Pennsylvania Wild Trout Coalition - Article - Stocking Reform

[RLeep2]

I think that one thing that could be helpful is to actually spell out what sort of wild trout population should no longer be stocked over. I can't recall ever hearing an answer to this question. Does this new coalition define this as any stream that supports any wild trout? Or any stream that supports any wild brook trout? Or is it any stream that supports a "viable" wild trout population? And what is the definition of viability? Is it a quantifiable bar like two, five, twenty kg/ha etc. averaged across multiple surveys?

I tend to think that the definitional fuzziness of what actually qualifies as a wild trout population where all stocking should cease needs to be clarified. If the goal is to enlist wide public support for this effort; people need to be told as exactly as possible what it is they are being ask to support or oppose..

 

[nd1001]

I personally like the financial angle to the argument. That can get average taxpayers invested in the issue, not just anglers.

If there is public outcry to reduce spend and scale back the PFBC hatchery efforts, that forces internal decisions on where to allocate a smaller number of fish. Which streams are reliant on stocking to maintain a substantial recreational fishery? On what streams would discontinuation of stocking significantly jeopardize license sales? (Hint: not Freeman Run).

 

[riverwhy]

To what extent will the taxpayer support redirecting stocking funds to stream access and true conservation.

I personally like the financial angle to the argument. That can get average taxpayers invested in the issue, not just anglers.

If there is public outcry to reduce spend and scale back the PFBC hatchery efforts, that forces internal decisions on where to allocate a smaller number of fish. Which streams are reliant on stocking to maintain a substantial recreational fishery? On what streams would discontinuation of stocking significantly jeopardize license sales? (Hint: not Freeman Run).

 

[FisherOfMen]

I personally like the financial angle to the argument. That can get average taxpayers invested in the issue, not just anglers.

If there is public outcry to reduce spend and scale back the PFBC hatchery efforts, that forces internal decisions on where to allocate a smaller number of fish. Which streams are reliant on stocking to maintain a substantial recreational fishery? On what streams would discontinuation of stocking significantly jeopardize license sales? (Hint: not Freeman Run).

 

[FisherOfMen]

Lets not forget there is a merger coming too.
Im sure one agency isnt going to want the other sucking it dry to support a program that isnt sustainable.

 

[nd1001]

To what extent will the taxpayer support redirecting stocking funds to stream access and true conservation.

Fair point. I’d like to see that happen but it may not. In some cases though, the addition of hatchery trout is a net negative to a stream. Just ceasing the stocking would be a good thing on its own - investing in access/stream improvement instead would be the cherry on top.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

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.

I agree, more smaller victories. Another hill not to die on is Bald Eagle Creek below Spring Creek

 

[joebamboo]

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.

Who gets to determine what is or is not a stream that "supports" wild trout and how many wild trout need to be in a "supporting stream" to make that determination?