i understand YB, AR, PC, and Kettle
there are problems with that survey... it wasn't even half assed
no enough people were questioned ect

previous thread
http://forums.fishusa.com/m_95824/mpage_2/key_/tm.htm

ORIGINAL: KJH807
what is "very few"...
have you done the research???
crosschecked the list of approved trout water with streams that support wild trout populations
it might surprise you

the fact that it is done is bad enough...
so if there is a small population of smaller size fish, you think it is OK to stock over them and push them out?  just so people will "bother to fish them"?

remember this article?
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08195/896725-358.stm

 
Though some streams of Class B biomass or less are worth fishing for wild trout, most are not.  Of the streams with Class A biomass, approximately one-half percent of the stream milage is stocked; typically (if not exclusively) the stocking occurs in adjacent non-Class A stream sections.  I only point these things out because these exaggerated claims of the Fish Commission ruining all the good wild trout water with hatchery plants is so prevalent and also so inaccurate.  Objective evidence is weak for the belief that terminating stocking on such waters will have any effect on the wild populations.  It is one thing to identify streams where reducing or eliminating stocking would be beneficial and another altogether to unfairly accuse the Fish Commission as the original comment seems to do.  And, yes, I do believe it is appropriate for an organization charged with the responsibility to manage a resource for recreation to take into consideration the recreational desires of the people whom they serve and not cater solely to a fringe minority.

ORIGINAL: MackJ


Though some streams of Class B biomass or less are worth fishing for wild trout, most are not.  Of the streams with Class A biomass, approximately one-half percent of the stream milage is stocked; typically (if not exclusively) the stocking occurs in adjacent non-Class A stream sections.  I only point these things out because these exaggerated claims of the Fish Commission ruining all the good wild trout water with hatchery plants is so prevalent and also so inaccurate.  Objective evidence is weak for the belief that terminating stocking on such waters will have any effect on the wild populations.  It is one thing to identify streams where reducing or eliminating stocking would be beneficial and another altogether to unfairly accuse the Fish Commission as the original comment seems to do.  And, yes, I do believe it is appropriate for an organization charged with the responsibility to manage a resource for recreation to take into consideration the recreational desires of the people whom they serve and not cater solely to a fringe minority.

where did you get your #s
class A or B, we were talking about stocking {over} wild and/or native populations

stocking migrating species in connecting waterways... ever see what is going on with didymo?

you sound like you know enough, to know the raping going in WV with their A B C water classification and the slippery slope of stocking over wild fish and river classifications

FLYFISHERMANPA- sorry for the hijack

I acknowledged in my post that some Class B or lower biomass streams can provide good wild trout fishing, but that is the exception, not the rule.  The only reason my remarks are limited to Class A is that there is no publicly available list of all wild trout waters where the biomass is identified other than the Class A List.  The "Streams With Wild Reproduction" list identifies any stream with any level of reproduction and my examination of that list convinces me that a huge majority of such waters have minimal or even "trace" amounts of wild fish, likely in the very remote headwater areas and do not provide a useable recreational resource.  If you pull up the Class A list and cross reference it with the Approved Trout Waters list, and compare the stream milage, I believe you will confirm my statements about the small percentage of Class A trout waters that are subject to any impact from hatchery stockings.

It appears as if the PFBC, has changed the format of their document.  It used to be categorized Class A, B, C & D, in one document, and was available online (I should've printed it out a couple years ago, oh well).  The only one I found, with a quick search, is this:
 
http://www.fish.state.pa.us/trout_repro.pdf
 
What that is, is their document showing all streams with natural reporduction, by county.  Eliminating any classification A, B, C or D.

ORIGINAL: MackJ

I acknowledged in my post that some Class B or lower biomass streams can provide good wild trout fishing, but that is the exception, not the rule.  The only reason my remarks are limited to Class A is that there is no publicly available list of all wild trout waters where the biomass is identified other than the Class A List.  The "Streams With Wild Reproduction" list identifies any stream with any level of reproduction and my examination of that list convinces me that a huge majority of such waters have minimal or even "trace" amounts of wild fish, likely in the very remote headwater areas and do not provide a useable recreational resource.  If you pull up the Class A list and cross reference it with the Approved Trout Waters list, and compare the stream milage, I believe you will confirm my statements about the small percentage of Class A trout waters that are subject to any impact from hatchery stockings.

 
no, this started when i stated that the PFBC stocks fish over wild and native populations
and that too many people like this practice and wish it was done more
and that i thought the above is wrong
 
this was not limited to class A waters
it was waters indentified as containing natural repro
 
I don't care if you are talking about Class A B C D
the solution to low natural repro is NOT stocking pellet heads
if anything what about reintroducing native populations?  correct the factors that are leading to the loss of self sustaining populations
 
the decision to stock should not be made due to classification level
rather the presence of a sustainable population
 
 

It is not true because it implies they do it for no particular reason but because they "love it," like they have no concern for wild trout.  It is not true in that it is misleading because it doesn't acknowledge that it occurs very rarely, occurs mostly only where there is a need to provide recreational trout fishing opportunities by stocking, and is done 99.5 percent of the time where the trout reproduction is limited because of stream characteristics that prevent the stream from ever sustaining fuishable levels of trout biomass.  I didn't say you limited your comments to Class A populations.  Clearly to feel any outrage over the extent to which stocking over wild population occurs, one would have to include even the most trace populations.  I limited my percentage figures to Class A for two reasons: first, that data is available to make comparison; and second, 90 percent of good wild trout streams fall into that category.

forgot to include this 03 report
http://www.patrout.org/Wild_Trout_and_Stocking.htm
 
disclaimer.... i am in no way advocating or in support of TU
 
here is 08
http://www.fish.state.pa.us/stockchanges.htm

ORIGINAL: MackJ

I would guess.... 

your guess is wrong...
this topic is best discussed using facts and hard numbers... not "guessing"

what is your point in all of this?
you argue any fact or idea presented... what do you believe to be true?

Mack once again in a junviale manner you are fizzling out



first understand what class A B C D really mean
http://www.patrout.org/Class_A_Wild_Trout.htm

then understand that PFBC is stocking in class B and C waters over wild fish

http://www.patrout.org/Wild_Trout_and_Stocking.htm

again, it is a fact that PA stocks over wild fish...

cross check this list- http://www.fish.state.pa.us/trout_repro.htm
with this list- http://www.fish.state.pa.us/fishpub/summary/troutwaters.html

the stocking isn't just a few fish...
they are literally dumping buckets of pellet heads in these waters and pushing out wild and native species

Let me make this simple for you: to see how inaccurate your statement was statewide, pick any county in the state and make a comparison of: the miles of water with ANY natural reproduction; the miles of water where stocking occurs in the same sections as where there is natural reproduction; the miles of Class A water where stocking occurs in the same section; the miles where stocking occurs anywhere on the creek if there is any amount of reproduction on the same creek; the miles of water where stocking occurs anywhere on the creek with any section of Class A water on the same creek; finally, and most important for your final inaccurate "belief," consider the extent of waters with less than Class A biomass, where NO stocking occurs, and where the stream still lacks a Class A population.  You will find that this data supports the statements I made, if not entirely, then more so than it supports the implications of your statements.
 
So, you ask what is my point?  Here it is: while the Commission stocks trout on waters with natural reproduction, they do so to provide the kind of angling experience that 90% of the license buying public desires.  They choose the waters to stock based upon access to the waters.  It does very little good to stock waters that are inaccessible or do not provide a pleasurable experience to anglers.  As much as possible, they avoid stocking in stream sections with Class A populations.  The data bears out that this occurs in extremely rare circumstances.  Likewise, in sections with strong Class B populations, they only seem to stock these where the demand locally for additional hatchery supported fisheries is strong.  Again, since I do not have data showing the stream classifications of non-Class A waters with natural reproduction, I can only "guess" that this is likewise rare, though less rare than stocking over Class A populations.  Also, I can only "guess" (because the data isn't provided to allow certainty) that many Class B, C and D wild trout waters which are NOT stocked, have never attained, nor will they attain, a higher biomass rating because the stream is simply incapable of supporting biomass of that class. 
 
Many people who enjoy fishing for wild trout and can have a quality experience on Class B or less streams seem unaware that they are in a huge minority of the angling public.  The vast majority of trout anglers would rather do crossword puzzles than wander around in the woods fishing for 5 inch brook trout, even if they could catch one on every cast. 
 
So, as I said, I am not trying to discourage anyone, including yourself, from advocating less stocking on waters that might provide quality fishing without stocking.  However, I believe that such advocacy is not only more honest, but more effective, if one avoids exaggerating and misrepresenting both the extent and affect of stocking that the Commission actually does.

Mack i have never argued the fact that class A are 95%+ unstocked
i have problems with stocking of class B and some Class C sections
 
Read the links I posted... find out what the guidelines are for Class A B C D
Look at the list of natural Repo
 
PFBC stocks over wild fish... and have not problem with it
in fact the majority of anglers survey want more stocking over wild fish
i think this is WRONG
 
Stock in class D water
Stock in the waters that have no natural Repro
protect the Class A B and C waters