Put as much effort into protecting brook trout as they do protecting the brown invaders.
Yeah, in one of, what 8 streams or something?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.
But what if you are allergic to narcotics?I see this as the same logic that asks, "why is Narcan free but why are Epipens 600 dollars?" Two problems. Not related.
That's exactly what I was thinking...Not related.
I like this idea.How about we just stop stocking over wild trout, period. Regardless of species.
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.I like this idea.
I'm pretty sure that there are not any class A brookie cricks that are stocked.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 prefer elected officials stay out of PFBC affairs.if you want better government, elect better politicians
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.
Agriculturally speaking, raising only RT would be a bad move. Monocultures are never the way to go unless you like playing with (biological) fire."Rumor" has it that at the next meeting at the Hunstdale Hatchery, stocking of rainbows only may be discussed.
Your heart is in the right place, but I ain't buying this.... via stocking modification techniques that might allow those populations to grow despite stocking.
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.
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?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.”
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.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.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?
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.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.