Trout Summit 2002 –

Informal Summary of Breakout GroupsTrout Summit Logo

 

Wild Trout Questions

 

Question 1:

What are the most important elements of a desirable wild trout fishery?

- Trout species composition

- Size and number of trout

- Number of legal size trout per stream mile

- Number of anglers fishing, trout catch per trip.

 

Group 1 Responses

 

There were some initial questions concerning how wild trout populations respond to management techniques.  Response was noted to be variable.  In addition, the impacts of fishing pressure on special regulation waters should be incorporated into the analysis of those waters.

 

- Volume and flow of stream

- Insect life – likes to fly-fish so need good hatches

- Quality of trout – If too many trout they may become stunted

- Habitat and Water quality – The need to produce a good fishery

- Nature of the setting (aesthetics)

- Location of the stream

- Size of stream – Likes to fish larger streams

- Fishing Pressure – Solitude and quiet preferred

- Accessible

Size & Quantity of trout

-Wants to catch 15 trout in 3-4 hours and have a 1 or 2 be nice size

- Fewer and bigger trout

- Both brook and browns together

- Number per mile not important, but size is

Appropriate reproduction

-  Lots of reproduction to produce a good wild trout fishery

            -  Any stream that produced good wild trout fishing is desirable

Special Regulation

- Heavy fishing pressure may mean a less positive response

- Water quality important to response of trout to the regulations

            - Tackle restrictions can benefit brook trout (cited Maryland paper)

 

Group 2 Responses

 

The participants indicated that the most important elements of a wild trout fishery were solitude, location (scenic), good physical habitat for the fish, and plenty of large fish caught in a day’s fishing. Solitude was more important than scenery for one participant if good fishing was available.

 

Suggestions were that we should do more species specific management, even in mixed species populations, and that we should do more to improve wild brook trout populations.  The claim was made that our past management practices have been aimed primarily at brown trout.

 

Group 3 Response

 

Catch was not the most important factor but they could not articulate factors well.  Finally, the group decided they would like information kept to legal/mile and total trout biomass.

 

Group 4 Response

 

Size of the fish seemed to be the most important factor in this group, however, some commented that size is not as important as being able to catch a number of wild fish even though they may be under legal size on some small streams.

 

In this group we had one individual that was questioning the intent of the questions and trying to read more into the questions than what was intended.

 

Group 5 response

 

Question not given to group

 

 

Question 2

What Fisheries Management efforts do you believe are most important in improving wild trout populations?

- Special Regulations

- Changes in Stocking

- Banning or limiting harvest

- Other factors such as habitat improvement

 

Group 1 Response

 

Regulations

- Need to reduce harvest

- Slot limits are a good way to allow some harvest but protect the big ones

- Greater variety of regulations

- More special regs because not enough causes high fishing pressure on the current ones

- More and different special regs to match the specific needs of the wild trout population

Stocking of trout

- Causes a decline in wild trout population due to fishing pressure early season

            - No need to stock when there are already fish there.

            - Stocking can improve wild trout because harvest-oriented anglers catch only stocked

               trout and then go home having little impact on wild trout

- We should manage subsets of streams.  Characterize and manage them appropriately

- We need more information of streams and trout populations

- Manage watershed by watershed

- Local input by knowledgeable anglers important         

- Need more and better education programs to teach Catch and Release

- Coordinate habitat improvement projects to more effectively benefit wild trout

 

Group 2 Response

 

The agency should do its best to maintain Class A streams as Class A and to get each wild trout population to achieve Class A status.  This should be accomplished by improving chemical and physical habitat, limiting harvest but not banning harvest, not stocking Class A waters and preventing private landowners from doing the same.  Biologists should be permitted to attempt to elevate some Class B streams to Class A status either by terminating stocking (biologist’s judgment) or by stocking species other than those that are already reproducing in the streams.

 

It was suggested that more frequent surveys should occur on wild trout streams.

 

It was also suggested by one or two individuals that children’s fishing contests should be allowed to occur via stocking even if a stream is Class A.

 

Group 3 Response

 

- Need to identify the limiting factors first

- Must ban harvest first to see what potential carrying capacity of stream or section could be

- Money for trout management must be prioritized between wild and stocked trout programs

 

Group 4 Response

 

Question not given to group

 

Group 5 Response

 

Habitat

- Protect and improve habitat on a watershed basis

- Sometimes just let the habitat alone and maintain natural productivity

Special Regulations

- Limit or ban harvest

- Eliminate harvest of native trout

- Eliminate all special regulations

- Eliminate stocking on wild trout streams

- Identify limiting factors

- Provide incentives for private landowners who provide public access

- Educate anglers on the importance of wild trout

 

 

 

 

Question 3

When wild trout populations on a particular stream do not improve with management, what actions do you believe would be the most important or appropriate to address the situation?

 

Group 1 Response

 

No response or ran out of time to discuss

 

Group 2 Response

 

Question not given to group

 

Group 3 Response

 

No response or ran out of time to discuss

 

Group 4 Response

 

Comments included, we should identify what the carrying capacity of the stream is, and basically manage for what that capacity is in terms of the streams capability.  We should consider the different capabilities for limestone versus freestone streams.  Don't rush to make changes in regulations or to include stocking.

 

Group 5 Response

 

- Find out why, by identifying what is limiting populations

- Is rehabilitation of the wild trout population realistic for the resource?

- Analysis of historical use

- Stop management activities and focus on waters that are performing

- Identify what constituents want and consider other options

- Focus on stream buffers

 

 

Question 4

What are your ideas on the role of harvest as part of a wild trout fishery?

 

Group 1 Response

 

No response or ran out of time to discuss

 

Group 2 Response

 

This question produced the greatest divergence of opinions.  Some said that we should limit harvest because the resource is fragile while others said that limiting harvest, such as through a reduced creel limit (lower than 5), discourages anglers from fishing.  They’ll quit fishing rather than just take home two 7” brookies under a 2 trout creel limit.  As it is, one angler said he only sees one or two anglers per year on wild trout streams and another said angler use is light, supporting the idea that more restrictive regulations on wild trout are unnecessary.  Two anglers felt that we should maintain harvest to maintain the interest of youth in fishing.

 

It was suggested that the level of harvest permitted should be stream and species specific based upon the knowledge of PFBC biologists and that the biologists should allow the wild populations to rise to “somewhere near” each stream’s carrying capacity. 

 

Two anglers said we should protect BT spawners, with one even suggesting a 12-15 in. slot limit on BT in order to do so.

 

Group 3

 

No response or ran out of time to discuss

 

Group 4

 

Some comments were in favor of considering reducing the creel limit for wild trout streams or no harvest regulations in some cases.  Other comments were that the current harvest regulations should be left in place.  Most agreed that some level of harvest was acceptable and for anglers being allowed to harvest at least some fish was important

 

Group 5

 

- Harvest regulations should be stream specific

- Harvest is fine for streams

- Harvest is not acceptable

- No-harvest should be a very limited part of management since size limits are more effective

- Anglers need to be educated about the effects of harvest on a fishery

 

 

 

 

Question 5

What are your opinions on supplementing the wild trout fisheries on particular waters by stocking?

 

Group 1 Response

 

No response or ran out of time to discuss

 

 

 

 

Group 2 Response

 

Again, there was some divergence of opinions but those who commented agreed that stocking over wild trout was OK depending upon the size of the wild trout population.  None said that we should never stock over wild trout and only one said that we should ignore wild trout in our stocking programs, indicating that the stocked trout maintain the interest of children.  

 

Some said that we should never stock over “good” wild trout populations because (1) it’s an inefficient use of stocked trout and (2) because of the impacts on wild trout, particularly brook trout. Two other individuals said we should not stock over wild brook trout populations that have an abundance of larger fish because of the by-catch effects in removing larger brook trout. When choosing to stock over wild trout we should discriminate between wild brook and brown trout populations.

 

Regarding class B populations, the suggestion was made that these streams carry marginal populations for fishing success so supplementing these with stockings would be good.  It was recommended that the decision to stock or not stock over wild populations should be left up to the biologists.  Biologists should recommend stocking where habitat limits the abundance of wild adult trout.

 

Group 3 Response

 

Some responses but noted as questions and none related to original question.

 

Group 4 Response

 

Comments included a concern with designating a stream as a Class A wild trout water and would this eliminate the Cooperative Nursery on the stream.  The person was informed that if the stream was designated as a Class A water stocking would be prohibited in the Class A section but the Cooperative Nursery certainly could remain in operation.  When polled, 13 of the 14 participants in this group were not in favor of stocking Class A waters.

 

Group 5 Response

 

None of the group said they thought the PFBC should be stocking Class A streams.  Most had very strong opinions against it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hatchery Trout Questions

 

 

Question 1

What factors should the Commission consider in determining how many adult trout should be stocked each year?

 

Group 1 Response

 

- How many trout can they grow under their effluent permit?

- Cost of raising trout – how many can they afford to rise

- Number of trout stamps sold

- Number of streams capable of supporting stocked trout should be a guide.

- Publicize late season stockings. This gets kids more involved because they are out of school and

   can fish during the week

- Use more fingerlings as opposed to adult size trout.  They use less space and you can grow more

- Fingerlings should be used to restore degraded and recovering streams

 

Group 2 Response

 

No response or ran out of time to discuss

 

Group 3 Response

 

- Do not stock good wild trout streams

- Avoid very small streams

- Begin allocation process by determining the # stocked based on the quantity of suitable habitat

- Use current performance measures to target or prioritize stocking rates

- Increase in stocking will not increase catch rates without an increase in skill

- Increase the size of the trout stocked

- Support for junior license

 

Group 4 Response

 

Suggestions included reducing the size of the average catchable trout and stock more fish as our trout are too large on average and our anglers have become spoiled by the size of these fish.  Others suggestions were that we should stock fewer but larger trout (12"-14" average) and allow the Coop's to stock the smaller fish.

 

Group 5 Response

 

Question not given to group

 

 

Question 2

Assuming the Commission has a fixed (and relatively stable) amount of money to devote to stocked trout programs and major infrastructure needs, what are your ideas on the best way to allocate and spend this money?

 

Group 1 Response

 

No response or ran out of time to discuss

 

Group 2 Response

 

One comment was that we should cut back on production if that’s what it would take in order to have enough money for some of the infrastructure repairs.  Another was that we should get more help from our co-op nurseries to at least temporarily raising more fish. Two final comments were that we should reduce production at facilities along limestone streams and explore more alternatives in reservoir tail waters and mine discharges.

 

Group 3 Responses

 

Question not given to group

 

Group 4 Responses

 

Question not given to group

 

Group 5 Responses

 

There was much difficulty and confusion with this question.  Several in the group mentioned that the PFBC had just spent a large amount of money on the FishPro survey and if we did have a stable funding source the FishPro report already prioritized the infrastructure needs.  In other words the PFBC already spent money to ask the professionals (FishPro), so what makes us (the group) any more qualified to answer the question?

 

 

Question 3

What actions should the commission take to better promote the stocked trout fishery?

 

Group 1 Response

 

No response or ran out of time to discuss

 

Group 2 Response

 

Question not given to group

 

Group 3 Response

 

- Question asked whether the purpose of promotion was to increase license sales/fishing pressure

- Announced inseason stockings

- Stock larger streams to reduce pressure on smaller streams

- More emphasis on urban trout stocking

- Link the cost of stocking to the cost of a trout stamp.

- Too few stops during inseason stocking.  This concentrates trout.  Float stocking recommended.

- Close streams for 24 hours after a stocking

 

Group 4 Responses

 

Comments included that we should stock before Fish for Free Days and possibly extend this concept to an entire weekend sometime in the spring about a month after the opening of season to better promote stocked trout angling. Other comments revolved around doing more to promote angling for youths such as, more Children's Areas. 

 

Group 5 Response

 

- We do not need to promote stocked trout fishing just promote trout fishing in general

- Get rid of special regulations

- More float stocking

- Promote it as a natural resource

- Show anglers what is remaining in a “fished out” stream

 

 

Question 4

What advantages and disadvantages would there be in considering two opening days, one earlier than the present, that would accommodate the seasonal differences throughout the state?

 

Group 1 Response

 

A negative economic impact on the northern part of the state where traditionally anglers have come from all over the state on opening weekend to fish.  With a two opening day system many may not want to come since they already had their opening day in the south.

 

On the other hand more people from the northern part of the state will travel to the south to experience the early opening day and this will provide a positive economic value but may be negative in terms of crowding especially since there is much less public land in this region of the state.  This overcrowding could lead to posting and other negative impacts.

 

Some said why have an opening day at all but this was strongly countered with the idea of opening day being a traditional event with great sentimental value.

 

Group 2 Responses

 

A few comments were negative because of stocking logistics and the fear that anglers would create crowded conditions by traveling from one part of the state to another. 

 

One angler suggested that we just open our trout season earlier statewide, avoiding need for the two opening days and another said that we should never have a closed season.  They seemed to be looking for more weeks to fish and liked any change that would go towards that end.

 

Anglers agreed that a two opening day scenario would require a “good boundary.”

 

 

Group 3 Responses

 

Question not given to group

 

Group 4 Responses

 

Comments were that the concept of having two opening days would be OK in some areas; however, we would need to have clearly defined boundaries for the two different opening days.  Concerns were with crowding an already crowded situation in some areas by concentrating anglers in these areas and that anglers would move from one area to the next so that they could fish two different opening days.

 

Group 5 Responses

 

Question not given to group

 

 

Question 5

Delayed Harvest Regulations are one of the tools used by the Commission to manage stocked trout fisheries.  What factors should be considered in determining when and how to use delayed harvest management on particular waters?

 

Group 1 Response

 

No response or ran out of time to discuss

 

Group 2 Responses

 

Only one factor was suggested that we should consider regarding DH Area locations: two individuals said that when we establish the DH Areas on cool streams then the fish are present all summer. Use cool streams for future DH Areas.

 

The group mainly argued the merits of having or not having any special regulation or DH Areas.  The arguments against DH Areas were that they take opportunities and sections of streams away, they discriminate against bait anglers, and they waste fish because of the 1% daily natural mortality that the individual claimed was occurring.  Those who favored DH Areas said that if the DH Areas sell more licenses, then they should be increased. One or two suggested that DH Areas should be all tackle.

 

Group 3 Responses

 

Universal support for expansion of Delayed Harvest

 

Group 4 Responses

 

Question not given to group

 

Group 5 Responses

 

- Make every stocked trout stream Delayed Harvest

- Make them All-Tackle

- Consider summer stream flows

- Make them All-Tackle during the harvest period

- Eliminate them.  But if used then include all the stakeholders.

 

 

 

Question 6

What are the most important objectives that fisheries managers should consider in adjusting management for stocked trout fisheries?  Objectives include:

            - Angler Use

            - Numbers Caught

            - Numbers Harvested

            - Angler trips per stocked trout

 

 

Group 1 Response

 

The group had trouble with this question so they skipped it and moved on to question #4

 

Group 2 Responses

 

Question not given to group

 

Group 3 Responses

 

Must consider impacts on wild trout

 

 

 

 

Group 4 Responses

 

Suggestions were that we should stock a species that would not interfere with the wild trout species on a water, such as stocking rainbow trout in streams that support wild brook trout.  Overall, no clear direction from the group regarding the objectives for this question

 

Group 5 Responses

 

Question not given to group

 

 

Question 7

What factors should the Commission use in deciding where to stock trout?

 

Group 1 Response

 

No response or ran out of time to discuss

 

Group 2 Responses

 

There were two themes.  One was that we should stock where there are no wild trout or where the wild trout do not produce a “viable “ fishery.  (Viable was defined according to T.U.’ s recent definition: reasonable ability to catch but not necessarily keep a limit of trout at any given time).  If we do stock over wild trout populations, a participant said we should use a species that is not reproducing in the stream and put a no-kill regulation on the wild species to see if its numbers will expand if protected.

 

The other theme was that we should stock where the public wants to fish for stocked trout (determine via angler surveys), and that could mean more lakes if that’s where people like to fish instead of streams.  We should also stock where there is good access, public ownership, where there is “good size” to the stream, and good water quality.

 

Group 3 Responses

 

Question not given to group

 

Group 4 Responses

 

Question not given to group

 

 

 

 

 

Group 5 Response

 

- Current system is very good.  Maintain it.

- No stocking on Class A’s

- Use stocked trout to attract new anglers

- Use a fair and even distribution system for stocked trout

- Stock more lakes

- Larger emphasis on rural areas

 

 

  

Water Quality & Habitat Questions

 

Question 1

What are your ideas about the most important elements of a successful habitat improvement program?

 

Group 1 Response

 

- Primary idea to keep in mind when doing habitat improvement is to “Do No Harm”

- The PFBC should be a Technical Advisor in these projects

- The PFBC should seek information from and provide info to local groups

- Make sure devices are non-obtrusive to natural setting, too mechanical, or artificial looking. 

- Build them so they fit the landscape.  One structure after another ruins the look of the stream.

- PFBC should be a coordinator of projects and let groups know which streams would benefit the

  most with habitat improvement.

- Groups should then obtain growing greener funds to do the work

 

Some thought the PFBC should spend more on direct habitat improvement projects while others felt that all the money earmarked for habitat improvement was going to other agencies and groups and the Commission gets none.

 

Group 2 Response

 

The most important elements are cooperative partnerships among multiple public and private entities.  To that end, the PFBC should take a more proactive role in soliciting or approaching more organizations or sportsman’s groups for help with this work rather than waiting for volunteers to appear. 

 

Additional important elements are riparian corridor maintenance, protection, and purchases.  Fencing (bank) should be the major thrust in agricultural areas. 

 

A measure of success should be an increase in trout biomass.

 

 

Group 3 Responses

 

- Must first maintain public access (easements), then improve habitat

- Increase staff to do more habitat improvement

- Current money allocated to habitat improvement is not equitable

- Question how need for habitat improvement is identified.  Does the Area biologist recommend?

   habitat improvement?

- PFBC needs to be more proactive in habitat improvement

- Identify limiting factors then design projects to address these factors.  Some limiting factors

  (low flow, high temps) may not be able to be changed.

- Need a cost/benefit analysis of current habitat program

 

Group 4 Responses

 

No response or ran out of time to discuss

 

Group 5 Responses

 

Question not given to group

 

 

Question 2

What do you see as the Commission’s role in habitat improvement programs?

-         Consider that large amounts for funding is being provided by other agencies for watershed planning, technical assistance and project implementation.

 

Group 1 Response

 

No response or ran out of time to discuss

 

Group 2 Responses

 

Get information to service and sportsmen’s organizations about what could be done and what has been done to improve habitat in the Commonwealth’s streams.  Use this info to solicit more help. Also, continue the Adopt-a-Stream program.

 

Seek conservation easements.

 

Buy riparian lands.

 

Mow less, mow less, mow less (along streams)...PFBC and public.  Educate the public about this and about the need for permits to do instream and stream bank modifications, even if they think they are doing so to improve fish habitat.

 

Group 3 Responses

 

- Need to be more proactive

- Prioritize our projects and advise others (growing greener) on how to prioritize theirs

- PFBC should take a leadership role for growing greener projects

 

Group 4 Responses

 

Question not given to group

 

 

 

 

 

Group 5 Responses

 

- Provide technical assistance

- Oversee and review growing greener projects

- Find more money to do more yourselves

- Showcase success stories through education

- Be an advocate for habitat improvement

- Have a “Yes we can” attitude

- Develop more partnerships

- Expand role by being facilitators, guiding groups toward habitat problems

 

 

 

Question 3

You’ve heard a briefing about the subject of PCB’s and other chemicals in stocked and wild fish in Pennsylvania.   What are your ideas about how the state can best inform the angling public about these matters.

 

Group 1 Response

 

The group showed a great deal of frustration with this issue. 

 

It was felt that it was a matter of education needed to make anglers understand that the levels being talked about were only to provide an advisory not a “do not eat” warning but at the same time the issue was so explosive and inflammatory that many people do not take the time to listen to the explanation once issue of PCBs in stocked trout is raised.  They simply see it as a bad thing and it affects their attitude as to the quality of the stocked trout program.

 

Some thoughts for educating the public were:

 

Put in the Summary booklet a more thorough explanation of the difference between an advisory and a FDA warning. 

 

Produce a video that explains the situation and puts it into perspective along with the positive health benefits of eating trout.

 

Try to get the other agencies like DEP and Department of Health to put out information that puts this issue into its proper perspective rather than always making the PFBC defend itself.

 

Group 2 Responses

 

Question not given to group

 

 

 

 

Group 3 Responses

 

- Some actually “liked” PCB’s because of the reduced pressure on streams

- Need to better explain consumptive advisory versus a ban

- Provide perspective by comparing fish levels to other everyday items or experiences

- Need better explanation and information on PFBC website

 

Group 4 Responses

 

Suggestions were that information to the public on the subject of contaminant levels in fish, etc. should be disseminated through the media such as newspaper, radio and television.  In addition, it would be advisable to have this information provided as early as possible before the opening of season, such as by March 1.

 

Group 5 Responses

 

- No more press releases but continue to make the information available

- Overall there seems to be a need for better public education about PCB’s

 

 

Question 4

Although PA has millions of acres of public land, the fact is that over 75% of the Commonwealth’s trout waters (both stocked and wild) are on private lands.  What can be done to encourage private/public partnerships to insure that these lands and waters remain protected and open for the public fishing for generations yet to come?

 

Group 1 Response

 

PFBC should become more involved with the private landowner and maintain a dialogue with them to be sure to understand their views and try to solve problems before they reach the level that will cause posting.

 

Work with sportsmen groups to have them act as intermediaries with landowners to do stream clean ups and other activities that will help to keep streams open.  But one participant complained that his sportsmen group had worked hard with camp owners to keep part of a stream open to fishing and then the PFBC stopped stocking the stream and now camp owners are threatening posting unless stream is stocked.  Stock trout to keep land open.

 

Work with landowners to help improve their property and make it more amenable to angling by building parking areas and other projects.  Another participant complained that this was impractical.

 

Large tracts of land are being posted and leased out primarily for hunters but this is also affecting fishermen.  Need to address this problem with timber companies but again someone said it was not the timber companies but other major landowners that were doing this.

 

The gist of this discussion was that there needed to be maximum communication between the PFBC and both landowners and sportsmen organizations to try to keep private lands open to fishing.

 

Also it was suggested the PFBC spend more money on obtaining stream easements.  Purchase more lands along high quality trout streams.

 

Group 2 Response

 

Buy the land or purchase easements.

 

Establish better relationships between PFBC and landowners by: having WCO’s or other PFBC agents or sportsmen (sportsmen solicited by PFBC) visit landowners annually (some WCO’s don’t visit landowners the way they should); posting farm fields to keep anglers out of fields and direct them to riparian areas; encouraging Boy Scouts, TU groups, and other user groups (sportsman’s clubs) to adopt streams for litter clean-up, provide stiles over fences, and take care of other landowner needs; providing landowners with incentives to open streams, such as pushing for additional legislation that would further protect landowners from liability.

 

PFBC should do more to combat littering, which is a major cause of lost fishing opportunities on private land.  Some anglers perceive private lands to be “public” just because the PFBC stocks streams that flow through them.  Anglers need to be educated that this isn’t the case. The PFBC could do so by posting signs, for instance, that read something like “this land is open for fishing through the courtesy of the landowner.”

 

Group 3 Responses

 

Question not given to group

 

Group 4 Response

 

Suggestions were that we should pursue a more aggressive landowner easement program to secure more public fishing areas, something along the lines of what has been used in New York.  It was also suggested that more groups should work with organizing litter clean-ups to enhance landowner relations.

 

Group 5 Response

 

- Buy as much riparian lands as possible.  Find funding to do so

- Develop a landowner recognition program

- Use short-term leases

- Need to better educate anglers on the fragility of angler/landowner relations

- Provide tax incentives for conservation easements

- Use the minimum amount of signage (sp?) when access is provided

 

 

Question 5

The Commission’s habitat improvement and environmental services programs are currently funded through the Fish Fund.  What are your ideas about how these programs, which benefit all Pennsylvanians, should be funded in the future?

 

Group 1 Response

 

No response or ran out of time to discuss

 

Group 2 Responses

 

- The costs of permit reviews done by DES for PaDot, coalmines, etc. should be paid for by the applicant or the project promoter

 

- Use more PFBC dollars, perhaps through using a portion of the new trout stamp fee toward a “habitat improvement fund.”

 

- PFBC should receive a portion of the state sales tax

 

- Seek legislation again that would allow landfill tipping fees to go to PFBC (in part)

 

Group 3 Response

 

Money is currently available through partners with PFBC to fund habitat programs and to purchase stream access

 

Group 4 Responses

 

It was suggested that we should offer a voluntary conservation enhancement stamp with funds earmarked for habitat improvement or obtaining landowner easements for public fishing.  This should be specifically mentioned to an angler when the angler purchases a license.

 

Group 5 Responses

 

Very little time was available to discuss this question.

- Find a way to get Growing Greener money

- Consider a voluntary conservation tax

- Charge user fees for users other than anglers

- Tap local government for funds

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Additional Comments Received (not specific to any questions)

 

Comment #1

 

In General, Session one was more productive but they really did not focus in on providing something concrete, always talked in generalities. A sort of resounding theme on hard issues was to trust the biologist to use their best judgment on what to due with specific water and the trout species therein.

 

Session two – went nowhere. Facilitator took them off on tangents and after a time tried to reign them back in and refocus them. They just didn’t understand the basic principles of our programs.  Had to leave, so missed third session.

 

Comment #2

 

I had the pleasure of sitting in with Group 4 at the Trout Summit.  I only attended the first two breakouts so do not have any comments on the third session that dealt with water quality and habitat improvement.  My notes were few as the facilitators were recording all salient comments that I assume will be compiled and made available.  I do have some general comments/observations that I will share.

 

First I’d have to say that the facilitators had more than a little difficulty keeping the group focused on the questions.  I could sense their frustration when some individuals would ramble on about something that had nothing to do with the question.  At least one individual in our group was only interested in the fate of his clubs nursery and a kids derby they have on a stream that had recently gone to class A status.  Our group also had a number of Commissioners (I think there were four) that received more airtime than I thought necessary. An ex-WCO also had a lot to say and I believe swayed the group several times when landowner relations and stocking techniques were discussed.

 

I was struck by the fact that most comments seemed to ignore the information presented by Mike and Rick.  Was neat to hear one individual tell us that kids have to buy a junior license to fish, at least all the others present let him know that they fished for free.  With one exception there was a consensus that we should stock fewer trout that were larger rather that greater numbers of smaller individuals.  Lots of support for any activity for young anglers such as derbies and exclusive use areas.  More than a few recommendations aimed at improving the catchable program that we have already implemented.  There also seemed to be a strong belief that any trout management issue could be solved by improvements to the habitat.

 

Comment #3

 

Other ideas expressed during group but not related to a specific question asked:

 

Use the concept of delayed harvest more and in new and different ways such as no harvest for the first two weeks of the season on stocked streams or close the stream to harvest for a week after an inseason stocking.

If the PFBC is unable to stock trout into small streams (ones that would receive less than three hundred trout per stocking) they should consider involving reputable cooperative nursery people who have the vehicles and equipment to stock the trout in these streams.  The coop people could come to the PFBC hatcheries and pick up the trout and take them to the streams and stock them.  The PFBC would need to be sure these are reputable people that can be trusted with the PFBC’s trout.

 

Comment #4

 

1) Most sportsman recognized the need for stocked trout and if they had a choice, they would prefer   larger stocked trout and less of them

 

2) The issue of put-grow-take fingerlings to replace stocked adults never was brought up in my breakout group.

 

3) Sportsmen would prefer that the PCB issue die or go away.  Overall, they are sick and tired of being told about it.

 

4) Sportsmen think that the PAFBC Environmental Services should be more proactive in determining worthwhile projects rather than waiting for someone to propose a project

 

5) Friday’s session with other agencies appeared to be a real eye opener for all involved.   Other agencies and states have similar issues dealing with NPDES permits and impairment of receiving waters.  Many seemed perplexed as to where we are going and what can be done to hit a moving target of numerical limits and impairment to benthic macroinvertebrates.

 

 

 

Contributors to this document:

 

Rick Hoopes

Jim Harvey

Tom Greene

Mike Kaufmann

Dave Arnold

Bob Moase

Bruce Hollender

Al Woomer

Dave Miko

Bob Weber