John Arway on the Fly Fisherman Magazine Podcast

The topic: Let Nature Raise the Fish

Here is a short that should grab your attention:

The whole thing:

 

I’m back. Well never really left. Just following the advice of my mentor and former Director Ralph Abele who told us at his retirement dinner that he was going to “hover above the clouds and swoop down as necessary”. If you listen to this story I expect to see a lightning bolt soon.

Here are the facts:

“Section 03 extends 4.50 miles from Bark Shanty Hollow to West Branch Freeman Run, and Section 04 extends 2.90 miles from West Branch Freeman Run to the mouth. Prior to 2021, Sections 03 and 04 were included in the Commission's Stocked Trout Water (STW) program. Trout stocking was discontinued in 2021 following designation as Class A wild trout stream sections after wild brown trout biomass was estimated to be 56 kg/ha and 67 kg/ha, respectively, during 2018 surveys.

To qualify for Class A wild trout stream designation based on wild brown trout, biomass must begreater than or equal to 40 kg/ha. Subsequent surveys conducted in 2022, 2 years following stocking cessation, estimated the wild brown trout biomass to be 94 kg/ha in Section 03 and 103 kg/ha in Section 04.”

This is an excerpt from the Commission’s 27 October 2025 meeting:

“The impacts of stocking on wild trout populations are well documented in the literature and through Commission surveys of wild trout streams in this Commonwealth. Commission monitoring and evaluation of wild trout populations in this Commonwealth demonstrate that stocking depresses wild trout populations for a variety of reasons, including competition for habitat and food, interference competition, increased harvest, increased hooking and handling, among other factors.”

If you care about doing something to protect wild trout from the harm of stocking hatchery trout rather than just talking about it, sign up here— PAWTC.org.

Tight lines,

><(John{(°>

Do Your Duty and Fear No One..... R. W. Abele

 

Talk about it? We prefer to argue amongst ourselves about it. All the while accomplishing nothing. We’re actually really good at it.

Meanwhile, the pro-stocking crowd continues to keep things simple, and wins. “Put fish in our stream, in our hole, for us to catch. If you don’t, we’ll post it.” Simple. Brilliant really.

Bark Shanty is a darn fine name for a hollow. I will say that.

 

One of the more important things for me when this passed last year was the idea that there would be assessment and monitoring of Freeman Run. If this is going to happen, what is the plan? When will they be monitoring. They made a big deal that this was a "Test". If it is a "Test" then what are the results?

Glad to have you back John ... or still here as you have said.

 

One of the more important things for me when this passed last year was the idea that there would be assessment and monitoring of Freeman Run. If this is going to happen, what is the plan? When will they be monitoring. They made a big deal that this was a "Test". If it is a "Test" then what are the results?

Glad to have you back John ... or still here as you have said.

Thanks Dave. One of the objectives was to create more local fishing opportunities. Heard that they counted 25 anglers opening day. Guess they will call that a success?

 

Thanks Dave. One of the objectives was to create more local fishing opportunities. Heard that they counted 25 anglers opening day. Guess they will call that a success?

Well as with any measurement the question will be what are we testing for? We all know the testing they discussed at that approval meeting was metrics and impacts of stocked fish into naturally reproducing waters. Something that has been done already, but somehow in this situation was gonna be a new and innovative.

Might be fun to start hammering for the testing plan and results. They said it was gonna be a ~five year project to see what happens.

 

Well as with any measurement the question will be what are we testing for? We all know the testing they discussed at that approval meeting was metrics and impacts of stocked fish into naturally reproducing waters. Something that has been done already, but somehow in this situation was gonna be a new and innovative.

Might be fun to start hammering for the testing plan and results. They said it was gonna be a ~five year project to see what happens.

From the Commission minutes Dave.

“However, the Commission does not have strong Commonwealth-specific data regarding the use of special regulations to mitigate the negative impacts of stocking over Class A wild trout populations.”

Sounds like the staff are trying the old smoke and mirrors approach to political and social science management. That doesn’t work with natural resource management. Trying to “mitigate” the known negative effects of stocking by applying special regulations to offset the harm is totally wrong. They think biology is like mathematics where the numbers will always add up. That’s not how biology works which is why most of us chose it as a career. You have to be part detective and uncover the uncertainty with experiments and you’ll never be 100% certain of anything nature does. That’s why so many biologists are reluctant to offer opinions about science. That’s why you test to disprove not approve the null hypothesis.

 

From the Commission minutes Dave.

“However, the Commission does not have strong Commonwealth-specific data regarding the use of special regulations to mitigate the negative impacts of stocking over Class A wild trout populations.”

Smoke and mirrors - kinda sums up the whole Freeman Run re-stocking plan for me. I have zero trust with what this was all about.

 

Smoke and mirrors - kinda sums up the whole Freeman Run re-stocking plan for me. I have zero trust with what this was all about.

to me its plain...
I think smoked trout and beers sums it up a good campaign slogan.

The average Joe wants stocked trout by his camp. So much so its to the point he wrote politicians, that way he can brag around the camp fire while drinking beer as he cooks up the fish.

The politicians want their votes.

The brass at the PFBC wants to keep their jobs.

So the mantra goes, "the kiddos wont have fish to catch!"


So I agree with Arway here.

An interesting test would be to take your own survey of anglers opening day weekend. Number of anglers and number of anglers under the age on 18.

I'd like to know how many of these kids that have no fish to catch otherwise we are talking about.

 

Thanks for posting this. I appreciate you sharing the podcast and bringing more attention to the subject. Its a very important one that deserves more attention.

I also agree with John Arway. I think he makes an important point that the PFBC needs to look at the bigger picture when it comes to wild trout and fisheries management, rather than automatically assuming that stocking is always the answer. I also agree with his concern that the Commission needs to be willing to question some of the long-standing practices that have simply become accepted as the way things are done. The best path forward would be to STOP STOCKING OVER WILD TROUT.

My bigger problem with the PFBC is that they continue to treat the biological damage caused by stocking as something to be managed around rather than confronting the root cause. We keep hearing about studies, reports, committees, and ways to reduce the impacts of stocking, but did this report ever seriously consider the obvious solution--reducing stocking itself? Was that even on the table? And if it was, why did it not make the final draft?

At some point, the PFBC has to acknowledge that you cannot continue putting large numbers of hatchery fish into wild trout streams and then act surprised that there are negative consequences. The commission seems determined to preserve the status quo and find ways to justify stocking rather than honestly asking where stocking is no longer appropriate and where reductions would actually benefit wild trout.

So, did the report ever seriously consider the obvious approach of reducing stocking and redirecting those savings to other PFBC priorities, or was reducing stocking never really an option?



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

 

Thanks for posting this. I appreciate you sharing the podcast and bringing more attention to the subject. Its a very important one that deserves more attention.

I also agree with John Arway. I think he makes an important point that the PFBC needs to look at the bigger picture when it comes to wild trout and fisheries management, rather than automatically assuming that stocking is always the answer. I also agree with his concern that the Commission needs to be willing to question some of the long-standing practices that have simply become accepted as the way things are done. The best path forward would be to STOP STOCKING OVER WILD TROUT.

My bigger problem with the PFBC is that they continue to treat the biological damage caused by stocking as something to be managed around rather than confronting the root cause. We keep hearing about studies, reports, committees, and ways to reduce the impacts of stocking, but did this report ever seriously consider the obvious solution--reducing stocking itself? Was that even on the table? And if it was, why did it not make the final draft?

At some point, the PFBC has to acknowledge that you cannot continue putting large numbers of hatchery fish into wild trout streams and then act surprised that there are negative consequences. The commission seems determined to preserve the status quo and find ways to justify stocking rather than honestly asking where stocking is no longer appropriate and where reductions would actually benefit wild trout.

So, did the report ever seriously consider the obvious approach of reducing stocking and redirecting those savings to other PFBC priorities, or was reducing stocking never really an option?



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

Only the shadow knows. Directors have admitted that a draft report was submitted to the agencies by WMI but the agencies returned it for revision. Recent article in PA Outdoor News reports that some legislators want answers and plan to convene a hearing on the subject. A member of the PA WTC submitted a Right-to-Know request for the returned draft report but it was denied by the PFBC. So much for transparency and public information.

The final WMI report did not address hatcheries or alternatives for cost savings which is troubling since hatcheries are 25% of the agency’s budget. If it looks like a skunk and smells like a skunk, there’s a 90+% probability it’s a skunk. Other 10% is a wolf in a sheep’s clothing.

 

Only the shadow knows. Directors have admitted that a draft report was submitted to the agencies by WMI but the agencies returned it for revision. Recent article in PA Outdoor News reports that some legislators want answers and plan to convene a hearing on the subject. A member of the PA WTC submitted a Right-to-Know request for the returned draft report but it was denied by the PFBC. So much for transparency and public information.

The final WMI report did not address hatcheries or alternatives for cost savings which is troubling since hatcheries are 25% of the agency’s budget. If it looks like a skunk and smells like a skunk, there’s a 90+% probability it’s a skunk. Other 10% is a wolf in a sheep’s clothing.

Wow. I'd love to know what got revised myself.

There is just this one little tidbit on the very last page.

"PFBC hatchery operations consume approximately 48% of operating expenses, and PFBC is managing
roughly $155 million in concurrent capital work across hatcheries and 33 to 34 high-hazard dams."

50 percent of its operational expenses are for a fish and season its user base claims is "fished out" 3 weeks after opening day .
🤣