Time to rattle the sabers!

FishTales1

FishTales1

Member
Joined
Apr 26, 2025
Messages
19
City
Huntingdon
I responded to Rep. Anita Kulik with the following comments in response to her post about PFBC stockings.

“Hi Representative @RepAnitaKulik. I noticed that the public can’t comment on your posts and wondered why? I was hoping to respond to your post about trout stocking since it appears that the PFBC continues to only recognize hatchery trout in their marketing promotions leading up to trout season. It’s unfortunate that 25% of the agency’s budget goes to the temporary stocked trout program whereas very little funding goes to the wild trout program which is self-sustaining. The PFBC’s continued interest in stocking hatchery trout over wild trout is disconcerting since the science definitively shows that this will harm our wild and native trout resources.
The Commonwealth has more unpolluted water now than when I was a kid so there are many miles of streams that could be stocked now instead of stocking over wild trout. Adding new streams to the stocking list would give anglers more waters to fish and also protect the wild trout. It’s a win-win for both stocked trout anglers and wild trout anglers. The Commission is so entrenched in the hatchery trout philosophy, they can’t seem to see the proverbial forest for the trees!

As Chair of the HGFC, I ask that you share these comments with your colleagues on the Committee and ask the Commission to justify these decisions at their upcoming annual report hearing.

Thank your attention to this matter.

Yours in conservation,

<(John{(°> Arway”

Both PFBC and legislature are apparently trying to keep this discussion behind the proverbial political firewall. Time to ramp it up if wild trout anglers want to make a difference. Need to make this go viral.
 

Attachments

  • IMG_1937.png
    IMG_1937.png
    585.2 KB · Views: 88
Agree 99.9%

FishTales1 said:
I was hoping to respond to your post about trout stocking since it appears that the PFBC continues to only recognize hatchery trout in their marketing promotions leading up to trout season.
Click to expand...

Serious question, do we really want the PFBC to promote fishing for wild trout leading up to trout season?

I'm primarily a trout fisherman but "trout season" doesn't really matter to me. It would matter even less if we stopped stocking over wild fish. I agree with cessation of stocking over wild but feel there could be some unexpected consequences that requires careful implementation.

Unless I'm missing something, I'm fine with promotion of the put and take fishery to those who want to fill their limits. Moving all stocking to streams without wild trout populations is a great idea. I think it needs to be done wisely though so that the catch and kill crew doesn't continue to go to the wild trout water and learn how to harvest them in the absence of the more catchable stockies.

Channeling harvest away from wild trout water through conservative slot limits is likely a good solution. It would require enforcement, though. It is also going to upset a lot of anglers.

Stream access is another concern. I'm confident that there are many miles of trout stream open to the public because of stocking. People want their water stocked. They need to allow access to have that. They are within their rights to post their property but this will push more anglers to already heavily pressured wild populations with good public access.

I'm very confident that we want the same outcome. Wild trout should not be stocked over. I know the PFBC continues to not acknowledge the damage of stocking over wild fish and that that is the major problem here. I just worry about unintended consequences if plenty of consideration isn't given to how it is done.
 
If the state eliminated all stocking like Montana, how much revenue would it lose vs. the cost of the stocking program?
 
Montana stocks lakes...

Do any of those lakes have native species and they also stock non-native brook trout in some of those lakes...

What's up with that???
 
ROVERT said:
Agree 99.9%



Serious question, do we really want the PFBC to promote fishing for wild trout leading up to trout season?

I'm primarily a trout fisherman but "trout season" doesn't really matter to me. It would matter even less if we stopped stocking over wild fish. I agree with cessation of stocking over wild but feel there could be some unexpected consequences that requires careful implementation.

Unless I'm missing something, I'm fine with promotion of the put and take fishery to those who want to fill their limits. Moving all stocking to streams without wild trout populations is a great idea. I think it needs to be done wisely though so that the catch and kill crew doesn't continue to go to the wild trout water and learn how to harvest them in the absence of the more catchable stockies.

Channeling harvest away from wild trout water through conservative slot limits is likely a good solution. It would require enforcement, though. It is also going to upset a lot of anglers.

Stream access is another concern. I'm confident that there are many miles of trout stream open to the public because of stocking. People want their water stocked. They need to allow access to have that. They are within their rights to post their property but this will push more anglers to already heavily pressured wild populations with good public access.

I'm very confident that we want the same outcome. Wild trout should not be stocked over. I know the PFBC continues to not acknowledge the damage of stocking over wild fish and that that is the major problem here. I just worry about unintended consequences if plenty of consideration isn't given to how it is done.
Click to expand...
I can’t imagine there’s anyone on social media that hasn’t been algorithm smacked upside the head with Ole Dominion Carpetbagging Spotbum’s videos on YouTube where he euronymphs straight through a fantastic dry fly hatch. In other words, anyone who might potentially care about wild fish is unlikely to learn about them from the PFBC to the detriment of our special regs waters.

Wild fish also require more skill to catch, so the opening day trout rodeo crowd are unlikely to be lining up at Bard Parker to reach cast size 26 BWO emergers downstream to sippers 65 feet away anytime soon
 
salmo said:
If the state eliminated all stocking like Montana, how much revenue would it lose vs. the cost of the stocking program?
Click to expand...
Most all of the waters in Montana can sustain large numbers of wild trout... that’s certainly not the case in PA. We also have 13x the population of potential fishermen which would lead to us wiping out what native populations we do have if we eliminated stocking.
 
salmo said:
If the state eliminated all stocking like Montana, how much revenue would it lose vs. the cost of the stocking program?
Click to expand...
Stocking in PA doesn't need to end. This shouldn't be a consideration here. Many of our waterways don't support wild trout, especially where I live west of the Allegheny front.

We need to focus on not stocking where wild trout can sustain a healthy population. Period.
 
Nocktavius said:
Wild fish also require more skill to catch
Click to expand...
Not based on angler use and harvest studies of wild trout fisheries and stocked trout fisheries. The catch rate is substantially higher for wild trout anglers.
 
  • Like
Reactions: CRB
Being wild or stocked and being hard to catch are not mutually exclusive. I took Nocktavius' comment as refering to freshly stocked trout on opening day, which I agree are easy to catch. All fish can become difficult if they live in an enviroment with lots of food and / or high angling pressure.
 
Nocktavius said:
I can’t imagine there’s anyone on social media that hasn’t been algorithm smacked upside the head with Ole Dominion Carpetbagging Spotbum’s videos on YouTube where he euronymphs straight through a fantastic dry fly hatch. In other words, anyone who might potentially care about wild fish is unlikely to learn about them from the PFBC to the detriment of our special regs waters.
Click to expand...
What are you taking about?

Wild fish also require more skill to catch, so the opening day trout rodeo crowd are unlikely to be lining up at Bard Parker to reach cast size 26 BWO emergers downstream to sippers 65 feet away anytime soon

??
Wild fish are just as easy to catch as hold over stockers and as the season progresses sometimes easier
 
Last edited:
ROVERT said:
Agree 99.9%



Serious question, do we really want the PFBC to promote fishing for wild trout leading up to trout season?

I'm primarily a trout fisherman but "trout season" doesn't really matter to me. It would matter even less if we stopped stocking over wild fish. I agree with cessation of stocking over wild but feel there could be some unexpected consequences that requires careful implementation.

Unless I'm missing something, I'm fine with promotion of the put and take fishery to those who want to fill their limits. Moving all stocking to streams without wild trout populations is a great idea. I think it needs to be done wisely though so that the catch and kill crew doesn't continue to go to the wild trout water and learn how to harvest them in the absence of the more catchable stockies.

Channeling harvest away from wild trout water through conservative slot limits is likely a good solution. It would require enforcement, though. It is also going to upset a lot of anglers.

Stream access is another concern. I'm confident that there are many miles of trout stream open to the public because of stocking. People want their water stocked. They need to allow access to have that. They are within their rights to post their property but this will push more anglers to already heavily pressured wild populations with good public access.

I'm very confident that we want the same outcome. Wild trout should not be stocked over. I know the PFBC continues to not acknowledge the damage of stocking over wild fish and that that is the major problem here. I just worry about unintended consequences if plenty of consideration isn't given to how it is done.
Click to expand...
Yep, be careful what you wish for! Less stockings anywhere will have a negative affect on wild trout fishing. I would think more anglers would seek them out because of fewer stockie opportunities.
 
CRB said:
What are you taking about?

Wild fish are just as easy to catch as hold over stockers and as the season progresses sometimes easier
Click to expand...
Nah, not really buying that. If you’re finding stockers to be more challenging than equivalent size and species wild trout late in season it’s most likely because the water is too warm and they’re in survival mode, the river has been fished out and the density reduced or your approach is just more tailored to fishing for real fish that respond to the correct foodforms at the correct times (which is not a bad thing at all). You might beat up on some dinks or brookies on a good day up in the mountains, but given a decent size limestoner, freestoner or tailwater the challenge of respectably sized wild fish is going to win out.

Anyway, even if it were true, there’s no inherent benefit to becoming an expert stockie/holdover angler because it depends on the government to put your fish in to catch for you. It’s basically like being on flyfishing welfare 🤣
 
Mike said:
Not based on angler use and harvest studies of wild trout fisheries and stocked trout fisheries. The catch rate is substantially higher for wild trout anglers.
Click to expand...
Saying the catch rate is higher on wild trout streams is not the same as saying they are easier to catch. I would guess that there are numerous people fishing stocked streams that have little idea what they are doing. Wouldn't that bring down the catch rate? Skilled anglers fishing a wild stream I am sure catch more fish but that does not mean the trout are easier to catch. Maybe you can clarify the study?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

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

Share this page

Back
Top