Habitat projects

[FrankTroutAngler]

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. 🙄

How would the number of brown trout I've caught on Bobs Creek be applicable to the subject if keeping track of the trout I've caught is absurd and worthless? Your words.

 

[Fish Sticks]

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...

We are still waiting for your explanation on what evidence you have that bobs creeks projects were in fact creating habitat similar to a reference condition. *Spoiler alert*
Its zero because anyone who knows how streams actually work sees all the dewatered channels, dry habitat structures, and blind stream channels coming out of islands and can tell it was never a deep highly channelized stream. Due to the stream gradient, width of the flood plain, and growth/fall of trees in its path it does what it wants. If the structures were imitating a reference condition or what the stream wanted to do they would not have been wiped out so quickly despite being wood.

Please continue with straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, and talking about your fish counter if you wish to not be accountable for the naive statements you carelessly made at the threads inception.

 

[silverfox]

How would the number of brown trout I've caught on Bobs Creek be applicable to the subject if keeping track of the trout I've caught is absurd and worthless? Your words.

"applicable to the subject of the thread" doesn't imply that it's valuable or accurate.

So if you had posted it, that doesn't mean I'd believe it or trust it, but it would at least be applicable to the thread.

 

[Tom1980]

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...

From my reading of this thread and a few others, is that you kind of have done that with small sample sizes.

When someone says the population is in threat and appears to be shifting to brown trout, you announcing you have caught brook trout there appears to be saying they are fine. You did this in the bells gap thread too.

But in reality fishing catch data is a small sample size of the population, even if over time, it is only catching a fraction of the total population in most cases.

Just saying ...

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

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.

In post #44 you wrote: "I counted trout on that specific outing to provide to PFBC. I don’t normally do it, but did on that particular day to provide it to someone at PFBC about this exact subject."

 

[Tom1980]

Im not sure I see the issue in post 105.
I'm not even sure what any of the stuff with Frank has to do with the subject at hand.

I find the original topic fascinating.
Does the habitat installed favor brown trout over brook trout and is it aiding in speeding up the process of brown trout taking over the stream?

We cant know until it is shocked again.
I would think if over a period of a few shockings, the brook trout continue to decline, the answer would have to be yes.

 

[Tom1980]

We are still waiting for your explanation on what evidence you have that bobs creeks projects were in fact creating habitat similar to a reference condition. *Spoiler alert*
Its zero because anyone who knows how streams actually work sees all the dewatered channels, dry habitat structures, and blind stream channels coming out of islands and can tell it was never a deep highly channelized stream. Due to the stream gradient, width of the flood plain, and growth/fall of trees in its path it does what it wants. If the structures were imitating a reference condition or what the stream wanted to do they would not have been wiped out so quickly despite being wood.

Please continue with straw man arguments, ad hominem attacks, and talking about your fish counter if you wish to not be accountable for the naive statements you carelessly made at the threads inception.

It was posted earlier that the best habitat would be a chop and drop.
However, in the case you cite above, wouldn't even a chop and drop habitat be temporary and or cylindrical?

If the stream would shift the chop and drop previously done would be useless, correct?

 

[silverfox]

In post #44 you wrote: "I counted trout on that specific outing to provide to PFBC. I don’t normally do it, but did on that particular day to provide it to someone at PFBC about this exact subject."

I meant exactly what I wrote. Read it again. Or maybe two or three more times.

 

[silverfox]

Im not sure I see the issue in post 105.
I'm not even sure what any of the stuff with Frank has to do with the subject at hand.

I find the original topic fascinating.
Does the habitat installed favor brown trout over brook trout and is it aiding in speeding up the process of brown trout taking over the stream?

We cant know until it is shocked again.
I would think if over a period of a few shockings, the brook trout continue to decline, the answer would have to be yes.

On that point, even though they apparently haven't been collecting abundance data, or not enough of it, or for long enough, biomass data would still be useful if it tips past the qualifications to be listed as a "Mixed Brook/Brown Trout" Class A. If brown trout exceed 75% of the biomass, then it would no longer qualify as "Mixed" and would be listed as Class A Brown Trout instead. That would be telling enough.

In reality, I suppose all of this is moot. Nothing will be done to change course and the damage is likely already done and irreversible at this point. Maybe it's a cautionary tale. Assuming anyone cares to prevent this kind of thing from happening elsewhere.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

From my reading of this thread and a few others, is that you kind of have done that with small sample sizes.

When someone says the population is in threat and appears to be shifting to brown trout, you announcing you have caught brook trout there appears to be saying they are fine. You did this in the bells gap thread too.

But in reality fishing catch data is a small sample size of the population, even if over time, it is only catching a fraction of the total population in most cases.

Just saying ...

In the Bells Gap thread I clearly stated that the population of native brook trout has declined precipitously stream-wide based on my fishing there since 1986. My "small" sample size there is probably somewhere around 10,000 trout, virtually all of which were native brook trout. Go back and read what I wrote.

I mentioned the 45 native brookies I caught in Bobs Creek to show that there are in fact native brookies there (Fish Sticks, who knows virtually nothing about the stream, said there were none there) and to counter silverfox's portrayal that there were virtually no native brook trout there (his stats, which I guess aren't worthless since he kept them, showed 68 wild brown trout and only one native brook trout caught during a 3.50 hour fishing outing).

Let me ask you a question. If I fished a little mountain stream only one time this year and caught one native brookie, one wild brown trout, and one tiger trout (a very small sample size) and then said, based on this small sample size, that an angler has a chance of catching a wild tiger trout there, would this be an incorrect statement?

 

[Tom1980]

Let me ask you a question. If I fished a little mountain stream only one time this year and caught one native brookie, one wild brown trout, and one tiger trout (a very small sample size) and then said, based on this small sample size, that an angler has a chance of catching a wild tiger trout there, would this be an incorrect statement?

No, but we are talking population dynamics, not if it's possible to catch a species of fish in a watershed.

you wouldn't even need to catch a tiger to do that in your hypothetical. Or even any of the three fish.

If you went to a stream and caught only brook trout, is it possible to catch a tiger? By the logic you are using you would say no.
But in reality there may have been browns you didnt catch, in fact likely. I would say all brook trout streams have a token brown trout population.
Most tiger trout in the PA wild are born in streams with a majority of brook trout and low density brown trout.
It appears sixfootfenwick had you pegged.

the claim that your catch data is on par with electrofishing data is silly at best and frankly I'm done discussing what value your data has.
For this conversation it has none. No biologist would use your data to make recommendations or conclusions on the watershed. It might prompt them to go look themselves but that is it.

 

[Tom1980]

On that point, even though they apparently haven't been collecting abundance data, or not enough of it, or for long enough, biomass data would still be useful if it tips past the qualifications to be listed as a "Mixed Brook/Brown Trout" Class A. If brown trout exceed 75% of the biomass, then it would no longer qualify as "Mixed" and would be listed as Class A Brown Trout instead. That would be telling enough.

In reality, I suppose all of this is moot. Nothing will be done to change course and the damage is likely already done and irreversible at this point. Maybe it's a cautionary tale. Assuming anyone cares to prevent this kind of thing from happening elsewhere.

Yes.
It would be interesting to see some studies on these kinds of habitat enhancements and if they are tipping the favor in other watersheds.

I'm sure for this, one would have to look outside of Pennsylvania.

 

[silverfox]

In the Bells Gap thread I clearly stated that the population of native brook trout has declined precipitously stream-wide based on my fishing there since 1986. My "small" sample size there is probably somewhere around 10,000 trout, virtually all of which were native brook trout. Go back and read what I wrote.

I mentioned the 45 native brookies I caught in Bobs Creek to show that there are in fact native brookies there (Fish Sticks, who knows virtually nothing about the stream, said there were none there) and to counter silverfox's portrayal that there were virtually no native brook trout there (his stats, which I guess aren't worthless since he kept them, showed 68 wild brown trout and only one native brook trout caught during a 3.50 hour fishing outing).

Let me ask you a question. If I fished a little mountain stream only one time this year and caught one native brookie, one wild brown trout, and one tiger trout (a very small sample size) and then said, based on this small sample size, that an angler has a chance of catching a wild tiger trout there, would this be an incorrect statement?

I don't see where FS said, "there were none." You're mischaracterizing my point (again). I've caught brook trout there within the past few years. I know there are still brook trout. My point is there are far fewer than there were 30 some years ago, there seem to be more BT, and discussing what role the habitat projects might have played. I know others on this forum have caught brook trout there recently, too. You claiming you caught 45 provides absolutely zero value to the conversation.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

😂 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.

This comment of yours was in reply to my comment stating: "My fishing statistics ARE very valuable. One member on this site once compared spinner fishing to electroshocking."

I just want to point out that I never said or even implied that my spinner fishing statistics are the SAME (as thorough) as electroshocking. Therefore, all of your rambling and lecturing rings hollow. I was laughing the whole time I read your comments as well as the comments from the other ax-to-grind anglers who fell for your nonsense.

If fishing statistics aren't valuable, why is the PFBC surveying anglers this week on Big Fishing Creek and asking for details on the number and species of trout they've caught?

 

[sixfootfenwick]

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...

Let me ask you a question. If I fished a little mountain stream only one time this year and caught one native brookie, one wild brown trout, and one tiger trout (a very small sample size) and then said, based on this small sample size, that an angler has a chance of catching a wild tiger trout there, would this be an incorrect statement?

Can't make this stuff up 🤣

 

[sixfootfenwick]

.

If fishing statistics aren't valuable, why is the PFBC surveying anglers this week on Big Fishing Creek and asking for details on the number and species of trout they've caught?

The real question is why aren't they asking for yours every year🤣

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Frank we are talking population dynamics not species of fish caught.

Your data is useless for the conversation. Sorry this upsets you.
You should go to fishing creek and give them all the valuable golden data

 

[sixfootfenwick]

No, but we are talking population dynamics, not if it's possible to catch a species of fish in a watershed.

you wouldn't even need to catch a tiger to do that in your hypothetical. Or even any of the three fish.

If you went to a stream and caught only brook trout, is it possible to catch a tiger? By the logic you are using you would say no.
But in reality there may have been browns you didnt catch, in fact likely. I would say all brook trout streams have a token brown trout population.
Most tiger trout in the PA wild are born in streams with a majority of brook trout and low density brown trout.
It appears sixfootfenwick had you pegged.

the claim that your catch data is on par with electrofishing data is silly at best and frankly I'm done discussing what value your data has.
For this conversation it has none. No biologist would use your data to make recommendations or conclusions on the watershed. It might prompt them to go look themselves but that is it.

👏Well done!

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

I don't see where FS said, "there were none." You're mischaracterizing my point (again). I've caught brook trout there within the past few years. I know there are still brook trout. My point is there are far fewer than there were 30 some years ago, there seem to be more BT, and discussing what role the habitat projects might have played. I know others on this forum have caught brook trout there recently, too. You claiming you caught 45 provides absolutely zero value to the conversation.

Actually, my 45 native brookies show that there are more than a few there. I think this adds value to the conversation. Of course, since it goes against your portrayal, I guess it has no value.

 

[silverfox]

The real question is why aren't they asking for yours every year🤣

Or how smith and root is still in business if all you need is a spinning rod. 🤣