Why is PA still stocking trout?

[Maurice]

Who didn’t see this coming. I anticipate even TB will approve.

https://youtu.be/PDJ_Mz8ftqI

 

[moon1284]

Agree strongly with Dave w

 

[afishinado]

We can continue things the way they are right now....but times are a changin'....whether we like it or not.

The PFBC is now at a crossroads with funding. Even if they do get a license fee raise, it is likely that funding will still be tight. I think it's time for them to reassess the trout program and do what makes the most sense to optimize their limited resources.

Given the mandatory budget cuts, I for one cannot fathom why streams that have a wild population of trout right now would be stocked over, while streams completely dependent on stocking would get cut or even eliminated.

Shifting more stocked trout to streams that have no wild trout will keep them viable as fisheries. As well, shifting stocking away from streams that have a decent wild trout population would enhance them and take some pressure away from them.

In addition, since there will be less fish to stock, creating more DH areas in stocked streams would give anglers better places to fish for a longer time.

I think it's up to us to advocate for changes to make things better for all anglers.

Oh, and Maurice posted the wrong vid >

 

[afishinado]

Not to offend anyone, but those that live and fish in areas blessed with many great trout streams just out their door may very well be happy with current stocking practices.

Looking at the entire state, in the SW and SE regions, pretty much trout fishing = stocked trout fishing. Any further cuts in the number of trout stocked and/or cuts the number of stockings or streams stocked in those regions will really hurt participation/license sales. Fewer fish stocked within a reasonable driving distance and fewer number of stockings means fewer anglers bothering to buy a license.

After talking to many anglers in the shop over the years, I can tell you that anglers in the SE are not happy with the level of stocking right now, and many will bail if stocking is cut further. The fall season stocking is pretty much a thing of the past and fewer fish stocked fewer times has shrunk the regular season down to an early spring thing.

I'm not blaming the FBC for all the above, I do blame the PA politicians for keeping their thumb over the Commission by not allowing them to set license fees on their own based on current costs and needs.

More DH areas would give the stocked trout angler decent place to fish for a longer time with less restocking and shifting stocking from streams with wild fish is the only solution I can come up with to help keep anglers on the stream and buying licenses.

 

[springer1]

IMHO, the Fish Commission would significantly improve the fisheries in the more populated areas by requiring barbless hooks for sizes larger than sz.12.

People in these areas fish for more than Trout 9 months out of the year; Panfish and even Fallfish make up a significant portion of the fish especially in creeks. Reducing mortality, promoting fish survival to adulthood & spawning, and helping make catchable fish more available to the public would be a positive step.

I don't understand why the Commission and some fishermen defend the use of barbs - the most lethal hook type. It makes no sense to me.

 

[tomgamber]

THERE USED TO BE BARBLESS REGS ON CERTAIN WATERS. I THINK ITS AN ENFORCEMENT ISSUE. I KNOW ON WATERS IN IDAHO I HAVE SEEN GUYS GET NAILED FOR HAVING POSSESSION OF BARBED HOOKS ON BARBLESS WATERS IN ANOTHER BOX ON ANOTHER PART OF THEIR VEST THAT THEY NEVER PLANNED ON USING. I PREFER BARBLESS ,PERSONALLY, BUT ITS JUST A BIG P.I.T.A.

 

[MKern]

I think it's an enforcement issue too...when it comes to barbless hooks.


Want to keep fish around longer, lower the limit to 2.

Allow people to only keep what they can eat in a day. Want to feed your family, then they should all purchase a license. There is no reason the youth sons/daughters can't hit the water and the significant other can purchase a stamp too.

Heck getting more youth involved is the idea right.?.? then they will like the sport and buy a license when older. Which the reason 15 year olds don't need one now.

 

[rrt]

Dave W. is right in some respects about the "good ole days of wild trout fishing" being right now. To its credit, in the 1980s, the PFBC used its "Operation FUTURE" program to emphasize wild trout management where it was feasible. I know of several streams where the trout pops increased dramatically as a result though, admittedly, there are fewer top-end fish than when stocking occurred.

However, many sections of these wild trout streams have gone behind the yellow "POSTED" signs over the years. On my local streams, I am, fortunately, still allowed to fish a number of places that were posted because the property owners know me. However, some of the properties that were sold to non-local people who posted them are off limits to me. So, these spots do not represent the "good ole days" since they are closed to public access.

In addition, a number of places on the wild trout waters are fished much more heavily than they were when they were stocked, other than the first day/week, and not all those who fish them release the trout they catch. Perhaps this is a result of the increase in population, at least of the increase in the numbers of fly-fishermen.

Anyhow, wild trout management has worked for the good in most ways.

Now, for places that do not have streams capable of supporting wild trout but that can offer recreational fisheries with stocking: These streams ought to continue to receive hatchery fish, IMO.

An admission: At one time I said nasty things about the opening day/weeks crowd that relied on stocked fish. However, over the years I have changed my mind. Sometimes stocking gets families together for, perhaps, their only outdoor outing(s) of the year. Recently, I have visited a sportsmen's club pond that is stocked, mainly for kids, for the opener. The kids and their parents have a great time because of the stocked trout. Though not my "cup of tea," I think it is great to see so many people enjoying the outdoors because of the stocked trout. And, who knows how many kids who start here have/will become life-long anglers because of this?

I prefer to fish for wild trout. But, I also think stocking has benefits in several different respects.

Sorry so loooooooooong...again.

 

[RLeep2]

While it may seen an open and shut/case in favor of barbless hooks, so far as I recall, the actual studies done have been all over the map and I'm not at all sure there is a broad consensus among fisheries professionals on this matter. Additionally, in some of the studies I've seen, the percentage mortality difference was sometimes less than a single percent in one direction or the other. When you weigh this against the impacts of natural mortality, other sources of angler related mortality (poor handling, etc.) and then consider the additional enforcement burden, the issue becomes additionally murky. I fish barbless, but as much if not more for the 90% chance I can avoid a trip to the ER if I bury a hook in my earlobe than for the 4% chance I might kill a trout.

 

[NewSal]

RLeep2 wrote:
While it may seen an open and shut/case in favor of barbless hooks, so far as I recall, the actual studies done have been all over the map and I'm not at all sure there is a broad consensus among fisheries professionals on this matter. Additionally, in some of the studies I've seen, the percentage mortality difference was sometimes less than a single percent in one direction or the other. When you weigh this against the impacts of natural mortality, other sources of angler related mortality (poor handling, etc.) and then consider the additional enforcement burden, the issue becomes additionally murky. I fish barbless, but as much if not more for the 90% chance I can avoid a trip to the ER if I bury a hook in my earlobe than for the 4% chance I might kill a trout.

If you believe that prolonged fish handling increases fish mortality than you'll believe that barbed hooks increase fish mortality as a result of increased fish handling due to the hooks being more difficult to remove as compared to a barbless hook.

 

[RLeep2]

Seems logical... Then again, not everything that appears logical turns out to actually be so.

I'm only noting a conundrum.

 

[salmonoid]

springer1 wrote:
IMHO, the Fish Commission would significantly improve the fisheries in the more populated areas by requiring barbless hooks for sizes larger than sz.12.

People in these areas fish for more than Trout 9 months out of the year; Panfish and even Fallfish make up a significant portion of the fish especially in creeks. Reducing mortality, promoting fish survival to adulthood & spawning, and helping make catchable fish more available to the public would be a positive step.

I don't understand why the Commission and some fishermen defend the use of barbs - the most lethal hook type. It makes no sense to me.

Probably because most studies show an insignificant difference in mortality rates between barbed and barbless hooks (usually only 1-2%). Hooks don't kill fish. Fisherpeople kill fish.

 

[springer1]

Probably because most studies show an insignificant difference in mortality rates between barbed and barbless hooks (usually only 1-2%). Hooks don't kill fish. Fisherpeople kill fish.

I've also heard that ... and not meaning to sound like cynical ... but when industry and traditional factors are present ... I don't know if I believe it - especially as it applies to creeks and smaller fish. I've removed enough barbed and barbless hooks to know that barbs create more damage to remove, require more effort and handling to remove and result in squeezing the fish harder and holding them longer.

Maybe for a 16" catfish or carp - or a jaw-hooked Largemouth it doesn't matter, but to a 6" to 12" creek fish - or a panfish I really think it does.

I'm no authority, just my way of thinking ..... in any case - what's the downside of the state going barbless for hooks over a certain size like 12? Hundreds of foul hooked fishermen annually will surely say 'thank you"!

 

[Mike]

Yes, the answer to the barbed vs barbless question with respect to mortality is...drum roll please...a whopping 1%. Heck, I would speculate that delayed mortality from handling during picture taking is worse than that.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Yes.

Now that everyone has debated that let's try to put a REAL (made up ;-) ) number on the total trout mortality rate due to angler activity(caught fish) for stocked and wild.

25 percent?
30?
50?

Sure 1 percent difference between barbed and bar less when done PROPERLY.
I'm sure the one day a year, mepps throwing guy weilding his treble hooks with kids using spinning rods upside down is real quick at unhooking those fish. Add in the fact anything harvested on first day is surely going to die.

Fly guys who fish tricos in August on the tully, what's their mortality
How about the fly guy who pounds one fishery over and over and over.or Fishing Penn's in the summer. Or most places really.

How about the spin guys how take pride in ignorance and seemingly try to wipe out wild fishery because they taste so good. 5 a day or 20 days straight, just to make 4 brookie sandwiches and a whole sardine.

How about the guys on the Lackawanna River that think 20 inch trout equal cat food and fertilizer.
Not to mention the guys who fish it all summer regardless of temps.

Then poaching.

And yes I bet trout mortality is more like 10 percent or more due to pictures. It's why I hardly take them, unless it's a unicorn.

Then you have those non angler activties like drought, pollution etc to make matters worse

So yeah, go ahead and argue a 1 percent margin or debate it but keep it in perspective. Those are experienced anglers like FrankNale who can apparently catch 2000000000000000000 trout a minute with quad treble hooks and not kill a fish and have as good a delayed mortality rate as a barbless hook

Let's look at PA trout mortality from anglers as a whole in REAL terms.
The way I see it, we can't get out of our own way on the whole thing. Argue techniques, hooks, lines, regs, pictures, stocking blah blah blah.
Pa trout mortality due to anglers from all rods and hooks of life in PA is very high.

You want to improve PA trout fishing? Stop stocking over wild fish, get more angler access to currently closed waters and improve habitat so we all have more fish to kill.
It's just easier than educating the knuckle dragging public into proper techniques, because you can't even get most of them to wash their hands after the restroom.











Trout are for suckers!
WWI
Is it Smallmouth Season yet?

 

[Fly-Swatter]

What he said...

 

[Fredrick]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:

Trout are for suckers!
WWI
Is it Smallmouth Season yet?

:lol: But in my case is it snakehead and bowfin season yet . I do love trout too though

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I love trout too.
These trout freaks need a Moto like the WWI's

Save a trout catch a bass?
Perch the other white meat?

 

[Reeder]

It's just easier than educating the knuckle dragging public into proper techniques, because you can't even get most of them to wash their hands after the restroom.

The funny thing is some of those knuckle draggers think it's actually possible to relieve themselves without their hands being covered in urine and fecal matter! Foolish public.

 

[ryansheehan]

Reeder wrote:

It's just easier than educating the knuckle dragging public into proper techniques, because you can't even get most of them to wash their hands after the restroom.

The funny thing is some of those knuckle draggers think it's actually possible to relieve themselves without their hands being covered in urine and fecal matter! Foolish public.

TWO PLANKER!!!
Even though that's me, I just wanted to play along.