Codorus heavy posting

[troutless]

larkmark said, all that handling kills the bigger fish. I couldn't agree more catch first photo next after battling the fish to exhaustion. My hope is that a study is done to see the effects.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

Google Scholar search: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?as_ylo=2016&q=trout+angler+handling+mortality&hl=en&as_sdt=0,39

A Meta-Analysis of Hooking Mortality of Nonanadromous Trout
Matthew J. Taylor Karl R. White
November 1992
Citations: 37

Abstract
The results of 18 studies of hooking mortality of nonanadromous trout were integrated with meta?analysis. Studies were coded for all variables suspected of having a relationship to rates of hooking mortality. The analysis showed that trout caught on bait died at higher rates than trout caught on artificial flies or lures, that fish caught on barbed hooks had higher mortality rates than fish caught on barbless hooks, that brown trout Salmo trutta had lower mortality rates than other species of nonanadromous trout, and that [i]wild trout died at higher rates than hatchery?reared trout.[/i] Other variables, including size of hooks, number of hooks, and water temperature, did not show a statistically significant relationship to hooking mortality. The results of this review should assist fisheries management agencies in refining and developing policies regarding fisheries regulations.

____________________________________________________

Postrelease Hooking Mortality of Rainbow Trout Caught on Scented Artificial Baits
George J. Schisler &Eric P. Bergersen
Jan 2011

Abstract
The postrelease mortality of rainbow trout Oncorhynchus mykiss caught on scented artificial baits was compared with postrelease mortalities of rainbow trout caught on traditional artificial flies. In all, 457 fish were captured on flies, 505 on artificial baits fished actively (ABA), and 511 on artificial baits fished passively (ABP) in five replicate experiments. Water temperature, fish length, time played, time out of water, hook location, leader treatment, and bleeding intensity were recorded for each fish captured. Mortalities were recorded daily over a 3-week holding period. Overall mortalities were 3.9% for fly-caught fish, 21.6% for fish caught on ABA, and 32.1 % for fish caught on ABP Differential mortality among gear types resulted largely from differences in the number of fish hooked in the gill arches or deep in the esophagus (critically hooked) in each group. Overall, critical bookings were 3.9% for the fly-caught group, 45.7% for the ABA group, and 78.3% for the ABP group. The Akaike Information Criterion, a model selection procedure, was used to develop a logistical regression model that best fit the mortality data. Parameters that reduced mortality probability include using flies rather than synthetic baits, hooking the fish in a noncritical location, and cutting the leader on critically hooked fish. In addition, as fish length increased, mortality probability decreased. Length of time played and length of time out of water contributed to mortality, as did increasing water temperatures and bleeding intensity.

 

[Mike]

While interesting references, my impression is that the above studies do not focus on “handling” that larkmark was writing about. They focus on terminal tackle effects while I think larkmark was referring to relatively frequent repeated capture and handling independently of the technique. There are studies that do focus on actual handling time, including at least one where the added time to take photos before releasing C&R fish was evaluated. Clicking on the link provided for the previous references also reveals just such a study on large bull trout mortality associated with immediate C&R vs a photo session followed by release. Additionally, Idaho did a study in a RT stream in which anglers were observed from a distance and handling time clocked and categorized, such as when a landing net was used.

As for the comment about Spring Ck, it was never (at least from 1970 onward) a stream with an abundance of big, wild fish above Bellefonte. There were some key places to go where one had a much better chance of finding a bigger fish, and could do so with some consistency, but the stream as a whole was never a Logan Branch, Big Spring, Letort (outside of the C&R Area) or even a Codorus Ck outside of the special reg area in that regard. This small fish problem did not develop in Logan Branch, yet no stream was fished harder than Logan Branch for large trout, which had good big fish habitat, an exceptional forage base, good flow, and very heavy harvest of stocked trout at the time. And even in the Codorus case, the lack of bigger fish in the special reg area was largely a forage problem, thus the transfer of scuds and sculpins to that stretch.

 

[larkmark]

Mike- I don't have any studies only my own experiences on Spring and Penns. As recently as 10-15yrs ago I could regularly catch numbers of nice fish in the 14"-18" range in an evening hatch of sulfurs or in the fall with blue wings. I'm talking maybe 6 nice 14" and a 18" one and a handful of smaller ones on an outing. Now you will be lucky to catch anything over 12". Most in fact are about as long as your hand. I know there are bigger fish but I am talking on average. The average size of all the fish on Spring and Penns is MUCH smaller in my experience. Now what has changed? Way more year round pressure from guides and fishermen. That is what I see. I don't fish either stream much anymore. I used to love them both.

 

[PennKev]

Mike wrote:
And even in the Codorus case, the lack of bigger fish in the special reg area was largely a forage problem, thus the transfer of scuds and sculpins to that stretch.

If there are no sculpin or scuds in a particualr stretch of stream, how is stocking of forage a long-term solution? I would think that if a specific stretch of a creek does not have abundant forage, but a different section does, that is due to a problem with habitat in the deficient specific area. Are steps also taken to improve propagation of the stocked forage?

 

[Mike]

Normally that might be true, but not in Codorus. Check the stream's history and you may understand why. It was not always a coldwater stream.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

ryansheehan wrote:

NMR wrote:
I can also vouch for running into several fake postings over the last five years or so.

Add to that being harassed by owners on nearly every posted navigable water I've fished, who were apparently disingenuous enough to hope I wasn't educated on high water law. Granted, most of this has come from clubs.

This is all caused by PA's senseless ownership laws. There's absolutely no amount of logic behind allowing some antiquated distinction of navigability from the 19th century to keep public resources open to the public. It serves the public, landowners, and the environment to include the riparian buffer in this distinction and set it to all streams.

While I understand the landowner in the Codorus case is simply doing what's allowed by law, I can't help but lose sympathy in these situations. This feels an awful lot like buying a house next to the fire station and then getting upset that the whistle is loud. You should know what you're buying into.

Put up a wire along your property, not across the stream itself.

The list of navigable water ways in PA is pretty short(Susky, Delaware, Juniata, Little J, Allegheny and Lehigh) Just curious where you've run into issues.

I think you're comparison is way off, it's not like that at all.

Is Codorus "navigable"?

Don't forget the Tulpehocken. That's the one stream where I was 'chased off', while wading IN the stream-a stream that known by many to be "navigable" (Union Canal!?)

But since I'm not a butthead and didn't want to get into it w/ a land owner who was otherwise a nice guy, I simply apologized, walked around his property, and got back to fishing upstream of his place.

 

[larkmark]

Hey Sasquatch, Does it make me a "butthead" if I stand up for my lawful right to be on public property?

 

[ryansheehan]

The_Sasquatch wrote:

Is Codorus "navigable"?

Don't forget the Tulpehocken. That's the one stream where I was 'chased off', while wading IN the stream-a stream that known by many to be "navigable" (Union Canal!?)

But since I'm not a butthead and didn't want to get into it w/ a land owner who was otherwise a nice guy, I simply apologized, walked around his property, and got back to fishing upstream of his place.

I'm not saying your wrong but the list of rivers deemed navigable by the courts is pretty short and the Tulpehocken isn't on it. Obviously if you told the guy to f*** off and he took you to court it might get added......or not.

 

[ryansheehan]

Double

 

[larkmark]

From PA fish comm site--
" The accepted test of navigability is whether the waters are used, or are susceptible to being used, in their ordinary condition, as highways for commerce. If the water met the navigability test at any point in its history, it remains a legally navigable waterway. There is no single published listing of all the navigable waters in Pennsylvania."

 

[Mike]

I think that was written before DCNR put out a list.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

ryansheehan wrote:

The_Sasquatch wrote:

Is Codorus "navigable"?

Don't forget the Tulpehocken. That's the one stream where I was 'chased off', while wading IN the stream-a stream that known by many to be "navigable" (Union Canal!?)

But since I'm not a butthead and didn't want to get into it w/ a land owner who was otherwise a nice guy, I simply apologized, walked around his property, and got back to fishing upstream of his place.

I'm not saying your wrong but the list of rivers deemed navigable by the courts is pretty short and the Tulpehocken isn't on it. Obviously if you told the guy to f*** off and he took you to court it might get added......or not.

Didn't realize there's a list now. When did that happen?

 

[kb3lms]

PFBC says there isn't a list, but DCNR has published one. It's under stream bed gas leasing. So what does that mean? Is public "public" for all purposes?

Is this info what you are talking about?

https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Business/StreambedGasLeasing/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.docs.dcnr.pa.gov/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_009715.pdf


It all comes with this disclaimer on page 6.

NOTE: The waterways identifed herein as having publicly-owned streambeds have been compiled by the Commonwealth over time from various sources. Identification is based upon information believed to be reliable and persuasive evidence of such ownership. The identification of a waterway as having a publicly-owned streambeds herein is not intended to be a final determination that the waterway is navigable under state or federal law. Moreover, other waterways not identified herein may be navigable under state or federal law, in which case their streambeds would also be publicly owned. The Commonwealth reserves the right to add or remove waterways identified as having publicly-owned streambeds as additional information becomes available.

 

[ryansheehan]

Pennsylvania courts have deemed the great rivers navigable, that list is the Ohio, Monongahela, Youghiogheny, Allegheny, Susquehanna and its North and West Branches, Juniata, Schuylkill, Lehigh, and Delaware. The Little J was challenged in court and deemed navigable. I believe those are the only rivers that have legal rulings. I'm not saying others aren't it's just not been established in a court. The list that the DCNR has up does not have any legal standing. I am not a lawyer but this is my understanding, anyone is welcome to correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[poopdeck]

Check your counties GIS maps! In bucks county you can click on the stream bed and it will tell you if it's privately or publicly owned. These are for streams that have never been used for commerce. I use it a lot and find more then not the stream beds are owned by the local govt. jurisdiction and not the landowners who's parcels butt up against or around it. Now you may not be able to access the stream bed from private property but you may follow the stream bed from public property through bordering private property. Needless to say many of these adjoining parcel owners like to post and claim the stream bed as there own but they would be wrong in any court.

I would imagine that in more rural areas of the state the counties may not have this ability but you never know if you don't check.

 

[kb3lms]

In Berks, they are not so sophisticated but at some places the parcel maps simply list the stream bed and the immediate surrounding area as "STREAM". No ownership is shown for the listing and the other surrounding parcels clearly do not run up to the stream according to the county maps.

At other places the stream runs right through the parcel with the owner listed.

I wonder what the story is on these "un-owned" parcels? Do they belong to the township, county or state? I'm sure some entity has jurisdiction over them.

Also, for example, in Chester County, the French Creek (Trib to the Schuylkill) streambed is listed as publicly owned by DCNR for the full length from the state park to the river. Does this mean it can be fished freely as long as you stick to the creek and stay off private property? Getting to the French Creek is fairly easy in many places.

My kids went to a church camp on the French Creek when they were little and there were always fishermen going through, but I always assumed that the camp had given permission.

The Chester County GIS is different than the others I've look at so didn't figure it out yet to see what it says.

 

[poopdeck]

I would say correct, Unless the DCNR has posted it. If the parcel lines do not contain the creek that it is not part of that parcel. The parcels should also be clearly marked with their dimensions on the maps as well.

Every county is different in what can be accessed electronically and the level of detail. In most cases the parcels will also have a land use code afixed to it somewhere. This code will tell you what the land is or can be used for. The stream in which I spoke of is posted as a wildlife preserve but it's code is for general use. I could not even find a code for a wildlife preserve and there are hundreds of codes.

 

[ColdBore]

poopdeck wrote:

If the parcel lines do not contain the creek that it is not part of that parcel. The parcels should also be clearly marked with their dimensions on the maps as well.

I wouldn't be using the county GIS maps to make an argument that you can access any particular stream or property. And regardless of posted dimensions, are you going to walk onto somebody's property and start taking measurements?

On my county's site, you have to acknowledge and check off the following disclaimer to proceed into the site.

"Information shown on these maps are derived from public records that are constantly undergoing change and do not replace a site survey, and is not warranted for content or accuracy. The County does not guarantee the positional or thematic accuracy of the GIS data. The GIS data or cartographic digital files are not a legal representation of any of the features in which it depicts, and disclaims any assumption of the legal status of which it represents. Any implied warranties, including warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose, shall be expressly excluded."

Bolded emphasis is mine.

I can personally attest to the fact that the lines can be significantly off. Like a lot of farms around here, mine is made up of multiple parcels. On one of those fields, the GIS shows a corner about 50 feet, on both sides of the corner, further into my property than the actual surveyed corner. When you superimpose the satellite view with the supposed property line, it is glaringly obvious.

With that 50 foot error, it could easily miss the entire width of most PA trout streams, let alone a midstream property border.

 

[poopdeck]

Very true. I'm not measuring anything but when it's clear that a stream bed is not part of a parcel then it's crystal Clear the stream bed is not the property of the surrounding parcel owners. You may claim it because it is bordered by your parcels, and this is what some do, however, it is not. We can whole heartedly agree that one cannot and shouldn't access your property to get there. I do not advocate the wanton trespass on others property. If any portion of a parcel line enters the stream bed then I would consider it off limits.

In the case I posted about the map would have to be off by 300 feet for the neighboring parcel owner to claim any portion of the county park property that abuts the creek. This particular land owner is a jerk and his proxy ownership of land purchased with public open space money is far worse then a simple trespasser.