M
Mike
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 5,565
Earlier this year two Board participants described a fishing trip to a SE Pa stocked trout stream that also supports a relatively low density wild brown trout population toward the headwaters, but not in the headwaters. These individuals, however, fished what seemed to be farther downstream based on my interpretation of their report and described catching some wild Browns. If the I D's and my interpretation of the location were correct, this was new info because back in the late 80's or early 90's the survey did not find wild trout in that area or anywhere close by.
The intent today was to survey a likely WT tributary of the stocked stream and perhaps two others farther upstream; however, recollection of the Board Members' post resulted in a short discussion regarding the best plan of attack. If taking time to survey near the mouth of the stocked stream itself produced the appropriate number of WT, then all of this lengthy stream plus its tribs could be classified as WT streams and no further survey work would be required. On the other hand it used to be warm in that stretch, which is a number of miles down from the present WT stretch. A failed survey would result in lost valuable time since the crew was about 2.75 hrs from home base.
The survey was done taking a chance on the report, taking into consideration the impacts of time on shade development on many SE streams, and after reviewing the appearance of the habitat near the mouth. Fortunately, it produced more than enough WT and the necessary reps of multiple year classes near the mouth to be considered as a candidate for a WT stream extension of considerable length. If accepted via administrative review,,public review, and Commission action the tribs would also receive that status.
The stream gets marginally acceptable for trout. The WT were slightly thin and many cool to warm water preferring species were present.
We thank the reporting Board members as they saved us multiple trips, many man-hours, and vehicle expenses by making our effort efficient.
The intent today was to survey a likely WT tributary of the stocked stream and perhaps two others farther upstream; however, recollection of the Board Members' post resulted in a short discussion regarding the best plan of attack. If taking time to survey near the mouth of the stocked stream itself produced the appropriate number of WT, then all of this lengthy stream plus its tribs could be classified as WT streams and no further survey work would be required. On the other hand it used to be warm in that stretch, which is a number of miles down from the present WT stretch. A failed survey would result in lost valuable time since the crew was about 2.75 hrs from home base.
The survey was done taking a chance on the report, taking into consideration the impacts of time on shade development on many SE streams, and after reviewing the appearance of the habitat near the mouth. Fortunately, it produced more than enough WT and the necessary reps of multiple year classes near the mouth to be considered as a candidate for a WT stream extension of considerable length. If accepted via administrative review,,public review, and Commission action the tribs would also receive that status.
The stream gets marginally acceptable for trout. The WT were slightly thin and many cool to warm water preferring species were present.
We thank the reporting Board members as they saved us multiple trips, many man-hours, and vehicle expenses by making our effort efficient.
I love hearing stories like this!
