Angler/fish presence and utilization - unscientific observations from ANF trip

[salmonoid]

Just some unscientific observations from a long Memorial Day weekend fishing/camping episode...

Saw lots of different varieties of bugs: green and gold stoneflies, caddis, sulphurs, and I swear a Green Drake, to name a few.

I fished from Wednesday, May 20 through Monday, May 25. I fished three ATW and two NatRepro streams. I caught wild fish in all three ATW, which was satisfying and irritating all at the same time. The one ATW was loaded with little brookies in between stocking points, but devoid of the little fellas near where the bucket brigade stepped streamside. With water levels dipping to close to historical low records for one of the stream gauges, in the ATW, it was not surprising to find that the fish were concentrated, seemingly where buckets were dumped. There were certainly holdovers from pre-season stockings, with stocked fish starting to take up holding positions where fish should be (undercut banks, under logs), and some had learned to sip midges. Even though we experienced a freeze Friday night (28 degrees) that killed broad leaf ferns, sumac, and other weeds, and had overall cooler weather, and the stream temperature I measured was 58 degrees, the stocked brook trout were already on the move into the cooler tributaries. The rainbows were in school mode, with the occasional brown and brookie hanging out.

As far as angler presence, we camped near a spot close to a forest road. I saw less than a dozen unique anglers at that spot. I probably walked between ten and fifteen miles of streams away from our campsite and saw exactly one angler in all of those wanderings. I saw one family of four keep a few fish and one other angler limit out twice. But everyone else fished C&R, or didn't catch anything.

I see much angst on PAFF from members about streams potentially not being stocked because of supposed unscientific PFBC surveys that suggest low angler utilization (Little Schuylkill was mentioned and the general removal of streams from the fall stocking schedule). Everyone other than the PFBC seems to have anecdotal evidence of multiple anglers fishing throughout the week, etc. So that is why I titled this unscientific; but my observations support the notion that after opening day, angler utilization on the three streams I was on was low. They are not no-name streams either that receive the minimum 300 fish allocation; one runs along a US highway, another is bordered on both sides by forest roads and I seem to recall it received at least 10,000 fish pre-season, back in the day when stocking numbers were posted, and the third is also within easy walking distance of a paved road, with multiple access points, snowmobile trails, forest roads, etc. crossing it.

Further, the idea of utilizing the resource (i.e. keeping them) seems to be a dirty concept, but it was disgusting to see a couple of buckets of rainbows that had been in the water at least a week hanging out in the widest, shallowest part of the stream, knowing that a week or two of warm temperatures will put the stream at likely lethal temperatures for the fish, not to mention that the low water conditions made for easy pickings for the herons, who were utilizing the conditions to their full potential. Creeling them should either have been encouraged, or they simply should not have been stocked in the first place. Doing the latter would allow the small wild population of fish to grow, would provide fish that could be stocked in other even more marginal water, or could support a reduction in fish production, which would allow for the closure of hatcheries, saving money. I know that is a political football, but all the clamoring by special interests groups to keep the two hatcheries open, stock more fish, etc. simply wasn't backed up by the high density of stocked fish I did see and the low density of anglers I encountered on the streams I fished. I'd have expected to see no fish and tons of anglers if what the pro-hatchery crowd espoused was true.

Perhaps the experience was best summed up by the encounter with the lone angler that I met away from the campsite. The conversation went something like this:

He: Do you know when or if they stocked?
Me: No, this is my first time fishing the area. I always drove by on the way home from ANF, but never had the time to stop to fish. So I really do not know anything about the stream.
He: Ok. Well, they just don't stock like they used to. Did you see anything downstream?
Me: Yes, I found a few. There is good habitat, but the stream is loaded with silt and sediment. I was expecting to find wild browns.
He: (Laughs) - I'm not surprised by the sediment. And there are no wild fish in this area - maybe if you go down to *** Run.
Me: Well, good luck.
He: Same to you (He walks downstream and returns ten minutes later).
He: I didn't see any fish down there. Have you seen any?
Me: (Standing in front of a hole that appeared to hold a few buckets) - there are a few in there, but they are refusing my offering.

(We part ways - he to his car, me upstream).

I fished upstream another mile and a half, encountering a few dozen stocked fish, and a few dozen more gemmies in a beautiful, but sediment choked environment.





Stocked or wild? #1 don't let the lack of a ventral fin on the one side and a pectoral fin on the other side fool you ;-)


Stocked or wild? #2 this at least had all of its fins






Starved 10" brookie


One of the few wild browns I caught - the low conditions made them difficult to target.



The other browns in this particular stream tend to inhabit stiller pools, hiding out under rock ledges or logs that fall across the stream. The above brown came from this home.







Note all the sediment in this photo. Freestoners shouldn't look like this..



Is the sediment because of this?







Or this?





This is not another planet (although it looks like an alien landscape). Not surprisingly, the sediment in the streams matches the color of the roads. But a century or more of beaver residency could be responsible for the meadow in the first photo. I'm not letting Castor canadensis off the hook.

 

[phiendWMD]

I don't mean to highjack your thread immediately but I have a few comments and a question. I'll try to keep it relevant to what you posted.

First of all, thank you for sharing nice pictures. That first brookie and the first brown look awesome.

The Little Schuylkill might be underused on the lower end but the upper end is well fished. I haven't been there in about a month now but when I left I was still seeing quite a few other anglers. Tamaqua has a tournament or derby or whatever you want to call it with tagged fish that you win prizes for. It runs until mid June I believe and I've sure people are still fishing if for that reason only. I'm going back this weekend so I'll count the people and report back to this thread. I know 2 or 3 weeks after opening day I counted almost 30 cars one weekend in about a 2 mile stretch.
I want to fish a few tribs near the mouth so I'll probably check out the lower end as well.

Finally the question. How long after a fish is caught does it take to start eating again? I realize it won't be an exact time for every fish but if anyone can provide a general answer that I would appreciate it. That starved brookie looks half dead. It's sad to think it might go hide under a rock or bank for a day after being released. It's even sadder stocked fish are out competing it for food when the stockies aren't being used as intended ie put and take. If people are still fishing there I feel it should still be stocked but maybe the numbers should be cut back until some sort of balance is achieved?

 

[k-bob]

nice images and wow that's a lean brookie

 

[troutbert]

Regarding the fine sediment. The soils are very sandy in that region. And the streams are low gradient, so their velocities are not high enough to move sediment very well. So those streams are very vulnerable to fine sediment accumulation, if there is even a modest amount of soil disturbance.

And in that area there is a LOT of soil disturbance, as shown in the satellite photo. There is a high density road network, lots of oil and gas pads and pipeline cuts, and lots of logging operations.

Don't blame the beaver. They have co-existed with the brook trout for thousands of years. The problem is shown very clearly on the satellite photo.

 

[Fishidiot]

Great report and pics (as usual).

This is a thought provoking fishing trip and, although I don't routinely fish that area, some of the observations would be consistent, I think, with what a northwest PA guy would see when visiting state forest freestoners in center state (minus the sandy sediment): few fishermen, mixed wild trout populations in ATWs with an occasional scrawny fish, noticeable numbers of leftover stockies that persist into summer. . .and a few local traditional anglers seeking the stockies and unaware of the wild fish.

Trips such as this with these observations. . .are good reminders that sometimes our conventional wisdom only goes so far and that actual situations are complex.

 

[troutbert]

Regarding the meadows, the areas where there is a lot of grass along the streams, rather than forest.

Some of those areas are the result of old beaver dam complexes. And that is a normal thing.

But in some of them, for example along South Branch Tionesta Creek, you can see lots of old stumps all through the meadows. So the floodplain there was originally forested.

When the trees were cut, that ended all the transpiration from the trees, which had been drawing up a lot of water, so the water table rose in that flat floodplain, making the soil so moist that trees could no longer grow there. Eventually the forest will take over again, moving in from the edges. I didn't make up this explanation, I read it somewhere.

 

[PatrickC]

Good stuff! BTW, I love that you put the qualifier "unscientific" in the title. Great minds don't believe everything they think. From our conversations over the years...you certainly have a great mind!

 

[pcray1231]

Very cool. Yeah, it's a different world up there (physically and culturally) than what most PAFF'ers experiences are. FF is much less common, and the majority of the bait guys C&R, overall you don't get as much fishing pressure, and "crowded" fishing is rare even on heavily stocked streams on opening weekend. I've had opening days where I've only seen 2 or 3 fisherman all day and not a single creeled trout. The mountains (and thus streams) are far less rock and more soil/silt. Gas wells date from the 40's and 50's mixed right in with more modern ones. Many streams are dominated by beaver complexes, both past and present. Generally streams are more "streaky", meaning good in spots but with barren areas as well. Some of that is due to stocking but much of it is just the way it is naturally due to significant differences in gradient/structure/siltation/soil geology in relatively close proximity.

From my experiences in that part of the state, yeah, the meadow streams are mostly centuries of beaver dam complexes. They do leave silt behind. The stream then generally scours a channel out, but the banks are all silty. Other streams remain forested.

While fresh beaver dams can and do hold trout at times, overall, they are not good for trout in the long term. Just because they evolved together doesn't mean there's no effect.

Dirt roads aren't good either and the satellite pic of all the gas wells, well, the biggest damage comes from the access roads to them. Although some streams have acidity problems too, I've come to the thinking it's more a mix of acid rain and natural geology than anything related to oil and gas, but I'm not SURE of that. Mostly the gas wells themselves appear to be ugly, but often harmless. And actually good for hunting (effect of smallish clearcuts in old growth forest).

That starved brookie is about to die. That's a big, old fish, based on the head and tail. They outgrow the stream and that's how they go out.

 

[streamerguy]

Great post salmonoid.....I always enjoy them. Keep 'em coming!!