If you are worried about the streams from a biological standpoint.  They shouldn't be stocking 1,000,000 fish in the first place.

Mike,
 
With the current numbers of "predatory" fish Walleye, Smallmouth in the lake, then include Perch, Sheephead, and yes Steelhead, an additional 100,000 fish would  not even be noticed.

ORIGINAL: spoonchucker

Mike,

With the current numbers of "predatory" fish Walleye, Smallmouth in the lake, then include Perch, Sheephead, and yes Steelhead, an additional 100,000 fish would  not even be noticed.

 
I would have to disagree with you on that one. Even at a 75% survival rate, that's a lot of extra fish in the lake. But, like I stated before, I'm not a biologist.

I don't see any harm in throwing browns into the mix as long as the total number of stocked fish stays the same....It actually would not hurt to stock less, take some of the money saved and apply it to other species and lower the daily limit of steel to one or two fish per day.  However, like spoon said, complaining about it on here alone won't solve anything

But do all those walleye, perch, and other fish live within a 2-3 mile section of shoreline? Those fish migrate and use the whole portion of the lake. Browns will stay within a small percentage of the lake.
 
I'm asking this not for argument sake, but to better understand and perhaps close the argument with myself.

The Walleye are obviously quite migratory, the Perch less so. I would suspect there is a pretty substantial perch population in that range year round, and undoubtedly a sizable number of Sheephead. The forage ALSO moves, one of the reasons the predators do.
 
"Personally, I'd rather see 100,000 smallies stocked... "
 
I can't say for sure, but I doubt you would notice the difference.

Musky,
 
It is not BS that you have to go after the money. The PF&BC did not present this program, and ask for our support. WE ( anglers, clubs like the PSA,WCC, SONS ) ASKED for it. They helped get it through, and it is reasonable that WE play the leading role in making it successful. They also HAVE put out a lot of effort, both out front and behind the scenes.
 
Politics play a part in anything. One of the reasons we need to support the PF&BC, and PGC, rather than see them merged under the DCNR where politics will play an even bigger role. It's also why organization is so important. This program was difficult to get through, and politics DID play a part. ONE organization from central Pa. wanted the monies to go to the general fund ( even though it is payed entirely by Erie anglers ) they had influence on a couple of key legislators, and got the dedication limited to five years. It would not even have been allowed out of commitee without that limit. The power of organization. And not to keep tooting their horn, but. Were it not for the PSA, with support of anglers, and the other clubs I mentioned, this program would not exist. Again the power of organization.

That was kind of my point, that the stamp is not going to raise enough to create new access.  It is the only access on the west side for large boats, and the closest for those coming from the south (with gas this way, that will matter).
 
However, the PFBC has employees that could do all the environmental "red tape" work instead of farming it out.  Do I believe that ****ing on here will help, no.  But if this is the plan for stamp money, then call it a steelhead stamp and I shouldnt have to buy one if I don't fish the tribs.  Once again I am not begrudging those who are seeing the benefits (improved access on the streams is great)  but 25% of those stamps are erie only and not trout, so not trib fishermen.
 
I completley understand the politics behind it, but PFBC is privately funded.
 
Finally if they have decided that stream access was the priority then split the monies that way. 3 years worth for stream projects and 2 years for boating projects.  I have just dealt with this sort of thing enough times to know that "easement fever" has a grip on that fund, and at the end of the five years boaters will have gotten the short end of the stick and footed at least half the bill.

If its an even exchange thats good news I guess. I say start with one and see what happens.

I'm sure they had the chance to buy the Elk access at Girard..$400,000 sounded pretty reasonable to me.  The DCNR boought it.  What are the chances that a ramp facility will be built there?  The diehard steelheaders would probably be apposed too (no offense).  We all pretty much know where the moneys have been directed and where they will probably continue to be directed.  I'm with MuskyMastr...call it an Erie steelhead tributary stamp.

I guarantee 50 letters on Doug Austen's desk could change that.

The issue of launch facilities and access to streams for stream fishing are two totally different things and they need not be at odds with each other.  Spoon made a good point about boating facilities and stream access.  I do not own a boat, have no desire to own a boat and do not have any desire to fish in Lake Erie from a boat, but I realize that others do and support the development of launch facilities, but I do not support it at the detrement of the steelhead program.  IMO - what needs to happen is more emphasis be placed on the boaters needs and partnerships between the state, the PFBC and local govt'. be set up to address the issue. 
 
Sport fishing, be it steelhead fishing in a stream or boating on Lake Erie is an important economic engine for Erie county.  It would seem to me that the PFBC should not be the sole source of funds and that local and to some extent state monies should be invested into the facilities.  Face it, the better the facilities, the more likely they will be used and the more likely they are used, more money will enter the local economy.  Not being an economic analyst, I don't know what the actually dollars and cents would be, but I would tend to think that at some point there could be at least a break even point reached where the investment would equal the return.  I also know that to get something done, talking about it here is only going to go so far.  Ideas being shared is the first step.  Putting them into action requires talking with the folks that can make things happen.
 
One other thing that I know is that if we fisherman start fighting among ourselves and only pushing our own agenda, this is not helpful for anyone.  We need to promote fishing and all aspects of the fishery, not just that portion we enjoy.  In other words, the stream fisherman need to support the boaters and the boaters the stream fisherman.  If that requires as a stream fisherman, I will pay a little more so that boaters have a facility, then that is what it takes. 

"but I would tend to think that at some point there could be at least a break even point reached where the investment would equal the return."
 
There is also point where demand is met, and additional investment, produces no additional return. 

I  dont see how Brown Trout only benefits stream anglers, Granted they will be  easier to target in a stream, versus open water. I cant speak for everyone but I think most people would be happy to land a brown in open just as much if not more then in a stream. Dan I am sure you will land some browns on your charters in the summer when the time comes and your clients will be very happy with that 1 or 2  bonus fish on top of 36 walleye. Dan does the Pittsburgh downriggers do much for lake issues just curious? I seen their news letter looks like something I would like to read monthly, where can I get an application?  Spoon is right the clubs never hid what they were trying to do, we should be happy alot of the money stayed here in our waters

Plenty of charters on Lake Ontario target the browns in spring and I'm sure people book with them just for the chance at a big brownie.  I can hear the glow frog spoon calling...