sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
Touche.
Outdoor News Commentary: Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission should cut back on trout stocking
- Thread starter FishTales1
- Start date
They no longer reach nearby portions of the west branch, the state should stock more.
DomR
Well-known member
Institute a shad stamp. Get it on a PFBC agenda.
Or…..and this might be new concept for some, but we could only put fish in places that they will survive for more than a few weeks, and not promote the truck chasing culture that the PFBC has wholeheartedly embraced.
ROVERT
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2013
- Messages
- 304
With rare exception, I don't fish streams that don't have natural reproduction. That said, if the stocking program ended tomorrow, I think it may have consequences that many are overlooking. It would likely have a negative impact on all of our fishing experiences.
Sure, some people will just stop fishing for trout when the opportunity is no longer within 15-30 minutes of their residence. Not all will stop, though. Pressure will increase on the wild trout fisheries.
At face value, I don't support stocking over wild fish. In reality, though, isn't it likely that those stockers actually protect some wild fish? Especially in small streams, when the catch and keep angler intent on getting his limit hits the stream, he likely spooks the wild fish and harvests the stocked. If there are no stocked fish, will he not adapt and learn to harvest the wild fish?
Reducing rather than retiring the stocking program will have the same effects just to a lesser extent.
People want to fish for trout. Making it easy for them might not be the worst thing for both the wild fish and those of us who pursue wild fish.
FWIW, I do not support stocking over native brook trout populations at all. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have any stocking programs. In a nearly ideal world, maybe only some fingerling stocking would occur. The world we live in is far from ideal. Unfortunately, we can't just go by the science and ignore the societal aspect. Those must be carefully balanced by resource management agencies.
Someone is always going to be upset. Those who are upset are almost certainly overlooking some aspect of the the situation. Here's an example. I think there should be be no brook trout harvest or stocking allowed in PA. Given the difficulty that rainbows seem to have reproducing in our state, they should be the only trout stocked in order to protect native brook trout and wild brown trout strains. I'm sure I'm missing something.
Sure, some people will just stop fishing for trout when the opportunity is no longer within 15-30 minutes of their residence. Not all will stop, though. Pressure will increase on the wild trout fisheries.
At face value, I don't support stocking over wild fish. In reality, though, isn't it likely that those stockers actually protect some wild fish? Especially in small streams, when the catch and keep angler intent on getting his limit hits the stream, he likely spooks the wild fish and harvests the stocked. If there are no stocked fish, will he not adapt and learn to harvest the wild fish?
Reducing rather than retiring the stocking program will have the same effects just to a lesser extent.
People want to fish for trout. Making it easy for them might not be the worst thing for both the wild fish and those of us who pursue wild fish.
FWIW, I do not support stocking over native brook trout populations at all. In an ideal world, we wouldn't have any stocking programs. In a nearly ideal world, maybe only some fingerling stocking would occur. The world we live in is far from ideal. Unfortunately, we can't just go by the science and ignore the societal aspect. Those must be carefully balanced by resource management agencies.
Someone is always going to be upset. Those who are upset are almost certainly overlooking some aspect of the the situation. Here's an example. I think there should be be no brook trout harvest or stocking allowed in PA. Given the difficulty that rainbows seem to have reproducing in our state, they should be the only trout stocked in order to protect native brook trout and wild brown trout strains. I'm sure I'm missing something.
Mikey2006
Well-known member
Are people advocating for the complete end of stocking? I read the article and didn’t see anything that would suggest that. He even said “stocking has a place”
I never remember him saying anything about ending stocking completely on here before he got banned either. I thought it was always about ending the practice of sticking over wild fish.
Maybe no stocked trout streams have to be removed at all. I don’t know how much money is spent stocking fish in natural reproduction streams, but it would save a lot and make a whole lot of sense if they just stopped doing that and made no changes to anything else. And if they were still over budget, they could remove an in season stocking or two on some waters, or stock less fish overall. Spread out over all the stocked waters we currently have, the decrease in fish would be less noticeable. And at the end of the day it’s the right thing to do regardless of how people would react to it, not just because native and wild populations need protection, but also because they are spending money they have no right to spend on trout stocking
I agree with the idea of only stocking areas lacking natural reproduction. But there will be strong pushback from those who still enjoy a "natural" trout fishing experience. It would seem to me that especially in the mountain areas, many/most would see elimination of stocking their favorite stream with placement in less trouty waterbodies. Also, you would likely have to redirect to waters that warm more quickly, shortening the usefulness of the trout stocked.
IMO the Commission should focus on watersheds that still have native brook trout. Focus energy, money, and science on sustaining and enhancing native species and the ecosystems they require. I would support more harvest of browns in Penns if that would help the Brookies that seem to have made a comeback. Unfortunately, science does not seem to be in vogue these days.
IMO the Commission should focus on watersheds that still have native brook trout. Focus energy, money, and science on sustaining and enhancing native species and the ecosystems they require. I would support more harvest of browns in Penns if that would help the Brookies that seem to have made a comeback. Unfortunately, science does not seem to be in vogue these days.
CRB
Well-known member
.
Last edited:
CRB
Well-known member
Only if it was eisments, with access part of the eisment.
Fishermen don't want parking lots we want stream mileage.
flyguyfishing
Active member
- Joined
- May 31, 2009
- Messages
- 178
Can you provide the data or site the source from this comment (I think) you posted in the comments section of the article?Thoughts?
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
><(John{(°>
Do Your Duty and Fear No One..... R. W. Abele
"Thanks Phil. Much appreciated. When I was Director I continued to remind the Board that there was NO correlation between the numbers of trout stocked and the numbers of fishing licenses sold. Despite the facts, many Board members, then and now, don’t believe it. There was a paper published in a scientific journal that looked at this relationship for a variety of states that stocked trout and found the same thing. Stocking trout does not influence license sales."
I am not disputing your claim, but it is interesting. To me, there would be a logarithmic correlation between license sales and amount of stocked fish. IE, if all stocking stopped, there would be a drop in license and fee sales. However, at some point, the relationship would flat line so a modest increase or decrease in stocked fish would result in almost no change in licensr and fees.
dudemanspecial
Well-known member
I also find it very hard to believe that there is "NO" correlation.
TimB
Member
- Joined
- Nov 23, 2006
- Messages
- 171
Rather than wander around in the weeds, I have a simpler view:
Why should taxpayer money be used to support any recreational activity that applies to less than 5% of the state's population? Should we be subsidizing golf, skateboarding, frisbee, ATVs, geocaching...?
It's hard to find a good analogy, but it would be like asking taxpayers to fund planting morels or other edible fungi for enthusiasts to forage every spring. Or maybe asking the state to fund snowmaking for skiers. Who would go for that? My guess is the taxpayers would object, pointing out that lift ticket fees should fund snowmaking for those that want it.
And imagine the PFBC, knowing they are going to have to go back to the well and ask for more funding, trying to explain why they aren't using the funds efficiently and continue to put limited resources where they aren't needed. Imagine going to a bank, hat in hand and saying, "Yes, we know we are wasting money, but we've always done it that way. So we'll continue to stick our heads in the sand and hope someone will make up the shortfall because we spend more than we generate with license sales"
I'm no financial expert, but it sounds like a bad business plan to me. And when the taxpayers wake up and say "no more", they'll look to other sources to keep the status quo and stock streams that don't need it. Next it'll be the PFBC boat Fund, or maybe the Game commission. I've heard both mentioned as possibilities...
Why should taxpayer money be used to support any recreational activity that applies to less than 5% of the state's population? Should we be subsidizing golf, skateboarding, frisbee, ATVs, geocaching...?
It's hard to find a good analogy, but it would be like asking taxpayers to fund planting morels or other edible fungi for enthusiasts to forage every spring. Or maybe asking the state to fund snowmaking for skiers. Who would go for that? My guess is the taxpayers would object, pointing out that lift ticket fees should fund snowmaking for those that want it.
And imagine the PFBC, knowing they are going to have to go back to the well and ask for more funding, trying to explain why they aren't using the funds efficiently and continue to put limited resources where they aren't needed. Imagine going to a bank, hat in hand and saying, "Yes, we know we are wasting money, but we've always done it that way. So we'll continue to stick our heads in the sand and hope someone will make up the shortfall because we spend more than we generate with license sales"
I'm no financial expert, but it sounds like a bad business plan to me. And when the taxpayers wake up and say "no more", they'll look to other sources to keep the status quo and stock streams that don't need it. Next it'll be the PFBC boat Fund, or maybe the Game commission. I've heard both mentioned as possibilities...
ROVERT
Active member
- Joined
- Mar 25, 2013
- Messages
- 304
Whether or not we should is debatable but we do subsidize many of those things.
I'm pretty sure tax dollars fund most of those activities at least at some level. Snow mobile trails, xc skiing trails, biking and hiking trails, disc golf courses, geocache locations, skateboard parks, roller hockey rinks, etc are all provided/maintained with tax dollars. Some are local governments, not the state, but tax dollars are funding tons of niche activities.
It should also be considered that sportsmen are contributing P-R/D-J funds through gear purchases in addition to licenses and permits. Other user groups don't contribute in a similar manner.
Again, not saying what is right but it is more complex than it may appear.
I think it is important to address stocking over native trout but getting people to care about native species is the path, not diving into financials. That is a whole other topic that needs to be addressed. They're certainly intertwined but if you tie fixing the bottom line to helping brook trout, it will probably never happen.
FishTales1
Member
Read the conclusions in the attached paper.
“In contrast, previous research on the
impact of trout stocking on angling participation has given a consistent non-result. No statistical relationship has been found between the quantity of trout stocked in a state and the number of resident fishing licenses sold in that state.“
If you’re not happy with how your tax dollars are being used, you can always vote for another candidate who you hope will better represent your views on how tax dollars should be used. You can also write your elected officials to express your dissatisfaction with the use of tax dollars.
Remind me again how I can vote to replace the PFBC commissioner that represents my area, or better yet, how I could contact them directly?
DomR
Well-known member
Better to subsidize something that 5% of the population enjoys than to have those $ stuffed in some politicians pocket by some other means, which is likely were "unused surpluses" are earmarked to.
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
Unused surpluses 😂
Oregon_OwlII
Active member
Isn't that what science-based decisions are intended to produce?
Oregon_OwlII
Active member
"Should we be subsidizing golf, skateboarding, frisbee, ATVs, geocaching...?" I don't know where you live, but everything other than geocaching is public funded near me. The rationales vary (keep kids with skateboards off the streets, frisbee golf in public parks is good exercise, ATV designations in certain public lands as opposed to running through private property). The public has a wide range of outdoor interests which can be supported by studies supporting the notion of better mental health through access to nature. I don't hunt anymore, but I sure as hell would like to see more State Game Lands set aside (they preserve a lot of streams in the process). Personally, I would favor user fees like taxing binoculars, ATVs, trout stamps as the way to garner more funds from those interested parties. We need to face two facts- not everyone agrees with where all their tax money is being spent (but you do have a voice at the ballot box), and second, a heftier burden must be placed on specific users.
Tabasco-Joe
Active member
I don't agree with using general funds for stocking programs.
But I'll flip the narrative, I do agree with using some general funds for habitat quality improvement. Water quality, storm runoff remediation, dam removal, etc.
