Management of Trout Fisheries in Pennsylvania 2010 - 2014

[Joe D]

In April 2008, the PFBC adopted a "resource first" philosophy for managing Pennsylvania's cold water resources. The attached report titled: Strategic Plan for Management of Trout Fisheries in Pennsylvania 2010 - 2014 is partially a result of that philosophy.

http://www.fishandboat.com/pafish/trout/trout_plan/troutplan2010.pdf

This Plan covers all trout fisheries, wild and stocked, lake and stream and also the Lake Erie steelhead and brown trout fishery. It a pretty easy to read 64 pages... actually a little less when you take out the charts, cover page, acknowledgments and the like.

 

[goose]

There is no management of trout fisheries in PA. I live in Pennsylvania. Its idea of management is naming marginal waters class A streams so they don't have to worry about managing them. The stocking program is rediculous. They stock 6 to 9 inch trout so they don't have to feed them to grow an additional year.

 

[NJAngler]

As more and more people move away from the cities and purchase land in rural and suburban areas, some properties that were traditionally privately owned but open to free public access are being posted against trespass. Additionally, posting has occurred as a result of littering and other disrespectful acts committed by some anglers while fishing on private property that were open to public fishing. This is resulting in the loss of access to popular fishing locations. More recently, properties that border some of the Commonwealth’s better trout waters are being purchased or leased by private fishing clubs, which is resulting in fewer waters open to the public. Free access to fishing is vital to the continued participation in and growth of this activity. The PFBC is currently developing a statewide access plan designed to identify, prioritize, and secure long-term access for anglers and boaters of the Commonwealth.

This should be priority #1. First get access to the streams than start worrying about how to best manage them. I will admit though, I'm a bit skeptical it can work. It all sounds nice in theory but getting people to open their lands to strangers will not be easy. When you think about it, what incentives would it take to get you to give up your right to privacy? They say money talks so the only thing that might work is no more property taxes.

 

[Joe D]

Guys, you should be expressing these concerns to the Fish & Boat Commission and your regional commissioner.

 

[goose]

Hi: The problem with taking our concerns to the Fish and Game Commissions is that they are not funded by the state and therefore have no checks and balances. It's pretty much a group of people that do what they want. They have public meetings, etc., but it doesn't matter.

 

[NJAngler]

I think goose is being a bit facetious.

Joe on many occasions i expressed concern with how PFBC money is being spent. they seem to concentrate their efforts on stocked trout mgt and overlook wild trout mgt. they needlessly spend tens of millions of $ on stocking/raising trout every year when mother nature does the same thing for free. it costs, what, $2.75 per trout to raise/stock? So if you have a marginal trout stream with limited access that receives 10,000 trout per year, thats $27,500 per year. I would much rather see that money used to buy riparian land. Land that will be permanently protected and open to the public forever. There are thousands of parcels out there - large and small - with streams flowing along or through them. Even a small 10 acre lot can open up a 1/4 mile of stream. 10 acres in Pa can be as cheap as $25,000. What makes more sense from a investment pov: spend $50,000 once to keep 1/2 mile of great wild trout water open forever or spend $275,000 over ten years to stock a marginal trout stream that offers limited access, heavy angling pressure and no guarantee of access year to year? Point is the PFBC and we anglers could get more bang for our buck if properly spent. i'm hoping this will be part of the strategic plan they keep talking about.

Now i realize a majority of license buying trout fisherman prefer larger, dumber stocked trout to not only catch but eat so education on the benefits of catching wild trout and practicing C&R should be part of the plan as well. I think there can be a balance there somewhere. I see no reason why you can't have your heavily pressured, overstocked, popular waters for the catch and kill crowds as well as your under pressured, unstocked, rarely fished waters for the C&R crowds as well. Its the latter we have very little of considering the amount of resources out there.

---------- Post added at 09:17 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:16 AM ----------

I think many of their management ideas are what they want and not necessarily what the public wants. The Brook Trout Enhancement Program for instance. How all those supposedly smarter than you and me biologists and fish managers could think brook trout will suddenly grow bigger and increase in numbers by placing special regs on streams that are barely even fished is beyond me. their follow up surveys have shown not only are the brook trout numbers DOWN but the trout are SMALLER! Mother Nature controls trout pops and sizes, not the PFBC. Special regs only work where angling pressure can have a negative impact. I'm talking about heavy pressure which means anglers there nearly every day. Heck even most stocked waters barely see use once the stocking stops which is why wild fish can still do well in them. This is something else the PFBC needs to address. We the angling public should have more say as we are the ones out there a heck of a lot more than they are and know the streams not just better and but also whats best for them.

 

[Joe D]

The PFBC gets their money primarily from fishing license sales & boat registrations. IMHO, it's a good thing they aren't funded from the general treasury or else they'd have to listen to the animal rights activists and others who would place an additional financial stress on the commission.

The commissioners are well aware that the funding comes from the users (you & I) and look to hear from us. Unfortunately this is rarely the case. The commission publishes proposed changes (rules & regulations) on their website and a very easy click and send system for submitting public comment, yet when the rule or reg. change is brought to the commission meeting there are often no public comments received or only a very few, like 2 or 3. This coming from almost 1.5 million licenses sold! I've posted some of those propsed rule changes and notices on this site. When I've read the final summary it used to surprise me that no one responded to the PFBC request for public comment. That no longer surprises me.

What it comes down to is the commonwealth gives the public a means to participate in the process. Whether or not people choose to participate is not the fault of the PFBC. Those who know me, know I have no love for many of their policies and decisions but I also know that many of those decisions are made in part from the lack of a voice from the fishing community.

With less effort than it takes to respond to internet forums I can send a letter to my Fish & Boat Commissioner and also respond to proposed rule changes and notices published regularly on the PFBC website. On an internet forum all I can do is urge others to do the same. And maybe bitch a little too...

 

[Rusty Spinner]

I have always found that those who bitch the loudest about not having a voice in hunting and fishing regs are the same ones who never show up at the various public meetings or write the commissions in charge to speak out. I know for a fact that my voice gets heard. But then I actually both show for the public meetings and offer statements in writing. As the lottery commercial goes, you've got to be in it to win it.

 

[NJAngler]

Bellefonte, Pa - where the PFBC headquarters is located - is a good 4 hr drive away - thats 4 hrs ONE way. I think an email expressing views/ideas is a heckuva lot cheaper and can be just as effective. I've sent numerous emails(and letters before that) over the years to Area Fisheries Managers like Dave Arnold, Mike Kaufmann, Bob Moase and Rob Wnuk not to mention R. Thomas Greene and Robert Weber in Coldwater Unit. I've covered everything with them mostly in regards to wild trout fishing, i.e. lack of access to the best streams, effects of trout stocking over wild trout, how the PFBC spends $ and special regulations implementations(where they should be used and where they shouldn't). They generally respond quickly and share the same concerns but will argue like the NJDFGW does that their hands are tied when it comes to many issues. The bottom line is wild trout don't sell as many licenses as overfed, oversized hatchery trout do and so they get the short end of the budget stick. Where i disagree with PFBC is that they really do want to promote special regs as much as possible like they are trying to sell a product. I find it odd that you'd place special regs on an stream to either protect or enhance a trout fishery but at the same time promote them and encourage use which can only hurt the fishing. I've always been a bit puzzled by this kind of thinking.

 

[Ryan R]

This should be priority #1. First get access to the streams than start worrying about how to best manage them. I will admit though, I'm a bit skeptical it can work. It all sounds nice in theory but getting people to open their lands to strangers will not be easy. When you think about it, what incentives would it take to get you to give up your right to privacy? They say money talks so the only thing that might work is no more property taxes.

Yes money talks and the PFBC was addressing the access issue by ramping up its efforts in this regard by purchasing land or long-term access rights. Until the economy nosedived they were even hiring new personnel to work specifically on pursuing access. There are already a significant # of publicly accessible streams & stream miles to warrant having a management plan in place.

 

[flickfly]

Speaking of gaining more access first, N.Y has cut the snot out of the D.E.C budget for this and
for fisheries mngmnt. Another dangerous trend is landowners are hauling people into court for
trespassing even when their obeying the low watermark wading rule or now floating thru flowages. I'am seeing more heavy posting on streams that would interfere with access easements .