Trending
Pennsylvania has a trout stocking program that outpaces any of the surrounding states, but some are calling for a change. What sets this proposal apart from most critics' recommendations is that it seeks to reduce, not increase, the number of streams stocked.
A newly formed group of anglers and conservationists, the Pennsylvania Wild Trout Coalition, is conducting an email blitz aimed at both politicians and the public to support its request to reform Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission stocking practices. Specifically, they are asking for the commission to stop stocking streams that contain and support populations of wild trout.
The disagreement over stocking wild trout is not new; a growing number of similar complaints have appeared in online forums over the past couple of years. What makes this coalition different is its leadership team: Jim Neely, a retired U.S. Fish & Wildlife official; John Arway, a retired PFBC executive director; and Eric Hussar, the current PFBC commissioner. These are not fringe environmentalists, nonanglers, or niche anglers looking to protect their limited corner of a stream. These are dedicated, lifelong insiders who have seen the programs from both sides.
Not too long ago, the idea of stocking over wild trout would have been unheard of in the Keystone State. Over 100 years ago, when the stocking program began, the commission aimed to provide fishing opportunities in streams that were then nearly depleted because of pollution and poor foresting practices. Over time, as conservation efforts improved, the commission shifted to a program that not only provided recreational opportunities but also prioritized resource management. Part of this new program was developing the Class A Wild Trout Water designation.
As part of the management practice, streams that were found to meet specific criteria, including wild trout biomass and scientific evidence of natural breeding, were designated Class A Waters. Once designated, these waters received additional regulatory protection and were removed from the list of Trout Stocked Waters. For these waters, the goal shifted from recreational put-and-take fishing to long-term restoration & increased growth of natural populations.
So, what changed? For starters, the number of Class A Waters increased dramatically. Over the last decade, there has been an aggressive push to survey previously unknown waters. The survey process was streamlined and shortened, and the number of streams known to contain wild trout has increased to almost 18,000 miles. By policy, the Commission does not stock Class A Streams, but that does not mean it does not stock streams containing wild trout, and this is where the controversy lies.
Many of the streams identified as containing wild trout programs have been part of the stocking program for years, many times decades. This means that any attempt to remove them from the stocking list is potentially a hard sell, with pushback from both anglers and local politicians. There is also the possibility of lost license or trout permit sales if local anglers can no longer fish for trout in a favorite stream. Because of these factors, the commission continues to stock wild trout streams under two conditions: streams that do not meet the official biomass requirements or those that are issued exemptions due to historical use. Many individuals, and now the Pennsylvania Wild Trout Coalition, claim that these exemptions violate the core principle of the resource-first management program and fail to protect fledgling wild trout populations.
What do you think? Should the commission stop stocking any stream that contains wild trout? How would you feel if the stream being taken off the stocking list were your favorite Opening Day destination?