ShareThis Page

With fewer people fishing, reduction to hatcheries, stockings seems likely

Bob Frye
| Saturday, Oct. 14, 2017, 4:30 p.m.
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission operates 13 hatcheries. An analysis of the agency done by Penn State University business studentssuggests that might be too much, given the commission’s revenues and changes in fishing participation trends.
Bob Frye
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission operates 13 hatcheries. An analysis of the agency done by Penn State University business studentssuggests that might be too much, given the commission’s revenues and changes in fishing participation trends.

Maybe the issue isn't the issue.

Last month, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commissioners gave their executive director, John Arway, the authority to trim up to $2 million from the agency budget. He has to make the cuts if state lawmakers don't raise the cost of fishing licenses or otherwise provide the agency additional revenue by July 1.

Just what might fall to the axe isn't set in stone.

But the plan floated so far includes shutting down the Oswayo trout hatchery — eliminating 240,000 adult trout — and scaling back production of several warmwater species, among other things.

That possibility has generated a lot of talk.

Perhaps it misses the bigger point, though.

Commissioner Eric Hussar of Union County said the real issue isn't the fate of one hatchery. It's what to do with 13.

That's how many the commission has. Whether it needs them all to satisfy fewer fishermen who get on the water less often is the question, Hussar said.

“Our anglers are changing. Participation in fishing is changing,” Hussar said. “The trends, if they continue five, 10, 20 years, paint a different future in terms of supply and demand and costs and benefits than what we've seen in the past.”

For decades, Arway said, the commission's trout hatcheries have operated with one goal: to produce the maximum amount of fish possible. That's remained the case even as interest in fishing has declined.

Each year from 1977 through 1995, the commission sold more than one million licenses. Sales peaked in 1990 at just less than 1.2 million.

By comparison, sales averaged about 847,000 a year over the five years prior to this one.

Yet the commission hasn't adjusted, Arway said.

“You continue to produce more product for fewer people. It doesn't make much sense,” he added.

An independent look at the commission agrees.

Master's degree candidates in Penn State's college of agricultural sciences did a business analysis of the commission.

It found the agency does things backwards.

In manufacturing, the report said, businesses determine demand for a product, then build to meet it. That production varies over time as the market dictates.

“Typically, marketing and sales professionals discuss goals before production is scheduled, then manufacturing determines production amounts and executes the plans,” it reads.

The commission, by comparison, produces fish, decides where to put them, and only then, “on the back end,” tries to generate demand.

That should change, the report said. With revenues flattening and expenses rising, “lowering fish production appears to be a necessary step” to balance budgets, it reads.

“You have to ask, how many fish do you really need and how many can you afford?” added Judd Michael, a professor of ecosystem science and management who oversaw development of the analysis.

If production is cut, the business plan makes two recommendations.

The first is to concentrate stockings and then market those hot spots to “generate demand at select locations prior to stocking,” it reads.

The second is to consider how fish are used these days.

Angler behavior has changed, the report notes. More and more fishermen practice catch and release.

“It may be the case that the catch- and-release rates have increased sufficiently that the agency does not have to stock as many fish since anglers are effectively ‘stocking' the streams with fish released after a catch. If this is true, then any agency reductions in trout stocking levels would be offset by anglers who are releasing fish for others to catch,” the report reads.

The analysis producing such ideas has value, Arway said.

“This shouldn't fall on deaf ears,” he said.

Expense is the reason why.

Operating hatcheries costs the agency about $13 million a year, he said. That's about one-quarter of the agency's total budget.

Most of that money — upwards of $10 million — is gobbled up by trout production.

Still, no changes to hatcheries or stocking are imminent, Arway said.

“We're not going to do too many new things until we get our financial situation stabilized,” he said.

But changes may not be all that far off either.

Steve Kralik, director of outreach, education and marketing for the commission, said the agency has reached out to Southwick Associates. It's a research firm specializing in the outdoor industry.

At some point, Kralik said, the commission may ask that firm to help it determine — based on public input — how many fish its customers expect or demand.

It's been a “long, long time” since the commission did any such analysis of its hatchery program, Arway said. So such research could be beneficial, he added.

Hussar, a business owner himself, agreed.

The commission has had hatcheries for most of its 151 years. He hopes it will for the next 151, he said.

But, he added, that doesn't mean it shouldn't look at operations.

“You're certainly not going to make stuff if it's not going to sell,” Hussar said. “So this is an analysis that should be done.”

Bob Frye is the editor. Reach him at 412-216-0193 or See other stories, blogs, videos and more at

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me