Pennsylvania Wild Trout Coalition - Article - Stocking Reform

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..
 
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).
 
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).
 
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).
ta-da-svg-cut-file--hos01--pghs1402044b.jpg
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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?
 
Starting point should be no stocking of Brook Trout streams. Second should be no stocking of streams downstream of Brookie streams for environmental reasons. Third should be no stocking of class A streams for economic/common sense reasons.
 
What criterion would you find acceptable?
Depends on what the current critierion is.
Starting point should be no stocking of Brook Trout streams. Second should be no stocking of streams downstream of Brookie streams for environmental reasons. Third should be no stocking of class A streams for economic/common sense reasons.
In other words, you would not be opposed to no stocking at all?
 
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?
The PFBC has the authority to decide where to stock hatchery trout or not.

We can advocate for what we think is best. Different people will have different opinions when it comes down to details, and that is fine.

Each individual can state their preferences when contacting the PFBC, legislators, public land agencies etc.
 
What criteria is used in the survey? One or two natives, four, six or more?
The PFBC has that information on their website.

They have criteria for inclusion on the wild trout reproduction list, for Class A, B, C, D streams, etc.
 

§ 57.11. Listing of wild trout streams.​

(a) Maintenance of list. It is the policy of the Commission to accurately identify and classify streams supporting naturally reproducing populations of trout as wild trout streams. The Fisheries Management Division will maintain the list of wild trout streams. The Executive Director, with the approval of the Commission, will from time-to-time publish the list of wild trout streams in the Pennsylvania Bulletin and on the World Wide Web. Persons with comments, objections or suggestions about the classification of streams listed may submit them to the Commission for review.

(b) Criteria for classifying wild trout streams. The classification of a stream as a wild trout stream means that the trout found there have resulted from natural reproduction and that the habitat supports wild trout. Identification of streams for the presence of wild trout typically involves:

(1) Location and habitat. Classifications of wild trout streams will involve examination of one or more sites, which may vary in size, within the stream. The exercise of judgment by the investigator is essential in describing the extent of the stream continuum to which the examination applies. The investigator should find that the habitat is such as would support natural reproduction of trout.

(2) Exclusion of stocked trout. In classifying a wild trout stream, the investigator should find trout resulting from natural reproduction in the stream section or upstream and downstream areas and their tributaries. In making this finding, the investigator will specifically exclude trout stocked as fingerlings or adults and trout that escape from a hatchery. The exercise of judgment is required in examining the trout for physical appearance such as coloration, fin condition and body configuration as indicators of the source of the trout. Direct evidence of natural reproduction of trout is a factor in making this classification, but it is not required if the other elements are present.

(3) Biological criteria. In identifying a wild trout stream, the investigator should find one or more of the following:

(i) Young of the year trout less than 150 mm occur at some time in the stream section.

(ii) Two or more ages of wild trout occur at some time within the stream section.

(4) Tributary linkages. Tributaries to wild trout streams are classified as wild trout streams for their function as habitat for segments of wild trout populations, including nurseries and refuges, and in sustaining water quality necessary for wild trout.

(c) Existing list. The streams identified as wild trout streams on or before January 1, 2002, and listed as such by the Fisheries Management Division will continue to be considered as wild streams by the Commission.

(d) Requests for evaluation or re-evaluation of streams. The Commission staff will evaluate or re-evaluate the classification of streams as wild trout streams at the request of the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) in connection with permitting decisions. Requests for evaluation or re-evaluation from persons or parties other than DEP will be considered for review consistent with available staff and resources and prioritized based on the status of DEP permitting decisions related to the sites. Requests that the Commission staff evaluate or re-evaluate stream sections for inclusion on or removal from the list of streams supporting naturally reproducing populations of trout may be addressed to the Bureau of Fisheries, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, 595 East Rolling Ridge Drive, Bellefonte, Pennsylvania 16823. In evaluating requests to remove streams from the list of wild trout streams, the Commission will take into account circumstances where human intervention or manmade changes have diminished the capacity of a stream to meet the criteria set forth in this section. Streams will not be removed from the list of wild trout streams in circumstances where the investigator finds evidence that their characteristics and trout populations have been changed solely or principally as a result human intervention.

(e) Appeals. A person aggrieved by the classification of a stream section as a wild trout stream section may appeal the agency action by filing a notice of appeal with the Executive Director, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Post Office Box 67000, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 17106-7000 within 15 days after publication of the notice that the stream section had been so classified in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. Nothing in this subsection will be construed to enlarge or diminish the appeal rights of persons or parties in connection with permitting decisions and other actions of DEP.
 
Well explained. Let's just hope the "investigators" base thier finding on biological facts and not solely on thier "judgement".
 
Back
Top