Outdoor News Commentary: Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission should cut back on trout stocking
- Thread starter FishTales1
- Start date
Bamboozle
Well-known member
Just playing the devil's advocate but IF, the concern REALLY & TRULY financial & about excessive expenditures...
How much do stream surveys cost?
We all know they are not done annually on every stream and IF they were, how much would that add to the PFBC budget to make it happen?
I ask because IF a plan that eliminated stocking on all Natural Reproduction Streams (as advocated by some) was implemented and managed legitimately; how would the PFBC know that a Class A - D stream is still a Class A - D stream and illegible for stocking without annual surveys?
In addition, this would have to include all sections not just the listed A - D sections and all Class E streams & sections as well in the event they became Class D or higher.
Bottom line, there might be a reduction stocking costs, but I have to believe considerable additional expenses would be incurred to make sure the cessation of stocking was based on biology, not BS.
As someone who regularly donates money to the PFBC CAP Program I can tell you there ARE PFBC monies spent on acquisition.
However you can only acquire easements where & when available. That means, take them where you can get them which is often NOT trout streams on private property and often access in places I'll never fish.
That doesn't make the program unappealing to me, but I'm sure many folks won't donate because they want their money pointed at their priorities...
How much do stream surveys cost?
We all know they are not done annually on every stream and IF they were, how much would that add to the PFBC budget to make it happen?
I ask because IF a plan that eliminated stocking on all Natural Reproduction Streams (as advocated by some) was implemented and managed legitimately; how would the PFBC know that a Class A - D stream is still a Class A - D stream and illegible for stocking without annual surveys?
In addition, this would have to include all sections not just the listed A - D sections and all Class E streams & sections as well in the event they became Class D or higher.
Bottom line, there might be a reduction stocking costs, but I have to believe considerable additional expenses would be incurred to make sure the cessation of stocking was based on biology, not BS.
As someone who regularly donates money to the PFBC CAP Program I can tell you there ARE PFBC monies spent on acquisition.
However you can only acquire easements where & when available. That means, take them where you can get them which is often NOT trout streams on private property and often access in places I'll never fish.
That doesn't make the program unappealing to me, but I'm sure many folks won't donate because they want their money pointed at their priorities...
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
Well there is a two part thing going on here.
You don't need to do constant surveys of streams in the now to determine what is right. The Data we have is enough to know which ones we shouldn't and which ones we should. Lord knows there is a massive amount of it at the archives.
There are streams fit for stocking, they are obvious. There are streams not fit for stocking, they too are obvious.
Until that balance gets a bit more in line with financial restraints and also biological assessments, we really don't have to worry about the devil's advocate scenario.
But regardless, a lot of surveys are done year in and out, I don't see why more would need to be added.
You don't need to do constant surveys of streams in the now to determine what is right. The Data we have is enough to know which ones we shouldn't and which ones we should. Lord knows there is a massive amount of it at the archives.
There are streams fit for stocking, they are obvious. There are streams not fit for stocking, they too are obvious.
Until that balance gets a bit more in line with financial restraints and also biological assessments, we really don't have to worry about the devil's advocate scenario.
But regardless, a lot of surveys are done year in and out, I don't see why more would need to be added.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
That's IF you use "no stocking of Class A's" as the criteria (which I totally support) because it isn't likely a stream section would go from A to E in a year or two barring a catastrophic event.
However, when you roll in ANY wild trout stream or section into the mix which IS advocated by some folks on PAFF...
Is it fair to the folks that don't hang their head in shame fishing for stockers if the PFBC goes with "historic" wild trout lists that include Class C & D sections that haven't been surveyed in 20+ years??
I don't know about the rest of you, but I have Class A & Natural Reproduction Lists going back many years. One thing I can tell you with certainty is even with limited resurveys, there ARE subtractions to those lists.
However, when you roll in ANY wild trout stream or section into the mix which IS advocated by some folks on PAFF...
Is it fair to the folks that don't hang their head in shame fishing for stockers if the PFBC goes with "historic" wild trout lists that include Class C & D sections that haven't been surveyed in 20+ years??
I don't know about the rest of you, but I have Class A & Natural Reproduction Lists going back many years. One thing I can tell you with certainty is even with limited resurveys, there ARE subtractions to those lists.
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
Yeah and constant editions.
Again, it is very easy to determine a stream with limited to no reproduction.
It really isn't that hard, and historically, for a long time past, and for a long time after today, if not forever, are suitable for the stocked trout program.
Just like it isn't that hard to know historically, for a long time past, and a long time after today, if not forever, ones that are not suitable for stocking.
Again, it is very easy to determine a stream with limited to no reproduction.
It really isn't that hard, and historically, for a long time past, and for a long time after today, if not forever, are suitable for the stocked trout program.
Just like it isn't that hard to know historically, for a long time past, and a long time after today, if not forever, ones that are not suitable for stocking.
Last edited:
RA-pfbcregulations@pa.gov
Will this email work for sending comments on the proposed stocking changes? The link sent by PA Trout goes through outlook and I don't have outlook!
Will this email work for sending comments on the proposed stocking changes? The link sent by PA Trout goes through outlook and I don't have outlook!
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,488
What is the link?
A link I found on the PFBC website.
It looks like it is the same email PA Trout's email link led me to. The problem was it made you open outlook so I found the link I posted above on the commission's website. I guess I could have right-clicked and copied the email originally.
