PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,300
Yeah, the worst that could happen IMO would be that anglers catch fewer dinks in Spring for a period of time.
Yeah, the worst that could happen IMO would be that anglers catch fewer dinks in Spring for a period of time.
nymphingmaniac
Well-known member
I still hold the opinion the major impediment is lack of water and proper habitat for large trout, especially upstream of bellefonte. The food sources (nymphs and scuds) are high enough, I think.
We all know holes that are deep enough for large fish, but the are small in size. Each hole can probably handle one large fish as they are territorial. Big fish eat crayfish and sculpins. In order for these large fish to catch these larger food items, in many cases they have to chase them. The smaller volume of the holes make this difficult as baitfish can seek refuge in the shallows.
There are big fish. I catch them regularly from March-May when the water is high and angling pressure is less. I have a pretty good hunch where they go afterwards and this tends to be water FF overlook.
We all know holes that are deep enough for large fish, but the are small in size. Each hole can probably handle one large fish as they are territorial. Big fish eat crayfish and sculpins. In order for these large fish to catch these larger food items, in many cases they have to chase them. The smaller volume of the holes make this difficult as baitfish can seek refuge in the shallows.
There are big fish. I catch them regularly from March-May when the water is high and angling pressure is less. I have a pretty good hunch where they go afterwards and this tends to be water FF overlook.
Chaz
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 8,454
I've got the felling that Spring Creek has limited big fish habitat, and a limited forage base of large prey. You can go there almost anytime and see trout riding, but rising trout at some point have to have big prey available to grow big.
Even though SC may have plenty of bugs, a lot are smaller than a # 14 fly, fish can't get big eating that.
Even though SC may have plenty of bugs, a lot are smaller than a # 14 fly, fish can't get big eating that.
LeTortAngler2
Member
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2014
- Messages
- 119
I dont see much baitfish and have never seen a crayfish in Spring. Wonder what would happend if Spring got stocked in that section with a lot of baitfish? Probably would get some beefy trout that way 
WildTigerTrout
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2010
- Messages
- 2,068
There are crayfish in Spring Creek. As far as baitfish go the BIG Browns eat the little browns. :-oLeTortAngler2 wrote:
I dont see much baitfish and have never seen a crayfish in Spring. Wonder what would happend if Spring got stocked in that section with a lot of baitfish? Probably would get some beefy trout that way
pcray1231
Well-known member
FWIW, I interpreted the proposal more as an attempt to improve lower Bald Eagle Creek, rather than improve Spring Creek in any meaningful way.
Spring Creek doesn't need any help (in terms of population management, it does need protection in terms of flow rates and water quality). That said, it can handle a removal of some fish, while maintaining STRONG populations. Whatever % are lost would be replaced in short order, as reproduction is extraordinarily strong there.
As such, making sure the culling is even is not really important. What would be important is taking enough fish to take an honest shot at seeding a more genetically suited population elsewhere in the drainage. As I said, I believe the likelihood of success is relatively low. But success would be huge, both for this drainage as well as making roadmap for how to do it elsewhere in the state. And the trade-off is low as well. You can take a sizable number of smallish trout from Spring Creek without much in the way of ill-effects at all. It's the perfect place for such a trial.
And I do think such efforts would succeed sometimes. In cases where habitat is suitable, but genetically inferior PFBC strains have caught on to only a limited degree. Mix in some wild DNA from the same drainage and the success may increase substantially.
Even if such trials were met with a low success rate, it's a huge potential reward (a new thriving wild fishery) for a relatively low cost and effort. Do the transplant once or twice, and that's it, you have a self sustaining fishery for eternity.
Spring Creek doesn't need any help (in terms of population management, it does need protection in terms of flow rates and water quality). That said, it can handle a removal of some fish, while maintaining STRONG populations. Whatever % are lost would be replaced in short order, as reproduction is extraordinarily strong there.
As such, making sure the culling is even is not really important. What would be important is taking enough fish to take an honest shot at seeding a more genetically suited population elsewhere in the drainage. As I said, I believe the likelihood of success is relatively low. But success would be huge, both for this drainage as well as making roadmap for how to do it elsewhere in the state. And the trade-off is low as well. You can take a sizable number of smallish trout from Spring Creek without much in the way of ill-effects at all. It's the perfect place for such a trial.
And I do think such efforts would succeed sometimes. In cases where habitat is suitable, but genetically inferior PFBC strains have caught on to only a limited degree. Mix in some wild DNA from the same drainage and the success may increase substantially.
Even if such trials were met with a low success rate, it's a huge potential reward (a new thriving wild fishery) for a relatively low cost and effort. Do the transplant once or twice, and that's it, you have a self sustaining fishery for eternity.
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,805
Bald Eagle Creek from Spring Creek to the lake has wild browns and has at least as long as I've fished there, from the late 1980s to the present, and probably long before that. There are no genetic problems with these browns.
The limitation there is fisheries management, i.e. stocking plus state-wide harvest regs.
If it was managed like Spring Creek, the wild trout population would go way up. But it would be politically difficult to get the management changed. It's a popular stocked stream, very popular in the early season.
The limitation there is fisheries management, i.e. stocking plus state-wide harvest regs.
If it was managed like Spring Creek, the wild trout population would go way up. But it would be politically difficult to get the management changed. It's a popular stocked stream, very popular in the early season.
krayfish2
Well-known member
Dwight,
I've always overlooked that stream as I'd considered it a put and take fishery plus the crowds. According to what Mike describes on Logan Branch, the wild fish (especially the larger ones) seem to avoid falling prey to the spin fish crowds. Couldn't the wild fish population be improved below Bald Eagle lake while still maintaining high angler usage in the spring?
The last time I took the nephews up to paradise, we found 4"-6" trout in water along the banks that was barely deep enough to cover their backs. They also were quite thin. I'm guessing they were pushed out of better water by more aggressive fish or slightly larger fish. They appeared to be almost starving to death and expect they'd be easy prey for any critter wandering the banks. Moving 500 fish with good genetics from poor conditions to better holding water conditions can't hurt either location could it? I remember finding lots of good fish in just about any spot between Benner Springs and Milesburg. Not so much anymore.
SteveG suggested joining a private club if all you want to do is catch big fish. That's the response I'd expect from many on here. Join club? Nope. I'll just save my gas, my time and simply not fish a stream filled with 6" fish. I can do that 5 minutes from my house so no need to drive 2 hours. That is the reduced angler usage PFBC wantsz right? The hatches on that stream have improved over the last 20 years. I'm sure baitfish and crayfish numbers have also improved. What happened to the bigger fish? Just at first glance, I'd yell that the water flows are 1/2 of what they were and point to that as the issue. I'm not sure that's really the case. With the removal of dams, the appearance of the creek has definitely changed. According to USGS flows, it hasn't changed that much over the years but it sure looks lower to me. What happened?
I've always overlooked that stream as I'd considered it a put and take fishery plus the crowds. According to what Mike describes on Logan Branch, the wild fish (especially the larger ones) seem to avoid falling prey to the spin fish crowds. Couldn't the wild fish population be improved below Bald Eagle lake while still maintaining high angler usage in the spring?
The last time I took the nephews up to paradise, we found 4"-6" trout in water along the banks that was barely deep enough to cover their backs. They also were quite thin. I'm guessing they were pushed out of better water by more aggressive fish or slightly larger fish. They appeared to be almost starving to death and expect they'd be easy prey for any critter wandering the banks. Moving 500 fish with good genetics from poor conditions to better holding water conditions can't hurt either location could it? I remember finding lots of good fish in just about any spot between Benner Springs and Milesburg. Not so much anymore.
SteveG suggested joining a private club if all you want to do is catch big fish. That's the response I'd expect from many on here. Join club? Nope. I'll just save my gas, my time and simply not fish a stream filled with 6" fish. I can do that 5 minutes from my house so no need to drive 2 hours. That is the reduced angler usage PFBC wantsz right? The hatches on that stream have improved over the last 20 years. I'm sure baitfish and crayfish numbers have also improved. What happened to the bigger fish? Just at first glance, I'd yell that the water flows are 1/2 of what they were and point to that as the issue. I'm not sure that's really the case. With the removal of dams, the appearance of the creek has definitely changed. According to USGS flows, it hasn't changed that much over the years but it sure looks lower to me. What happened?
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,805
Maybe. But how?
What's your proposal?
M
midnightangler
Member
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2009
- Messages
- 782
If its not broken dont try to fix it. Neither spring nor the LBE need to be experimented with in this way. Moving fish seems unnecessary. If you really want bigger fish Why not just put a slot limit in place and let people keep 9-12 inch trout? Spring is loaded with 16" fish. It's the 20+ that are very scarce. My guess is that the constant fishing pressure hurts growth as much as anything
F
Fishidiot
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 9,960
LBE would be a good study to verify the claim, made recently by Mike in another thread, that harvest (and presumably stocking)correlates with more big fish. Careful analysis of fish populations in SC and LBE that makes some adjustment for habitat and flow would be an interesting study. My guess would be that the results would support the view that LBE has more big fish (wild BT > 20").
The correlation with harvest would still be debatable as to what degree it influences the outcomes....But I think the study would probably support Mike's claim. Would be interesting, and easier/less controversial than moving BTs out of SC to study the result.
The correlation with harvest would still be debatable as to what degree it influences the outcomes....But I think the study would probably support Mike's claim. Would be interesting, and easier/less controversial than moving BTs out of SC to study the result.
S
SteveG
Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2014
- Messages
- 980
Fwiw, if it seems that smaller fish are starving at paradise, I do support the idea of gathering them and seeding other water that can support wild populations. But then again, I thought the recent push has been to get brook trout in them.
I can't find it, but I thought I read a report in which the sculpin population was lower on a more recent study. But I'd think that there has to be some other issue going on.
I've only fished Spring a handful of times, and never at paradise, but I've always gotten a nice mix of fish.
I can't find it, but I thought I read a report in which the sculpin population was lower on a more recent study. But I'd think that there has to be some other issue going on.
I've only fished Spring a handful of times, and never at paradise, but I've always gotten a nice mix of fish.
nymphingmaniac
Well-known member
I have a different opinion about LBE. I think the habitat and food sources are too different from SC to be used to compare to SC.
LBE has more crayfish (my untrained observation), warms more than SC, has a significantly different insect population and fish are too free to migrate back and forth.
politically if even a rumor that PFBC is experimenting and comparing LBE to spring creek locals would go nuts. There are some people just outside of the state college area who to this day swear that the regulations on SC was a conspiracy from PFBC to stop stocking it. Some think the chemical spill didn't happen while others say this was not enough to prevent harvest. Some say that if the chemical spill was a real problem then why didn't they close harvest all the way downstream to the lake (water flows downstream right?). I attempted to explain biological load and dilution, but they don't believe it.
LBE has more crayfish (my untrained observation), warms more than SC, has a significantly different insect population and fish are too free to migrate back and forth.
politically if even a rumor that PFBC is experimenting and comparing LBE to spring creek locals would go nuts. There are some people just outside of the state college area who to this day swear that the regulations on SC was a conspiracy from PFBC to stop stocking it. Some think the chemical spill didn't happen while others say this was not enough to prevent harvest. Some say that if the chemical spill was a real problem then why didn't they close harvest all the way downstream to the lake (water flows downstream right?). I attempted to explain biological load and dilution, but they don't believe it.
Oregon_Owl
Member
- Joined
- Jul 2, 2014
- Messages
- 77
It would be too labor intensive (thus too costly for this to be realistic). Would also likely result in many fish being killed. I'm with the crowd who feels that a healthy stream has many year classes, and that only a few from each year class (relatively speaking) attain large proportion.
C
CRB
Well-known member
why not augment the food source in spring creek and start pellet feeding the entire stream, it seams to work on spruce creek. more food should lead to bigger fish. It works in the hatcheries .
.
C
CRB
Well-known member
Harbinger of the session coming, just like the leaves of fall.
S
Spiral
Member
- Joined
- Jun 25, 2010
- Messages
- 40
So Spring Creek is catch and release because of traces of toxins still in fish. You want to move them to Bald Eagle where people can now harvest them and eat them. Sounds like a firestorm for the PFBC to me. While your proposal is intriguing, it will never work if only for the too labor intensive and thus too expensive arguement.
Besides, Bald Eagle can't support wild trout. That's why it is still stocked. Duh.
Yes, that was sarcasm.
Besides, Bald Eagle can't support wild trout. That's why it is still stocked. Duh.
Yes, that was sarcasm.
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,300
I disagree that it is too labor/cost intensive. The PAFBC already shocks a bunch of streams, they already stock fingerlings, etc. My idea would just link these together and it would o my be an experiment on one watershed, not a bunch of widely dispersed creeks across the state.
If you look at some of the things that go on with the Erie steelhead program, doing what I propose is not much of a stretch. I don't know if it still happens this way, but at times the PAFBC was collecting fish, spawning them, then dumping, then trucking them to upper Elk. I'll also again point to the bloated the hatchery/ stop king system.
As for the contamination thing, I purposely overlooked that. I think it could be worked around. Perhaps only stock adult bows in BE and only allow harvest for them or maybe issue a warning for browns. It's doable. Heck, maybe contamination levels in Spring are at an acceptable level now anyway. I haven't seen any new info on that in recent years.
If you look at some of the things that go on with the Erie steelhead program, doing what I propose is not much of a stretch. I don't know if it still happens this way, but at times the PAFBC was collecting fish, spawning them, then dumping, then trucking them to upper Elk. I'll also again point to the bloated the hatchery/ stop king system.
As for the contamination thing, I purposely overlooked that. I think it could be worked around. Perhaps only stock adult bows in BE and only allow harvest for them or maybe issue a warning for browns. It's doable. Heck, maybe contamination levels in Spring are at an acceptable level now anyway. I haven't seen any new info on that in recent years.
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,805
It met the federal guidelines as of May 2001.
The PFBC kept it C&R because people enjoyed the fishing that way (with lots of trout in the stream.)
Chaz
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 8,454
LBE does support a wild population of trout, how many is open to question.
