Less Trout for Pa. in 2009

$3.38 per trout.....Dam, I need to get into the trout raising bizz!!!!
 

ORIGINAL: birddog23

All i got to say is what the heck does the trout stamp pay for because if that isn't going toward the trout than i think we are all getting riped off

what part of the article made you believe that money is no longer going toward trout stamps?

either way, they're cutting back 150,000 fish out of 3 million? 
that's a fairly minimal cutback.

its a 5 percent cut back not a real big drop at all.Now if the Fish commision would be more fair and let the western countys acualy get more bigger fish. insted of most of the mid state streams getting all the best fish.Am real sick of hearing and seeinmg the biggest come out of the same streams year after year while we get the runts..just not fair..

mx, Go to the PFC home page, click on annual report, you should find most of the figures you are looking for. Since both the fish comm. & the Game comm. are independently audited I would guess that the figures are legit.   sam

I think they stock smaller ones than what they used to and definatly less.  I still fish for stockies on opening day and maybe a day or two the following week since my pap loves trout (I pefer carp, pike, and catfish instead) and someone needs to make sure he doesn't fall in! But I think hes going to give up fishing altogether pushing 90 and he can't walk the streams like he used to unless I take him to the mad house Yough Outflow or Laurel Hill Dam.  I didn't care for lowering the limit per day they should have just keep it at eight.  I'm a fan of stocking lakes with trout especially when there's big pike in them !

C&R and you'll have fish to fish for through the late spring/early summer.
Limit your creel not your catch.

ORIGINAL: SteelPerch

How many years in a row will they stick it to us?  First they introduced the trout stamp, then they reduced the limit from 8 to 5, then they went on the "fewer but bigger fish" marketing campaign which materialized into fewer trout but not bigger, and now it is just a cut in the number of stocked fish.  It really ****es you off.

 
It doesn't "**** me off" in the least.
 
What the PFBC needs to start doing is spending trout satamp monies on upgrading the waste water treatment facilities at their hatcheries.  As it is now, the hatcheries are horrible polluters.  Probably they should double or triple the cost of the stamps to do this.  And it must be done, that is if the PFBC plans to continus stocking ANY trout raised in PA.

Poaching of trout and other species due to the current state of the economy will be a bigger problem than this relatively minor cut in the trout numbers.  

This won't affect me one whit. I love to fish for trout but the last two I kept were in 2002. One was a brown that had been in the lake for a long, long time (flesh was orange from eating crayfish) and the other was a stocked brookie. Both were equally terrible eating.
 
As far as fewer trout, 95% of all anglers can't catch 5 trout for a limit, much less 8. And hopefully this will reduce some of the "Wild West" crap that we have to put up with in the more rural counties. The weekend of the first day of trout season gives us nothing but problems with people camping and getting drunk, starting brush fires, fighting, and falling over hills. The first day of trout season results in more and more posted lands every year, not to mention straining our law enforcement and EMS systems. "Trout Camp" is a greatly over-rated and out-moded thing that needs eliminated up here.
 
As far as bigger trout, I've seen better trout the last couple years. More big palominos, which are a double-edged sword, but nicer rainbows, especially on in-season stockings. And we are seeing more and more "breeder" trout stocked.
 
The major drain on the trout stockings here in PA are pollution problems from hatcheries. I envision the Federal EPA stepping in soon and shutting down or forcing pollution control updates on some hatcheries.
 
Yep, I'll pay more for a trout stamp. It will get the idiots out of the way and provide better trout fishing opportunities for me. If the cost of a trout stamp bothers you, re-evaluate your fishing. Bluegills on a basic license are within the reach of everyone, they taste better, and the average angler can get some year-round. I get my money's worth out of my license the first time I fish. My trout stamp money is just money out of my pocket as I don't keep any, but since it's something I enjoy I'll gladly pay it. The new line I put on my reel costs more than the trout stamp does!

"sorry gonefishin, don't know why it said in reply to you. it was not directed to you."
 
Unless you hit the reply button on ANOTHER specific post, YOUR post will always be "in reply" to the one directly above it. 

Easy about what mugz? I was just explaining why the "(in reply to gonefishin)"  appeared on your post, even though you did not intend to reply directly to him.  

who eats bass and muskys i had bass before and it wasn't any good never had musky but also never heard it was good.
Walleye is another story i would love to see more walleye in the local lakes and rivers

If we want more and bigger fish, I say raise the trout stamp to $20-30.  This is for a whole year of fishing.  I don't have a problem what so ever in spending a little more but, I would like to see some results.  I think most people have a problem with the stamp (or raising the price of the stamp) because once the fish commission started getting all that money years ago I don't think anybody saw any of the results (more, bigger fish), nothing seemed to change.

ORIGINAL: SteelPerch

ORIGINAL: bingsbaits

The hell with the trout lets stock something edible(waleyes,panfish)..

You put all that money into walleyes, bass, and Muskys, Then we would have a fishery..

Hate the first day bucket brigade,,,,GIVE ME MY LIMIT,,,Seems to be their montra for a day...SAD

Why do people in this thread say trout aren't edible?  Perhaps you just arent preparing them right.  The fresh stocked trout and smaller ones can be a little bland and boney, but overall trout are some of the better eating fish out there.   Anyone who eats walleye on a regular basis is nuts IMO.  Those things are so chalked full of mercury and chemicals, I can't imagine anyone willingly eating them once they read up on all of the pollutants that are in them.

And thats why i prefer to eat the smaller eyes that are 15 to 19"s. I cooked some rainbows last week and they were very good. Never tried steelies.