulations@pa.gov

Put 52 Pa.B. 7572 in the subject line. Deadline is 1/9
 
sixfootfenwick said:
I'll admit I knew this entire thing would be a joke. I expected can kicking and back pats but I didn't expect them go go backwards.😮

👏 You out did yourselves, amazing
Click to expand...
The incompetent boobery and favoritism/pandering at expense of the resource at PFBC is mind boggling. They are so self aware of their own continuing on going failure they feel the need to avoid saying brook trout. They got through a 2 hour hatcheries and fisheries committee meeting with the purpose of reviewing progress on the wild trout plan without mentioning brook trout once. Saying “native brook trout” around PFBC leadership is like rubbing a dogs nose in s*** after it goes on the carpet for the 10th time. It knows it screwed up. Its a known sore spot. they know their essentially choosing to commit fisheries management malpractice to sell licenses. They have to sit through the EBTJV and wild trout symposiums that communicate and demonstrate over and over again that the what their doing is exactly what you should not do in terms of conservation.
 
Fish Sticks said:
The incompetent boobery and favoritism/pandering at expense of the resource at PFBC is mind boggling. They are so self aware of their own continuing on going failure they feel the need to avoid saying brook trout. They got through a 2 hour hatcheries and fisheries committee meeting with the purpose of reviewing progress on the wild trout plan without mentioning brook trout once. Saying “native brook trout” around PFBC leadership is like rubbing a dogs nose in s*** after it goes on the carpet for the 10th time. It knows it screwed up. Its a known sore spot. they know their essentially choosing to commit fisheries management malpractice to sell licenses. They have to sit through the EBTJV and wild trout symposiums that communicate and demonstrate over and over again that the what their doing is exactly what you should not do in terms of conservation.
Click to expand...
The EBTJV should make a "What a fisheries agency should not do" presentation using real life PFBC boobery examples.

It can be amusing, with skits and re enactments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages
Wayward Trading”/> </center> </div> </div> </div> <div class=


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top