Wish the PFBC would

vealboy

vealboy

Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2006
Messages
87
Put as much effort into protecting brook trout as they do protecting the brown invaders.
 

Attachments

  • 100_2946.JPG
    100_2946.JPG
    278.1 KB · Views: 174
Put as much effort into protecting brook trout as they do protecting the brown invaders.

Not sure where that sign is, but, my guess is there’s no (or very few) Brook Trout left to protect at that location. In that scenario, I don’t have any problem with the wild Browns being protected over what are presumably stocked Rainbows. In reality, this poster can only be in a handful of possible locations. And also in reality, the wild Browns could be better protected by not stocking the Rainbows.

Otherwise, yeah, I agree with you.
 
Not sure where that sign is, but, my guess is there’s no (or very few) Brook Trout left to protect at that location. In that scenario, I don’t have any problem with the wild Browns being protected over what are presumably stocked Rainbows. In reality, this poster can only be in a handful of possible locations. And also in reality, the wild Browns could be better protected by not stocking the Rainbows.

Otherwise, yeah, I agree with you.
Yeah, in one of, what 8 streams or something?

In defense of the sign, is there a SINGLE class A brookie water that gets stocked by the PFBC? If no, then their signage is consistent because no signs exist at the multitude of Class B, C, or D brown trout streams that get stocked over.

And I have no idea if there is a stocked class A brookie stream or not. I'm curious. Probably a Class A stream that meets the criteria to be class A but isn't listed, or a section of a stream, but ....
 
I see this as the same logic that asks, "why is Narcan free but why are Epipens 600 dollars?" Two problems. Not related.
But what if you are allergic to narcotics?
 
Does anyone ever actually stop to read this ****?

How about we just stop stocking over wild trout, period. Regardless of species. They’d figure out their turf if we stopped dumping buckets on top of class A populations.

All I see is a sign from a government agency with a bunch of arcane rules that no one is gonna read all because the PFBC doesn’t understand basic biology.
 
I like this idea.
I don’t. There are quite variable densities of wild trout in Pa streams and many of those “populations” have such low numbers, such as the extremes of 3 fingerlings and no adults collected by electrofishing in 100-150 m of stream and other similar low density examples, that there is zero fishing potential provided by these “populations.” Such “populations” are limited by much greater problems than stocking. This is coming from someone who was intentionally trying to “push” Class C and B populations with reasonable potential into the Class A biomass classification (which at that time then terminated stocking) via stocking modification techniques that might allow those populations to grow despite continued stocking. It worked in some BT streams…each one where it was tried…Codorus Ck, Blymire Hollow Rn, and Leibs Ck, or at least in part on Leibs, all in York Co. It didn’t work for ST in Cold Rn, Schuylkill Co.

In a related matter, the regs were changed on another Codorus section to DH, the stocking rate was increased, and the biomass of wild BT within 2 yrs shot from Class C or very low B to double the minimum value for Class A despite even more intensive stocking. Stocking was then terminated and the section placed in selective Harvest, later Trophy Trout regs, and now in the very weak slot limit regs as a result of the overabundance of small wild BT. The problem wasn’t the stocking per se; it was obviously the accompanying harvest of stocked trout AND wild trout in this very intensively (at the time) fished and harvested stream.

Not all stocked streams receive this kind of pressure and harvest, especially these days. Those in the “rural” classification receive the least pressure as a group and that’s where many of the stocked wild trout streams are located.

PS.Why do I call the new slot reg weak? Because you’re never going to attract enough harvesting anglers with a 2 fish creel limit to make the needed difference in trout abundance, growth, and length distribution in most circumstances. Create a creel limit that’s the same as the statewide limit or even go to the old 8 fish creel limit on these waters and maybe the regs would make a difference. Incentive is needed to get the desired harvest and a 2 fish creel limit won’t cut it in most cases.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, in one of, what 8 streams or something?

In defense of the sign, is there a SINGLE class A brookie water that gets stocked by the PFBC? If no, then their signage is consistent because no signs exist at the multitude of Class B, C, or D brown trout streams that get stocked over.

And I have no idea if there is a stocked class A brookie stream or not. I'm curious. Probably a Class A stream that meets the criteria to be class A but isn't listed, or a section of a stream, but ....
I'm pretty sure that there are not any class A brookie cricks that are stocked.
But.... look at the what happened on Hyner Run , E and W Cowley Run over the past year. Class A populations of mixed BT/ST were found on stocked sections of all three cricks. Those sections were shortened to remove the areas in Sizerville and Hyner Run State Parks (where they found less native and wild trout) to continue stocking. Seems like a case of changing the rules instead of playing harder? If you're kicker is consistently wide right wouldn't you try to move the goal posts? Maybe just a little?
I think DCNR should share some of the blame for this.

if you want better government, elect better politicians
I prefer elected officials stay out of PFBC affairs.
Does anyone ever actually stop to read this ****?

How about we just stop stocking over wild trout, period. Regardless of species. They’d figure out their turf if we stopped dumping buckets on top of class A populations.

All I see is a sign from a government agency with a bunch of arcane rules that no one is gonna read all because the PFBC doesn’t understand basic biology.
Does anyone ever actually stop to read this ****?

How about we just stop stocking over wild trout, period.

Read the signs? Sure, people read signs. People with wisdom and common sense look for signs along the crick and read them before they start fishing.

Quit stocking over wild trout,period? Sounds like a pipe dream. I'm for it but we're in a minority among fishers.
 
"Rumor" has it that at the next meeting at the Hunstdale Hatchery, stocking of rainbows only may be discussed.
 
"Rumor" has it that at the next meeting at the Hunstdale Hatchery, stocking of rainbows only may be discussed.
Agriculturally speaking, raising only RT would be a bad move. Monocultures are never the way to go unless you like playing with (biological) fire.
 
I don’t. There are quite variable densities of wild trout in Pa streams and many of those “populations” have such low numbers, such as the extremes of 3 fingerlings and no adults collected by electrofishing in 100-150 m of stream and other similar low density examples, that there is zero fishing potential provided by these “populations.” Such “populations” are limited by much greater problems than stocking. And this is coming from someone who was intentionally trying to “push” Class C and B populations with reasonable potential into the Class A biomass classification (which at that time then terminated stocking) via stocking modification techniques that might allow those populations to grow despite stocking. It worked in some BT streams…Codorus Ck, Blymire Hollow Rn, and Leibs Ck, or at least in part on Leibs, York Co. It didn’t work for ST in Cold Rn, Schuylkill Co.

Rubber trout are never the answer to a biomass issue. Need to improve water quality in order to encourage insect life, provide sufficient shade and substrate to improve dissolved oxygen levels, etc. if after all this, you’ve only got a class C population, then reckon that’s natures way! And there’s plenty of WW fish that will happily fill those niches.


Problem is people always want things the easy way. And dumping buckets of mushmouths into a creek is as easy as it gets. Things gross me out anymore honestly, I don’t even like touching them.
 
I don’t. There are quite variable densities of wild trout in Pa streams and many of those “populations” have such low numbers, such as the extremes of 3 fingerlings and no adults collected by electrofishing in 100-150 m of stream and other similar low density examples, that there is zero fishing potential provided by these “populations.”
Just 100-150 m of stream? What about the other mile or two of a given stream? Do you honestly think 100-150 m of stream gives an accurate account of that stream's actual potential population?
Not attacking you, I'd just like to hear what you think about that?
 
Just 100-150 m of stream? What about the other mile or two of a given stream? Do you honestly think 100-150 m of stream gives an accurate account of that stream's actual potential population?
Not attacking you, I'd just like to hear what you think about that?
When I had a stream surveyed by the PFBC upon request, the way he made it sound was that they randomly chose three separate tracts of about 150 meters or so to survey. They did not even survey the parts of the stream that I usually fish and knew held high densities of trout. It was, as far as I can understand, completely random and all over the stream.
 
Maybe I’m and old geezer at heart. But aren’t class A streams the ones you would want guys keeping and eating the wild fish out of? The ones that actually have a population of wild browns that can sustain some harvest? The ones that despite harvest and stocking over still contain a robust population? Why would you try to improve a Class A brown trout stream that you stock? So the fish commission is ok with killing wild browns in these sections with stocking. But anglers can’t? If harvesting wild browns is not a limiting factor in the population. I see this as a huge loss for all fly fisherman. Because now the guys will be on your lesser known favorite class A (non stocked), class b and class c streams keeping and eating wild browns at an increased rate. Maybe I’m wrong, just thinking out loud.
 
Just 100-150 m of stream? What about the other mile or two of a given stream? Do you honestly think 100-150 m of stream gives an accurate account of that stream's actual potential population?
Not attacking you, I'd just like to hear what you think about that?
The point of that was just an example from real data to show how low densities can be by providing a number, fish size, and a site length that might be required to determine that a stream supports a wild trout population. I could have said one fingerling or three fingerlings in 100 m and that would have been a real life example of very low densities as well. The example was used solely to get individuals to think about the practicality of saying no stocking over wild trout.

My assumption has been over the years that some individuals would say the same thing even for a stream section with the density that I described…3 fingerling trout every 150 m. In contrast, I consider a stream with a low density of wild trout ideal to stock for potential extended fishing opportunities on said stream throughout the season, something that you don’t get when stocking seasonally warm streams with trout. Note that I said potential since not all streams with low densities of wild trout stay cool even into early or mid-summer. The Muddy Ck, York Co CRFFO section may still be an example of that and most of Manatawny in most years is an example of that. I have never heard anyone say they should not be stocked even though at the very least they support low densities of wild trout three seasons out of the year in various portions of their lengths.

I would note for clarification that I also think that Class D’s and many Class C’s are ideal for stocking and densities of wild trout in many D’s and all C’s are greater than in the examples that I used above. Likewise, near my home is a low Class B brown trout stream in metro area that is ideal to stock, given its location and rather unimpressive wild trout population associated with habitat destruction from stormwater runoff. Having witnessed the most recent survey, I suspect that it’s no longer even a low Class B. The population is not going to improve.

In my view the aim in specifically stocking low density wild trout sections is to have a decent to excellent fishery where practical that can’t be provided by wild trout alone and which has the potential to last well into if not through the summer. Bear in mind, however, that there are plenty of low density wild trout streams or stream sections, even Class C’s, in which there are too few trout to provide a reasonably attractive fishery for the general angling population and in which stocking will never occur because the streams or stream sections do not meet the other requirements for adult trout stocking. If you like fishing over low to relatively low densities of trout or over trout in distressed habitats these are right up your alley. I’ve fished a few of these streams and frequent another, but I recognize that I am part of a small minority interested in such adventures.
 
Last edited:
The point of that was just an example from real data to show how low densities can be by providing a number, fish size, and a site length that might be required to determine that a stream supports a wild trout population. I could have said one fingerling or three fingerlings in 100 m and that would have been a real life example of very low densities as well. The example was used solely to get individuals to think about the practicality of saying no stocking over wild trout.

My assumption has been over the years that some individuals would say the same thing even for a stream section with the density that I described…3 fingerling trout every 150 m. In contrast, I consider a stream with a low density of wild trout ideal to stock for potential extended fishing opportunities on said stream throughout the season, something that you don’t get when stocking seasonally warm streams with trout. Note that I said potential since not all streams with low densities of wild trout stay cool even into early or mid-summer. The Muddy Ck, York Co CRFFO section may still be an example of that and most of Manatawny in most years is an example of that. I have never heard anyone say they should not be stocked even though at the very least they support low densities of wild trout three seasons out of the year in various portions of their lengths.

I would note for clarification that I also think that Class D’s and many Class C’s are ideal for stocking and densities of wild trout in many D’s and all C’s are greater than in the examples that I used above. Likewise, near my home is a low Class B brown trout stream in metro area that is ideal to stock, given its location and rather unimpressive wild trout population associated with habitat destruction from stormwater runoff. Having witnessed the most recent survey, I suspect that it’s no longer even a low Class B. The population is not going to improve.

In my view the aim in specifically stocking low density wild trout sections is to have a decent to excellent fishery where practical that can’t be provided by wild trout alone and which has the potential to last well into if not through the summer. Bear in mind, however, that there are plenty of low density wild trout streams or stream sections, even Class C’s, in which there are too few trout to provide a reasonably attractive fishery for the general angling population and in which stocking will never occur because the streams or stream sections do not meet the other requirements for adult trout stocking. If you like fishing over low to relatively low densities of trout or over trout in distressed habitats these are right up your alley. I’ve fished a few of these streams and frequent another, but I recognize that I am part of a small minority interested in such adventures.
Likewise, near my home is a low Class B brown trout stream in metro area that is ideal to stock, given its location and rather unimpressive wild trout population associated with habitat destruction from stormwater runoff. Having witnessed the most recent survey, I suspect that it’s no longer even a low Class B. The population is not going to improve.

^^^Tell me you're talking about Trout Creek within Trout Creek Park....Allentown
 
Back
Top