Brook trout
We’d like to hear from you!
The Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission recently conducted a telephone survey of trout anglers. Click HERE to view the survey results then share your thoughts on the results of the survey by posting a comment to this blog.
The Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission recently conducted a telephone survey of trout anglers. Click HERE to view the survey results then share your thoughts on the results of the survey by posting a comment to this blog.
Thanks for conducting the survey. It would be nice to see this done periodically to see how attitudes change over time. The Commission should try to do more to educate the public about wild trout opportunities and their value, as well as educating people on how the value can be maintained by responsible angler behavior toward landowners and the resource.
Comment by JackM — August 18, 2008 @ 3:10 pm
While this survey generates quite a bit of data, additional correlations should be done with the results before drawing conclusions.
For example, 32% of the surveyed anglers fished 26 days or more. 40% fished 10 days or less. There is no presented use of this data to correlate angler preferences relative to their avidity. Generating this data can be key to appropriately addressing specific user groups from a management standpoint. Correlation of data on a regional basis may also yield significant and useful information.
It would truly be a shame to justify management changes with this survey without creating and utilizing this type of data.
Comment by Cindy — August 19, 2008 @ 3:50 pm
Perhaps a prepaid post card style questionnaire distributed with the rules book at the time of license purchase would increase the info for your data base. I don’t honestly believe a random selection of participants via phone is truly representative of the fishing community.
Comment by Norm — August 20, 2008 @ 11:23 pm
I appreciate the commision collecting data to influence their decision making. The survey represents a nice snapshot of the preferences of the constituency of the PFBC.
As Cindy suggests, the more avid fishermen may have a different profile of preferences from the “opening day only” crowd. Perhaps leaning towards a greater appreciation of wild fish.
I would also second JackM’s comment that the commision put some effort into angler education.
Comment by Greg Y (Albatross) — August 21, 2008 @ 4:29 am
While I too commend the commission for conducting the survey I hope one of the conclusions drawn by the PFBC from the results is that they must do more to educate anglers about the importance of wild trout and the detrimental effects of stocking hatchery trout over them. The number of anglers responding in favor of the concept of “Premium Stocked Trout Areas” suggests that a large portion of the angling public has a misguided sense of entitlement when it comes to catching fish. Lastly, I would hardly consider the data indicating the most popular streams to be accurate. I don’t believe the sample size of this survey is adequate to utilize the results for enacting policy and practice changes.
Comment by Steve — August 21, 2008 @ 2:17 pm
I also appreciate you seeking angler input on trout management in PA, but I agree with other posters that the public needs to be educated on the value of managing trout streams and watersheds by using known fisheries management research. I suggest public presentations by PFBC fisheries biologists on trout managment similar to those presented by Gary Alt and his bear and deer research. I am betting that if they are advertised and presented well, they would be well attended.
I also feel that a survey form provided when a license is bought would provide a better sample of angler’s opinions. The anglers that truly care would take the time to complete the survey.
I feel that it is important to provide fish for “put and take” anglers that fish only a few times in the spring and contribute license money and other funds to our economy. However, management of true wild trout streams should be based on science. Provide the stocked fish in the streams and lakes that do not support wild trout populations.
Comment by GeneS — August 21, 2008 @ 10:59 am
I too applaud the PF&BC for conducting the trout angler survey. I believe it should be viewed as a snapshot of PA trout angler attitudes and preferences. I agree with Jack M that this survey should be done on a regular basis. Further, I believe it should be used as a report card to evaluate how effective the PF&BC has been in educating the angler about trout fishing opportunities for one, but also in educating PA’s trout anglers about the value of wild trout and the streams and rivers they inhabit in PA. Given that the PF&BC credo is “Resource First”, it appears, based on the results of the survey, the PF&BC has a lot of work ahead of them to educate trout anglers about the resource, and how to protect, preserve, and enhance it.
Comment by Tom C. (Afishinado) — August 21, 2008 @ 11:22 am
I too commend the commission for conducting this survey. Unlike some people I’ve discussed this with, I do feel the results are probably accurate and not a result of incorrect sampling. However, I also feel a large percentage of the general angling public is unaware of the opportunities provided by wild trout streams, and thus that they hold uneducated opinions. This would likely be revealed, as another poster suggested, by correlating preferences to avidity. There would also likely be a strong correlation between angler opinions and geographic regions of the state, due to proximity to high quality wild trout streams.
I commend the commission for the “resource first” policy they recently adopted, such a venture is likely to fail unless it is coupled with an agressive public education campaign about the opportunities of wild trout fishing. The commission should continue to offer put and take opportunities on streams and lakes that cannot support wild trout, while at the same time attempting to enhance fingerling projects and wild trout fisheries.
Comment by Patrick — August 21, 2008 @ 2:48 pm
I also commend the FBC for taking the time to do the survey. I also believe that more could be done to educate the public about the importance of wild trout and catch-and-release fishing. I am encouraged that the BOC has rededicated the FBC to the former “Resource First” policy that did so much good in the ’80s.
I believe that hatchery-reared fish are still important in those streams that cannot sustain a viable wild trout population, but I think that managing for wild trout where they can take care of themselves with proper management (eg. Young Woman’s Creek and Cross Fork Creek) is important.
Comment by Richard Tate — August 21, 2008 @ 3:31 pm
I wish the Commission would spend as much time and money on smallmouth bass management as they do on trout.
Comment by Joe H — August 21, 2008 @ 9:56 pm
I agree with the above comments that suggest that the more avid anglers prefer a wild trout, high quality, or long-term fishery over an early spring put-and-take situation that exists on many stocked streams.
I live in an area with almost no wild trout outside of a few tiny streams. Special regulations, specifically Delayed Harvest and FFO C&R, have created incredibly popular areas on local streams like Oil, Neshannock, and Slippery Rock Creeks and are a blessing for avid trout anlgers.
Additionally, I frequently travel to central PA and see the same enthusiasm over the many quality wild trout and special regs areas there.
IMO, a true move towards resource first means not only putting a stop to stocking over wild trout, but attempts to create quality, long term fisheries where they do not already exist. I believe that in the long term, the effects of such a move will be more beneficial than the brief rush of anglers in the first few weeks of trout season.
Comment by Kevin K — August 22, 2008 @ 10:19 am
Does anyone know why the report “Pennsylvania Trout Fishing Survey” Responsive Management has a buck jumping and a back ground that looks like the Rocky Mountains?
Comment by ken — August 27, 2008 @ 11:20 am
Ken- To answer your question, the buck and background you viewed on the report is Responsive Management’s logo and standardized report format.
Comment by Adrian — August 27, 2008 @ 11:31 am
Using this survey as a springboard, perhaps the PFBC should create CAC’s similar to what the PGC does with their Wildlife Management Units. I am sure that true fisherman would love to take part in a committee that deals with their local streams, waterways, and trout-stocking.
The stocked trout will always have a place in PA, but I feel the PFBC needs to work more towards securing access and working on habitat, like recently started programs of securing easements. Without quality waterways and access, the stocked trout really doesn’t mean much.
Comment by Dave — August 27, 2008 @ 8:33 pm
Question – If i have a boat registered in PA, do I need a launch permit in addition to use a state park lake?
Comment by Jim — September 2, 2008 @ 11:40 am
Jim,
This is not a comment for this particular blog; however you do not need a launch permit for a state park if your boat is registered with the Fish and Boat Commission. For future inquiries, please refer to the Commission’s website for information – http://www.fishandboat.com.
Thank you!
Comment by Adrian — September 2, 2008 @ 12:02 pm