I checked one region’s reports. Reporting listed started in 2000. The four year period that was mentioned in this thread, 2017-2020, was 20% of the available reporting time. Fourteen percent of that region’s reports published on the web site were written during that time period, but to be fair, some were more technical than some of the easier ones in prior years. If one is solely counting reports, however, an easy one gets the same credit in count as a more complex one, so in that regard 14% of the reports produced in 20% of the available time didn’t raise my eyebrows. Additionally, that region was down an AFM for about 1.5 yrs.
Reporting possibly slowed across the state for a while during that period as Covid may have had an impact. You may recall that for nearly one entire spring, biological staff were stocking trout rather than reporting or doing surveys upon which reports were based.
Additionally, when I was involved in reporting on the web (the Biologist Reports) I tended to choose surveys that I thought would be of greatest interest to anglers or to the most anglers. In some years there were not many surveys done on waters that would have gotten widespread interest or the most interesting surveys were ones that had already been reported upon in recent years. Generally, but not always, I tried to avoid redundancy.
As for the Susquehanna, as I have suggested to others, request a copy of the most recent report from the agency.
Per Little Little Mahoning, I have no knowledge of that stream. Ask the AFM or his staff.
