Habitat projects

[sixfootfenwick]

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.

So if that day was a rainy high water day it's possible the browns put on the feed bag and the brookies were hiding too.
Maybe a hole had 6 fish in it, 1 brown and 5 brook trout, and the more aggressive brown took your line and spooked the hole.

Fishing statistics ARE NOT a good measure for population dynamics. It's better used as an indicator.

It's ridiculous you have suggested as much multiple times now 😂

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Examples of what your lunatic rambling would look like in the fish sampling world.

March 1:
I went to Big Spring and caught 44 Rainbows @ 11 TPH. Zero brook trout were caught.

There are no brook trout in Big Spring.

Update
April 2
I caught 23 rainbows and 1 brook trout @ 12 TPH

The population is growing as I caught more fish in less time and a formerly expired species is in very low densities.

What fish decided to eat, after you presented a food item well, without spooking the fish that was in a good position to cast to that saw your lure doesn't say much about the ENTIRE population. I can be an indicator of a population shift but is highly inferior to electro shocking.

It's foolishness. Just stop 😂

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Sit back and learn something.
The population dynamics of fisheries is used by fisheries scientists to determine sustainable yields.

The basic accounting relation for population dynamics is the BIDE (Birth, Immigration, Death, Emigration) model, shown as:[3]

N1 = N0 + B − D + I − E
where N1 is the number of individuals at time 1, N0 is the number of individuals at time 0, B is the number of individuals born, D the number that died, I the number that immigrated, and E the number that emigrated between time 0 and time 1. While immigration and emigration can be present in wild fisheries, they are usually not measured.

A fishery population is affected by three dynamic rate functions:

• Birth rate or recruitment. Recruitment means reaching a certain size or reproductive stage. With fisheries, recruitment usually refers to the age a fish can be caught and counted in nets.
• Growth rate. This measures the growth of individuals in size and length. This is important in fisheries where the population is often measured in terms of biomass.
• Mortality. This includes harvest mortality and natural mortality. Natural mortality includes non-human predation, disease and old age.

If these rates are measured over different time intervals, the harvestable surplus of a fishery can be determined. The harvestable surplus is the number of individuals that can be harvested from the population without affecting long term stability (average population size). The harvest within the harvestable surplus is called compensatory mortality, where the harvest deaths are substituting for the deaths that would otherwise occur naturally. Harvest beyond that is additive mortality, harvest in addition to all the animals that would have died naturally.

Care is needed when applying population dynamics to real world fisheries. Over-simplistic modelling of fisheries has resulted in the collapse of key stocks.[4][5]

There is a elementary grade crash course.
You can't determine every born individual or every individual at given times.
😂You're a good fisherman but put some water on the ego..

 

[sixfootfenwick]

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.

Probably interested as an indicator. Not the gospel of Bob's Creek.

Had he caught not 1 brook trout do you think they would have said, "well all the brook trout are gone".

Again, good as a possible indication but as useful as a wagon full of whiskey on a cross country desert tour when determining population dynamics.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

My fishing statistics ARE very valuable. One member on this site once compared spinner fishing to electroshocking.

😂 Give me a break.

I bet, with as many fish as you handle, if someone pointed out that the delayed mortality is comparable to dumping some bleach in the water you wouldnt be so quick to accept the notion.
Ironically that is probably more comparable than your statistics in relation to population dynamics.

 

[silverfox]

Probably interested as an indicator. Not the gospel of Bob's Creek.

Had he caught not 1 brook trout do you think they would have said, "well all the brook trout are gone".

Again, good as a possible indication but as useful as a wagon full of whiskey on a cross country desert tour when determining population dynamics.

Exactly. Morbid curiosity for a postmortem. I don’t even fully trust electro-fishing because it’s limited to sample reaches and snapshots in time. I’m certainly not going to believe someone with clear and obvious bias. Frankly, I don’t believe a word he says, so it’s of no value anyway.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Edit nevermind. I see what you are saying.

How did HuntingPA go? 😂

 

[silverfox]

Edit nevermind. I see what you are saying.

How did HuntingPA go? 😂

On that providing catch info to PFBC, I never said PFBC asked for it. That’s just another ad hominem argument from Frank. Also to provide a little more context on that day and my fish counting since that’s what Frank is fixated on (rather than the point of the thread), my goal that day was to fish until I caught a brook trout and to keep track of how many browns I caught relative to brook trout. As soon as I caught a brookie I quit.

Decided against the trolling on huntingpa. I might go find an equestrian forum and tell them that cars are faster than horses though.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I like how you aim higher.
It's good to have lofty goals.

 

[mt_flyfisher]

😂 Give me a break.

I bet, with as many fish as you handle, if someone pointed out that the delayed mortality is comparable to dumping some bleach in the water you wouldnt be so quick to accept the notion.
Ironically that is probably more comparable than your statistics in relation to population dynamics.

If a person believes that statistics ARE very valuable, and there is a person who has claimed to have caught many thousands of trout over time using barbed treble hooks, then assuming that there would be a delayed mortality rate (of say 5%?) on those thousands of caught and released trout, then could that person by himself be a major contributor to the decline of brook, or other, trout in a stream over time?

 

[sixfootfenwick]

If a person believes that statistics ARE very valuable, and there is a person who has claimed to have caught many thousands of trout over time using barbed treble hooks, then assuming that there would be a delayed mortality rate (of say 5%?) on those thousands of caught and released trout, then could that person by himself be a major contributor to the decline of brook, or other, trout in a stream over time?

I don't know.
But I'm sure acting like a cross between Jacques Cousteau, Alexander the Great and the Count from sesame street doesn't help.

 

[silverfox]

If a person believes that statistics ARE very valuable, and there is a person who has claimed to have caught many thousands of trout over time using barbed treble hooks, then assuming that there would be a delayed mortality rate (of say 5%?) on those thousands of caught and released trout, then could that person by himself be a major contributor to the decline of brook, or other, trout in a stream over time?

Not THOSE statistics

 

[mt_flyfisher]

I don't know.
But I'm sure acting like a cross between Jacques Cousteau, Alexander the Great and the Count from sesame street doesn't help.

Fair enough.

p.s. I heard that 34,969 was Count von Count’s magic number.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Fair enough.

p.s. I heard that 34,969 was Count von Count’s magic number.

View attachment 1641232126

I bet his brother wrote an article about it .
Hopefully it doesn't go to Counts head, but something tells me it's too late.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

First silverfox was practically begging me for my fishing statistics on Bobs Creek to see how many native brook trout there were compared to how many wild brown trout, both in the present time and in recent history, but then when I refused to offer the data all of a sudden my statistics became worthless. It doesn't get much funnier than that. You guys crack me up. I absolutely can't stop laughing.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

Examples of what your lunatic rambling would look like in the fish sampling world.

March 1:
I went to Big Spring and caught 44 Rainbows @ 11 TPH. Zero brook trout were caught.

There are no brook trout in Big Spring.

Update
April 2
I caught 23 rainbows and 1 brook trout @ 12 TPH

The population is growing as I caught more fish in less time and a formerly expired species is in very low densities.

What fish decided to eat, after you presented a food item well, without spooking the fish that was in a good position to cast to that saw your lure doesn't say much about the ENTIRE population. I can be an indicator of a population shift but is highly inferior to electro shocking.

It's foolishness. Just stop 😂

Show me one time where I ever drew such conclusions from such small samples. I'm waiting.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Show me one time where I ever drew such conclusions from such small samples. I'm waiting.

"Examples of what your lunatic rambling would look like in the fish sampling world."

Don't be daft.

 

[silverfox]

First silverfox was practically begging me for my fishing statistics on Bobs Creek to see how many native brook trout there were compared to how many wild brown trout, both in the present time and in recent history, but then when I refused to offer the data all of a sudden my statistics became worthless. It doesn't get much funnier than that. You guys crack me up. I absolutely can't stop laughing.

Begging? Don’t flatter yourself. I asked why you wouldn’t share the number of brown trout you caught. You know, since that would be applicable to the subject of the thread. 🙄

 

[Tom1980]

There are several Jack Dams that have been removed from NC PA streams. These things are not good for fish migration and while they create habitat they also cut off available habitat. Many "conservation groups" install these things and think they are doing good but they aren't. Evidence of catching a fish in the surrounding area just means you caught a fish and isn't evidence it is healthy to the stream.

I would not be surprised to learn the browns are taking over Bob's. Without urbanization or agriculture being a culprit, one can easily conclude it is stocking and wild brown trout.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

"Examples of what your lunatic rambling would look like in the fish sampling world."

Don't be daft.

The problem here with your logic is that I have never and WOULD never draw such conclusions from small sample sizes. I'm still waiting...