Americas fishing paradox - Vox --- Really good watch regarding the need for stocking reform

[The Rodfather]

As the title reads, this is the first "major" publication I have come across that has actually tackled this issue head on.

It watches like a lower budget investigative piece, but it is still a good watch and a good conversation starter.

The need for real conservation is huge and knowing the difference between that and whatever it is that PFBC claims they are doing is just as important. This short video (8 mins) does a good job of laying out that foundation.

Well worth the watch so I thought I would share.

America's fishing paradox - Vox


The Rodfather
Engagement Czar and Conservation Chair
Dauphin County League of Chubsmen

 

[TheDuke44]

Definitely a net positive to see that it's getting more "mainstream" attention, but boy did this miss A LOT of context and finer points involved in the fight for the conservation of public fisheries.

 

[GANGGREEN]

Yeah, I'm glad that people are paying attention, but one of my biggest takeaways is that the narrator started twice with the premise that these streams wouldn't have enough fish if they weren't being stocked and I simply disagree with that premise. Look, I love fishing for trout, probably as much as anyone on this forum and as such, there are times when I'd rather fish over trout than warm water species or "rough fish". That said, it's been shown over and over again that when these streams are removed from stocking lists, that IF they have cool enough water to carry fish over from year to year, that the density of fish is often quite strong and frequently INCREASES after stocking is terminated. Furthermore, many of those streams that don't provide cool enough water, DO provide other native fish for anglers, be it sunfish species, smallmouth, redeye bass, fallfish, carp, perch, catfish, etc. etc.. It's complicated and has nuance for sure, but we have to start trying to restore some of these native ecosystems and I truly believe that if we do, that anglers will in hindsight agree that it was a good thing to do so.

It's going to require some social pressure to have some new priorities for some people, but nature is resilient and we don't need to be putting invasive, stocked fish into all of these streams. And, for the record, I'm not really one of those who is opposed to any trout stocking or even opposed to infrastructure expenditures that benefit stocking programs, but there's so much that the PFBC is ignoring completely.

 

[The Rodfather]

Oh yeah, they definitely missed a lot of the nuance and are not entirely correct on fish not being in those waters if they didnt stock, but I do like the conversation it creates and that it may act as a bridge to allow others to touch on it as well. Hopefully, they can do a bit deeper dive into it. I do get that the nuance will turn a lot of "normies" off of the topic though.

Frankly fly fishing forces us all to become at minimum novice marine biologists and many people just dont understand that nor care to.

Getting more people educated is the first step and this does help open that door to the population that doesnt live and breath flyfishing like we do. We just needs to provide a better message than what Vox has done here.

 

[troutbert]

What is meant by "stocking reform?" That's a very vague term.

What are you advocating? Ending all trout stocking?

Or something else? If so, what specifically?

 

[GANGGREEN]

What is meant by "stocking reform?" That's a very vague term.

What are you advocating? Ending all trout stocking?

Or something else? If so, what specifically?

Good question and I think the term "stocking reform" turns as many people off as it intrigues. Personally, I'd start by saying that wild trout and especially native trout should ALWAYS be a priority and that we mustn't stock trout on high quality wild trout streams (in PA we can start with Class A waters). Personally, I consider myself a wild trout advocate, but I have no problem with trout being stocked in water that simply doesn't support any or many wild trout, assuming that they aren't destroying some other native species in the meantime. I think there's room for both wild/native trout and stocked trout in Pennsylvania, but I think we need to start managing at least some watersheds in the commonwealth more aggressively for wild/native trout.

 

[The Rodfather]

Good question and I think the term "stocking reform" turns as many people off as it intrigues. Personally, I'd start by saying that wild trout and especially native trout should ALWAYS be a priority and that we mustn't stock trout on high quality wild trout streams (in PA we can start with Class A waters). Personally, I consider myself a wild trout advocate, but I have no problem with trout being stocked in water that simply doesn't support any or many wild trout, assuming that they aren't destroying some other native species in the meantime. I think there's room for both wild/native trout and stocked trout in Pennsylvania, but I think we need to start managing at least some watersheds in the commonwealth more aggressively for wild/native trout.

This.

Ill add:

Stop stocking over wild trout. Its pretty simple. They already have those streams classified. Just stop. No exemptions.

Thats a good starting point.

 

[ROVERT]

The producers of that story are not your allies even if you think your views on this align. Read between the lines. That was more of a hit piece on blood sports than advocacy for native fishes. They want to take the voice away from hunters and anglers.

It pains the antis that so much conservation funding come from DJ and PR. Stocking policy should change but be very careful about who you jump in bed with.

 

[The Rodfather]

The producers of that story are not your allies even if you think your views on this align. Read between the lines. That was more of a hit piece on blood sports than advocacy for native fishes. They want to take the voice away from hunters and anglers.

It pains the antis that so much conservation funding come from DJ and PR. Stocking policy should change but be very careful about who you jump in bed with.

100%

 

[troutbert]

It pains the antis that so much conservation funding come from DJ and PR. Stocking policy should change but be very careful about who you jump in bed with.

What is DJ and PR?

 

[ROVERT]

Dingell-Johnson and Pittman-Robertson are the acts that tax fishing (DJ) and hunting (PR) gear for conservation funding.

 

[Mike]

There is a technical point about DJ funding though; it may not be used for catchable (adult) trout stocking programs, but may be used in fingerling trout and warrmwater/coolwater stocking programs among a host of other things. Remember that an agency needs to spend 100% of the costs first when seeking DJ funding for any qualifying projects and then the agency is reimbursed at a rate of 70%.