How many hatcheries in PA

[Fish Sticks]

mike have you seen this.

https://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/USR_Brook_Trout_Summary_2017.pdf

This is more than C and R in the upper savages favor like no brown trout and less physical barriers, hence good connectivity. However what I’m trying to illustrate is that you said 7” or 2-3 years old is not an uncommon max size/age in a free stoner in PA. It’s because we have cut them off from where they would otherwise spend a lot of their life history in larger doenstaream waters feeding 3 seasons a year. We have cornered them in tiny headwater streams with stocked fish, wild invasive fish, and habitat loss, and water temp issues ~1 season/yr. They live to 7” and get in mid to high teens inches wise. I wish every angler in pa would read that link above about what Maryland was able to create interms of a big healthy brook trout meta pop/fishery in a more southern latitude FREESTONE system in the upper savage. Mean while we sit here in pa with more brook trout streams, more elevation, more ground water, more stream miles, and more potential just whining about how we can’t do X,Y,Z executing an insane amount of mental gymnastics to protect the wasteful expensive practice of stocking as well as managing our own free floating anxiety about common sense regulations. We could have that I hope everyone clicks on that link.

 

[silverfox]

Mike, directly, (I know you no longer work for the agency), in your opinion, are brook trout in Pennsylvania (as a whole/on average) declining, stable, or increasing in population size? If you don't know the answer, why? I'm sure you're far more connected with people at the agency than I am. Surely you would be aware of the answer to that question if it exists.

If the reluctance to err on the protective side is due to an agency-wide avoidance of restrictive regulations, why has the state instituted 3 restrictive angling regulations (slot limit reg type, harvest below STW, and slot limit cemented on Penns) in the past year?

If brook trout are declining, is habitat improvement the panacea? Is Maryland DNR wrong? Are the USR results flawed? Are all the other states in the native range with angling regulations tailored specifically for brook trout wrong?

 

[troutbert]

Right. If nobody is keeping brook trout anyway, then what are we afraid of? Who are we annoying? We seem awfully concerned and reluctant to make anyone angry.

People definitely keep brook trout. On brook trout streams that are stocked, the cropping of brook trout is very severe.

The cropping of brook trout is not as severe, overall, on unstocked streams. But there are some sections of unstocked brook streams that are also heavily cropped.

 

[Fish Sticks]

People definitely keep brook trout. On brook trout streams that are stocked, the cropping of brook trout is very severe.

The cropping of brook trout is not as severe, overall, on unstocked streams. But there are some sections of unstocked brook streams that are also heavily cropped.

Agreed, and often times on the unstocked brook trout streams it’s someone living on the edge of state game lands or nearby the stream and using the stream as their own personal kettle of fish.

 

[silverfox]

People definitely keep brook trout. On brook trout streams that are stocked, the cropping of brook trout is very severe.

The cropping of brook trout is not as severe, overall, on unstocked streams. But there are some sections of unstocked brook streams that are also heavily cropped.

According to some, nobody keeps brook trout and hardly anyone even fishes for them. Hence no need for any kind of brook trout angling regulations. Apparently.

 

[silverfox]

Mike, directly, (I know you no longer work for the agency), in your opinion, are brook trout in Pennsylvania (as a whole/on average) declining, stable, or increasing in population size? If you don't know the answer, why? I'm sure you're far more connected with people at the agency than I am. Surely you would be aware of the answer to that question if it exists.

If the reluctance to err on the protective side is due to an agency-wide avoidance of restrictive regulations, why has the state instituted 3 restrictive angling regulations (slot limit reg type, harvest below STW, and slot limit cemented on Penns) in the past year?

If brook trout are declining, is habitat improvement the panacea? Is Maryland DNR wrong? Are the USR results flawed? Are all the other states in the native range with angling regulations tailored specifically for brook trout wrong?

I take it that's an "I don't know"...

By the way, where is the manuscript on the impacts of harvesting brown trout below STW's to justify that reg? I know that regulation has been in the works for years (per the TMP) so there must have been a study conducted to justify its existence? If there has to be a manuscript based on a scientific study to justify reg changes, where's the "harvest of brown trout below stocked trout waters" study? I've looked and can't find it anywhere.

 

[Peyton]

As far as I know, Kurtz only raises koi/carp, minnows/shiners, catfish, bass, and bluegills (for the pay lake), I often fish their pay lake and walk around the ponds, they have some big fish in those ponds, but I have never seen trout, or heard of them raising trout.

 

[Fish Sticks]

As far as I know, Kurtz only raises koi/carp, minnows/shiners, catfish, bass, and bluegills (for the pay lake), I often fish their pay lake and walk around the ponds, they have some big fish in those ponds, but I have never seen trout, or heard of them raising trout.

I have never been in there, do you know if they used springs that were dammed up for their ponds?

 

[Fish Sticks]

I take it that's an "I don't know"...

By the way, where is the manuscript on the impacts of harvesting brown trout below STW's to justify that reg? I know that regulation has been in the works for years (per the TMP) so there must have been a study conducted to justify its existence? If there has to be a manuscript based on a scientific study to justify reg changes, where's the "harvest of brown trout below stocked trout waters" study? I've looked and can't find it anywhere.

Yea if I’m correct we can’t get one reg in this state to protect native brook trout specifically and in the mean while a lot of what we are protecting with CRALO is stockers. Sad. Maryland and the savage is putting us to shame with less Streams miles and less ideal streams in-terms of the amount of groundwater we have in here in Pa. The quality/amount of the evidence we have demonstrating the need to manage at a larger scale than “stream section”wate for brook trout and the need to stop stocking over them is overwhelming and sadly PA fish and boat will continue to ignore it because the stocking machine is the number one priority. Even as costs grow and revenues don’t keep up all the states angling eggs are in the stocked basket. The writing is on the wall it does not look very financially sustainable. And what will we be left with if it does….. a bunch of boat ramp accesses on degraded rivers that can’t make there own fish in many cases. Then people on both sides of this argument are going to be ticked off. I always imagine what even half the 12.4 million dollars could do if it was used to pay for conservation easements with/angler access. Most of you guys probably have your favorite places to fish no where near where the white fleet has gone and there could be a lot more of that. It’s not an out there idea, PA fish and boat has already done this in a few places, just no where near 6-12 million a year. I would love to see what the state treasurer thinks about the financial situation at PA fish and boat and using growing greener money to fix hatcheries that are stealing prime ground water rich habitat away from these trout streams. If you want to see the fish commission freak out, watch when a stream makes enough of it’s own trout to meet class A. Then becomes the anxiety riddled discussion of where will we put these fish? They now have to degrade/sa stove another waterway posisbly on its way to recovery with those fish. You never hear about just reducing the amount of fish raised because the em streams are or would make more of their own. I don’t know if that’s financially in the best interest of the commonwealth to pay to suppress what your paying for in many cases as far as stocked trout decreasing natural reproduction? Question for the attorney general I guess cause I don’t know the legal answer to that but seems like waste. I get people got jobs pensions families, those things are important to me because I feel like ya can’t leave folks behind and have a viable plan. But some of these biologists have huge territories and could use a lot more help/numbers to survey and manage. I’m sure a lot of these hatchery employees would rather be in the field working with the resource(imagine why they dedicated their lives to this?). Do we really have to lose any jobs if we stop stocking? Shoot, could we even grow the commission to do more for conservation? Less stockers is less license money for sure but I think it’s time for PAFB to entree the general fund like everything else and the state should get the license sales to eliminate the conflict of interest when in it comes to stocking vs. conservation.

 

[Peyton]

I have never been in there, do you know if they used springs that were dammed up for their ponds?

Main 12 acre pond feeds almost all of the other ponds, some ponds above it, but a spring does flow past all of the ponds, so I think they are all run off

 

[silverfox]

Here's just one example where we seem to be doing the exact opposite of recommended management to protect brook trout.

East Licking creek is scored on the EBTJV/TU conservation prioritization portfolio as "Secure and restore persistent population". The prescription for that patch type is:

Secure and restore persistent population strategy is assigned to redundant patches with high habitat integrity scores (11.5% of existing EBT populations). These patches meet our criteria as persistent and have relatively few stressors present – restoration of populations through nonnative trout eradication or connectivity enhancements to provide more available habitat for allopatric populations, combined with limited habitat restoration effort could shift these populations to the resilient, stronghold category.

Eastern Brook Trout Conservation Portfolio, Range-wide Habitat Integrity and Future Security Assessment, and Focal Area Risk and Opportunity Analysis — EBTJV

Trout Unlimited has developed three conservation planning products to help identify strategic conservation opportunities and evaluate potential projects within the eastern range of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis or EBT). Each product gathers and interprets spatial data related to the pattern...

easternbrooktrout.org

Just making really clear that document is a TU document.

"We" should be trying to graduate "Secure/Restore" populations to "Enhance Stronghold" and ultimately to "Secure Stronghold".

Not only are we NOT limiting the impact of nonnative salmonids via eradication on East Licking Creek, but we're also still currently stocking it, including with BT, AND protecting those stocked fish until summer under delayed harvest regs. I'd argue that reg type also causes more angling pressure during the hottest time of the year when we should be leaving wild trout alone.

Note that in that case, habitat isn't the issue. Connectivity and nonnative trout are. What's worse is there is an impoundment lower down on the stream, but the state stocks above the impoundment.

It's worth mentioning also that two of the tributaries in the stocking area are Class A brook trout. Here again, we have more angling regulations aimed at protecting stocked trout than brook trout, even in a watershed identified as the exact type of habitat that needs the opposite management approach. The DH reg likely contributes to incidental mortality by increasing angling pressure in the section of the stream where some portion of the population is likely still present using the downstream sections for over-winter habitat.

I just picked this one stream as an example. I'm sure the justification is that ELC is low biomass. Rather than even attempt to secure/restore brook trout there, it's far more beneficial to continue stocking it apparently.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Here's just one example where we seem to be doing the exact opposite of recommended management to protect brook trout.

View attachment 1641224785

East Licking creek is scored on the EBTJV/TU conservation prioritization portfolio as "Secure and restore persistent population". The prescription for that patch type is:

Eastern Brook Trout Conservation Portfolio, Range-wide Habitat Integrity and Future Security Assessment, and Focal Area Risk and Opportunity Analysis — EBTJV

Trout Unlimited has developed three conservation planning products to help identify strategic conservation opportunities and evaluate potential projects within the eastern range of brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis or EBT). Each product gathers and interprets spatial data related to the pattern...

easternbrooktrout.org

Just making really clear that document is a TU document.

"We" should be trying to graduate "Secure/Restore" populations to "Enhance Stronghold" and ultimately to "Secure Stronghold".

Not only are we NOT limiting the impact of nonnative salmonids via eradication on East Licking Creek, but we're also still currently stocking it, including with BT, AND protecting those stocked fish until summer under delayed harvest regs. I'd argue that reg type also causes more angling pressure during the hottest time of the year when we should be leaving wild trout alone.

Note that in that case, habitat isn't the issue. Connectivity and nonnative trout are. What's worse is there is an impoundment lower down on the stream, but the state stocks above the impoundment.

View attachment 1641224786

It's worth mentioning also that two of the tributaries in the stocking area are Class A brook trout. Here again, we have more angling regulations aimed at protecting stocked trout than brook trout, even in a watershed identified as the exact type of habitat that needs the opposite management approach. The DH reg likely contributes to incidental mortality by increasing angling pressure in the section of the stream where some portion of the population is likely still present using the downstream sections for over-winter habitat.

I just picked this one stream as an example. I'm sure the justification is that ELC is low biomass. Rather than even attempt to secure/restore brook trout there, it's far more beneficial to continue stocking it apparently.

Sad part is there are so many examples of places where habitat loss is no longer the issue that are completely forested in SGL or state parks and we still stock right down stream of them. For example potter county area has so little human beings and so many completely forested streams with brookies and many streams are class A. Yet we stock up to mouth of them up there with a silly amount of stocked trout given that the area has such a small amount of people and large amount of wild trout.

Prime example and probably most egregious example is the slate run brown trout club. You have slate run which is a stronghold for brook trout and I believe one of the longest undisturbed completely forested freestoners in the east and these people are stocking brown trout right at the mouth of the stream! And it’s hard to tell but they really appear to be of above average fitness than PAFB’s fish which is terrible. These people are essentially launching a once annual never ending non native invasion on the doorstep of what is supposed to be one of the Noah’s arks in this state for brook trout in the face of climate change.

This is just how we treat our most valuable brook trout populations in this state. It makes me furious because we are not trying even a little bit to manage these fish. But it also makes me optimistic because states like Maryland that have less resource are putting us to shame with places like the savage river. We haven’t even begun to try to manage brook trout in this state. In fact we are spending an enormous amount of money to snuff them out in most of their stronghold patches with stocked invasive trout.

 

[silverfox]

Sad part is there are so many examples of places where habitat loss is no longer the issue that are completely forested in SGL or state parks and we still stock right down stream of them. For example potter county area has so little human beings and so many completely forested streams with brookies and many streams are class A. Yet we stock up to mouth of them up there with a silly amount of stocked trout given that the area has such a small amount of people and large amount of wild trout.

Prime example and probably most egregious example is the slate run brown trout club. You have slate run which is a stronghold for brook trout and I believe one of the longest undisturbed completely forested freestoners in the east and these people are stocking brown trout right at the mouth of the stream! And it’s hard to tell but they really appear to be of above average fitness than PAFB’s fish which is terrible. These people are essentially launching a once annual never ending non native invasion on the doorstep of what is supposed to be one of the Noah’s arks in this state for brook trout in the face of climate change.

This is just how we treat our most valuable brook trout populations in this state. It makes me furious because we are not trying even a little bit to manage these fish. But it also makes me optimistic because states like Maryland that have less resource are putting us to shame with places like the savage river. We haven’t even begun to try to manage brook trout in this state. In fact we are spending an enormous amount of money to snuff them out in most of their stronghold patches with stocked invasive trout.

ArcGIS Web Application

www.arcgis.com

All of the dark blue/light blue patches fall under the same prescription as ELC. Slate Run is "Restore persistent pop. & habitats", which is:

Restore persistent populations and habitats strategy is assigned to redundant patches with low habitat integrity scores (19.2% of existing EBT populations). These patches meet our criteria as persistent but have single significant or multiple smaller stressors present – restoration of populations through nonnative trout eradication or connectivity enhancements could shift these populations to the resilient, stronghold category, but may require concurrent habitat restoration work.

So yeah, slate is a watershed that should be managed differently. Also of importance is the fecundity of the fish stocked up there. I've had the "the stocked fish are so unfit for survival that the vast majority just die" rationale used to justify stocking in some places before, but that's out the window with the fish stocked in that area.

I highly doubt slate is the place to focus efforts like this though. There are so many more lesser-known places like ELC etc. that have the same issue. In PA, bringing this up is like goring the sacred cow. I've had a few people outside of the state refer to PA as the absolute worst when it comes to supporting nonnative trout. That's debatable, but it's probably not too far from accurate either.

Places like ELC are what I mean when talking about stocking in downstream sections. Not places like the sock. Forget the big stuff, it's too far gone. The fact that we don't even seem to want to entertain the idea on small streams is the issue that concerns me.

 

[Fish Sticks]

ArcGIS Web Application

www.arcgis.com

All of the dark blue/light blue patches fall under the same prescription as ELC. Slate Run is "Restore persistent pop. & habitats", which is:

So yeah, slate is a watershed that should be managed differently. Also of importance is the fecundity of the fish stocked up there. I've had the "the stocked fish are so unfit for survival that the vast majority just die" rationale used to justify stocking in some places before, but that's out the window with the fish stocked in that area.

I highly doubt slate is the place to focus efforts like this though. There are so many more lesser-known places like ELC etc. that have the same issue. In PA, bringing this up is like goring the sacred cow. I've had a few people outside of the state refer to PA as the absolute worst when it comes to supporting nonnative trout. That's debatable, but it's probably not too far from accurate either.

Places like ELC are what I mean when talking about stocking in downstream sections. Not places like the sock. Forget the big stuff, it's too far gone. The fact that we don't even seem to want to entertain the idea on small streams is the issue that concerns me.

I agree it is a sacred cow for some odd reason which is so strange because it’s a just a cyclically replenished concentrated school of stocked brown trout lol it’s not like we are talking about a high quality wild non native fishery like the little J. They have turned the doorstep of slate run( one of our best native brook trout uninterrupted habitats) into invasive stocked salmonid Disney land. And the hilarious thing is you could create that unnatural density stocked trout fishery anywhere in the state. Such a waste. Surrounding states definitely look at us as behind in this arena. I agree with going after the smaller lesser known places first and getting the low hanging fruit. If you can demonstrate it works well it will be hard to argue to pay millions to screw up a better wild fishery that could exist no matter where it is. But I agree that slate run brown trout club is a really tough one because they will never have to justify its expenditure or get a budget cut unless PAFB or dept Ag changed the rules of where you can stock. Since it’s not license sales and basically just crowd funding stocking high negative impact invasive species where brook trout are supposed to weather climate change, concerns of fiscal/ecological waste are not going rein them in anytime soon.

 

[moon1284]

Get a room

 

[Fish Sticks]

Get a room

Moon ate his wheaties today! Todays gonna be different!

 

[silverfox]

Get a room

High-value contribution.

 

[troutbert]

On East Licking Creek, the stocking is not below the brookies, but right on top of them.

Again, "First Things First."

Which are you going to be able to fix first? Stocking right on top of brookie populations? Or stocking downstream of brookie populations?

I agree with Silverfox that East Licking Creek should be high priority.

That's on DCNR land. If you all actually get to the point of advocating changes, I recommend advocating to both DCNR and the PFBC.

If the public land agencies (DCNR, the Game Commission, Allegheny National Forest) could be convinced that brook trout populations are important enough that hatchery trout should not be stocked over them, that could be a game changer.

The PFBC has the primary responsibility for managing fisheries in PA. But that doesn't mean that the land agencies can't talk to the PFBC about fisheries management.

Also, land agencies can have influence on trout stocking via which forest road gates are open at what times of year. Just sayin.

 

[Fish Sticks]

ArcGIS Web Application

www.arcgis.com

All of the dark blue/light blue patches fall under the same prescription as ELC. Slate Run is "Restore persistent pop. & habitats", which is:

So yeah, slate is a watershed that should be managed differently. Also of importance is the fecundity of the fish stocked up there. I've had the "the stocked fish are so unfit for survival that the vast majority just die" rationale used to justify stocking in some places before, but that's out the window with the fish stocked in that area.

I highly doubt slate is the place to focus efforts like this though. There are so many more lesser-known places like ELC etc. that have the same issue. In PA, bringing this up is like goring the sacred cow. I've had a few people outside of the state refer to PA as the absolute worst when it comes to supporting nonnative trout. That's debatable, but it's probably not too far from accurate either.

Places like ELC are what I mean when talking about stocking in downstream sections. Not places like the sock. Forget the big stuff, it's too far gone. The fact that we don't even seem to want to entertain the idea on small streams is the issue that concerns me.

It’s not just native brook trout taking the hit from these stocked fish. I heard Pa fish and boat decided to stock over hellbenders in oswayo creek despite a prominent hellbender expert writing them a letter begging them not to and telling them it was very detrimental to those hellbenders and it’s wrong. I guess Pa social program and boat didn’t listen and ignored the concerns and blitzkrieged it anyway with stockers. People are going to look back at we are doing and just say what the heck were we thinking. I have seen Tim Shaeffer talk about the recovering americas wild life act funds ironically that could be coming to help imperiled native species. With behavior like that why do they deserve to be the stewards of that money or how can they?

 

[silverfox]

On East Licking Creek, the stocking is not below the brookies, but right on top of them.

Again, "First Things First."

Which are you going to be able to fix first? Stocking right on top of brookie populations? Or stocking downstream of brookie populations?

I agree with Silverfox that East Licking Creek should be high priority.

That's on DCNR land. If you all actually get to the point of advocating changes, I recommend advocating to both DCNR and the PFBC.

If the public land agencies (DCNR, the Game Commission, Allegheny National Forest) could be convinced that brook trout populations are important enough that hatchery trout should not be stocked over them, that could be a game changer.

The PFBC has the primary responsibility for managing fisheries in PA. But that doesn't mean that the land agencies can't talk to the PFBC about fisheries management.

Also, land agencies can have influence on trout stocking via which forest road gates are open at what times of year. Just sayin.

Right. That's why I picked ELC. Stocking is right in the middle of the ST water w/ 2 Class A's dumping in. My comment about "downstream of brookie populations" in that context is that even if they just moved the stocking line downstream a mile it's still the same water.

I've already been down that road regarding other agencies. DCNR and PFBC are sister agencies. Neither has any sway over the other. Though I'd argue that regardless of what DCNR might want, PFBC will do whatever they want with the water, so PFBC really has more pull than DCNR.

ANF is managed by USFS which really doesn't have too much to say about trout stocking. They're quite different than USFWS or NPS. I wish ANF was a federal park/managed by NPS. It would've already been managed very differently.

I'm pretty sure the other agencies have echoed these same concerns.

My real point on ELC is that a number of NGO's are calling for "eradication" but apparently, we can't even get to the point where we stop adding, let alone subtracting nonnative salmonids.