Outdoor News Commentary: Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission should cut back on trout stocking

FishTales1

FishTales1

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2025
Messages
9
City
Huntingdon
FishTales1 said:
Thoughts?

www.outdoornews.com

Commentary: Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission should cut back on trout stocking - Outdoor News

The agency is foolishly putting all its eggs in the hatchery basket. Instead, kids need more stream access near home and youth-fishing programs for already abundant wild fish.
www.outdoornews.com www.outdoornews.com

><(John{(°>

Do Your Duty and Fear No One..... R. W. Abele
Click to expand...
Nice to see you here again John.
I think the author makes many valid points and I fully agree with him. I also appreciate your commentary on the comments.
 
Last edited:
John,

There has been a long and lively (at least since the meeting) discussion here that you might find interesting.

DaveKile

Thread 'PFBC Quarterly Meeting to be Held on April 28'

HARRISBURG, Pa. (April 17) – The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) will hold its quarterly business meeting on Monday, April 28, 2025, beginning at 10 a.m., at its Harrisburg headquarters, located at 1601 Elmerton Avenue, Harrisburg, PA 17110. The meeting is open to the public.

The complete schedule and agenda for this meeting and information on how to provide public comment is available on the PFBC website (Fishandboat.com).

This meeting may be viewed remotely by joining the webinar from your internet browser using this link: https://bit.ly/Apr28CommMt

If...
  • Like

Here was James commentary at the meeting.
Curious to your thoughts.

 
Last edited:
Back in the 1980s when the Commission created Operation FUTURE (Fisheries Utilization Through User and Resource Evaluation) and created a management classification system for wild trout, the Board adopted the Resource First policy and codified the policy in regulation which specifically stated that Class A wild trout streams would NOT be stocked with hatchery trout. Resource First started as a motto, then became a slogan and was finally memorialized as an agency philosopy when Commissioner Bill Worobec wrote the Commissioner Policy manual when he was on the Board

Interestingly, when the policy was first adopted, there were streams that qualified as Class A but were never advanced by staff for listing because they were heavily stocked and had high angler use. I was Division Chief and liaison with DER (pre DEP) and worked with DER staff in the revisions of Chapter 93 to get the EQB to pass a reg that gives HQ-CWF protection to Class A Wild trout streams.

When I became Director in 2010, one of my first actions was to task staff with coming up with a criteria that could be used for looking at high-use Class A Wild trout streams so that these 13 streams would get HQ-CWF water quality protection. Leroy Young was Fisheries Bureau Director and he and his staff developed the criteria which I believe are still used today. Fisheries staff told me and the Board that there would not be many if any further exceptions moving forward into the future.

These exceptions were at the discretion of the ED BUT the Board wanted to effect the decisions which I whole-heartedly supported. These decisions need to be publicly discussed and debated and not be done behind closed doors. This can only be done through the public rule-making process required of Board actions.

The current brouhaha is being driven by a Coop nursery and a specific Commissioner. Staff have since produced data on a number of streams which show the positive effects of not stocking over wild trout populations. Dr. Bob Bachman showed the negative behavioral responses of stocking hatchery trout over wild trout in his PhD work on Spruce Creek in the early 1980’s. Using a famous quote often used by Bob “Houston we have a problem”.

Now that’s the rest of the story!
 
Reference:

www.pa.gov

Trout

Trout
www.pa.gov www.pa.gov

The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission stocks millions of adult trout in 697 streams and 126 lakes in PA every year.

With nearly 16,000 miles (and counting) of wild trout streams, nearly 5,000 miles of stocked trout streams and over 125 stocked trout lakes,


Class A Trout streams

“The Commission stocks a handful of these streams.”

I believe still the original 13 streams. 12 are Catch and release brown trout since rainbows are stocked.

Given that the Commission annually stocks about 3.2 million trout, a very small percentage would be stocked in the 13 Class A streams sections.
 
Agreed.

Resource First always meant that decisions were made to not compromise the aquatic resources. My first experience with this was when Mr. Abele had to decide an agency position on Dock Street Dam on the Susquehanna River in Harrisburg. The dam would create much larger pool and increase boating recreation. It would also negatively impact the smallmouth fishery of the river and change it from flowing water to a lake and allowing for increased sediment deposition further impacting the aquatic resources of the river. Despite much public and Commissioner pressure, Mr. Abele chose to protect the resource. Much like the physicians Hippocratic Oath, we need a Commissioner’s Hippocratic oath which says “Do no harm to the resource”!
 
Then, when it comes to the OP and the cost of trout stocking, isn't the issue of stocking Class A waters irrelevant? I'm not proposing we stock Class A waters. But the issue in the posted article is the costs of stocking trout.

I wonder if the PFBC ever did a geographic study of fishing licenses and trout stamps?
 
Tabasco-Joe said:
Then, when it comes to the OP and the cost of trout stocking, isn't the issue of stocking Class A waters irrelevant? I'm not proposing we stock Class A waters. But the issue in the posted article is the costs of stocking trout.

I wonder if the PFBC ever did a geographic study of fishing licenses and trout stamps?
Click to expand...
Costs of stocking trout does matter since the more money spent on raising and stocking trout for recreation, the less money that is available for working on wild trout projects. Priorities are revealed by where the $ is spent. Investing in resource management vs spending money on providing annual recreation?
 
"Over $100 million from a pool of tax money, Capital Funds, that’s intended for public infrastructure (roads, bridges, etc.) was instead used to pay for hatchery maintenance the commission couldn’t afford."

Is $100 million accurate?

If so, what was that spent on?

Was it for the effluent water treatment systems at the hatcheries?
 
FishTales1 said:
Reference:

www.pa.gov

Trout

Trout
www.pa.gov www.pa.gov

The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission stocks millions of adult trout in 697 streams and 126 lakes in PA every year.

With nearly 16,000 miles (and counting) of wild trout streams, nearly 5,000 miles of stocked trout streams and over 125 stocked trout lakes,


Class A Trout streams

“The Commission stocks a handful of these streams.”

I believe still the original 13 streams. 12 are Catch and release brown trout since rainbows are stocked.

Given that the Commission annually stocks about 3.2 million trout, a very small percentage would be stocked in the 13 Class A streams sections.
Click to expand...
Extend this policy to the Natural Reproduction list.
 
FishTales1 said:
Costs of stocking trout does matter since the more money spent on raising and stocking trout for recreation, the less money that is available for working on wild trout projects. Priorities are revealed by where the $ is spent. Investing in resource management vs spending money on providing annual recreation?
Click to expand...
I didn't say the cost of stocking doesn't matter. I said the cost of overstocking of Class A waters is insignificant to the overall stocking cost issue.

To play a bit of devil's advocate, I live in Bucks County. Philadelphia and the adjoining counties have but a few miles of class A water. Much of it inaccessible to most fishermen. The area contains about 1/3 of the state population. Why would residents of that area give up trout stocking in favor of habitat investments that would likely be outside their area? Wouldn't that be depriving a lot of people an opportunity to get into trout fishing? Some possibly becoming motivated in supporting programs like brook trout initiatives which have almost no direct impact on SE PA.

Certainly, the cost of stocking is concerning, especially with the numbers of licensees declining. I think people from areas of the state with more wild trout fishing opportunities tend to overlook the value those in other areas place on stocking.
 
FishTales1 said:
Staff have since produced data on a number of streams which show the positive effects of not stocking over wild trout populations. Dr. Bob Bachman showed the negative behavioral responses of stocking hatchery trout over wild trout in his PhD work on Spruce Creek in the early 1980’s. Using a famous quote often used by Bob “Houston we have a problem”.

Now that’s the rest of the story!
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the joke “How many Pol———- does it take to change a lightbulb?”

How many studies does it take to change a trout stocking program?

www.wildtrout.org

Stopping stocking – a story 40 years on | Wild Trout Trust

Montana's rivers and streams are on the 'bucket list' of many fly fishers because of their fantastic populations of wild trout. It wasn't always the case. Like many rivers around the world, they were heavily and sometimes indiscriminately stocked in a misguided attempt to promote fish populations.…
www.wildtrout.org www.wildtrout.org
 
mt_flyfisher said:
Reminds me of the joke “How many Pol———- does it take to change a lightbulb?”

How many studies does it take to change a trout stocking program?

www.wildtrout.org

Stopping stocking – a story 40 years on | Wild Trout Trust

Montana's rivers and streams are on the 'bucket list' of many fly fishers because of their fantastic populations of wild trout. It wasn't always the case. Like many rivers around the world, they were heavily and sometimes indiscriminately stocked in a misguided attempt to promote fish populations.…
www.wildtrout.org www.wildtrout.org
Click to expand...
Politicians?
 
Tabasco-Joe said:
I didn't say the cost of stocking doesn't matter. I said the cost of overstocking of Class A waters is insignificant to the overall stocking cost issue.

To play a bit of devil's advocate, I live in Bucks County. Philadelphia and the adjoining counties have but a few miles of class A water. Much of it inaccessible to most fishermen. The area contains about 1/3 of the state population. Why would residents of that area give up trout stocking in favor of habitat investments that would likely be outside their area? Wouldn't that be depriving a lot of people an opportunity to get into trout fishing? Some possibly becoming motivated in supporting programs like brook trout initiatives which have almost no direct impact on SE PA.

Certainly, the cost of stocking is concerning, especially with the numbers of licensees declining. I think people from areas of the state with more wild trout fishing opportunities tend to overlook the value those in other areas place on stocking.
Click to expand...
We have more waters to stock than hatchery trout. Investments in pollution control have resulted in thousands of more miles that would qualify for stocking. No need to stock Class A or other WT waters. Wild trout and hatchery trout are independent programs and should be treated as such. One is science-based and the other is a public service.
 
Tabasco-Joe said:
I didn't say the cost of stocking doesn't matter. I said the cost of overstocking of Class A waters is insignificant to the overall stocking cost issue.

To play a bit of devil's advocate, I live in Bucks County. Philadelphia and the adjoining counties have but a few miles of class A water. Much of it inaccessible to most fishermen. The area contains about 1/3 of the state population. Why would residents of that area give up trout stocking in favor of habitat investments that would likely be outside their area? Wouldn't that be depriving a lot of people an opportunity to get into trout fishing? Some possibly becoming motivated in supporting programs like brook trout initiatives which have almost no direct impact on SE PA.

Certainly, the cost of stocking is concerning, especially with the numbers of licensees declining. I think people from areas of the state with more wild trout fishing opportunities tend to overlook the value those in other areas place on stocking.
Click to expand...
There is a time and a place for everything.
Certainly no one is talking about elimination of stocking completely. The area you mention is prime to be heavily stocked. Little wild trout water and lots of anglers.

But that isn't what is happening in the current state of PA stocking culture is it? We are stocking 3.2 million trout many of which in wild trout water.
Class A, B, & C.

Why are we even thinking of expanding stocking in more class A water while they needed to take 100 million in Capital Funds for hatcheries while license sales are declining? It's asinine and the expansion of Class A stocking shows just how far ridiculous it has gotten.
 
FishTales1 said:
We have more waters to stock than hatchery trout. Investments in pollution control have resulted in thousands of more miles that would qualify for stocking. No need to stock Class A or other WT waters. Wild trout and hatchery trout are independent programs and should be treated as such. One is science-based and the other is a public service.
Click to expand...
This!
Say it again for those in the back!

And when your public service includes screwing up the natural resources through invasive species, you got a big problem Houston.

Sorry had to say the dreaded word, because it's true.
 
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