Habitat projects

[Fish Sticks]

I suppose it’s tangential to the issue of the habitat projects and what role, if any, they’ve played in the “apparent” (last survey was 2005 I believe and species composition wasn’t the goal) decline in brook trout in sections 2 & 3. However, I think that stocking, in conjunction with everything else, may also play a role. Death by a thousand cuts.

I’m upset by the whole mess Mike. That this club seems to have been given some kind of indirect ownership of what happens on a stream on public property due to nothing more than proximity of membership, that the state sponsors it (they are a co-op), that the state adds to the “problem” (in my opinion), that brook trout have certainly taken a back seat to everything else on this stream, that nobody wants to do follow up surveys to gauge the impact of construction projects, or examine the “apparent” species composition shift here, that this fairly small brook trout stream has been completely turned into a stocked trout stream with a strong wild brown trout population and a token remnant of the original ST population.

I vividly remember the first time I fished Bob’s creek. I think it was about 1989. I remember my dad parking on a high bank not far up monument road from 869. I remember that the only fish I caught were brook trout and they were on crude dry flies. I remember being blown away that I was catching brook trout in what I perceived as a fairly large stream for a brook trout stream. All I knew back then about brook trout was from the relatively tiny streams right by my house.

I admit that when I moved away for college I didn’t fish it for quite a while except for one time a buddy and I stopped there on our way back from steelhead fishing. What it is today is a travesty as far as I’m concerned. Sure there are big stocked trout now, some big wild browns occasionally, and the wild brook trout have been replaced by wild browns. None of that due to some industrial expansion, pollution, impervious surfaces, loss of forest cover, acid rain, amd or anything of the sort. The only thing that changed is unbridled stocking and a whole lot of backhoes, logs and rebar.

The worst is I really don’t think anyone cares. Or maybe a handful do while the majority excuse it, defend it, or prefer it.

Frank cannot defend that he had no idea what a reference condition is yet proclaims insight into the original channel morphology so he manufactures personal attacks on himself to change subject.

 

[Mike]

I had to look up what he said.

Guessing at what you asked based on some of this long thread and going out on a limb regarding the context of the response, I think the response was saying that there are not enough data to show a change in the relative abundances of ST and BT over time for Bob’s Ck or for the trib. Correct?

 

[bdhoover77]

Frank cannot defend that he had no idea what a reference condition is yet proclaims insight into the original channel morphology so he manufactures personal attacks on himself to change subject.

Sounds like a “veiled personal attack”…in his mind.

 

[silverfox]

Guessing at what you asked based on some of this long thread and going out on a limb regarding the context of the response, I think the response was saying that there are not enough data to show a change in the relative abundances of ST and BT over time for Bob’s Ck or for the trib. Correct?

Correct. I assume the issue is that they're looking at biomass for classification purposes. So they might have data that indicates a biomass shift by species, but not abundance. That's the way I took it.

 

[caddisflyer]

I am all for scientific, evidence based decisions on our environment. So can anyone point me in the direction of any extensive follow up studies done on stream improvement projects in PA. At this point in time we should have plenty of facts about what works and what does not.

 

[greywolf]

I accept the fact that you think that counting trout and keeping statistics is absurd. I'm sure you're not the only one who thinks this. But it does raise the question, if you think it's absurd, how did you know that you caught 68 brown trout and one native brook trout in 3.50 hours (3:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.) on Bobs Creek a year ago or whenever it was starting near Cox's Monument and fishing upstream?

By the way, several years ago there was a thread on this site where nearly everyone was slamming me for counting the trout I catch, similar to how a few are doing here. An outsider reading the thread would have thought that none of the fly anglers on this site count their trout.

Funny thing, about two weeks later someone started a topic about placing friendly bets and such with fishing buddies while fishing on who would catch the most. Lots of fly anglers chimed in. An outsider reading that topic would have thought most fly anglers count their trout.

I can't tell you how hard I laughed.

Just about every fly fisher I meet on streams seem to count the trout they catch. Most seem to tell me numbers caught, how accurate these numbers are in another question. :<)

 

[silverfox]

I am all for scientific, evidence based decisions on our environment. So can anyone point me in the direction of any extensive follow up studies done on stream improvement projects in PA. At this point in time we should have plenty of facts about what works and what does not.

The only studies I've read are based on their effectiveness at nutrient load reductions. I haven't seen anything from PA specifically on the impact on trout communities.

Not in PA, but in WV on the Shavers Fork this study indicates certain manmade habitats can exclude brook trout. https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13678 This one from WI that showed a massive shift from brook trout to brown trout after manmade habitat was created: https://www.kiaptuwish.org/wp-conte...tion-Manuscript_Wild-Trout-Symposium_0917.pdf

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

Correct. I assume the issue is that they're looking at biomass for classification purposes. So they might have data that indicates a biomass shift by species, but not abundance. That's the way I took it.

Just imagine the factual data on abundance by species that could be provided if there was an angler who has fished both Bobs Creek and Wallacks Branch Creek for many years and kept detailed statistics on paper of each of the thousands and thousands of trout he's caught by size and species (and whether the trout is stocked or stream bred). Hum, maybe keeping track of trout-caught isn't absurd after all?

 

[silverfox]

Just imagine the factual data on abundance by species could be provided if there was an angler who has fished both Bobs Creek and Wallacks Branch Creek for many years and kept detailed statistics on paper of each of the thousands and thousands of trout he's caught by size and species (and whether the trout is stocked or stream bred). Hum, maybe keeping track of trout-caught isn't absurd after all?

Imagine someone having such data and being so spiteful as to not share it when asked because it might uncover something uncomfortable. Some conservationist you are.

Also, I’d prefer to get the data from scientists who gathered it using scientific methods.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

Frank cannot defend that he had no idea what a reference condition is yet proclaims insight into the original channel morphology so he manufactures personal attacks on himself to change subject.

Still smarting from being challenged and proven wrong?

 

[Roofin' Trouter]

E.Branch Codorus Creek section 02 from Park rd downstream to culvert Line Rd( well now its a trail) off ft 216 in Spring Valley County Park. I think that was installed around 2005 by Isaak Walton League.

Can anyone point me to any stream improvement projects that are ten years old or older that have actually worked?

I think that crick has "improved" over the past 30 years and that is one of a few projects that have played a role.But, there are SO many places we can point to that have had undesirable results. I'm not going to pretend to know the answers so please interpret my ranting as asking questions than pretending to have the answers.
If you ask the average outdoors enthusiast to describe a healthy crick how many different pictures would be painted? My answer, and maybe I'm wrong, is that a healthy crick is a messy,meandering maze of side channels more so than it would be fast and free flowing. I didn't always think that way.
I find wisdom in Aesop Fables and still doing these type of work reminds me of the the *** and the Driver.
What would the cricks have looked like before European explorers and traders? Beavers populations around that time in North America are estimated to be as high as 400 million. Over the same area it's estimated that by 1900 the population was as low as 100,000. Deforestation, development, industrialization , and ag take the blunt of the blame for degrading waterways and rightfully so. But, have you ever asked yourself what kind of changes happened on the cricks and rivers before the big logging boom?

 

[troutbert]

But, have you ever asked yourself what kind of changes happened on the cricks and rivers before the big logging boom?

Such as?

 

[silverfox]

E.Branch Codorus Creek section 02 from Park rd downstream to culvert Line Rd( well now its a trail) off ft 216 in Spring Valley County Park. I think that was installed around 2005 by Isaak Walton League.
I think that crick has "improved" over the past 30 years and that is one of a few projects that have played a role.But, there are SO many places we can point to that have had undesirable results. I'm not going to pretend to know the answers so please interpret my ranting as asking questions than pretending to have the answers.
If you ask the average outdoors enthusiast to describe a healthy crick how many different pictures would be painted? My answer, and maybe I'm wrong, is that a healthy crick is a messy,meandering maze of side channels more so than it would be fast and free flowing. I didn't always think that way.
I find wisdom in Aesop Fables and still doing these type of work reminds me of the the *** and the Driver.
What would the cricks have looked like before European explorers and traders? Beavers populations around that time in North America are estimated to be as high as 400 million. Over the same area it's estimated that by 1900 the population was as low as 100,000. Deforestation, development, industrialization , and ag take the blunt of the blame for degrading waterways and rightfully so. But, have you ever asked yourself what kind of changes happened on the cricks and rivers before the big logging boom?

I'd add that to answer caddisflyer's question, we should really qualify "worked." Did the project reduce nutrients in the Chesapeake Bay? Did the project decrease water temperatures? Increase macro diversity? Increase trout biomass? Benefit a conservation species? Reduce flooding? Protect critical infrastructure? Uncover gravels choked by sediment? Increase groundwater recharge?

The answer might be yes to many of these questions but still have had the unintended consequence of negatively impacting one species while benefiting another.

 

[Roofin' Trouter]

Such as?

I'm not going to pretend to know the answers so please interpret my ranting as asking questions than pretending to have the answers.

 

[Mike]

Such as?

I would speculate major, long lasting forest fires at times, controlled only by the weather, resulting in slope erosion since the Pa forest was dominated by white pine and hemlock when Penn arrived.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Anyone who thinks spin fishing catch data is as valuable as or can substitute electro fishing data is delusional.

If it was, spin fisherman would catch 3000 fish in a mile of fishing the little J.
This "useful data" *cough ego cough* is as useful as a lead floatation device when trying to acquire population dynamics.

 

[silverfox]

Anyone who thinks spin fishing catch data is as valuable as or can substitute electro fishing data is delusional.

If it was, spin fisherman would catch 3000 fish in a mile of fishing the little J.
This "useful data" *cough ego cough* is as useful as a lead floatation device when trying to acquire population dynamics.

I’m going to go on huntingpa.com and tell the guys in the traditional archery forum they’re idiots for not using crossbows. Wish me luck.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

Anyone who thinks spin fishing catch data is as valuable as or can substitute electro fishing data is delusional.

If it was, spin fisherman would catch 3000 fish in a mile of fishing the little J.
This "useful data" *cough ego cough* is as useful as a lead floatation device when trying to acquire population dynamics.

So if I had ten outings in the 1980's where I caught 100 trout in Bobs Creek starting at the bridge on Route 869 and those outings all showed 98% of the trout I caught were native brook trout, and then showed ten more outings of 100 trout each in the 2020's where 98% of the trout were brown trout in the same section, this data according to you would not be valuable and useful? If I were to share such data Fish Sticks and silverfox would have been jumping for joy.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

I’m going to go on huntingpa.com and tell the guys in the traditional archery forum they’re idiots for not using crossbows. Wish me luck.

Have I ever said or implied that people fishing with flies are idiots? The answer is no, so your stupid little rant here is laughable.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

Imagine someone having such data and being so spiteful as to not share it when asked because it might uncover something uncomfortable. Some conservationist you are.

Also, I’d prefer to get the data from scientists who gathered it using scientific methods.

Funny how, according to you, biologists from the PFBC were interested in your fishing data on the day you claimed to have caught 68 wild brown trout and one native brook trout in 3.50 hours when fishing from 3:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m. starting near Cox's Monument and fishing upstream.