www.dec.ny.gov

PUBLIC PERSPECTIVES ON TROUT STREAM MANAGEMENT

IN NEW YORK STATE Public Meeting Series Report

Fred Henson, Coldwater Fisheries Unit Leader

June 15, 2018

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This meeting series would not have been possible without the cooperation and assistance of

many. I am grateful to Camille Eshak for her valuable advice on running a productive public

meeting. I am also grateful to Karl Berger and the regional Public Participation Specialists. Their

enthusiasm and professionalism was evident from the beginning and critical to the effort.

I am indebted to a long list of DEC colleagues who sat through early versions of my Powerpoint

presentation and patiently provided the constructive criticism that allowed me to refine it to its final

form. At several meetings, discussions of trout rearing and stocking were enhanced by the

practical knowledge shared by experienced fish culturists.

Finally, I sincerely appreciate the active participation of the three hundred eighteen members of

public who took the time to engage in thoughtful conversation with me and with each other.

2

ABSTRACT As the first step in a reexamination of trout stream management in New York State, sixteen public

meetings were conducted during the autumn of 2017 for the purpose of understanding the range

of outcomes desired by trout stream anglers and the relative importance of those outcomes to

angler satisfaction. The top five desired outcomes were:

• high quality stream habitat as a means to better fishing and as a desired outcome in its own

right

• the opportunity to catch wild trout and to a lesser extent stocked trout that have been in the

stream longer than freshly stocked trout

• extended availability of trout stocked in streams

• a diversity of distinct stream fishing experiences (stocked trout, wild trout, easy vs.

challenging, etc.) and the information necessary to find them

• management success to be based on more than just catch of trout per hour

INTRODUCTION In the autumn of 2017, the NYSDEC Bureau of Fisheries conducted a series of sixteen public

meetings on the subject of trout stream management. The purpose of the meeting series was

to understand the range of outcomes desired by trout stream anglers and the relative

importance of those outcomes in contributing to a satisfactory angling experience. Furthermore,

the acquisition of this information was undertaken as the first step in developing a new

statewide trout stream management plan.

The purpose of this report is to provide a thorough record of this public outreach effort. A

thorough record of this process is of particular interest because, by inviting broad public

participation at this early stage, it differs from previous reexaminations of trout stream

management conducted by agency staff. Beyond documenting the relative prevalence of ideas

and concerns specific to trout stream management, the discussion of methods and results in

this report is intended to help in the design of future public outreach efforts on other natural

resource management topics.

Based on the unique advantages of face-to-face conversation in exploring ideas and confirming

that the ideas expressed were clearly understood, a statewide series of public meetings was

selected as the best option for obtaining informed feedback from trout anglers. The importance

of achieving the maximum level of clarity in communication was considered to outweigh the

costs and limitations associated with this labor-intensive approach. Three objectives were

identified for the meetings:

1. Explain current approach to inland trout stream management (Catch Rate Oriented Trout

Stocking - CROTS)

2. Share relevant research results from DEC’s CROTS reevaluation study

3. Understand expectations and outcomes desired by trout stream anglers

For each objective, the ability of all participants, including DEC staff, to ask questions was

considered essential to a high quality, informed discussion and to avoid confusion. The first two

objectives address the background information considered necessary to inform the conversation

required to achieve the third objective.

3

METHODS

Meeting Format The meeting format consisted of a 30-minute Powerpoint presentation covering the basic

principles of CROTS and the most important findings of the CROTS reevaluation study

(Appendix 1). This was followed by 90 minutes dedicated to questions and discussion.

Generally, the meeting room was opened to the public 30 minutes before the presentation was

scheduled to begin to allow for informal introductions and conversation as participants arrived.

Participants were invited to sign in with their name, organizational affiliation (if any), and e-mail

address to provide a record of attendance and a means of future contact. All meetings were

held in public venues and open to the public. While key stakeholder organizations were invited

to these meetings, no additional special meetings or “private showings” were conducted for

such organizations.

The question and discussion portion of the program was intended to facilitate high quality

conversation between the presenter and the other participants. These informed conversations

and the resulting ideas were anticipated to be the most important product of the meetings. The

slide show was designed to introduce the discussion and provide the information necessary to

support it. To further support and stimulate the discussion, large flipcharts at the front of the

room were used to record the ideas expressed and keep them visible throughout the allotted

time. To help keep the discussion on the subject of trout stream management, a separate

flipchart page was designated as the “Parking Lot” and used to record and acknowledge

comments or questions on fisheries management issues unrelated to inland trout stream

management.

Responsibility for facilitating the discussion was divided between two people as follows:

1. Presenter/Listener – a fisheries professional – was responsible for listening to audience

comments and questions and asking clarifying questions, restating the comment or

otherwise engaging in dialogue to achieve the clearest possible understanding of the

speaker’s desired outcomes. This task was the sole focus of this person.

2. Facilitator/Scribe – usually a public participation specialist with meeting facilitation

training but no technical background in fisheries management – was responsible for

explaining the discussion ground rules including the function of the parking lot (Appendix

2), calling on speakers (from the audience), and, when presenter and speaker were

satisfied that the idea expressed was correctly understood, capturing the idea on a large

flipchart.

To serve as a “how-to” manual and to explicitly divide responsibilities between himself and

regional staff, the Coldwater Fisheries Unit Leader distributed a “Logistics Plan and Local

Arrangements Needs” document (Appendix 2) to all participating staff in advance of the first

meeting in the series. This document included the discussion ground rules and facilitation tips.

Immediately prior to each meeting, the persons responsible for each role met briefly to

coordinate overlapping responsibilities. For example, because the facilitator was not

necessarily familiar with the angling terms and concepts, he or she sometimes needed

assistance from the presenter in order to concisely and accurately capture the essence of an

idea.

4

Meeting Schedule and Geographic Coverage

A total of sixteen meetings were held across New York State between September 13, 2017 and

November 15, 2017 (Figure 1). Meetings were held in all DEC regions as follows:

• For regions 1 and 2, one meeting, presented by the Coldwater Fisheries Unit Leader,

was held in each region

• For regions 3 through 9, two meetings were held in each region with the first meeting

presented by the Coldwater Fisheries Unit Leader and the second presented by the

Regional Fisheries Manager or Regional Fisheries Biologist.

Two meetings were held in each of the larger regions in order to enhance convenience where a

lengthy drive would be required to reach a central location. In each region, Regional Fisheries

Managers selected and secured suitable meeting venues with the assistance of the regional

public participation specialist. Considerations included geographic balance within the region,

proximity to population centers and major highways, and availability of suitable facilities.

Figure 1 Geographic Distribution of Trout Stream Management Meetings, Autumn 2017

5

Announcing the Meetings To generate the broadest possible public awareness of the meeting series, a communications

plan engaging the coordinated efforts of Bureau of Fisheries and Office of Communications staff

in DEC central office and the regional offices was developed in advance. Multiple outreach

methods were employed as follows:

• DEC web page – a web page explaining the purpose of the meeting series, providing

background documents, and a meeting schedule that was regularly updated as meeting

dates and venues were confirmed.

• The meeting series was announced in an August 28th news release (Appendix 3) along

with details for the first meeting scheduled on September 13th and a link to the DEC web

page with further details and the schedule of meetings (Appendix 4). At this stage, the

dates and venues were not confirmed for all of the meetings.

• Additional news releases were prepared and distributed at the regional level by Office of

Communications staff in advance of the meetings scheduled for that region. (Appendix

5).

• Upcoming meetings were highlighted and the link to the schedule was provided in the

DEC Freshwater Fisheries Insider newsletter distributed via e-mail to a distribution list of

79,750 recipients who signed up to receive information on fishing and fisheries

management in New York State.

• Each regional fisheries manager was asked to draw on their experience and

professional contacts to develop a list of organizations and stakeholders likely to be

interested in the subject matter of the meetings in their region and to make those parties

aware of the meetings. Generally, this was done by e-mail, but the means of contact

was at the discretion of the manager. A list of organizations contacted appears in

Appendix 6.

Summarizing the Comment After each meeting the flip chart notes were transcribed and reviewed. If the meaning of a

recorded comment from a member of the audience was ambiguous, DEC fisheries staff present

at the meeting compared their own recollections of it as soon as possible with the primary aim of

identifying the desired outcome expressed by the speaker. This was not always possible, but

clarifying language was added to ambiguous notes whenever DEC staff could be confident that

the clarification was faithful to the original comment.

To provide a detailed and contextually sensitive summary of participant’s desired outcomes for

trout stream management, all comments which included the expression of a desired outcome

were assigned to one of eighteen outcome categories or themes (Table 1). The categories

were developed from a careful reading of the meeting notes to identify recurring themes. The

array of categories included an “other” category to capture uncommon or unique desired

outcomes.

6

Table 1 Theme categories for desired outcomes expressed at trout stream management meetings. Categories

are listed in order of most frequently recurring to least frequently recurring.

Outcome Theme Theme Description

Stocked Trout Survival Longer survival of stocked trout desired (for extended fishing opportunity in terms of catch rate, growth potential, or other quality)

Habitat Satisfactory fishing experience depends on high quality habitat (intrinsic, aesthetic, and expected benefits to trout combined). Water quality included as a component of habitat

Wild Trout Prefer catching trout of wild origin over hatchery origin (very important for wild trout populations to achieve ecological potential in terms of growth, survival etc.)

Other Miscellaneous collection of rarely expressed desires

Larger Trout Prefer catching larger trout; more important than catch rate/number caught

Youth/Angler Recruitment Important to provide entry-level angling opportunity for future of sport/conservation

Extend Trout Season Desire for extended or year-round trout season

Diversity of Management Types Desire for a mixed portfolio of clearly defined management types with appropriate objectives/metrics

Catch rate is important Catch rate is important for personal satisfaction or believed important to satisfaction of others

Management Participation Desire for more opportunity to contribute to management knowledge base and/or influence management decisions

Diversify trout species stocked Stock a greater proportion of species other than brown trout in trout streams

Information Quality Expect DEC to provide user-friendly information for anglers to choose trout waters where management type compatible with personal preferences

Public Access Desire more PFR and/or improvements to existing PFR (better parking etc.)

Catch Rate Insufficient Catch rate does not suffice as a universal measure of quality

Native Trout Prefer to catch native trout (cannot be certain that every speaker used this term to mean brook trout exclusively)

Option for Harvest Prefer to have harvest as an available option

Stocked Trout Important Fishing opportunities for stocked trout preferred (personal or for other identified demographic)

Efficiency/Value Expect DEC to achieve good return on investment in habitat, stocked fish or other management actions

7

The categories were initially summarized by adding up the number of meetings in which the

category was represented by at least one public comment. While indicative of the diversity of

comments, this summary method does not capture the importance of a given category relative

to other categories of outcomes discussed in the meeting.

So, as another means of describing the relative prevalence of desired outcome categories,

desired outcomes were considered a dominant theme for a given meeting if one or more of the

following criteria were met.

• Outcome featured repeatedly in the recorded comments

• Outcome captured in a recorded comment reflected an extended in-depth conversation

engaging multiple participants expressing similar perspectives

If it was ambiguous whether an outcome category stood out enough to truly constitute a

dominant theme, then it was not classified as such. Dominant themes were not evident for

every meeting and multiple dominant themes were identified for some meetings.

Finally, as an integrated summary of the most prevalent desired outcomes expressed during the

meetings, a “Top Five” list of outcomes was identified. The list was based on the observations

and impressions of the Coldwater Fisheries Unit Leader at the nine public meetings which he

led. The “Top Five” list was also reviewed and accepted by the regional fisheries managers on

May 8, 2018.

In addition to comments recorded during the scheduled meetings, further comments were

submitted to DEC via e-mail. These comments were read for content and, generally speaking,

were submitted by persons who were unable to attend one of the scheduled meetings or were

submitted by persons who attended a meeting and wished to share an additional thought or

comment or emphasize an idea expressed at the meeting. In some cases, written comments

were submitted to represent the views of an organization.

Where desired outcomes were expressed in these supplemental comments, they fit well within

the categories of desired outcomes expressed by the participants in the live meetings. For this

reason, and because comments made at the live meetings are more clearly comparable in the

sense that the speakers shared the common experience of the introductory presentation and

the two-way conversation with presenter, the summary tables and figures of this report are

based on the live comments.

8

Table 2 Number of participants signed in at each of the sixteen trout stream management meetings

Meeting Location DEC Region Attendance

Allegany 9 19

Avon 8 21

Ballston Spa 5 42

Central Square 7 12

Whitney Point 7 19

Cobleskill 4 19

Cortlandt Manor 3 11

Depew 9 35

Hammondsport 8 7

Hauppauge 1 16

Long Island City 2 7

New Paltz 3 35

Plattsburgh 5 23

Poestenkill 4 31

Utica 6 14

Watertown 6 7

RESULTS

Attendance Attendance for the entire meeting series totaled 318 persons based on the sign-in sheets and

excluding DEC Bureau of Fisheries and Office of Communications employees. Signing in was

strongly encouraged but not strictly compulsory, so the true total is somewhat greater. For

example, at the Ballston Spa meeting, 44 non-DEC participants were counted of which 42

signed the register. On the other hand, a few individuals participated in more than one meeting

so slightly fewer than 318 unique individuals are represented by that total.

Attendance averaged 20 participants per meeting with considerable variation (Table 2).

Attendance ranged from a maximum of 42 at Ballston Spa to a minimum of 7 (Hammondsport,

Long Island City, Watertown).

Participant Affiliations and Demographics The sign-in sheets circulated at each meeting provided participants with the opportunity to

report an organizational affiliation if so desired. Figure 2 summarizes this information in broad

categories for all registered participants excluding DEC employees. Thirty-two percent of the

participants did not report any organizational affiliation. Trout Unlimited membership was the

most prevalent affiliation accounting for 36% of participation. Another 12% identified

9

themselves as members of other organizations devoted to outdoor sports and conservation.

Three percent declared an affiliation with an environmental or conservation organization not

directly connected to recreational angling. Eight percent of participants identified themselves as

employees of public agencies (other than DEC); nearly all with direct responsibility for recreation

or natural resources management.

Figure 2 Self-declared organizational affiliations of trout stream management meeting participants

Participants were not asked to provide demographic details such as age, sex and race.

However, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has conducted extensive demographic analyses of

trout anglers on a national scale as part of its 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and

Wildlife-Associated Recreation (Maillett and Aiken 2015). Casual observation of the audiences

offered no visually apparent reason to infer a marked departure from the national statistics for

36%

3%

12%2%

8%

33%

2%3% 1%

Trout Unlimited 36% Other Environmental NGO 3%

Sporting/Conservation Club [Not TU] 12% Media 2%

Public Agency/Gov 8% None 33%

Commercial 2% Unclear 3%

Educational Institution 1%

10

participation in the sport of trout angling. Consistent with the USFWS survey results, the

meetings attracted a preponderance of white males middle-aged or older.

Participants’ Desired Outcomes Figure 3 shows the frequency that the various categories of desired outcomes (defined in Table

1) were represented at the public meetings in the recorded comments of one or more speakers.

The top three categories were stocked trout survival (all 16 meetings), habitat (13 meetings),

and wild trout (13 meetings). “Other” was the fourth most common category (12 meetings) but

this category is a disparate collection of desired outcomes that were rarely or uniquely

expressed and does not constitute a common theme.

Figure 3 Relative frequency of desired outcome categories as a function of the number of meetings in which

the desired outcome was expressed in one or more recorded comment. The two unlabeled (thinnest)

wedges represent “stocked trout important” (orange) and “efficiency/value” (dark purple). See table 1 for

descriptions of these categories.

11

The top three dominant themes based on the extent and intensity of discussion reinforced the

top three categories already identified strictly from one or more occurrences in the meeting

notes: stocked trout survival (dominant at 9 meetings), wild trout (dominant at 8 meetings),

habitat (dominant at 7 meetings). On the other hand, the desire for opportunities to catch larger

trout was expressed by at least one speaker at ten out of sixteen meetings but seldom inspired

an extended discussion. As such, the relative importance of this topic is somewhat exaggerated

in Figure 3.

Beyond the outcome categories that were prevalent statewide, some regional patterns were

observed in the comments. The importance of protecting and restoring high quality trout stream

habitat, while widely expressed, was particularly prominent in the discussion at the meetings in

Regions 1, 2 and 9. Moreover, in these regions, a particular emphasis was placed on the water

quality aspect of habitat and on habitat protection. With respect to stocked trout, preference for

increasing the proportion of species other than brown trout was expressed at six out of sixteen

meetings (category=diversify trout species stocked) in regions 4, 6, 7, 8 and 9. This preference

was not expressed in the other regions. In Region 7, more stocked brook trout was clearly the

preferred alternative to the current mix of stocked trout. In contrast to the overall pattern

described in the preceding paragraph, the desire for opportunities to catch larger trout was

widely expressed during extended discussions in the Region 6 and 7 meetings and should be

considered a dominant theme for those regions. Comments placing an explicit value on the

option to harvest a trout were only recorded in regions 3, 4 and 5.

Top Five Takeaway Messages

Trout Stream Anglers Value:

• high quality stream habitat as a means to better fishing and as a desired

outcome in its own right

• the opportunity to catch wild trout and to a lesser extent stocked trout that have

been in the stream longer than freshly stocked trout

• extended availability of trout stocked in streams

• a diversity of distinct stream fishing experiences (stocked trout, wild trout, easy

vs. challenging, etc.) and the information necessary to find them

• management success to be based on more than just catch of trout per hour

DISCUSSION

Meeting Logistics, Workflow and Analysis: Lessons Learned

The advance coordination between the Coldwater Fisheries Unit Leader and regional staff in the

Bureau of Fisheries and Office of Communication Services was absolutely essential to providing

a consistent experience for the public. In the addition, the invitation to discuss the meeting series

with regional Office Communications Services staff on their monthly conference call well ahead

of the meeting was extremely helpful. The request for a written logistics plan was made at this

meeting.

12

Of necessity, meeting venue selection was a compromise between satisfying multiple criteria. It

is difficult to imagine an alternative process that would have resulted in a more predictable pattern

of participation. A drawback to the level of geographic saturation provided by holding 16 meetings

in a relatively short timeframe was that the Coldwater Fisheries Unit Leader could not be present

at every meeting. Because meeting notes, while generally good, inherently reflect the notetaking

style of the designated scribe (Appendix 7), it was somewhat more difficult for the author to

summarize the seven meetings for which he was not present. It was helpful to discuss meeting

highlights with the Regional Fisheries Manager within 48 hours of the meeting, but this was not

always possible due to conflicting schedules. It was also helpful to meet with the Regional

Fisheries Managers after they had reviewed this report in draft form as some additional

perspective was obtained at this stage which would not have been easily gained from the notes

alone.

Some minor, but useful lessons learned included:

• Where coffee was provided as a gesture of hospitality, few members of the public

consumed it. Providing coffee for an evening meeting is probably more trouble than it is

worth. It is certainly not worth setting up a full-size coffee urn.

• Displaying background information on posters during the informal “meet and greet” is

unproductive. Arriving participants preferred to chat with each other and DEC staff. There

was very little interest in studying the posters and the idea was dropped.

• 90 minutes is an appropriate amount of time to dedicate to a discussion of this nature.

Less time would make it more difficult to accommodate all persons wishing to speak and

to understand the desired outcomes behind strategies. More time would exhaust all but

the most extroverted presenters and probably exceed the patience of many participants.

Characterizing Participation Attendance and patterns of participation varied substantially among the meetings (Table 2). At

the first meeting, high attendance seemed to be driven by motivation to participate in the first

meeting in the series and a venue familiar to many local sportspersons. While it is tempting to

speculate on the factors contributing to low or high attendance at each meeting, such

speculation is of little value given that the approach for selecting venues and publicizing the

meetings was standardized to the greatest degree possible for a cooperative effort between

DEC central office and regional staff. Generally speaking, audience participation was broad

with most people in attendance taking the opportunity to make a comment or pose a question.

Ground rules were respected, and presenter and facilitator were attentive to offering

opportunities to speak to participants who had not previously commented as the 90-minute

discussion period drew to a close. In most cases, the discussion filled the entirety of the allotted

time even when the audience was comparatively small.

13

The visible demographic characteristics of the participants were consistent with expectations for

trout anglers. Willingness to participate in a public meeting is generally correlated with a

citizen’s depth of commitment and passion for the topic under discussion. This tendency, along

with many comments showing a familiarity with trout biology, stream ecology and specific trout

stream management strategies in New York and neighboring states, suggests that it is

reasonable to view the participants as representing the more avid end of the spectrum of trout

anglers. Within that context, it would have been surprising if Trout Unlimited did not turn out to

be the largest single self-reported affiliation for meeting participants. It is somewhat surprising

that the next largest self-reported affiliation was “none” and this suggests that the effort to

publicize the meetings through a wide array of mechanisms was somewhat successful in

attracting the participation of stakeholders who did not view themselves as closely tied to a

particular organizational perspective.

It is noteworthy that on multiple occasions, participants themselves pointed out the absence of

casual, novice, or youth anglers in the audience. Usually these comments were associated with

a statement on the importance of these demographics to the future of the sport or with a

statement suggesting an attribute of the trout stream angling experience that would be important

to this “missing” demographic. For example, managing some trout fisheries for a high catch rate

for the sake of youthful anglers was an idea regularly expressed over the course of the meeting

series. It was, however, unclear to what extent this desired outcome was tied specifically to

streams or whether a high catch rate pond fishery would be considered an equivalent good.

While the discussion was structured to learn as much as possible about participant’s desired

outcomes for their trout stream fishing experience, the scope of the discussion also included an

array of questions and proposals of specific management strategies. Many comments were

initially focused on a specific management strategy such as an angling regulation or a stocking

practice. Explicitly identifying the desired outcomes implicit in proposed strategies was often

Figure 4 Trout stream management meeting in progress in Ballston Spa on September 13, 2017.

14

challenging for both the presenter and the speaker. However, the ability for all participants to

refine their ideas and their understanding of the ideas expressed by other speakers by asking

clarifying questions allowed for a more precise and explicit articulation of desired outcomes than

would have been possible without face-to-face dialogue. The conversation was enhanced not

only by the interaction between the presenter and individual speakers, but also by speakers

reacting to ideas previously expressed by other participants.

Recurring Themes Categorizing comments in a meaningful way but which did not draw unwarranted inferences

from the recorded statements entailed a careful reading of the notes and a degree of

judgement. For this reason, and because the meetings constitute an environmental scanning

exercise rather than a statistical sampling procedure, an overly quantitative analysis is

inappropriate. Also, it is important to consider the interrelated nature of certain categories of

desired outcomes. Finally, because human conversation ultimately resists standardization,

some categories of desired outcomes could have potentially been broken down into more

fundamental components if that objective did not have to be balanced against the objective of

allowing every participant who wanted to speak to have the opportunity to do so. In the case of

the “habitat” category for example, many participants expressed that they valued high quality

ecologically functional trout habitat in streams. Some participants affirmed explicitly that this

was an end in itself that was critical to their satisfaction as a trout stream angler, while others

described catch-related outcomes that were anticipated to result from high quality habitat.

Catch Rate The inadequacy of the CROTS catch rate objective as a universal yardstick of trout stream

management was evident. Where catch rate was identified as important, it was almost always

associated with a particular type of trout stream fishery or category of angler such as youth.

While explicit statements that catch rate was a poor measure of satisfaction were not recorded

in a large proportion of the meetings (7 out of 16), the relative prevalence of other desired

outcomes offers evidence that it is not central to the satisfaction of most participants in these

meetings. It is, however, difficult to judge to what extent other desired outcomes may implicitly

assume some minimum catch rate as an assured outcome. Whether this presents a

management problem in a situation where another measure of success is substituted for catch

rate would depend on the extent and validity of such assumptions. The literature suggests that

angler satisfaction ultimately depends on the extent to which catch-related expectations are

fulfilled (Hyman, McMullin and DiCenzo 2016) and that this is true even for anglers who do not

profess to be primarily motivated by catch-related aspects of the angling experience (Arlinghaus

2006).

Diversity of Distinct Management Types The desire to be able to select an angling destination from a portfolio of waters managed for

different outcomes was another recurring theme that is evident from both explicit statements of

this desire (8 out of 16 meetings) and from the range of other desired outcomes expressed. An

illustrative example can be taken from the Utica meeting where a participant expressed his

personal preference for the opportunity to catch large trout but also his desire for “easier”

(higher catch rate) opportunities affording him the opportunity to introduce the sport to his

grandchildren. The desire for readily accessible and understandable information on the

management approach and trout population status associated with different trout streams was a

closely related category of desired outcome. The same could be said of the “public access”

15

category. Collectively, these categories should be considered more important than they might

appear from a cursory look at Figure 3.

Wild Trout The opportunity to catch wild trout was expressed frequently as a desired outcome at most of

the meetings (13 out of 16). The opportunity to catch native trout (a subset of wild trout) was a

related preference that was less frequently expressed but was nonetheless a significant

recurrent theme. It must be acknowledged that, while brook trout are the only stream dwelling

salmonid native to New York, some speakers may have been including other species in their

conceptual definitions. For the most part, the comments comparing these categories of trout to

recently stocked trout reflected a hierarchal valuation with some degree of variation as follows:

1. native trout>wild trout>holdover stocked trout>recently stocked trout

2. wild trout>holdover stocked trout>recently stocked trout

3. wild trout>holdover stocked trout=recently stocked trout

4. wild trout = holdover stocked trout>recently stocked trout

Moreover, the valued attributes associated with the more highly valued categories ranged from

aesthetic (color and beauty), behavioral (better fight, more challenging to catch), demonstrated

survival capabilities, and, for native (brook) trout, an intrinsic value as part of New York’s natural

heritage. A catch rate objective was generally viewed as being particularly ill-suited to measure

success in the management of wild trout populations. Follow up questions to participants on

what measures would be more meaningful elicited some intriguing responses. A number of

these were aesthetic in nature and, while these suggestions may be difficult to implement as

management benchmarks, they do reflect the reality that for many avid anglers, satisfying trout

stream angling is a complex experience which is difficult to quantify. Another response

generated from this line of questioning was that using strictly biological or population metrics

would be a valid means of evaluating management strategies for trout streams managed

primarily for wild trout. Paraphrasing one speaker, if the presence of a healthy wild trout

population can be demonstrated then it’s on me to catch them.

Habitat High quality trout habitat was expressed as a desired outcome as frequently as the opportunity

to fish for wild trout (13 out of 16 meetings). Clearly, these two categories are closely related

but it should be noted that quality habitat was also viewed as contributing to the survival of

stocked trout. The habitat category is easily the most complex based on comments addressing

the importance of physical habitat, water quality, hydrologic and ecological function. It is also

possible that, when discussing habitat, some speakers had some additional outcomes in mind

with respect to the aesthetic quality of the stream environment and the ease of fishing. While

the importance of downed trees as a component of trout stream habitat is generally

acknowledged, one speaker suggested their removal as a habitat improvement strategy. Where

anticipated outcomes were associated with high quality habitat, the most commonly expressed

expectations included the catching of more trout, larger trout and more beautiful trout. As

previously stated, some speakers clearly characterized quality habitat as an inherent desired

outcome irrespective of any other anticipated outcomes or benefits.

16

Stocked Trout Survival (To Extend Recreational Benefits) It is not surprising that obtaining more enduring benefits from stocked trout where they are

employed as a management tool was a desired outcome expressed at every meeting (16 out of

16). Certainly, the evidence of comparatively poor survival of stocked trout included in the

introductory presentation contributed to the prominence of this topic particularly at the opening

of the discussion period. A variety of reactions to the relative importance of non-angling

mortality versus harvest to stocked trout survival were recorded with most speakers on this

subject referencing personal observations of “truck following” behavior or increasing numbers of

fish eating birds.

Depending on the outlook, a variety of management prescriptions were offered with respect to

stocking practices, predator control, angling regulations and habitat management. However,

these were all focused on the desire to extend the period of “quality fishing” provided by stocked

trout later in the season. Quality fishing was variously characterized in terms of catch rate,

opportunity to catch larger stocked trout that survived and grew, and simply knowing the fish

were there. In many conversations, it was difficult to get to a full understanding of the

components of quality because so much time was required to get from a suggested strategy to

the first level of a desired outcome associated with the strategy.

The nuances with the category of “stocked trout survival” were underexplored in many cases as

function of time constraints. Nonetheless, the prevalence of commentary within this category is

informative from a management perspective because it indicates that trout stream anglers see a

continued role for stocked trout in providing certain types of trout stream fishing experiences.

Many speakers acknowledged that it is unreasonable to expect a hatchery reared trout to

function as well as a wild trout in a natural stream. However, they encouraged DEC to work

towards stocking trout that were better substitutes with the expectation that such trout would

provide a more enduring and satisfying angling experience on trout streams that cannot

consistently support a healthy wild trout population.

Additional Themes Several additional categories of comment merit some discussion even though they were less

prevalent than the themes already discussed. With respect to any measurable physical

characteristic of trout, the desire to catch larger trout was most often expressed. However,

opinion varied on whether stocking a larger trout was an acceptable means of realizing this

outcome relative to improving the prospects for survival and growth of wild and stocked trout.

In relationship to the desire for a diversity of distinct management types and the opportunity to

catch wild trout, it was noteworthy that a frequently expressed preference was for spatial

separation between stream reaches managed as wild trout fisheries and reaches managed

primarily as stocked trout fisheries. In hindsight, this concept may have merited its own

outcome category and it was probably diluted or hidden to some extent in notes attributed to

other categories. For example, several speakers at the New Paltz meeting who expressed their

preference for catching wild trout in Esopus Creek made passing comments to the effect that

freshly stocked trout were a nuisance that detracted from their angling experience.

Another theme that was commonly expressed and was also implicit within some of the themes

previously discussed was the desire to see new anglers, particularly youth, recruited to the sport

and to the conservation values associated with trout stream angling. Suggested strategies

varied, but there was a definite expectation for DEC to incorporate this purpose into its portfolio

of trout stream management types.

17

While the option of harvesting a trout was not commonly expressed as a desire in this meeting

series, it was expressed at four meetings (in regions 3, 4 and 5). Given the concern with

harvest of stocked trout immediately following stocking that was expressed at every meeting, it

seems implausible to conclude that the desire to harvest is more important to anglers in the

eastern regions of the state. It also serves as a reminder not to conflate environmental

scanning with statistical sampling. Therefore, with respect to harvest, it is probably best to

regard these comments as evidence that, while more anglers than ever are releasing their

catch, harvest or at least the option to harvest a trout has not become irrelevant to trout stream

management (Knoche and Lupi 2016).

Next Steps This report was written primarily to serve as a record of an ambitious public outreach effort to

assess the desires of trout stream anglers as the foundation of rewriting the trout stream

management plan. The detailed methods will be useful in planning any similar endeavors that

the department should choose to undertake. As the next step in rethinking trout stream

management in New York State, DEC will rely on the outcomes documented in this report to

consider how our approach can be best modified to incorporate objectives, strategies and

measures of success that are practical and meaningful to the trout stream angling public.

18

LITERATURE CITED Alexiades, Alexander, Benjamin Marcy Quay, Patrick Sullivan, and Clifford Kraft. 2015. Evaluation

of the NYSDEC Catch Rate Oriented Trout Stocking Program: Project Report. Study

Completion Report, Ithaca: Cornell University.

Arlinghaus, Robert. 2006. "On the apparently striking disconnect between motivation and

satisfaction in recreational fishing: the case of catch orientation of German anglers." North

American Journal of Fisheries Management 26: 592-605.

Engstrom-Heg, Robert. 1990. Guidelines for stocking trout streams in New York State. Albany:

New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Bureau of Fisheries.

Hyman, Amanda A., Steve L. McMullin, and Vic DiCenzo. 2016. "Dispelling assumptions about

stocked-trout fisheries and angler satisfaction." North American Journal of Fisheries

Management 36:1395-1404.

Knoche, Scott, and Frank Lupi. 2016. "Demand for fishery regulations: Effects of angler

heterogeneity and catch improvements on preferences for gear and harvest restrictions."

Fisheries Research 181: 163-171.

Maillett, Edward, and Richard Aiken. 2015. Trout Fishing in 2011: A Demographic Description

and Economic Analysis. Addendum to the 2011 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and

Wildlife-Associated Recreation, Washington, DC: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

19

APPENDIX 1 – A CONCISE HISTORY OF NYSDEC TROUT STREAM

MANAGEMENT SINCE 1977

Since 1990, the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) has

evaluated and managed inland trout streams under a system known as catch rate oriented trout

stocking (CROTS) (Engstrom-Heg 1990). Under CROTS, catch rate (the average number of

trout caught per hour by anglers) is the outcome by which trout stream fishing is judged with a

default target of one trout per two hours of angling. Biologists, following the standardized

CROTS protocols, estimate stream carrying capacity, angling pressure, and biomass of wild

trout present in the system. These estimates are then used to calculate the catch rate that can

be expected from the wild trout population (if present) and, if that catch rate falls short of the

target, determine whether the addition of stocked trout can be considered as a means of

meeting the catch rate target. If stocking is considered, CROTS places conservative limits on

the numbers stocked to avoid exceeding the carrying capacity of the stream.

While CROTS is founded on sound ecological principles, its calculations and utility as a tool to

achieve a management objective (generally, an average catch rate of 0.5 trout/hour) depend on

parameters estimated from fieldwork completed between 1977 and 1980. Recognizing the

likelihood of significant changes in those parameter values over such a span of time, DEC

fisheries managers identified a re-evaluation of CROTS, including updated estimates of

important parameters, as a high research priority. Between 2011 and 2013, a study designed

for this purpose was conducted on nine wadeable trout streams across New York State in

collaboration with Cornell University (Alexiades, et al. 2015).

Key findings of the study included generally lower angling pressure, substantially lower harvest

rates, and substantially higher rates of non-angling loss. Non-angling loss consists of natural

predation and all losses other than angler harvest and delayed mortality of released fish. The

large increase in the rate of non-angling loss (approximately seven times higher than observed

in the late 1970’s on class “A” trout streams) was the single largest influence on the effective

“shelf life” of a batch of stocked trout.

The anticipated outcome of the CROTS re-evaluation study was that the updated parameter

estimates would replace the original estimates in CROTS and existing stocking policies would be

systematically recalculated to ensure that stocking recommendations reflect the best available

understanding of current conditions. However, the extent and nature of the differences between

conditions observed during the CROTS re-evaluation study and the conditions under which

CROTS was developed led to more fundamental questions about the desirability of continuing to

manage trout streams under a catch rate objective. As these questions were discussed among

DEC fisheries managers, it became increasingly clear that, a comprehensive review of the

agency’s approach to trout stream management was warranted and that such a review ought to

begin with an assessment of outcomes desired by trout stream anglers.

20

APPENDIX 2 – LOGISTICS PLAN AND LOCAL ARRANGEMENTS

NEEDS (REVISED 9/14/17)

Public Meetings will be held during the months of September, October, and November in each of

the nine DEC regions for the purpose of sharing information on how DEC currently manages trout

streams and to obtain feedback on the priorities and values of contemporary anglers with respect

to the trout stream fishing experience. Fred Henson will lead one meeting in each region;

managers will then have the option of leading an additional meeting to expand

geographic/demographic coverage.

Meeting Format: 30 minutes’ informal meet and greet. Coffee provided if practical

Brief Introduction – Purpose and format of meeting, ground rules/housekeeping (post in writing

on easel paper for duration), parking lot (to acknowledge off-topic concerns).

30-minute PowerPoint presentation (questions held until after presentation)

90-minute Q&A and discussion session (including a two-minute wrap-up statement by Fred

Henson or Regional Manager to emphasize purpose of meeting).

Prototype Schedule: 6 PM – DEC staff sets up room, AV etc., 6:30 PM – doors open to public,

coffee, 7 PM –Fred gives 30-minute presentation, 7:30 – Q&A/discussion period, 9 PM - clean up

and leave.

Fred Henson (meeting leader) is responsible for the following: Content of the presentation

Delivery of the first presentation in each region

Work out with regional manager and public participation specialist (PPS) responsibilities for

providing the following equipment: laptop, digital projector, screen, large format paper and

markers to capture comments, coffee.

Coordinate supplemental information posters and other outreach/informational materials for

public.

Bring pre-written ground rules

Handling “big picture” questions and comments from the audience

Soliciting comment on relevant topics that are not brought up by audience

Development of webpage containing trout stream management talk summary/information

Drafting a general press release on the purpose of the meeting series to be issued from Albany

Drafting a boilerplate press release for use by regional PPS to announce specific meeting details.

Sending out any necessary Gov Delivery messages

21

Sign-in sheet for participants including name, e-mail, organizational affiliation (if any).

The regional fish manager, working with the PPS is responsible for the

following tasks: Selecting and publicizing dates, times and venues in coordination with Fred Henson and regional

PPS at least two weeks in advance of meeting

Identifying interested stakeholders and extending invitations to a diverse stakeholder audience at

least two weeks in advance of meeting

Ensure that the PPS or suitably qualified facilitator will capture comments (markers and large

format paper sheets) and perform related tasks identified below under “facilitator.”

Arrange for a conservation officer to be present for the event.

Recommend a couple of example streams that are regionally well-known to illustrate the CROTS

concepts of fishing pressure and pattern.

Manager present to introduce Fred as speaker and assist in handling detailed questions on local

streams

In advance of meeting, manager advises Fred on suitable streams to cite as examples of stocked

vs. unstocked trout streams and streams that experience pattern 1 vs. pattern 2 fishing pressure

- this is a crib sheet for Fred, not a handout for the audience.

Provide Fred with a list of organizations specifically invited.

Facilitator is responsible for the following tasks: Captures audience comments and Q&A visually using markers and easel pad paper at the front

of room.

Adds off-topic or tangential comments to “parking lot” at request of meeting leader

Assists leader in enforcing ground rules, regulating discussion “traffic” and promoting broadest

possible participation. Specifically, facilitator will ask people to raise hands to indicate desire to

speak and then call on people in a logical order.

Provides leader with a 15-minute warning as the 90-minute discussion period nears its conclusion

Turns over easel pad notes to leader at conclusion of session.

Sequence of tasks: Secure meeting venue for specific date and time.

Verify that regional PPS or suitably skilled designee is willing and able to capture comment via

large format easel paper.

Publicize meetings via website, gov delivery, press release and via regional and contacting

relevant organizations (federations, TU, etc.) [at least two weeks in advance]

22

Agree on some regionally well-known streams for Fred to use as examples of non-stocked and

stocked wild trout streams and streams that experience pattern 1 vs. pattern 2 fishing pressure [1

week in advance]

Arrive at venue at least one hour prior to presentation start time to set up room, test AV equipment,

etc.

Aids to Facilitation:

Proposed Ground Rules

• Turn cell phones off or leave to use

• One conversation at a time – please raise hand

• Everyone is welcome to contribute

• No sidebars, minimize interruptions

• Speak openly, share your ideas and comments

• Focus on desired outcomes rather than the means of achieving them

• Respect others’ views

Parking Lot The purpose of this sheet is to visibly record and acknowledge feedback that is off-topic or beyond

the scope of the meeting. Fisheries staff may also use this list to address individual comments

offline or outside of the group discussion. Allow leader to make the call on “parking” a comment.

Examples of likely comments for the parking lot.

“You should stock more trout in urban ponds for the kids.”

“You should quit stocking Pacific salmon in Lake Ontario and focus on native fish restoration.”

“My fishing license is too expensive.”

“Why can’t we have a trout stamp to fund more stream habitat improvement projects?” (trout

stamp itself is parking lot material but this one can probably be saved with some dialogue to

determine if the desired outcome is more improved trout stream habitat)

23

APPENDIX 3 – INITIAL NEWS RELEASE

For Immediate Release: 08/28/2017 Contact: Lori Severino | (518) 402-8000 Press Office | PressOffice@dec.ny.gov

DEC ANNOUNCES PUBLIC MEETING SERIES ON TROUT STREAM MANAGEMENT IN NEW YORK STATE

MEETINGS TO BEGIN IN BALLSTON SPA ON SEPTEMBER 13

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) today announced

that public meetings will be held in each DEC region this fall to provide an overview of the state’s

approach to trout stream management. The meetings will also elicit feedback from trout stream

anglers regarding their preferences and expectations for the management of these waters.

Commissioner Basil Seggos said, “Informed conversation between stakeholders and DEC

staff is essential to ensure that our trout stream management strategies are not only biologically

sound, but up-to-date and consistent with the desires of today’s recreational anglers.”

The meetings will feature a 30-minute presentation describing how DEC currently manages

trout streams and will include key findings of a statewide study completed in 2015. The

presentation will be followed by a 90-minute discussion period aimed at identifying the measures

of trout stream angling quality most important to this segment of New York’s the angling public.

The first meeting will take place on Wednesday, September 13 at the 4H training center at

556 Middleline Road in Ballston Spa. Doors open at 6:30 p.m. and presentation begins at 7:00

p.m.

The dates, times and locations of the additional meetings in each region will be publicized

by the regional offices and posted on DEC’s website at

http://www.dec.ny.gov/outdoor/111015.html as the schedule is finalized.

###

Connect with DEC on: Facebook, Twitter, Flickr, and Instagram

24

APPENDIX 4 – FULL MEETING SCHEDULE

Trout Stream Meeting Schedule

Meeting

Date

Time Address County

September

13

Wednesday

6:30-9:00

PM

4H Training Center

556 Middleline Rd.

Ballston Spa, NY 12020

Directions to the Training Center (Leaving

DEC website)

Saratoga

September

19

Tuesday

6:30-9:00

PM

Center for Agriculture and Natural Resources

SUNY Cobleskill

Cobleskill, NY 12043

Cobleskill campus Map (Leaving DEC

website)

Schoharie

September

26

Tuesday

6:30-9:00

PM

Town of Plattsburgh Office

151 Banker Rd.

Plattsburgh, NY 12901

Clinton

October 3

Tuesday

6:30-9:00

PM

Reinstein Woods Nature Center

93 Honorine Drive

Depew, NY 14043

Directions to Reinstein Woods

Erie

October 5

Thursday

6:30-9:00

PM

NYSDEC Region 3 Office

21 South Putt Corners

New Paltz, NY 12561

Directions to Region 3 Office

Ulster

October 5

Thursday

6:30-9:00

PM

NYSDEC Region 9 Office

182 East Union Street

Allegany, NY 14706

Directions to Region 9 Allegany Office

Cattaraugus

October 18

Wednesday

6:30-9:00

PM

Poestenkill Fire Department (Station #1)

182 Main Street (Route 355)

Poestenkill, NY 12140

Rensselaer

October 18

Wednesday

6:30-9:00

PM

Paul V Moore High School Auditorium

44 School Drive

Central Square, NY 13036

About Paul V Moore High School (Leaving

DEC website)

Oswego

October 19

Thursday

6:30-9:00

PM

Hammondsport High School

8272 Main Street

Hammondsport, NY 14840

Steuben

October 23

Monday

6:30-9:00

PM

NYSDEC Region 8 Office

6274 East Avon-Lima Rd. (Routes 5 and 20)

Livingston

25

Avon, NY 14414

Directions to Region 8 Avon Office

October 26

Thursday

6:30-9:00

PM

Utica State Office Bldg.

207 Genesee Street

Utica, NY 13501

Directions to Region 6 Utica Office

Oneida

October 26

Thursday

6:30-9:00

PM

Whitney Point High School Auditorium

10 Keibel Road

Whitney Point, NY 13862

Broome

October 26

Thursday

6:30-9:00

PM

Cortlandt Town Hall (Vincent Nyberg General

Meeting Room)

1 Heady Street

Cortlandt Manor, NY 10567

Westchester

November 2

Thursday

6:30-9:00

PM

Suffolk County Water Authority Education

Center

260 Motor Parkway

Hauppauge, NY 11788

Suffolk

November 9

Thursday

6:00-8:30

PM

State Office Building

317 Washington Street

Watertown, NY 13601-3787

Directions to State Office Building

Jefferson

November

15

Wednesday

6:30-9:00

PM

NYSDEC Region 2 Office

47-40 21st Street

Long Island City, NY 11101

Directions to Region 2 Office

Queens

26

APPENDIX 5 – EXAMPLE OF REGIONAL NEWS RELEASE

DEC D elivers - Infor mation to keep you connected and infor med from the N YS D epartment of Envir onmental Conser vation

Share or view as a web page || Update preferences or unsubscribe

DEC TO HOLD PUBLIC MEETINGS IN STEUBEN AND

LIVINGSTON COUNTIES ON TROUT STREAM MANAGEMENT

IN NEW YORK STATE

Two Meetings Scheduled for Late October New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) announced today that two

public meetings will be held in Region 8 this fall as part of a series of statewide meetings on

trout stream management. The meetings will provide an overview of the state's approach to

trout stream management and elicit feedback from anglers regarding their preferences and

expectations for the management of trout stream waters.

The meetings will feature a 30-minute presentation by DEC Fisheries staff describing current

management practices for trout streams and will include key findings of a statewide study

completed in 2015. Following the presentation, meeting attendees will have an opportunity to

provide input and feedback regarding their preferences and expectations for the management

of trout streams.

The upcoming meetings are scheduled for:

Thursday, October 19

6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. (Doors open at 6:30 p.m.; presentation begins at 7:00 p.m.)

Hammondsport High School

8260 Main Street Ext.

Hammondsport, NY 14840

Monday, October 23

6:30 p.m. to 9 p.m. (Doors open at 6:30 p.m.; presentation begins at 7:00 p.m.)

NYSDEC Region 8 Headquarters

6274 East Avon-Lima Road

Avon, NY 14414

Since 1990, DEC has generally managed trout streams for a desired catch rate. DEC fisheries

managers seek to examine how well the current management goal fits the purpose of satisfying

the desires of today's recreational trout stream anglers. Understanding the fishery

27

characteristics valued most by trout stream anglers will help DEC biologists identify and

develop effective future management strategies.

Additional information on trout stream management, the purpose of the public meeting series,

and the dates, times, and locations of additional meetings are available on DEC's website.

http://www.dec.ny.gov/press/77537.html

The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation respects your right to privacy and welcomes

your feedback. | Update preferences or unsubscribe. | Learn more about DEC Delivers.

Connect with DEC:

NOW AVAILABLE: Receive DEC's Twitter feed via email.

Andrew M. Cuomo, Governor * Basil Seggos, Commissioner

This email was sent to wepearsa@gw.dec.state.ny.us using GovDelivery Communications Cloud on behalf of: New York State Department of Environmental

Conservation · 625 Broadway · Albany, NY 12233 · (518) 402-8013

28

APPENDIX 6 – STAKEHOLDER ORGANIZATIONS NOTIFIED

DIRECTLY OF MEETINGS (CONTACTED BY REGIONAL FISHERIES

STAFF IN ADDITION TO MASS MEDIA ANNOUNCEMENTS)

Region 1

Newsday (Outdoor Columnist)

Long Island Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Art Flick Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Long Island Flyrodders

River Bay Outfitters

Long Island Freshwater Fisheries Advisory

Council

Suffolk County Sporting Advisory Council

The Fisherman Magazine

Affiliated Brookhaven Civic Organizations

(ABCO)

Region 2

Brooklyn Fishing Club

Urban Angler Retail Store

DEC Fishing Outreach Group Network

Orvis rep

Long Island Chapter, Trout Unlimited

New York City Chapter, Trout Unlimited

East Harlem El Barrio Fishing Club

Orvis NYC Store

Region 3

Dutchess County Federation of Sportsmen’s

Clubs

Sullivan County Federation of Sportsmen’s

Clubs

Ulster County Federation of Sportsmen’s

Clubs

Putnam County Federation of Sportsmen’s

Clubs

Westchester County Federation of

Sportsmen’s Clubs

Orange County Federation of Sportsmen’s

Clubs

Bethlehem Rod and Gun Club

Southern Catskill Anglers

Putnam County Fish and Game Association

Oasis Sportsman’s Club

NE Regional Coordinator, Trout Unlimited

Croton Watershed Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Beamoc Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Mid-Hudson Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Ashokan Pepacton Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Neversink Watershed Chapter, Trout

Unlimited

29

Columbia Greene RVW Chapter, Trout

Unlimited

Catskill Mountain Chapter, Trout Unlimited

NYS Council President, Trout Unlimited

Beaverkill Angler

New York City Department of Environmental

Protection

Ulster County Dept. of Environment

Catskill Mountain Keeper

Catskill Flies

Theodore Gordon Flyfishers

Rondout Neversink Stream Program

Ashokan Watershed Stream Management

Program

Region 3 Fish and Wildlife Management

Board

Region 4

Region 4 Fish and Wildlife Management

Board

Clearwater Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Homewaters Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Rensselaer County Sportsmans Alliance

Triana’s Fishing and Tackling Inc.

CSpringers Welding and Marina

Conroy’s Bait Shop

B&B Live Bait and Tackle

West Marine

Dick’s Sporting Goods

Duel Bait Shop

Germantown Sportsmen Association

White Oak Farm

Al’s Sport Store

Hornbecks Sport Shop

HE Tackle

World’s End Bait and Tackle

Pepacton Bait and Tackle

River Basin

Greene County Sportsmen Federation

Kinderhook Sportsmen Club

Sportsmen Den

Fox Country Gun and Tackle

Jim’s Bait Shop

Ross Bait Shop

Dave’s Bait and Tackle

JC Bait and Tackle

Sportsmen Adventure

Hickling’s Fish Farm

Canadarago Boat Launch

Smitty’s Trapping and Outdoor Supplies

Hudson River Bait and Tackle

Big T Bait and Tackle

Hungry Chicken Farm Market

Mariaville Lakeside Country Store

Off the Beaten Path

Creekside Sports

Cobleskill Outdoor Sports

RJ’s Archery and Tackle

Middleburgh Rod & Gun Club

30

SUNY Cobleskill

Region 5

Region 5 Fish and Wildlife Management

Board

Adirondack Conservation Council

NYS Conservation Council

Lake Champlain Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Tri-Lakes Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Clearwater Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Capital District Fly Fishers

Clinton County Federation of Fish and

Game Clubs

Franklin County Federation of Fish and

Game Clubs

Essex County Fish and Game League

Hamilton County Federation

Fulton County Federation

Saratoga County Council of Fish and Game

Clubs

Warren County Conservation Council

Washington County Federation of

Sportsmen’s Clubs

Battenkill Watershed Alliance

Battenkill Conservancy

Boquet River Association

Ausable River Association

Protect the Adirondacks

The Nature Conservancy (NYS)

Adirondack Chapter, The Nature

Conservancy

Adirondack Mountain Club

Adirondack Wild

Essex County Hatchery

Warren County Hatchery

Trout Power

Ausable River Two Fly Shop

The Hungry Trout

Wiley’s Flies

Region 6

Region 6 Fish and Wildlife Management

Board

Conservation Council

Jefferson County Fish Advisory Board

St. Lawrence County Fish Advisory Board

Lewis County Sportsmen Federation

Oneida County Sportsmen Federation

St. Lawrence County Sportsmen Federation

Tug Hill/Black River Chapter, Trout

Unlimited

31

Mohawk Valley, Trout Unlimited

Trout Power

NYS Assemblyman Blankenbush

Region 7

Region 7 Fish and Wildlife Management

Board

Region 7 Conservation League

International Federation of Fly Fishers Inc. –

BC Flyfishers

Carpenters Brook Trout Hatchery

(Onondaga County)

Al Hazzard Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Leon Chandler Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Iroquois Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Chenango Valley Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Madison County Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Tug Hill/Black River Chapter, Trout

Unlimited

Cortland Chapter, Izaak Walton League

Central NY Chapter, Izaak Walton League

Broome County Federation of Fish and

Game Clubs

Cayuga County Federation of Fish and

Game Clubs

Cortland County Fish and Game League

Chenango County Federation

Madison County Federation

Onondaga County Federation

Oswego County Federation

Tompkins County Federation

SUNY ESF Student Chapter, American

Fisheries Society

Cornell University Student Chapter,

American Fisheries Society

SUNY Morrisville Student Chapter,

American Fisheries Society

Finger Lakes Land Trust

The Nature Conservancy (NYS)

Mickey’s Bait and Tackle

Bass Pro Shops

Broome County Sportsmen’s Association

Region 8

Region 8 FWMB

Chemung County Fly Fishers

Catharine Creek Chapter, Trout Unlimited

MCFAB

Conhocton River Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Upstate Fly Fishers

Twin Tiers/5 Rivers Federation of Fly

Fishers

Canandaigua Lake Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Finger Lakes Chapter, Trout Unlimited

32

Seth Green Chapter, Trout Unlimited Steuben County Federation

Region 9

Region 9 Fish and Wildlife Management

Board

Niagara County Federation of Sportsmen’s

Clubs

Erie County Federation of Sportsmen’s

Clubs

Allegany County Federation of Sportsmen’s

Clubs

Cattaraugus County Federation of

Sportsmen’s Clubs

Wyoming County Federation of Sportsmen’s

Clubs

Chautauqua County Federation of

Sportsmen’s Clubs

Western New York Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Redhouse Brook Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Upper Genessee Chapter, Trout Unlimited

Lake Erie Chapter Federation of Flyfishers

33

APPENDIX 7 – MEETING NOTES TRANSCRIBED FROM FLIPCHARTS

Meeting #1, Ballston Spa, 9/13/17

Pg. 1.

• Catch rate objective?

• Anglers want bigger fish, prefers wild fish/higher value

• Limited harvest?

• Trout Unlimited supporting habitat with more money for stream improvement

• Stocking is done after season opens – it’s announced and crowds assemble

• Can you stock before season, overnight?

• Suggest no fishing in March for time to allow fish to move

• People are fishing because of the stocking

• Trade off of stocking time/ locations should be made fairer

Pg. 2.

• Where do (stocked) fish go? Is there a difference among species?

• Preference among species?

• Prefer bigger (fewer)

• Taking fish home for a meal is important

• People wait for stocking truck and “fish them out”

• Want increased longevity of stocked trout so fish get bigger

• Can you stock when season is closed? It didn’t work well in the Finger Lakes, it

worked better in Long Island

• Restrictions? barbless hooks and catch and release

Pg. 3.

• Time of stocking not released in Warren County

• Catch rate is important

• Prefer 2yr. fish

• Stop truck chasers

• Catching other species/ fewer trout – feels cheated

• Better habitat for trout means better fish

• Prohibit fishing after stocking?

• Resurvey and add streams to stocking list

• High value to native fish

Pg.4

• Migration from target pool is not xxxxx?

• Public Relations aspect of stocking/clandestine stocking

34

• Habitat is (most) important topic

• Value of wild heritage trout

• How can we use native stock for breed stock?

• Anglers like to catch wild trout

• Prefer not to catch six-inch stocked fish

• Volunteers to take fish to remote spots to stock

• Use angler experience more

• More consistent population throughout spring

Pg. 5.

Some streams are not worth stocking, they are not trout habitat

Improved habitat needed

Can stocked fish be better distributed?

Can streams be closed to protect fish?

Use float stocking for better distribution

How susceptible are hatchery fish to VHS?

How can wild fish be factored in to catch rate?

Don’t announce stocking

Value of long-lived fish

Parking Lot discussion:

• Cormorant Control

• Acid Rain Control

• Hemlock adelgid/balsam adelgid

Meeting #2, Cobleskill 9/19/17

• DEC effectively stopped whirling disease which was a success

• More large fish will help get more kids involved with fishing

• Don’t stock larger fish

• Quality is what’s important

• Color is important

35

• Need fewer but higher quality fish

• Having the choice to bring the fish home is important

• Just knowing that the fish are out there is important

• Would like to see more wild fish

• Should we be keeping more fish if they are not going to make it through the winter anyway?

• Hatchery fish are very different than wild fish

• The stocking of six mile waterworks provides valuable opportunities for diverse populations

• There is a higher rate of return for the stocking of warm waters and it takes fishing pressure off of streams

• Need to consider different kinds of anglers and opportunities

• Need to manage to resource potential

• Need to lower the beaver population as beavers harm trout habitat

• There was significant habitat loss from the ’96 floods

• Stock fish in populated areas to increase participation and get kids involved

• Manage for both types of fisheries – short- and long-term

• Would rather catch wild fish, support catch and release

• Need more education

• The experience is what’s important, not catch rate

• Self-sustaining streams are important

• A quality experience is important

• Consider a delayed harvest to protect fish – spread out the fish

• Consider opening some streams year round

• Manage wild streams differently

• Wild fish are important intrinsically

• Need habitat quality improvement

36

Meeting #3, Plattsburgh 9/26/17

- Recommends taking advantage of management opportunity through education

- Need to bring in more young anglers

- What are the impacts of temperature on fishery?

- Water temps are rising over time

- fishing should be shut down when stream temps hit a threshold (time of day or seasonal)

- educate anglers on proper handling of fish

- extend the fishing season through habitat improvement (by keeping water temps cooler)

- native fish should rate higher than wild fish, which should rate higher than stocked fish

- stock bigger, higher quality fish (even if that means fewer fish); some of the current

yearlings are just too small

- FOST study and stocking is not strategic enough – manage upstream sections

differently from downstream sections; don’t focus so much on individual stream sections

in isolation from the broader system

- Consider rotating catch and release areas thru time (as in NC)

- Designate wild sections and do not stock those

- Rotate open sections/seasons/regs as they do in NC

- Make regulations specific to ecosystems

- Lean more toward wild trout; improve the wild trout fishery

- Improve the ability of stocked trout to survive the winter; overwinter survival has

worsened over time

- Reduce stocking

- Stock larger fish

- 2-year-olds are nice fish but they don’t overwinter well

- Protect habitat to improve wild fish populations

- Don’t need 2-year-olds

- Grow better fish from a behavioral and genetic standpoint; emphasize genetic diversity

to maximize potential adaptation to climate change

- Wants wild fish in a scenic setting

- Young people need to catch fish to stay interested and engaged, so more stocked fish

for them is necessary, as is the ability to keep fish

- Spread the fish out more – stock locations besides bridges/road crossings

- Our rivers are not as healthy as they once were; smaller hatches of insects nowadays

- Concern about decrease in riparian habitat quality

- The Saranac River has transitioned from a mayfly to a caddisfly river

- Close fishing when temps are above 70° F (in catch and release sections, at minimum);

fishermen are part of the problem by continuing to fish when the temps are too high

- Update the PFR maps; road names have changed & don’t match what’s on GoogleEarth

- Identify and protect trout refugia; shut down fishing in them to allow them to serve as

sources of genetic diversity and integrity as well as for repopulation

- Improve fish strains in hatchery

- Disperse stocking of fish more

- Need to modify the location or how we stock LLS smolts in the Saranac River mouth –

too many eaten by cormorants; stock them further upstream

- Prohibit use of worms and other natural baits in “wild” waters

37

- Avg. angler not looking for wild fish or a lot of stocked yearlings; they want a “natural”

experience provided by at least 3 size-classes of stocked fish (9” yearlings, 2 and 3-

year-olds)

- Stock fish earlier in the ADK’s, especially on waters like the West Branch where there’s

real economic impacts and businesses catering to anglers (some years they have to wait

a month until the stream gets stocked in May, losing potential clients during the wait)

- We don’t know what level of holdover fish there are when we continue to stock fish on

top of them year-after-year (they are overwhelmed by the stocked fish)

- Simplify and streamline the fishing regulations

- The Boquet could use some more attention and stocking, especially from New Russia

downstream

- The LLS fishing is improving and the number of salmon anglers is on the rise

- Close salmon fishing when salmon are spawning / protect redds from wading anglers

- Promote and encourage anglers to rotate thru pools

- Use social media to alert anglers to the fishery but educate them at the same time about

proper handling and fishing practices

- Post special regulations more liberally

- Sea lamprey control is working

- Use informational kiosks more to relay important info like rotate thru pools, catch and

release, and special regulations

- We need a wild trout management plan and strategy on a statewide basis

- What’s the status of steelhead stocking in NY?

- What’s the impact of natural predators?

Meeting #4, Depew 10/3/17

• I am from Wyoming County, but in general, I am observing a general decline in

fishing quality in Western New York inland trout streams (ex. Oatka and Spring

Creeks – R8 – mentioned specifically)

• 1 fish every 2 hours catch rate is far too low; insufficient.

• Concerned with lack of regulations to address phosphates and water quality issues

from large CAFO farms that compromise creeks, especially in Wyoming County

where there are lots of large farms. Need to focus on improved water quality as

much as focusing on establishing catch rate methodology.

• DEC needs to coordinate management of trout streams and fisheries work with work

to address water quality issues. More collaboration needed between DEC Division

of Fisheries and Division of Water. Cannot effectively manage trout streams without

addressing/evalulating water quality issues in waterways you are trying to manage.

38

• Focus more on improving the survival rates of fish stocked and understanding why

the survival rate is so low instead of focusing solely on rearing and stocking.

• Consider establishing catch and release sections in upper stream sections. Set

more restrictions instead of generalizing an entire stream. Study the impact in these

specific designated sections. Would like to see updated management strategies that

include partitioning of regulations on streams.

• Anglers are observing a general decline in aquatic insects in Western New York

Waters, indicating a water quality concern. Coordinate fish population monitoring

efforts with Division of Water staff; include study of aquatic insect populations in

evaluation.

• Increase variety in enforceable regulations on trout streams to address specific

concerns.

• Increase flexibility by adding more fish variety into stocked streams.

• Would like to see improvements in the stocking delivery system/process. Having

anglers waiting for stocking trucks and taking stocked fish immediately seems

ineffective. Close the season one week following stocking to improve survival rates

and give fish a chance to establish. Hate seeing anglers lined up on bridges waiting

to catch fish the moment stocked.

• Concerned that DEC annually invests in stocking sites that have continually

degenerated and provide no suitable habitat, poor management strategy. Better

evaluate sites stocked and do not stock sites that provide no suitable habitat, such

as shallower, warmer waters where fish will never survive.

• Would like to see an increased enforcement effort, especially on no kill sections of

the Genesee River.

• Would like to see improved habitat investments similar to those undertaken by

Pennsylvania, where they have increased hold over rates and improved wild trout

streams.

• Want to see greater focus on WILD trout management strategies and less emphasis

on stocking. Focus on creating habitats that enable long term wild trout

sustainability. Many anglers prefer fishing for wild trout instead of stocked trout and

would like to see improved management strategies that specifically address wild

trout.

39

• Evidence of a healthy population of fish (ex. Seeing fish rising) is valued more than

just catch rate.

• Current catch rate methodology needs to be reexamined to take other values that

are important to anglers into account.

• It is still important, especially for new anglers) to have a high catch rate, so

continued stocking efforts are valuable for that aspect of trying to increase interest in

fishing in next generation anglers. However, there needs to be a balance between

ends of the angling spectrum and as much emphasis needs to be placed on

managing not only for beginner anglers but for expert anglers as well who may have

different values.

• Consolidate your stocking efforts and focus more on creating suitable wild trout

streams.

• Increase angler diary opportunities – for example, leave a log book at sites like they

leave log books at state forests for hikers.

• Increase your focus on wild trout stream management, less on stocking.

• Invest more in stream habitat improvement projects (ex. Installation of weirs, native

plantings) that improve stream habitat quality.

• Add more digger dams/plunge pools to improve stream habitat – these seem to be

the most effective.

• Manage for wild trout streams, set up improved monitoring methods to measure the

health of wild trout streams.

• Move away from prioritizing catch rate metric management. Instead prioritize natural

reproduction rate as a metric.

• Continue posting results of electrofishing. Place management emphasis on Class A

Trout streams.

• Desperately need reclassification of trout streams by DEC Bureau of Water. This is

something Trout Unlimited has been advocating for consistently with no outcome.

The data being used to currently classify streams is incredibly outdated. While new

data necessary for reclassification has been collected, it is sitting on desks in the

Bureau of Water with no solid plans for updates to reclassification. Have been told

that it is a departmental issue with backlog of paperwork/lack of staff. Angling public

wants to know what they can do to move this process along – it is key to protecting

trout streams. It has been 30 years since the last round of reclassifications – this is

40

far too long.

• Are our hatchery success rates similar to other states, perhaps that is something that

should be re-examined.

• Can you look into the genetic management of fish that can survive in warmer

temperatures to address inevitable global warming trends.

Meeting #5, New Paltz 10/5/17

• Grow smarter/stronger trout (suggestion) with stocked fish – to help with fish survival.

• Stocking in the fall when season is over – mixing with native populations and mixing gene pool - this could help w/survival of stocked trout.

• More wild trout – increase focus on and discussion of wild trout.

• Wild trout stream management – lower catch rate of wild fish makes for a better experience.

• If you stop stocking over wild trout, you will see better wild fish survival – seen across the country.

• Better management of wild population is needed.

• Consider other measures than catch rate.

• Does not like catching stocked fish – prefers wild fish – competition for wild fish – on a wild trout stream e.g., Esopus.

• Prefers fishing on a stream with only wild trout.

• Option to take a trout home for the table is important (with a glass of red wine)

• Suggestion: Look at streams with wild trout differently – maybe look at habitat improvements on these streams/portions of streams with wild populations. Habitat work that would improve wild populations.

• Promote getting kids involved in fishing.

• Look at why streams in Delaware Basin that haven’t been stocked in years still have good trout fishing – maybe replicate in R3/or other parts of state.

41

• The younger generation is interested in “experience” of trout fishing - need to look at this – improving wild fishery will be beneficial to satisfying the younger generation of anglers.

• Esopus is economic life blood in area – increasing viability of trout fishery is very important – need to improve accentuate habitat – (delicate balance here – can lead to overuse).

• Stocking less will increase viability of wild population.

• How to measure success of fishery – e.g., possibly looking at the number of wild fish in a stream.

• Wants to fish for trout year round – e.g., close the Beaverkill fishery for a shorter period of time. Also, look at expanding fishing opportunities seasonally.

• Dutchess County Trout Unlimited - modify or tighten regulation on lower Wappingers Creek to give stocked fish a chance (delay opening/delay harvest) – stressed water bodies in this area/people will chase stocking trucks in this area, so suggesting that opening be delayed for a week or two after stocking.

• Poachers and extreme weather may be throwing of population numbers.

• Environmentally responsible experience is important to younger anglers.

• Angler satisfaction impacted by today’s social media/messages – pay attention to this – more holistic approach to angler satisfaction needed.

• Use messages (e.g., social media) to spread anglers out across the region – this will help with overuse issues.

• Stocked streams still a worthwhile experience – but would like to have have fish available over a longer period of time after stocking.

• Give stocked fish time to acclimate – maybe up to a week/put signage on stocked waterbodies delaying harvest and explaining why this is needed – to give the trout a chance.

• Enhance law enforcement – especially at beginning of season (on stocked streams).

• License sales are supported by anglers who fish stocked streams (the first few weeks) – drop bag limit after 1 -2 months or only catch & release – gives fish a chance to live longer in the streams. Also, recommended that DEC implement habitat protection on streams that can support trout.

42

• Wild populations have dropped significantly in past 10 years (on Catskill streams for example) – suggested catch & release only on tributaries.

• Assess water quality in trout streams in the region – reclassification of streams needed to reflect for what DEC is managing these streams (e.g., trout propagation and survival).

Parking Lot

• NYC Portal Flows to Esopus Creek.

• Mongaup Hydro Licensing and providing fish passage.

• Promoting youth involvement in fishing, catching & creeling.

• Canadian brook trout studies on mortality of released fish.

• Promote fishing & visits to Esopus Creek & the pros + cons of this.

• Overuse at Blue hole.

• Stream Reclassification.

• Improve + protect water quality.

• Promote the need for outdoor adventure programs in schools (e.g., hunting/fishing and outdoor activities).

Meeting #6, Allegany 10/5/17

• Agree with DEC that I see much less angling on the stocked streams compared to

30 years ago.

• Timing of stocking can be problematic

o Consider stocking other times of the year, ex. Fall, to increase year-round

fishing opportunities

• If possible, manage for wild trout

43

• Reclassification of waters is needed to protect trout streams.

• Would like to see more accessible streams (more PFR), greater stream access,

parking, etc.

• Want to see stream habitat improvements (for overwintering and better survival of

stocked and wild trout)

• Consider stocking different strains of fish (that overwinter)

• Anglers value catching larger fish – stock larger fish or enable an environment that

leads to larger fish.

• Providing technical assistance to local groups for habitat improvement

• Replacing lost staff so DEC has the ability to better manage streams and do habitat

work.

• Hatchery improvements (infrastructure, etc)

• Use Biological/Science-based management, rather than politics to make

management decisions.

• Value Fishing in high-quality habitat, knowing it will support healthier and more fish.

• Use of regulations to improve catch rate and size

Meeting #7, Poestenkill 10/18/17

• Stocking gets kids involved in the sport. Need to consider the kids

• Catskill Creek trout end up the Hudson

• I have noticed a loss of habitat due to flooding, warmer water temps., reduced insect populations, and invasive species

• Stocked fish are not as healthy as previously and do not survive as long

• It’s hard to catch stocked fish

• Stock fewer, larger fish

• Advertise stocking dates

44

• I want to catch native fish and release them

• You should focus on put and take for the stocked fish

• Need more angler access guidance, people can’t find the PFRs

• Need better posting of PFRs

• Put the PFRs in the regulations book

• Enforce the PFR regs for FISHING ONLY

• There is not enough angler input into DEC fishing decisions

• You don’t listen to anglers

• There is much more variety of fish in Massachusetts

• You should stock throughout the season

• Need more wild strands of fish

• Connecticut stocks throughout the year and stocks wild fish

• By June, the fish are gone – we want fish throughout the season

• Value larger and wild fish

• We need more self-sustaining fish populations

• You should partner with other organizations to protect habitat

• You should spread out the fish so they will last longer

• One fish per two hours is not a good catch rate

• Just knowing that the fish are there is a positive value

• You should shut down streams for a week after stocking

• Don’t stock on opening day

• Look into Long Pond

• Stock before the season

• Angler ethics are important, you need to value the resource – need education

• Put in pools for the trout

45

• Improve habitat by working with watershed groups like the Rensselaer Plateau Alliance

• Value solitude, having multiple choices where to fish is important

• Would like to see no kill sections

• Work closer with groups like TU

• Put the fish where the habitat is – listen to anglers

• I like to see quality habitat, healthy streams

• Stock other species, not just Browns

• Stock with the Little Tupper strain

• It’s important how the fish respond to being hooked

• Rainbows provide a better experience

• Like to see more Brook trout

• Value the ability to access extended reaches

• Need big fish holding water

Meeting #8, Central Square 10/18/17

Size of trout over number caught per hour - More opportunity to catch larger trout Mature/wild bred fish preferable, regardless of size - Replicate wild behaviors in stocked fish? Favors wild fish of any size and/or stocked fish that have held over. Time of year for stocking - How to prevent loss? Supply vs. demand in April; -carry on stocking through summer to avoid early crowds – likes solitude; - fall stocking – delayed harvest/extended season (regulation changes where necessary – case by case basis for wild fisheries) – will help keep angler dollars local, more opportunity to fish - find out what’s the return for fall stocking before committing a bunch of fish Habitat improvement - Higher populations, greater longevity and biomass. How to fund?

46

Climate change mitigation/adaptation measures – Consider in all management actions. Habitat: protect enhance Genetic diversity: wild populations Invasive species: habitat impacts Impacts of water temp on mortality – changes to regs to allow protection in summer? Education and outreach vs legislative changes; identify key areas Harvest rates – More catch and release than historically but greater non-angler loss. Stocking – - Stagger dates based on regional climates - Increase rainbow trout stockings in streams? - Change species mix and not just use only brown trout? Provides different fishing experiences based on different characteristics and thus diversified experience. Habitat – culvert removal for improved connectivity and diversity. Funding priority for wild and stocked fish

Meeting #9, Hammondsport 10/19/17

➢ Opportunity to catch wild trout.

➢ Longer duration of fishing for stocked trout (the ability to catch fish

throughout the season).

➢ Trout distribution throughout stream (need for float stocking).

➢ Increased access (to streams) and within streams (solitude when

fishing)

➢ Liability – better publicize General Obligations Law to allow more access

to posted lands.

➢ Manage streams to their potential; different strategies for different types

of streams.

➢ Prefer that we manage for wild trout when practical.

47

➢ Ability to fish year round.

Meeting #10, Avon 10/23/17

Extend Catch Throughout the Season

*More PFR (Ensure on-line maps are updated)

*Increase access to PFRs (parking, etc.) and provide safe areas (cleanup areas)

*Use stocked trout to increase fishing trips to marginal streams

*Manage for higher catch rate (1 fish/hr.). Like to catch more fish

*Improve Survival of Stocked Fish

Improve Habitat to increase Holding Capacity

Education for all ages on habitat, fishing. Produce a more informed, ethical angler.

Look into putting a greater % of fish in areas where they will survive

*Better habitat management

*Rotational Stockings, locations and timing to increase fishing variety

*Catch Larger Fish (at expense of smaller ones)

*Have more Interaction with organizations (TU, Federations) to gather Information on the fisheries

*Delayed Harvest after stocking to allow for more equality in catch

*Increase trout species – increase variety in catch (brook, rainbow) – more than one species

stocked in streams

*Manage for more holdover of stocked trout for fishing opportunities in early spring and bigger

trout

*Provide more boating (drift boats) access on streams

*Keep fishing pressure same (don’t want overcrowding i.e. Salmon River exp)

Meeting #11, Utica 10/26/17

• Need to consider the impact of water levels (reservoir operations) on fish

• Prefer to catch bigger fish (personally) but also places high value on sharing sport with

grandkids/future generations (recognizes need for easier fishing opportunities)

• Concerned about lack of holdover – consider adjusting stocking schedule to avoid stocking under

poor weather conditions (values greater duration of good fishing)

• Desire for more/better communication regarding: wild trout management, that CROTS is mgmt

tool not just stocking, would like to see a system of stream classification (eco, habitat, quality)

communicated to the public (meetings, signs).

48

• More focus on habitat: watershed quality concerns, culverts

• Coordination with NYSDOT – road salt and road runoff thermal shock concerns

• Add catch & release info “how to” to regulation guide

• Drawdown concern – canal corporation

• (value on greater duration of good fishing) need regulation to control crowd fishing and excessive

harvest right after stocking ex: 2 day wait. A matter of fair chase and to allow fish to disperse

after stocking

• Two day fish limit on rainbow stocking – take catch and release off rainbow

• Reduce limit that you can take

• Efficiency valued – important to know that stocked fish and other management resources provide

a good return to angling public

• Don’t stock over wild trout

• Want opportunity to catch varying ages of trout/size distribution

• Designate Upper Oriskany watershed, don’t stock, protect and foster blue ribbon portions of

stream but stock small section

• Evaluate catch rate vs. harvest rate

• Positive value of stocked trout = build confidence of early/young anglers

• Are you going to adjust stocking?

Meeting #12, Whitney Point 10/26/17

STOCKING NUMBERS/SIZE/TIMING Too many? Higher quality – survivability/strains/improved reproduction 2 yr old program – Most love them but several concerned about impact on wild fish – can we

investigate? How to time stocking to improve longevity in streams – is early spring stocking problematic? Fall stocking is desired. Quantify Predators? Control methods Year-round fishing – more opportunities for late season (catch and release) around the state are desired Increased enforcement - Deterrents for illegal activities (there was one person in particular who felt that illegal harvest was running rampant and the primary cause for increased “non-angler mortality”) Sustainability of the resource – (I believe this note refers to sustaining and improving wild trout population - dkl) Strains/Species stocked – increased diversity – brook trout (fewer advocates for stocking RT stockings) Indigenous spp DEC should study/ID “wild” traits for improved survivability Habitat protection

49

Cold waters/shade Survey stream habitats that retain 2 yr olds and align mgmt. actions to streams with similar qualities Protect/nurture “higher quality” streams Habitat Retain some put-and-take streams in higher pressure areas Brook and rainbow trout “Easier” fish in separate streams Increase license fee? Reinvest in 2 yr old program and implement habitat improvement projects Involve more school children in stocking? Saturday stockings would bring out more kids and younger adults (as opposed to retirees) Improved angler ethics/protection desires Involvement of children Water quality monitoring for contaminants? Trout stamp Funding could be used for habitat improvements/research/improvements/increased DLE presence – dedicated ECO’s? “River keepers” Catch & Release in high quality streams to improve survivability of wild fish Close certain streams to fishing to study survivability/other effects to get a better handle

on what the other non-angler mortality factors are

Meeting #13, Cortlandt Manor 10/26/17

Poaching – an issue in Croton R. watershed, possibly take a look at this across streams in the

area.

Higher fishing pressure in this area – Westchester Co. – a factor to consider in future planning.

Consider stocking more fish to make up for other factors impacting populations.

Size health of stocked fish – stocking bigger & healthier fish may be beneficial – healthier fish

may have better survival changes.

Size is a focus for angler satisfaction.

50

Poaching is a serious issue in area – needs to be addressed (e.g., increased law enforcement).

Cleaner water/better habitat would beneficial to angler experience – work to improve water quality.

Convince DEP to remove barriers/improve habitat/remove trees that block streams – world help

improve fishery in the Croton area.

CFAB – recruitment/getting young people interested in fishing - $ from license sales will keep

program going.

The experience of fishing is what counts.

Catching fish is key to experience – especially with recruitment of young anglers – size of fish is

not as important as the experience.

West Branch Croton – a participant at the meeting stated that he keeps daily records/catch rate

when fishing (20+ years) – great experience an incredible resource that is being destroyed. Work

done on dam, which resulted in low water levels, caused serious damage to fishery/habitat. Trees

have fallen and need to be removed.

WBC – lots of pressure on resource/very popular – should be a priority for DEC for protection.

Track/crew for stocking – consider more areas to stock – not just from bridges – anglers are happy

to work with the stocking crews.

Spread out stocking dates – spring/fall – throughout the season - increase holdovers.

Maybe close a stocked area for a few days – give them fish a chance to survive.

More no kill zones – catch & release return anglers/ more opportunities for kids to fish throughout

season.

Catch rate good in local watershed.

We are seeing a good mix of fish in the area and a good number of big fish.

More native brook trout would be good – diversity of fishery

Does DEC a goal w/these meetings? Mike answered - to make fishing better in NYS.

Catching a big fish is really a great experience – higher catch rate/bigger fish would increase

angler satisfaction - would like to have that expectation that “big fish are out there.”

Healthy fish – would like to see more of them.

Close certain streams for 1 -2 weeks after stocking (streams that are stocked).

51

Consider over stocking some streams.

Work with NYC DEP – be aware of their activities on local streams – some of the work can

negatively impact fish habitat and fishing experience.

West Branch of the Croton – possible impacts from Didymo (rock snot) – DEC should investigate

infestation & impacts on local streams.

Stream cards to fill out – maybe bring this effort back – good survey tool!

Portal on website for surveys (creel) – to get more input from anglers – this could be an additional

tool.

Emphasize the Health of a stream/water quality/good habitat – this is what is being taught at

schools.

The experience of getting out fishing is key to angler experience.

Brook trout in Amawalk Reservoir (NYC DEP) – many streams in area have native populations –

DEC is doing a brook trout study on the waterbody.

Suggestion – vary catch & release from year to year,1 year on – 1 year off - could help boost fish

population.

Parking lot

Fish diseases

Stocked vs wild (ratio 1979 vs 2013)

Meeting #14, Hauppauge 11/2/17

Page 1

• Focus on Habitat (emphasized repeatedly throughout discussion)

• Wild trout hold more value

• Focus on biological Metrics

• Experience is more important than amount of fish caught o Native fish better experience

• Success can be measured through stream improvements

• Different angler levels (beginner/intermediate/advanced anglers) require different management techniques

• Accessible streams are important o Expands opportunities for children o Persons with Disabilities o Senior Citizens

52

Page 2

• Important to increase native trout

• Increase opportunities for Youth

• Increase opportunities to fish for high value fish (native wild fish)

• Strength, intelligence, beauty of fish important/Increases fishing experience

• Stock trout in more strategic areas where they will hold rather than move down stream

• Preserve the ability to fish the jewels of the region

Page 3

• Stream improvements to maximize trout habitat

• Conduct a second stocking to increase fishing experience throughout season (June)

• Genetic strains of stocked trout may be an issue o Use survivors (stocked or wild) as breeders

• Must work on habitat restoration immediately

• Increase: o Number of fish o Increase Size o Duration/hold overs

• Improve water quality and quantity

Page 4

• Other users/non-anglers should contribute to habitat restoration

• Increase Enforcement

• More actively manage streams dependent on current conditions

• Brook Trout Strategy/Plan should be incorporated into plan – manage rivers with only brook trout

• Dam removals

• Hire and designate DEC staff for design in region rather than contract out

• Stock trout deeper into the winter

• Stock in larger creeks o Accessible by kayak o Tidal areas

Parking Lot

• Help clarify jurisdictional issues to assist volunteers in pond & stream cleanups – habitat improvements

Meeting #15, Watertown 11/9/17

Stock fish before season, allow to disperse

First two weeks of season should be catch and release (delayed harvest)

53

Year-round fishing? (more fishing opportunity)

Quality trout fishing = chance to catch four or five quality (>14”) trout/day, doesn’t matter whether

wild or stocked, brown or brook trout acceptable

Quality trout fishing = chance at catching ~11-12” trout

Prefer rainbow trout because of their jumping ability

Raise 2 year-old rainbow trout?

Meeting #16, Long Island City 11/15/17

Definition of Native Trout discussed

Water Temperature/Water Quality - Support Trout.

What has changed? Habitat? Importance of habitat quality and concern for habitat degradation

expressed.

Fitness problems with wild trout vs. stocked trout – genetic limitations of domestic trout

discussed. DEC looking to improve domestic brood stock genetics but must maintain necessary

hatchery performance including disease resistance. Recently replaced rainbow trout brood

stock with a new strain because of performance concerns

Big issues concerning effective enforcement of fishing and habitat protection regulations

Re: NYC and Habitat stock.

High value on protecting habitat.

Regulations have become more complicated – but feel that they are still understandable to

most.

Cut season back to September 30th – this was discussed as a way to reduce disruption of redds

by anglers wading in streams – expected outcome is more wild trout

Do more Trout Habitat restoration/enhancement work

Increasing Salinity, Habitat, Invasive Species - Any effect?

Need more resources for stream habitat management.

54

Focus habitat improvement on stock.

What is the management portfolio (stocked vs. wild trout streams) going forward?

Attention should be focused on stream/creek habitat management.

Fishing regulations used to be more diverse - perhaps more conservatively managed.

Need for greater law enforcement Re: protection of creeks/streams.

Illegal fishing activity.

Right timing activity.

Right timing for enforcement - understanding patterns I think this goes with the discussion

on ECO’s – if reporting violations, provide as much details as possible to allow DLE to

determine patterns and place ECO’s in areas where violations are occurring, at the right

time

ECOs do not spend enough time in Region before leaving to go Upstate.

Does DEC Fisheries have direct input on funding? This may tie into the discussion on our

coordination with NYCDEP but may not be limited to just DEP but to any funded stream

habitat project

Prioritization of culverts – not sure on this, maybe culvert projects were thought to be more

important to accomplish than other habitat improvement projects?

Artificial selection issues.

Interest slowing or lagging on some projects.

Concern with invasives & habitat management – knotweed and Phragmites problems

Thoroughly evaluate - good return on habitat restoration work.

Everyone should have the chance to experience fishing in a creek

More thought on "No Kill" stock?

Degree of coordination between NYSDEC and NYCDEP? there should be more coordination

between the two agencies.

55

A more proactive approach regarding project management.

Who is doing enforcement?