Pennsylvania Wild Trout Coalition - Article - Stocking Reform

This is a good article and an important topic.

But I think many people will miss it because the title of the thread has no information on the topic.

Could an informative title be added?
 
This is such an important movement that appears to finally be getting some traction. I am proud of the work being done and am excited to continue to send targeted emails and speak to those in positions to make the changes that need to be made.
 
I’m also very proud of the hard work that has been put into this effort. James has gathered a lot of support and important stakeholders in the reform efforts. It’s great to see some larger media coverage.
 
What does this say about PA Trout Unlimited and all the local TU chapters if this coalition has been formed? Isn’t this duplication of effort? Most of the leaders of this coalition were PA Trout officers, weren’t they?
 
McSneek said:
What does this say about PA Trout Unlimited and all the local TU chapters if this coalition has been formed? Isn’t this duplication of effort? Most of the leaders of this coalition were PA Trout officers, weren’t they?
Click to expand...
To me it says that they are ineffective at bringing attention to this situation. Whether it be from lack of desire or ineffectivness of campaigning for it in ways the public can relate to it, its anyone's guess. It is likely different reasons across different chapters.

I was once told when I tried to get reform in stocking done to Upper Hammer Creek via lobbying through Donegal Trout Unlimited for support, that no one cares about catching 6-8" fish. So then, to me that chapter didnt care about wild brook trout like they should. That was nearly 25-30 years ago. Today that creek is being over run by wild brown trout.

This is why I said love him or hate him James comes up with good ideas bringing it to the fore front and into the public eye. The common man does not care much for trout. Most people in the commonwealth don't fish, but they and the common fisherman, can relate to wasteful spending. They also can especially right now considering the cost of everything and how many people are truly struggling.
 
FisherOfMen said:
To me it says that they are ineffective at bringing attention to this situation. Whether it be from lack of desire or ineffectivness of campaigning for it in ways the public can relate to it, its anyone's guess. It is likely different reasons across different chapters.
Click to expand...
These days TU would be more effective taking the most active officers from the various local chapters and grouping them into statewide chapters. With each chapter siloed into their individual pet watersheds, you end up with some chapters that just lose all their effective officers over time and/or stuck in decades-old philosophies, while other chapters are still going strong and evolving. The successful leaders need to feel empowered to lend support to causes in other chapters' geographic areas. Stocking over wild trout is a statewide issue.
 
We wouldn’t HAVE wild Browns and Bows if it weren’t for stocking - we seem to forget that we mismanaged the resource(s) when we fished out the Native populations and put invasives into our waterways - Smallmouth aren’t native to the Susquehanna drainage - neither are Flathead Catfish - nor Snakeheads - Browns and Rainbows are invasive to the entire Commonwealth etc etc - the point being: Mankind is always playing catch up to the good idea fairy when it comes to habitat management, good stewardship of our existing resources and thoughtful modernization of our planet - all while often paying larger more permanent pricing for the mistakes made and blame assigned - those are some of the reasons why I’ve quit all the organizations who have strayed from the original mission statement - I agree with not stocking over established populations of (sometimes) native fish but until we swap the put and take mentality of many anglers with “caring for your catch if taking a few home” thought process, things will be status quo for the foreseeable future - and a message to all those catch and release expert influencers on social media: quit squeezing the life out of the fish before “throwing it back” (literally) for all those likes … and STOP SCREAMING!
 
sarce said:
These days TU would be more effective taking the most active officers from the various local chapters and grouping them into statewide chapters. With each chapter siloed into their individual pet watersheds, you end up with some chapters that just lose all their effective officers over time and/or stuck in decades-old philosophies, while other chapters are still going strong and evolving. The successful leaders need to feel empowered to lend support to causes in other chapters' geographic areas. Stocking over wild trout is a statewide issue.
Click to expand...
I agree with you 100%. However there would likely be some reaction from those who prefer decades-old philosophies and more of the grassroots feel of local chapters as they exist now. Would TU get labeled as even more elitist and out of touch if some form of centralization takes place?
 
I’d probably let Arway speak for himself on the history here if he wants to, because he was actually in those conversations and involved in forming this coalition.

That said, my understanding is that TU was approached by this group before the coalition was formed about taking on this issue more direcly, and the response was basically a runaround. My recollection is that TU ultimately made it pretty clear they weren’t particularly interested in taking on stocking reform as a statewide fight.

That’s an important distinction, because the coalition didn’t come along afterward and say, “TU is already doing this, but we’re going to do it anyway.” My understanding is that the coalition came together because people were looking for someone willing to actually take this issue on at the state level.

And I don’t say that as a knock on TU. TU does a lot of good work for wild trout. But having wild trout conservation as part of your mission and making stocking reform a specific statewide priority are two different things.

So if there’s a different version of how those conversations went, I’m perfectly happy to defer to Arway and let him tell the story. I just wouldn’t characterize the coalition as trying to duplicate an effort that TU had already committed to.

The Rodfather
Engagement Czar and Conservation Chair
Dauphin County League of Chubsmen
 
riverwhy said:
I agree with you 100%. However there would likely be some reaction from those who prefer decades-old philosophies and more of the grassroots feel of local chapters as they exist now. Would TU get labeled as even more elitist and out of touch if some form of centralization takes place?
Click to expand...
I don’t know how an organization can get more elitist when the governing bodies of certain chapters are flyshop owners and guides (in perpetuity) who will only allow certain people to care for ailing streams for a photo op or to drum up business - been there done that and won’t go back - it’s a country club where I don’t want membership - when I’m out on the stream picking up someone else’s trash or rescuing ducklings from a carelessly left hopper dropper rig tangled on a branch - I do the right thing if able and don’t announce it or use it as a selling point to get street cred
 
riverwhy said:
I agree with you 100%. However there would likely be some reaction from those who prefer decades-old philosophies and more of the grassroots feel of local chapters as they exist now. Would TU get labeled as even more elitist and out of touch if some form of centralization takes place?
Click to expand...
All good points, although I hadn't heard of the elitist label until just now. Out of touch, aging, sure. Not sure it matters to the national level org, if they can still bring in donations for their major causes, most of which seem to be focused out west lately.

Full disclosure, I'm VP of the DC area chapter... whether we can be called a "successful" chapter moving forward is still up in the air these days. Covid destroyed our connection to our membership and it's been an absolutely massive challenge to recapture that.
 
The Rodfather said:
That said, my understanding is that TU was approached by this group before the coalition was formed about taking on this issue more direcly, and the response was basically a runaround. My recollection is that TU ultimately made it pretty clear they weren’t particularly interested in taking on stocking reform as a statewide fight.

That’s an important distinction, because the coalition didn’t come along afterward and say, “TU is already doing this, but we’re going to do it anyway.” My understanding is that the coalition came together because people were looking for someone willing to actually take this issue on at the state level.
Click to expand...
Thanks for this insight. I do not view it as duplication of effort nor do I think duplication or alignment of values would even be an issue. The more people with the same message, the better
 
sarce said:
These days TU would be more effective taking the most active officers from the various local chapters and grouping them into statewide chapters. With each chapter siloed into their individual pet watersheds, you end up with some chapters that just lose all their effective officers over time and/or stuck in decades-old philosophies, while other chapters are still going strong and evolving. The successful leaders need to feel empowered to lend support to causes in other chapters' geographic areas. Stocking over wild trout is a statewide issue.
Click to expand...

This would be a redundancy if all levels of the TU structure interacted with each other as they should. There is, after all, an intermediate level of TU called the State Council that plays this role in the organizational structure. Historically, the main reason this structure is less than fully effective is overall lack of understanding, communications and coordination on the part of both the chapters and the state council. Historically, Councils complain that they cannot help chapters if the chapters do not ask for their assistance and the chapters complain that state council doesn't do very effective outreach to the chapters. If this could be fixed or even improved somewhat, there shouldn't be any need to reinvent the wheel through new "statewide chapters". The wheel already exists and can roll along just fine. But it needs to be acknowledged and used. That's why its there..
 
I agree we need to make a strong message to the PFBC "to stop stocking hatchery-raised trout over streams that already support wild trout populations."

 This seems like a tall order for the PFBC to even consider. We couldn't stop the Freeman Run reversal, and that was a very strong message on one stream.

I think the message needs to be:
A. Stop stocking hatchery-raised trout over streams that already support wild trout populations.
B. Let's start with these types of XYZ type of or number of streams.

A blanket reversal is a noble message, but the idea will die on the hill with an all-or-nothing approach. Sections like Penns Creek with the Union County Sportsman Club are not going to go down without a very big fight to keep stocking on a section like that. They are not the only ones to take issue with a monumental change.

I'm not sure what the part B. compromise should be, but our ideas and conversation about realistic incremental change is needed. Collective support and agreement from other organizations is critical. Maybe we could even get support from other state agencies since the PFBC stocks hatchery trout on their land.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing

USGS Stream Gauges

USGS Pennsylvania Stream Gauges

Share this page

Back
Top