PFBC Meets Tomorrow Regarding Stocking Over Class A Populations

Bamboozle said:
I just have a feeling that the actual or anticipated size of most wild fish is the turn off to the folks that fish a lot of stocked trout streams.
Click to expand...
I'd have to agree with this thinking. To be honest, I'll take smaller, beautifully colored wild trout, over much larger ugly stocked trout, every time.
 
So my issue is not that they stock.

I enjoy catching trout. It is fun.

My issue is with WHERE they stock and how much money they lose on the stocking program in general.

Its not responsible, ecologically, and littered with corruption and lighting taxpayer monies on fire.
 
Maybe, maybe not, but I was thinking of this forum when I got a Facebook scroll post today from PFBC.

It's PFBC with a video of working to stock American shad into the Susquehanna drainage by stocking 200,000 fry into the Juniata River.

Because of the species-killing effect of the dams on the Susquehanna River, some efforts were made years ago to create bypasses for shad to circumvent the main discharges of the dams, and restocking efforts were made, and I really have not kept up at all with shad, or most population control activities across the spectrum, to tell the truth.

No guess why it is an activity being recharged and promoted.

Lots of questions now.
The first being, "Am I just too far removed from what has been going on and am wondering around in circles and grabbing at an imaginary tippet and fly?"

Could it be a strong advertisement and fishing-promotion effort?
An effort to grow something within the average population's mindset?
Offer the public a return-to-reality mindset tour?
Use images and brief, big smiling expressions coming from doing it? Doing it. FISHING!!!
Do the Fishing!!!

And achieve that by using highly emotionally positive imagery and brief statements of joy and inferences of happiness that stimulate the general population to become aroused by promoting the stocking of fish??

It could also be interpreted as a way to rebuild public awareness of and about the Commission.

Perhaps it will help the PFBC portray itself as an active, dynamically charged, dedicated supporter of Fish ...
Well. And boats. Now.

(Don't know the financial balances.)

Who can't be in support of working to gain attention of some in the general population who are seeking an alternative to the virtual?

Maybe Freeman's is a justifiable sacrifice.
 
vern said:
Maybe, maybe not, but I was thinking of this forum when I got a Facebook scroll post today from PFBC.

It's PFBC with a video of working to stock American shad into the Susquehanna drainage by stocking 200,000 fry into the Juniata River.

Because of the species-killing effect of the dams on the Susquehanna River, some efforts were made years ago to create bypasses for shad to circumvent the main discharges of the dams, and restocking efforts were made, and I really have not kept up at all with shad, or most population control activities across the spectrum, to tell the truth.

No guess why it is an activity being recharged and promoted.

Lots of questions now.
The first being, "Am I just too far removed from what has been going on and am wondering around in circles and grabbing at an imaginary tippet and fly?"

Could it be a strong advertisement and fishing-promotion effort?
An effort to grow something within the average population's mindset?
Offer the public a return-to-reality mindset tour?
Use images and brief, big smiling expressions coming from doing it? Doing it. FISHING!!!
Do the Fishing!!!

And achieve that by using highly emotionally positive imagery and brief statements of joy and inferences of happiness that stimulate the general population to become aroused by promoting the stocking of fish??

It could also be interpreted as a way to rebuild public awareness of and about the Commission.

Perhaps it will help the PFBC portray itself as an active, dynamically charged, dedicated supporter of Fish ...
Well. And boats. Now.

(Don't know the financial balances.)

Who can't be in support of working to gain attention of some in the general population who are seeking an alternative to the virtual?

Maybe Freeman's is a justifiable sacrifice.
Click to expand...
www.facebook.com

9.7K views · 90 reactions | "Come on guys. The open water awaits!" Watch how PFBC staff get 200,000 tiny American shad fry into 5-gallon buckets for the start of a long and (hopefully successful) journey from the fresh water of the Juniata River to

"Come on guys. The open water awaits!" Watch how PFBC staff get 200,000 tiny American shad fry into 5-gallon buckets for the start of a long and (hopefully successful) journey from the fresh water...
www.facebook.com www.facebook.com
 
vern said:
Maybe, maybe not, but I was thinking of this forum when I got a Facebook scroll post today from PFBC.

It's PFBC with a video of working to stock American shad into the Susquehanna drainage by stocking 200,000 fry into the Juniata River.

Because of the species-killing effect of the dams on the Susquehanna River, some efforts were made years ago to create bypasses for shad to circumvent the main discharges of the dams, and restocking efforts were made, and I really have not kept up at all with shad, or most population control activities across the spectrum, to tell the truth.

No guess why it is an activity being recharged and promoted.

Lots of questions now.
The first being, "Am I just too far removed from what has been going on and am wondering around in circles and grabbing at an imaginary tippet and fly?"

Could it be a strong advertisement and fishing-promotion effort?
An effort to grow something within the average population's mindset?
Offer the public a return-to-reality mindset tour?
Use images and brief, big smiling expressions coming from doing it? Doing it. FISHING!!!
Do the Fishing!!!

And achieve that by using highly emotionally positive imagery and brief statements of joy and inferences of happiness that stimulate the general population to become aroused by promoting the stocking of fish??

It could also be interpreted as a way to rebuild public awareness of and about the Commission.

Perhaps it will help the PFBC portray itself as an active, dynamically charged, dedicated supporter of Fish ...
Well. And boats. Now.

(Don't know the financial balances.)

Who can't be in support of working to gain attention of some in the general population who are seeking an alternative to the virtual?

Maybe Freeman's is a justifiable sacrifice.
Click to expand...
The Shad program has been a complete and utter failure.
 
vern said:
Because of the species-killing effect of the dams on the Susquehanna River, some efforts were made years ago to create bypasses for shad to circumvent the main discharges of the dams, and restocking efforts were made, and I really have not kept up at all with shad, or most population control activities across the spectrum, to tell the truth.
Click to expand...
Similar efforts were made on the Schuylkill River with the fish ladder at Flat Rock Dam. I would think shad were one of the main reasons for the project, but as you can see it's not traversable at all. Shad don't stand a chance of getting upriver.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_5892.JPEG
    IMG_5892.JPEG
    251.8 KB · Views: 16
For what it's worth, I just left Freeman Run where the PFBC is surveying section 3 and 4 today. Obviously, I don't yet know the results of their data collection, but they collected lots of very nice wild Browns on section 4. I didn't stay for the section 3 survey, but presume that they'll do the same there. For the life of me, I'm just not sure why they can't call Freeman Run a success and leave well enough alone. I'm not terribly concerned about Freeman Run because it doesn't receive a ton of pressure and I don't fish it much personally, but what I fear is the slippery slope. God forbid that they go through with their plans and they're able to suggest that stocking over Class A streams isn't detrimental. You would think that the PFBC would be happy to give up stocked trout waters given the cost, so why are they looking for more? And admittedly, I think that's primarily a rhetorical question because I presume I know who/what is behind it.
 
GANGGREEN said:
For what it's worth, I just left Freeman Run where the PFBC is surveying section 3 and 4 today. Obviously, I don't yet know the results of their data collection, but they collected lots of very nice wild Browns on section 4. I didn't stay for the section 3 survey, but presume that they'll do the same there. For the life of me, I'm just not sure why they can't call Freeman Run a success and leave well enough alone. I'm not terribly concerned about Freeman Run because it doesn't receive a ton of pressure and I don't fish it much personally, but what I fear is the slippery slope. God forbid that they go through with their plans and they're able to suggest that stocking over Class A streams isn't detrimental. You would think that the PFBC would be happy to give up stocked trout waters given the cost, so why are they looking for more? And admittedly, I think that's primarily a rhetorical question because I presume I know who/what is behind it.
Click to expand...
Glad some people aren't afraid to speak of ulterior motives when it's obvious
 
GANGGREEN said:
You would think that the PFBC would be happy to give up stocked trout waters given the cost, so why are they looking for more?
Click to expand...
When you say "the PFBC" who are you referring to?

I doubt that any PFBC staff (biologists/managers) want to stock Class A sections of Freeman Run.
 
GANGGREEN said:
For what it's worth, I just left Freeman Run where the PFBC is surveying section 3 and 4 today. Obviously, I don't yet know the results of their data collection, but they collected lots of very nice wild Browns on section 4. I didn't stay for the section 3 survey, but presume that they'll do the same there. For the life of me, I'm just not sure why they can't call Freeman Run a success and leave well enough alone. I'm not terribly concerned about Freeman Run because it doesn't receive a ton of pressure and I don't fish it much personally, but what I fear is the slippery slope. God forbid that they go through with their plans and they're able to suggest that stocking over Class A streams isn't detrimental. You would think that the PFBC would be happy to give up stocked trout waters given the cost, so why are they looking for more? And admittedly, I think that's primarily a rhetorical question because I presume I know who/what is behind it.
Click to expand...
Does anyone know where the Section 3 and 4 limits are?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top