Commentary: Opposition to Freeman Run trout stocking experiment in Pennsylvania overblown

I am primarily a wild trout angler, and I agree that, in general, Class A wild trout streams should not be stocked. However, I am amazed at all the attention, misinformation and exaggerated claims that have been flying around related to the proposed stocking experiment on a Class A section of Freeman Run in Potter County, Pa.

The sky is not falling.

Note, it is a limited stocking experiment to learn what effect, if any, stocking has on the wild brown trout population in a three-mile section of the freestone stream.

The “miscellaneous special regulations” that will be put in place would make all wild brown and brook trout protected with no-kill regulations. Rainbows would be stocked and allowed to be harvested.

One of the most misleading items was the title of an article posted on the Fly Fisherman magazine website – “Catering to Catch & Kill Lobbyists.” If one reads the article, it correctly points out that wild trout will be protected with catch-and-release regulations.

MORE COVERAGE FROM PENNSYLVANIA OUTDOOR NEWS:

Invasive flathead catfish now the apex predator in Pennsylvania’s Susquehanna River

Pennsylvania Game Commission tracking EHD spread across state

All mentored hunters under age 7 may get tags

As it is now, for five months of the year, an angler can catch and kill five wild trout per day from that section of Freeman Run. This catch-and-kill regulation runs from the opening day of trout season in April until Labor Day. Therefore, the wild trout will be better protected during the experiment than they are now.

In reality, many factors influence the wild trout biomass of a stream. They are habitat, droughts, flooding after spawning, anchor ice that forms during super cold winter nights, water quality, pollution, sedimentation, predators, fishing pressure, fishing regulations, stocking and even more.

I asked one of the biggest opponents of the study which of these factors had the greatest effect on wild trout and where would he rank stocking on the list. He admitted that stocking over wild trout would rank pretty low. I agree.

Then we have John Arway’s commentary in the Aug. 15 issue of this publication. Arway, former executive director of the Fish & Boat Commission, goes so far as to claim that, if the commissioners vote to conduct the experiment, they will be breaking the law.

He wrote, “The law is clear. The commissioners can pass regulations to improve fisheries, but not to harm them.”

Webster’s dictionary defines a “fishery” as a place where people fish. One could argue that stocking rainbows and protecting the wild fish would actually improve the fishery by creating better fishing. If the commissioners pass this in October, they certainly will not be breaking the law.

There has been lots of talk about the mission of the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission being to protect and enhance the resource. The agency’s other mission is to provide fishing opportunities – and that is the one that sells licenses, trout stamps and pays the bills.

If the commission just wanted to protect wild trout, it should ban all fishing for them, but that would take away fishing opportunities. Can anyone argue that stocking rainbow trout and protecting wild brown and brook trout in Freeman Run won’t enhance fishing opportunities?

With everything that I have seen online, my favorite quote (and the one that I agree with most) – published on Go Erie.com – was one by Kris Kuhn, director of the Fish & Boat Commission’s Bureau of Fisheries.

“The take-home message here is that we do prioritize the wild trout resource first, but recognize there are certain circumstances based on the social component of fisheries where we may want to consider a stocking exemption, but the vast majority of Class As are managed solely for wild trout with no stocking.”

I hope that common sense and cooler heads prevail. I, for one, would like to see the results from a well-designed Freeman Run study. I hope that it goes forward.