A previous discussion on this board focused on removal of Class B's, or at least some of them from the stocking program. As a follow-up, those who are interested will be encouraged to learn that there is a Class B removal study underway. Three central Pa Class B's have been removed from the stocking program and three others are being kept in the program as "controls." The changes occurring in both sets of waters are being monitored through periodic wild trout population estimates, examination of length/frequency distributions, etc.
Class B's follow-up
- Thread starter Mike
- Start date
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,397
No offense Mike, and anything is better than nothing, but I cannot imagine getting any good information from a three stream experiment of this kind. I cannot choose three streams throughout the whole Commonwealth that could approximate the stream characteristics that would effect any conclusions that might be drawn from such a study.
I am quite sure the goals of the "experiment" is whether the cessation of stocking on Class B streams will allow them to elevate to Class A status and whether the stocking over class Bs will have an impact on the size distribution and biomass of the wild population.
That said, there can be management decisions gleaned from this. But the way I see it its is an exercise in CYA.....the hatcheries are broke, they need to reduce trips, and stock less often to save money. The numbers of trout raised at the hatcheries is not the problem so much as the logistics to get them to stream in e frequency we are used to.
Class Bs are the likely choice to remove from a practical standpoint of stocking fish over fish. in spite of their presence to provide a fishery on their own.
Should the results show otherwise, that the pops do not respond, its a stick in the eye of the wild trout snob looking to get the knuckle draggers off their wild trout streams.
That said, there can be management decisions gleaned from this. But the way I see it its is an exercise in CYA.....the hatcheries are broke, they need to reduce trips, and stock less often to save money. The numbers of trout raised at the hatcheries is not the problem so much as the logistics to get them to stream in e frequency we are used to.
Class Bs are the likely choice to remove from a practical standpoint of stocking fish over fish. in spite of their presence to provide a fishery on their own.
Should the results show otherwise, that the pops do not respond, its a stick in the eye of the wild trout snob looking to get the knuckle draggers off their wild trout streams.
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,397
On a personal level, I would favor cessation of stocking on Class B's, but I am sure this will have a negative impact on some anglers' ability to enjoy the sport of trout fishing.
If it is done, which I said I support, I would also expect this:
More anglers will move from the no-longer-stocked waters to still-stocked waters, clean them out by harvest or incidental mortality sooner, and then they'll be looking for trout on Class A's.
One thing that might help bring confidence to the results of this experiment is if they continue to publish in the Summary of Regs that the stream IS stocked on at least one "as a control."
If it is done, which I said I support, I would also expect this:
More anglers will move from the no-longer-stocked waters to still-stocked waters, clean them out by harvest or incidental mortality sooner, and then they'll be looking for trout on Class A's.
One thing that might help bring confidence to the results of this experiment is if they continue to publish in the Summary of Regs that the stream IS stocked on at least one "as a control."
No offense taken. I'm only the messenger in this case. My recollection, however, is that originally 5 streams were chosen, but when the first pop estimates of the study were made, two were no longer Class B so they could not be included in the study design. As you said, you take what you can get sometimes.
I tend to agree that its a slippery slope....
The NUMBER ONE access provider on private land is the PF&BC white truck brigade.
Remove the stocking of class B's on private land and the enforcement goes out the window which will lead to more landowner posting out of the fear they are not being "protected".
The agency supplies "provision" and "regulation". remove them from the equation and it becomes a door knocking experience for everyone.
Just another "be careful what you wish for" element to the debate.
The access fight, absent public takeover or easement, is to a large degree dependent on stocking.
I sure hope this element is being considered and landowners are notified of the experiment, their voices heard and their concerns weighed in decision making.
But I would bet the location of streams in this study....at least the control group removed from stocking are on public land to avoid this element. So once the conclusion are drawn, another element muddies the water if it favors the cessation of stocking over class Bs
The NUMBER ONE access provider on private land is the PF&BC white truck brigade.
Remove the stocking of class B's on private land and the enforcement goes out the window which will lead to more landowner posting out of the fear they are not being "protected".
The agency supplies "provision" and "regulation". remove them from the equation and it becomes a door knocking experience for everyone.
Just another "be careful what you wish for" element to the debate.
The access fight, absent public takeover or easement, is to a large degree dependent on stocking.
I sure hope this element is being considered and landowners are notified of the experiment, their voices heard and their concerns weighed in decision making.
But I would bet the location of streams in this study....at least the control group removed from stocking are on public land to avoid this element. So once the conclusion are drawn, another element muddies the water if it favors the cessation of stocking over class Bs
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,397
Thanks for your response, Mike.
Re: Maurice's point: a place I used to fish had cabins along the creek and an access road that went upstream a mile or so from the bridge access.
There was a sign on the unlocked gate to the cabin access road that said "No Vehicles Beyond This Point Except For The Stocking Truck."
True story.
Re: Maurice's point: a place I used to fish had cabins along the creek and an access road that went upstream a mile or so from the bridge access.
There was a sign on the unlocked gate to the cabin access road that said "No Vehicles Beyond This Point Except For The Stocking Truck."
True story.
I agree with Maurice regarding the "be careful what you wish for element" in the removal of Class B's on or largely on private land. His analysis is dead on, at least in my region, and probably in many others. Fortunately, for him and those who agree with him, I have said the same thing in-house, representing that viewpoint. Unstocked, wild trout streams are largely out of sight out of mind with respect to negotiations with landowners to keep them open to public fishing. This is why a single preseason and/ or inseason, low density stocking of easily caught rainbows or brooks is enough to keep them open to public fishing, but because these species are easily harvested their quick removal is perceived by many anglers and they move on to greener pastures as a result. This keeps stocked trout anglers happy, helps keep streams open to fishing, and minimizes impacts on wild trout populations to the extent possible under a stocking scenario.
Shifting to rainbow trout and reducing the stocking rate and frequency appeared to be the reason why a formerly stocked Codorus Creek section went from Class D or C to Class A. It did not work on Cold Run, Schuylkill Co, but we're attempting to duplicate the Codorus result on Leibs Ck in York Co.
Shifting to rainbow trout and reducing the stocking rate and frequency appeared to be the reason why a formerly stocked Codorus Creek section went from Class D or C to Class A. It did not work on Cold Run, Schuylkill Co, but we're attempting to duplicate the Codorus result on Leibs Ck in York Co.
OK, to eliminate the posting problem we could try this: Stop stocking all streams on public lands located "in a remote, natural and unspoiled environment where man's disruptive activities are minimized" and which have a viable, naturally reproducing population of wild trout. (The quoted section is taken from the Wilderness Trout Stream description.) That would protect a whole lot of really nice wild brook and mixed brook/brown trout water.
But I also think the creel limit would have to be lowered drastically to make this work well. Probably to two per day, preferably with no size limit in order to minimize cropping effects. I'd sure fish these places and there would be plenty of stream miles available to spread out the pressure.
But I also think the creel limit would have to be lowered drastically to make this work well. Probably to two per day, preferably with no size limit in order to minimize cropping effects. I'd sure fish these places and there would be plenty of stream miles available to spread out the pressure.
TimMurphy
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,528
Dear Ken,
Not that it really matters much but I'd be 100% onboard with your first paragraph.
Your second paragraph gives me cause for concern. Not because of what you prospose but rather because of the enforcement of your prosposal.
I know I don't represent a statistical significant voice in the matter but I have logged 1000's of hours fishing in Pennsylvania's State Forests and I have yet to have been visited by a WCO while on stream. In my opinion, there is simply too much real estate involved for enforcement of a hard and fast creel limit like you prospose.
I recognize that when you make a post here you are preaching to the choir. I appreciate and understand that most folks from this board would have no trouble with a reduced creel limit. But what about the rest of the fishing population, can they be trusted to follow the rules at all times? It's not like the always follow the rules now.
Still, I see merit in your idea of eliminating the stocking of streams that have 100% public access and demonstrate trout repoduction above a certain pre-defined threshold, such as no fish in Class B's and above.
Regards,
Tim Murphy 🙂
I agree with just about everything that has been said here. I believe opening the can of worms could be a problem, as has been noted, regarding posting of privately owned properties. But, I really have nothing new to add, except that I hope the FBC tries it on publicly owned land where posting would not occur.
tomgamber
Well-known member
The Natural reproduction list is on the site. I suspect many streams are over or under classified anyway. Find a new stream and make your own judgement. Its fun.
Here is a link to a trout report for 2010 that has a map of the class b,c and d streams. The map might be hard to read for people that may be some what color blind. Since it is a pdf file, you can zoom in to see the lines on the map better. In order to figure out the names of each stream, you are going to have to compare this map to a different map with stream names on it.
Class B, C and D Streams
Class B, C and D Streams
