Approve New Class A & Wild Trout Waters

[salvelinus]

Mike, I can see that scenario. But how many are wild - stocked - wild like the EF is and Big Moore's was?

 

[Swattie87]

Just a hypothesis, but IIRC, Big Moore’s has public access issues on its bottom end. Private, pay to fish operation owns a good chunk of water. Possibly why the lowest section wasn’t STW (or whatever the equivalent reg was then). The general public couldn’t fish there anyway, so why list it as stocked in that section and create additional opportunities for landowner conflict.

The upper part, above the SF section, is generally not posted, but the stream is pretty dinky up there and runs amongst quite a few camps. I’m sure it has some wild fish, but it wouldn’t be good stretch for stocked Trout angling until it gets a litter bigger.

Just a guess, but it makes sense I think...Stocked in the middle, not stocked (by the state anyway) above and below. The private pay to fish operation stocks their water still I believe.

 

[salvelinus]

Even though there is that privately owned land on section 3, it has 16% public access and PFBC lists as Class A from the downstream SF boundary to the mouth. I don't know how long that has been the designation. When did Class A come about?

 

[Mike]

Wild-stocked over wild-wild could be somewhat common across Pa, as it takes very few trout for a stream to be designated as a wild trout stream. What I think you meant was Class A-stocked-Class A, and I suspect that this specific three section scenario is probably pretty unusual across Pa. In theory, however, I could see it happening with temporary longitudinal changes in physical habitat, water temps, water quality, or gradient based on my experiences.

 

[troutbert]

salvelinus wrote:
Mike, I can see that scenario. But how many are wild - stocked - wild like the EF is and Big Moore's was?

Regarding the East Fork.

Back around the early 1990s or so, section 3 went Class A, but section 2 did not.

The explanation for this, IMHO, is that section 3 is on private land and has a lot of cabins along the stream.

Many of these properties posted their land, probably because they were unhappy with the usual bad fishermen behavior.

So the PFBC quit stocking section 3. They have a policy of ending stocking if a certain percentage of it is posted.

A few years after they quit stocking it, they surveyed and found that it had a Class A population. That's understandable. When you quit stocking, the fishing pressure and harvest goes down, and the wild trout population increases, if their is suitable habitat.

Section 2 has decent habitat also, but at that time it was heavily and frequently stocked, and it was fished very hard. It had an unusually wide and deeply worn fishermen's path alongside it. You can judge the amount of fishing pressure from the angler paths, and this was obviously getting pounded.

So, why has it gone to Class A now? IMHO, it's because the PFBC has been tapering down stocking of these types of small wild trout streams. Their guidance for stocking calls for less fish to be stocked where certain levels of wild trout are found. Which makes sense.

We tend to focus on ending stocking, but reducing stocking numbers and frequency can also lead to wild trout population increases.

I think that is what happened here. In recent years they've still been stocking it, but they've been stocking less than they did in years past. And the trout population has responded, to the point that it reached Class A.

It makes sense to reduce stocking in the smaller, wild trout streams, and focus the stocking on the larger water, such as the First Fork Sinnemahoning. Most people prefer to fish larger water rather than small streams. And much of the big water on the First Fork is on state land, so access is assured. And the lake at Sinnemahoning State Park is also a very popular place to fish for stocked trout in early season.

But there will always be people who push back against ending stocking, even on small forested wild trout streams.

So it's very important that those who care about wild trout submit their support of improving wild trout management.

 

[Prospector]

Swattie87 wrote:
Just a hypothesis, but IIRC, Big Moore’s has public access issues on its bottom end. Private, pay to fish operation owns a good chunk of water. Possibly why the lowest section wasn’t STW (or whatever the equivalent reg was then). The general public couldn’t fish there anyway, so why list it as stocked in that section and create additional opportunities for landowner conflict.

The upper part, above the SF section, is generally not posted, but the stream is pretty dinky up there and runs amongst quite a few camps. I’m sure it has some wild fish, but it wouldn’t be good stretch for stocked Trout angling until it gets a litter bigger.

Just a guess, but it makes sense I think...Stocked in the middle, not stocked (by the state anyway) above and below. The private pay to fish operation stocks their water still I believe.

I don’t know where “PFBC sections” start and end on Big Moore’s but this year there was a posted stretch on the upper end that seemed to run for about a mile. I thought it was same landowner at Upper and lower limits.