Time to rattle the sabers!

Nocktavius said:
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
Click to expand...
Maybe on the waters you fish but that is not true.
A skilled fisherman is a skilled fisherman and is not dependent on manor or way of bring fish to hand.
 
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...
I'd like to see the stats broken out by stream type and trout species. Anecdotally, small brookies in infertile headwaters are very easy to catch compared to Wild browns in a Cumberland valley creek or tailwater.

Also, as stated above, angler skill is a confounding variable. If the metric is fish per angling hour (or similar), then the flood of people fishing 1-2x/year for stocked trout over opening weekend and after in-season stockings could skew the stocked trout per angling hours number down.
 
Ok fine, stocked fish require way more skill to catch than wild fish- it’s indisputable fact. I had better not catch any of your pickup trucks clogging up access on a blue ribbon wild trout fishery in April while there are still primo pellet heads to test your superior skills on the EB Brandywine, Tully, Lehigh and Big Pine!
 
Nocktavius said:
Ok fine, stocked fish require way more skill to catch than wild fish- it’s indisputable fact. I had better not catch any of your pickup trucks clogging up access on a blue ribbon wild trout fishery in April while there are still primo pellet heads to test your superior skills on the EB Brandywine, Tully, Lehigh and Big Pine!
Click to expand...
Dont forget bills
 
wildtrout2 said:
If that's aimed at me, nothing in my post suggests that at all.
Click to expand...
Not aimed at you, aimed at the ridiculous people that seem to miss the fact that tailoring your skillset toward catching fake fish is fake skill.

It’s hard to catch old mufflers at the bottom of the river on a fly rod too unless you use an electromagnet fly. That’s also about as valuable as stocked fish are in natural reproduction waterways to anyone with half a brain.

The conversation about the difficulty of wild vs stocked isn’t even the point- there are so many other more pressing issues (competition for food and prime lies, predation of YoY, genetic drift, gill lice, the stupid New Zealand mud snail thing that PFBC gaslights us into thinking is our fault every year, bycatch on kill fisheries that wouldn’t exist if they were C&R) that the argument about angling difficulty that somehow devolved into a pissing contest just makes me laugh. I guess it’s the only pissing contest we can currently enjoy since outdoors everybody’s stream is gonna freeze solid right quick.
 
Last edited:
FishTales1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
I thought it was odd also that no one could respond. But then again not really. Typical politician.
 
I believe she resigned from the House effective when her term ends, so no reason to reply to anyone about anything---now, will we get someone worse-probably
 
For the sake of universal peace let’s retire this thread. However, I never considered that stocking marginal waters reduces pressure on wild fish populations in waters that support natural reproduction. See, this site is very valuable.
 
troutbert said:
That's because there are more trout present. Good wild trout streams have substantial numbers of trout 365 days a year. Not so with stocked trout streams.
Click to expand...
Not that I'm for it but if you are stocking over wild trout...then that stocked/wild trout stream would. Caution
 
salmo said:
For the sake of universal peace let’s retire this thread. However, I never considered that stocking marginal waters reduces pressure on wild fish populations in waters that support natural reproduction. See, this site is very valuable.
Click to expand...
Actually, I had high hopes for this thread after the OP raised an important issue. Sadly, nothing of real value followed - IMO. I support the OP and have voiced my opinion on that, where it might do some good.
 
I had hopes high hopes that someone would define "marginal waters." Does it mean streams that are not on the wild trout list?

Or does it include Class D streams? How about Class C streams?

Where should the "cutoff" be when advocating not stocking over wild trout? And should the cutoff be different for brown trout and native brook trout?
 
troutbert said:
I had hopes high hopes that someone would define "marginal waters." Does it mean streams that are not on the wild trout list?

Or does it include Class D streams? How about Class C streams?

Where should the "cutoff" be when advocating not stocking over wild trout? And should the cutoff be different for brown trout and native brook trout?
Click to expand...
The biggest problem with posts like this is the lack of conversation toward an actual solution/realistic attempt at a solution, and tge desire to have a black vs white outcome.

This could be said about most things.
 
joebamboo said:
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.
Click to expand...
It may be fun to speculate, but I recall what happened when two of my favorite waters were removed from the stocking list many years ago. I think they were pulled from the list after the Big Spring hatchery closed.

You know what happened? Fishing pressure dropped like a stone. The truck chasers followed the trucks elsewhere. Fishing for wild and holdover browns was fantastic for a few years. Some really big holdovers. When they died off, wild brookies rebounded and mixed in with wild browns. Pressure increased during COVID, but has dropped again. Mostly wild browns these days. But the best thing that happened to these two streams was when the opening day crowds followed the great white fleet to more marginal streams.
 
TimB said:
It may be fun to speculate, but I recall what happened when two of my favorite waters were removed from the stocking list many years ago. I think they were pulled from the list after the Big Spring hatchery closed.

You know what happened? Fishing pressure dropped like a stone. The truck chasers followed the trucks elsewhere. Fishing for wild and holdover browns was fantastic for a few years. Some really big holdovers. When they died off, wild brookies rebounded and mixed in with wild browns. Pressure increased during COVID, but has dropped again. Mostly wild browns these days. But the best thing that happened to these two streams was when the opening day crowds followed the great white fleet to more marginal streams.
Click to expand...

I'd like to believe that would hold true in a statewide implementation but that is also speculative. I'm not sure there is enough suitable water without natural reproduction in Central and North Central PA to accommodate those who want to fish for stocked trout. This may also be true of the CV and LV. Saw

I'm thinking specifically of four stocked streams near our place in Mifflin as an example. They all have wild trout populations and at least two, probably all four, are fished heavily by the Amish. All the flowing water around there has wild trout. It's not realistic to think they will travel long distances to fish for stocked trout. The same is true of people who have deer camps that become trout camps before and during turkey season.

There are a couple of good streams in the area that are not stocked and are largely ignored by those wishing to harvest fish. Would that be the case if nothing in the area was stocked?

Let's stop stocking over wild fish. We can't afford to do it without careful consideration of the variables, though.
 
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