Poll - Do You Support The PFBC Stocking Over Class A Streams?

[DaveKile]

In short: The proposal creates a catch-and-release trout fishery on Freeman Run, Section 04, with a possible exception to stock Rainbow Trout, making it a test case for managing a Class A stream under special regulations.

Summary from PFBC:
For clarification this is the details from the July 28th Agenda
The Board voted to approve the publication of a notice of proposed rulemaking pertaining to fishing regulations of Freeman Run, Section 04, Potter County. Under this proposal, Section 04 would be managed under a Miscellaneous Special Regulation that would manage Brown Trout and Brook Trout with catch-and-release regulations and maintain Commonwealth Inland Waters regulations for all other species with all tackle types permitted. Should this Miscellaneous Special Regulation be adopted on final rulemaking, staff will recommend at a future meeting that the Board consider an exemption to allow the stocking of Rainbow Trout. Under the changes outlined in this proposal, Freeman Run, Section 04, provides a unique opportunity for PFBC staff to evaluate a stream section that was stocked previously, designated as a Class A wild trout stream section and removed from the stocking program, and then added back to the program and managed with special regulations. If adopted on final rulemaking at a future meeting, this amendment will go into effect on January 1, 2026.

_____________________________________________

Amendment to 58 Pa. Code § 65.24 (Miscellaneous special regulations): Add Freeman Run, Section 04, Potter County.

Commentary:
Freeman Run, a tributary to the First Fork Sinnemahoning Creek in Potter County,
Pennsylvania, is 12.23 miles in length and managed in four stream sections. The
waterway is characteristic of a small, high gradient, infertile, freestone stream. Section
01 extends 2.83 miles from the headwaters to Postalweight Hollow, is managed for wild
trout with no stocking, and was designated as a Class A wild trout stream in February
2019. Section 02 extends 2.00 miles from Postalweight Hollow to Bark Shanty Hollow, is
managed for wild trout with no stocking, and was designated as a Class A wild trout
stream in January 1983.

Section 03 extends 4.50 miles from Bark Shanty Hollow to West Branch Freeman Run,
and Section 04 extends 2.90 miles from West Branch Freeman Run to the mouth. Prior
to 2021, sections 03 and 04 were included in the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission’s (Commission) Stocked Trout Water (STW) program. Trout stocking was
discontinued in 2021 following designation as Class A wild trout stream sections after
wild Brown Trout biomass was estimated to be 56 kg/ha and 67 kg/ha, respectively,
during 2018 surveys. To qualify for Class A wild trout stream designation based on wild
Brown Trout, biomass must be greater than or equal to 40 kg/ha. Subsequent surveys
conducted in 2022, two years following stocking cessation, estimated the wild Brown
Trout biomass to be 94 kg/ha in Section 03 and 103 kg/ha in Section 04.

The impacts of stocking on wild trout populations are well-documented in the literature
and through Commission surveys of Pennsylvania’s wild trout streams. Commission
monitoring and evaluation of wild trout populations in Pennsylvania demonstrates that
stocking depresses wild trout populations for a variety of reasons, including competition
for habitat and food, interference competition, increased harvest, increased hooking
and handling, among other factors. However, we do not have strong Pennsylvania-
specific data regarding the use of special regulations to mitigate the negative impacts of
stocking over Class A wild trout populations. As such, the Commission applied a
Miscellaneous Special Regulation (58 Pa. Code § 65.24) in 2024 to 12 of 13 Class A
stream sections stocked by the Commission that allows for the harvest of stocked
Rainbow Trout and Brook Trout but catch-and-release of the wild Brown Trout. Staff are
currently monitoring and evaluating the effect of this regulation on the wild Brown
Trout populations over a 5-to-7-year period at which time staff will either recommend
continuing the management strategy applied to these fisheries or recommend an
alternate approach to optimize these fisheries. The results of this evaluation will
provide valuable management insight regarding the use of these regulations on large, productive streams with high angler use that are of size and character sufficient to
support a fishery comprised of both Class A wild trout and stocked trout components.
At the January and April 2025 Fisheries and Hatcheries Committee meetings, staff were
tasked with developing an approach to evaluate a similar management strategy on small
to moderate-sized, infertile, freestone streams, and Freeman Run, Section 04, was
selected for this purpose. Freeman Run, Section 04, provides a unique opportunity to
evaluate a stream section that was stocked previously, designated as a Class A wild trout
stream section and removed from the stocking program, and then added back to the
program and managed with special regulations.

To accomplish this, Freeman Run, Section 04, must be added back to the STW program
beginning in 2026, and stocked only with Rainbow Trout at the same rate and frequency
consistent with its resource classification from when it was last stocked in 2020. This
would include re-instating Rainbow Trout-only cooperative nursery stockings. It is
recommended that Section 04 then be managed under a similar Miscellaneous Special
Regulation applied to the 12 Class A wild trout streams that are stocked by the
Commission: catch-and-release for all trout species except Rainbow Trout. Sections 01,
02, and 03 from the headwaters downstream to the confluence of Freeman Run and the
West Branch Freeman Run would continue to be managed for wild trout with no
stocking under Commonwealth Inland Waters regulations (58 Pa. Code § 61.1). Staff
would monitor the stream over a five-year period from 2026 through 2030 while
evaluating the biological and social data against interim and final management triggers
that would inform staff recommendations to the Board of Commissioners (Board)
regarding the fate of continued stocking in Section 04 and application of special
regulations. If wild trout abundance declines significantly, or if angler use does not
justify the continued stocking during the five-year evaluation, the study could be
terminated, stocking discontinued, and regulations revised. If data available during the
interim evaluation is not sufficient to adequately assess trends, then the study would
continue for the full five-year period and be evaluated against final biological and social
management triggers, after which a recommendation would be made to the Board as to
whether Section 04 should remain in the STW program and regulations revised.
To facilitate the use of special regulations to mitigate the negative impacts of stocking
trout on the wild trout populations in Freeman Run, Section 04, staff propose
implementing a Miscellaneous Special Regulation that would manage Brown Trout and
Brook Trout with catch-and-release regulations and maintain Commonwealth Inland
Waters regulations for all other species with all tackle types permitted. Should this
Miscellaneous Special Regulation be adopted on final rulemaking, staff will recommend
at a future meeting that the Board approve an exemption to stock trout as Freeman
Run, Section 04, does not meet any of the criteria that provide direction and guide
decisions regarding stocking trout in Class A wild trout streams published in the
Operational Guidelines for the Management of Trout Fisheries in Pennsylvania Waters.
Staff propose that 58 Pa. Code § 65.24 be amended as follows:
§ 65.24. Miscellaneous special regulations.

The following waters are subject to the following miscellaneous special regulations:

 

[vern]

Uh oh!

I posted this without seeing yours LOL!

But here it is anyway:



NO stocking in wild and/or wild trout streams.

To the yes or no question.


For the specific question of the poll, NO.
Absolute NO if it is a native brook trout stream, or one with wild brown trout sustaining.
And big time NO if the trout are the niche's dominant aquatic predators.

Feel the real need is to have a better system of watershed health analysis and more easily understood aquatic community designations.


Stocking specifically for short-term human recreation may be considered if the stream is a large flow, has diverse and multiple niches, and the trout are NOT the dominant community member and predator.

Then if the population being dumped is for short-term duration expectancy, and doesn't present a potential disease introduction, then some of these waters. But only stocked if it can be authentically documented that a negative impact is definitely unlikely.

Long way around-about saying that if the stream is too small and can barely sustain native brook trout then that should receive guaranteed protection against ALL threats.


(And they are not protected well.

As it is, for example, the advertised community developments, housing developments, etc. that have been and continue to be built upon and over small streams and watersheds are one of the greatest concerns.

Those residential property flows are engineered into troughs with fenced banks. Or engineered to provide a supine appearance. It gives the appearance of concern. And it does provide some niche for different aquatic related life.
As it is, some crayfish, frogs, turtles, and certain minnows are able to continue to exist in these human occupied parcels. They provide nice views, especially when the live white stork predator birds provide nice views while walking a dog on a community park trail that goes over a small metal pipe or concrete bridge with willow trees. But not native brookies. Nor more than a few browns, maybe.)



While this is about the PFBC stocking, the permissions for private stockings seem to be sought by commercial entities, more so than sportsmen's groups. IDK

Stock a creek near a sporting goods shop and sell a lot of fake salmon eggs and other artificial baits and minnows and hooks and lines, licenses, some rods, ... and take pictures and post them on a cork board near the entrance, and stories to be told that maintains public knowledge of that tackle shop.

Good for business.

Especially when the region is considered an annual vacation destination. The fishing crowd switches out every week, but comes back regularly, like the audience in a modern multi-theatre complex.
Or restaurants.

Some private lakes get stocked for competitions.

And as everyone knows, the PFBC stocks a whole bunch of raceway rainbows into lakes and ponds.
Those are warm water lakes and ponds. Bodies of water that is understood by the PFBC and everyone else to become deadly by the end of June.

Stocking any of the PFBC raceways varieties is not good for the host stream or fish.
But it can make for some fun social interactions along a stream bank, in the grocery store, online, et.

Many years ago, I tagged along a little with PFC (then) employee Ron Tibbet (sp?) who was traveling around the state helping different groups with stream improvement projects. Some good work was done. Maybe back to hiring people to help do statewide one-with-one stream improvement projects.

The incentives of the Commission changed when boating came to need enforcement for
Boating Under the Influence.
State police and all other were dealing with local Driving Under the Influence.
"Driving" Boats with BUI seemed something the Fish Commission could do. Especially with hanging around boat docks, ramps and cruising among some of the jet ski etc. crowd.

(Stocking alone can be interesting. Two years ago, at Marquette Lake, I couldn't believe the very large flock of cormorants that were diving and coming up sucking down stocked trout with a bunch of people on the banks casting out into the lake among all the cormorants. They just wanted to fish and catch some stockies. Who knew cormorants were going to be competing? They must have eaten a bunch!)

 

[troutbert]

Uh oh!

I posted this without seeing yours LOL!

But here it is anyway:

No stocking in wild and/or wild trout streams.
As a yes or no.
For now.

For the specific question of the poll, NO.
Absolute NO if it is a native brook trout stream, or one with wild brown trout sustaining.
And big time NO if the trout are the niche's dominant aquatic predators.

Feel the real need is to have a better system of watershed health analysis and more easily understood aquatic community designations.


Stocking specifically for short-term human recreation may be considered if the stream is a large flow, has diverse and multiple niches, and the trout are NOT the dominant community member and predator.

Then if the population being dumped is for short-term duration expectancy, and doesn't present a potential disease introduction, then some of these waters. But only stocked if it can be authentically documented that a negative impact is definitely unlikely.

Long way around-about saying that if the stream is too small and can barely sustain native brook trout then that should receive guaranteed protection against ALL threats.

(And they are not protected well.

As it is, for example, the advertised community developments, housing developments, etc. that have been and continue to be built upon and over small streams and watersheds are one of the greatest concerns.

Those residential property flows are engineered into troughs with fenced banks. Or engineered to provide a supine appearance. It gives the appearance of concern. And it does provide some niche for different aquatic related life.
As it is, some crayfish, frogs, turtles, and certain minnows are able to continue to exist in these human occupied parcels. They provide nice views, especially when the live white stork predator birds provide nice views while walking a dog on a community park trail that goes over a small metal pipe or concrete bridge with willow trees. But not native brookies. Nor more than a few browns, maybe.)

While this is about the PFBC stocking, the permissions for private stockings seem to be sought by commercial entities, more so than sportsmen's groups. IDK

Stock a creek near a sporting goods shop and sell a lot of fake salmon eggs and other artificial baits and minnows and hooks and lines, licenses, some rods, ... and take pictures and post them on a cork board near the entrance, and stories to be told that maintains public knowledge of that tackle shop.

Good for business.

Especially when the region is considered an annual vacation destination. The fishing crowd switches out every week, but comes back regularly, like the audience in a modern multi-theatre complex.
Or restaurants.

Some private lakes get stocked for competitions.

And as everyone knows, the PFBC stocks a whole bunch of raceway rainbows into lakes and ponds.
Those are warm water lakes and ponds. Bodies of water that is understood by the PFBC and everyone else to become deadly by the end of June.

Stocking any of the PFBC raceways varieties is not good for the host stream or fish.
But it can make for some fun social interactions along a stream bank, in the grocery store, online, et.

Many years ago, I tagged along a little with PFC (then) employee Ron Tibbet (sp?) who was traveling around the state helping different groups with stream improvement projects. Some good work was done. Maybe back to hiring people to help do statewide one-with-one stream improvement projects.

The incentives of the Commission changed when boating came to need enforcement for
Boating Under the Influence.
State police and all other were dealing with local Driving Under the Influence.
"Driving" Boats with BUI seemed something the Fish Commission could do. Especially with hanging around boat docks, ramps and cruising among some of the jet ski etc. crowd.

(Stocking alone can be interesting. Two years ago, at Marquette Lake, I couldn't believe the very large flock of cormorants that were diving and coming up sucking down stocked trout with a bunch of people on the banks casting out into the lake among all the cormorants. They just wanted to fish and catch some stockies. Who knew cormorants were going to be competing? They must have eaten a bunch!)

focus, Focus, FOCUS!!

 

[vern]

focus, Focus, FOCUS!!

LoL They call it the "Weave".

But for real wanted to toss this out for the plan for Freeman and that is that a lot of people can't tell the differences between the trout breeds.
So I figure there will be the posters on the trees?

 

[troutbert]

LoL They call it the "Weave".

🙂

 

[Mike]

Freeman
Run, Section 04, does not meet any of the criteria that provide direction and guide
decisions regarding stocking trout in Class A wild trout streams published in the
Operational Guidelines for the Management of Trout Fisheries in Pennsylvania Waters

As suspected.

 

[DaveKile]

I have been communicating with the PFBC about the proposed rule making regarding Freeman Run. They were very quick to communicate with me and provide some direction on the best way to give feedback on the proposal. No action for us to take right now. Once the proposed rule making hits the Bulletin on September 13, 2025, I will share with the site details and suggestions on how to share your views.

From the PFBC:
"The proposed rulemaking regarding Freeman Run has been scheduled for publication in the September 13th issue of the Pennsylvania Bulletin. The public comment period will be September 13 – October 13, 2025.

...the email address to be used for public comment is RA-pfbcregulations@pa.gov "

 

[The_Sasquatch]

How do I unvote? I swear I clicked No but I'm in the Yes column 🙃

yeah yeah yeah...likely story! More like you found out we can see you voted "yes". I've heard this one before. Hangin' chad gotcha again.

 

[Nocktavius]

Mike, normally I would agree with you and if the third option was on the pole I'd likely vote for it.
Part of the issue is that there is a low confidence such exceptions would be strictly based on reason and not on politics.
So, most would simply solve the issue by not allowing exceptions.

Let me add I do value your inputs on there topics.
Thanks.

I disagree... in fact this poll could have been further simplified to just include "no"

 

[wildtrout2]

LoL They call it the "Weave".

But for real wanted to toss this out for the plan for Freeman and that is that a lot of people can't tell the differences between the trout breeds.
So I figure there will be the posters on the trees?

I might go as far as to say the majority can't tell the difference, at least between brooks and browns. Rainbows are more obvious. I'd bet only a very small percentage of trout fishermen can name the six fins on a trout.

 

[td566]

My knee-jerk reaction would be to vote “no”, but points brought up by CRB and TimMurphy make me want to vote “yes, but only in certain situations that don’t involve trout derbies”. I currently don’t see that choice. Lol

 

[The Rodfather]

I voted no. Thanks for the poll.