Hectare vs Stream Miles

[Wildbrowntrout]

Does anybody know how large a hectare is on a stream that is average 15 feet across? I've been looking at trout creeks and they all mention biomass per hectare. I can not really find anything online about what it means.

 

[Jessed]

1 hectare =2.5 acres

 

[Jessed]

258 hectares is a mile. They probably do this because the stream is so small and short. A mile wouldnt be as accurate since it would make up a majority of the stream

 

[RLeep2]

Plug it in here: http://www.thecalculatorsite.com/conversions/area.php

 

[troutbert]

Just Googling "hectare" brings up the info.

The hectare is a metric unit of area equal to 10,000 square meters.

One hectare contains about 2.47 acres.

 

[FarmerDave]

You guys all provided conversion to an area, but I believe the OP was asking linear length of stream which is dependent on stream width.

Hectare = 107639 sq ft.

To convert that to a linear measurement, divide the area measurement by average width of the stream. In this case, he stated an average of 15 feet, so 107639/15 or about 7176 linear feet or about 1.36 mile of stream.

Keep in mind, they don't sample an area that big, so it is an estimate based on a smaller sample size.

 

[pcray1231]

Using surface area is better than linear distance because it allows comparisons of fish density between large and small streams.

Even with that, volume would be better. It's harder to measure and I get that, so this isn't criticizing, more explaining the concept.

What we really want to know is the trout density of the area we are fishing, right? Well, there are streams that are wide, but most of the cross section is shallow, with just a skinny deeper channel. Overall biomass is low because surface area is large. But as an angler we ignore the obviously unproductive parts, and focus on the good parts, where biomass can be quite high. There's packs of fish where we are actually fishing, and we walk away wondering how this is class b or c based on biomass.

Compare that with a stream, the exact same size in terms of cross sectional area, with the same mass of fish, that is deep and narrow. Surface area is lower. Biomass per surface area is thus higher, and this may be class A. But those fish are spread from bank to bank and as a fisherman, we can't as effectively select only the best spot to fish. Despite higher biomass per surface area, this stream may seem like it has less fish to anyone fishing it. There's a single fish here and another over there, but no concentrations, and we walk away feeling like the population is much lower than that other stream, despite the PFBCs insistence that this one has higher biomass.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:
Using surface area is better than linear distance because it allows comparisons of fish density between large and small streams.

Even with that, volume would be better. It's harder to measure and I get that, so this isn't criticizing, more explaining the concept.

What we really want to know is the trout density of the area we are fishing, right? Well, there are streams that are wide, but most of the cross section is shallow, with just a skinny deeper channel. Overall biomass is low because surface area is large. But as an angler we ignore the obviously unproductive parts, and focus on the good parts, where biomass can be quite high. There's packs of fish where we are actually fishing, and we walk away wondering how this is class b or c based on biomass.

Compare that with a stream, the exact same size in terms of cross sectional area, with the same mass of fish, that is deep and narrow. Surface area is lower. Biomass per surface area is thus higher, and this may be class A. But those fish are spread from bank to bank and as a fisherman, we can't as effectively select only the best spot to fish. Despite higher biomass per surface area, this stream may seem like it has less fish to anyone fishing it. There's a single fish here and another over there, but no concentrations, and we walk away feeling like the population is much lower than that other stream, despite the PFBCs insistence that this one has higher biomass.

All true, but how many of us carry a tape measure, dip stick and a slide rule when we fish. I once fished with a dip stick, but he was walking out ahead catching all the fish. ;-)

As you get older, you will become less concerned with cross section, or three dimensional area in regards to biomass density vs how much walking I have to do to find fish.

I'm not there yet, but I can see it from here.;-)

 

[pcray1231]

Understood, and that's the pount. When biomass is listed, we use it as a stand in for how many fish are present, and thus how we expect it to fish. Even without the number, class A means "high biomass" to anglers.

Quite often it doesn't work out that way. I catch as many or more fish in class B, C, or even sometimes D as class A. To the point where I largely ignore class these days. Does it have fish? If yes, it's worth a look.

The reason for that is that a class C can still have a pile of fish everywhere you'd expect there to be fish. That may only be 10% of the surface area. But it's the 10% we are all gonna fish, while ignoring the rest. Every cast shows a fly to a bunch of fish. A class A will have more fish overall, but perhaps more spread out, forcing you to fish it all, and quite often showing a fly to fewer fish per cast.

I'm not blaming anyone. It's time consuming to get better measurements. Just something to keep in mind when using biomass to compare streams. Per mile is a worse measure than per surface area, which is worse than per volume. And even that ain't perfect. Per cfs would be interesting.

 

[Jessed]

How do you know if a stream is class b c or d?^ interesting. There's a natural producing stream down the stream but haven't really seen trout

 

[KenU]

The PFBC Classification system is not a very good indicator of the quality of the fishing. It is simply a biological measure. There are a lot of Class B, C, And even some D streams that deserve attention.

Some years ago I went brook trout fishing on a large freestone stream that I had not fished for many years This stream had been taken off the stocking list in the early 80s because of acid rain problems and pretty much forgotten. I started about 9:30 in the morning and fished until evening. I caught 41 brookies: 18 sublegal and 23 between 7 and 9 inches; 17 of the legal brookies were between 8 and 9 inches. Pretty good brook trout fishing by today’s standards. I hated to quit, but darkness was approaching and I had a long walk out to the car.

The next Monday I called the PFBC and talked to the area fish biologist. I didn’t tell him at first how I had done and asked him the classification of this stream. He paused awhile and said “oh Ken, a Class D at best.” When I told him about my catch that day, he didn’t have much to say.

Sadly, somebody has discovered that it again holds trout and has started stocking it in some of the more reachable sections. Now only the most remote sections produce brookies like I caught back in 1998.

 

[Jessed]

Where can you find out what class a stream is?

 

[FarmerDave]

Jessed wrote:
Where can you find out what class a stream is?

It's a secret, and if we told you, we'd have to kill you.

Unless of course you know the secret handshake.

I'm joking of course.

I think class A is describe at the PF&BC website, but if not, somebody will likely speak up.

If you are looking for lists...

The PF&BC website has various information on Class A. I know there is a list by county, and possibly interactive maps now. I'd stumble around there until I found them for you, but unfortunately I don't have the time. I bet some else on here will give better direction Bu if they don't, try searching for it yourself at there site, and a link to that site can be found under "links" in the far right side of the dark gray bar near the top of this page.

As far as B,C, and D, which you asked previous, PF&BC also has info for streams with natural reproduction. I believe they have an interactive map for that as well.

Those that are not also on the Class A, are B, C, and D. I'm guessing that finding specifically what rating a particular stream is, would be more difficult and may even require an email to PF&BC, or ask here and maybe you will get a response in a PM.

Sorry I didn't provide direct links to the info you seek, but it is because I rarely use them, and I am not being critical or bragging. When I started trout fishing, lists like these were not so readily available, so I simply explored them myself without reviewing a list. I got used to that, and even found wild brook trout in Ohio without the help of the internet. I simply drove past a small stream on the way to and from work that reminded me of back home in NWPA, and said to myself ... That stream looks like it ought to have trout in it. I stopped one day, and sure enough. Caught brook trout up to 10 inches. Stream was so small, the darn things almost had to back up to turn around in spots. Later, I did search the internet and found it was one of only two (possibly a third) streams in Ohio with wild brook trout in it at the time and this one, although wild fish, was not native strain. Planted with egg boxes by a rich school in the area. I think since then, the school started raising native strain from what was likely the last native brook trout population in the state. Same watershed, but isolated and genetically tested to be pure. I did find a possible forth not far away from the one I mentioned first, but we won't talk about that. Besides, it was an even smaller stream that was mostly dried up in summer except for a few holes. The trout I saw there probably simply migrated from the planted population

I moved again since them.

To this day, l don't rely heavily on published lists very often, but do see the value. My trout fishing is few and far between these days, so if I do intend to hit a different stream, I revert to the lists. I do still like to explore from time to time, but have grown to understand the value of the lists as well.

Almost all of my wild trout fishing I did in the past turned out to be on lessor class streams, and today they are probably even less utilized, Why? Because the couple of class A that I had fished back then are being hit harder due to the published lists. As KenU said, that is often not the case.

 

[chemsarge]

Concerning the OP, the biomass data may make more sense to you if you take your biomass per hectare and divide that by the 107639 sq. ft. (from FD's post #6), giving you the biomass per sq. ft. - may be a more meaningful basis for comparison. Just a thought.

 

[Mike]

Some general info to which I strongly suspect there are some exceptions, especially since the following is not quantitative in describing habitat, which leaves room for interpretation: Class A's typically do not have long, shallow stretches as a dominating characteristic and just an occasional pool. That is the kind of habitat that kills the biomass estimate. Add some foot deep runs into the mix and you are more likely headed toward Class B or A. Likewise, shorten the shallow stretches, or at least add some pocket pools along the edges that perhaps span only one quarter to one half of the stream width and you are also headed toward Class B or A. Wide and shallow, such as waters that handle a lot of stormwater runoff, or narrow with long shallows between pools, kill the biomass estimate.

I can think of an extreme example in Berks Co. The stream is a limestoner, so fertility is not a problem. It has stormwater problems.
There is a good pool characterized by one or two large, wild Browns every 50 to 75 yds. The areas in between are shallow and harbor an occasional 8-10 inch wild Brown. The pools are great; the rest, not so much, except for the occasional one foot deep pocket. If I recall correctly, it is a mid Class C, but fish numbers are pretty sparse. Add some pocket pools to the long, shallow stretches and the stream would probably be a low B.

 

[dsmith1427]

Man this is way to technical for me and I'm an engineer slightly north of 55. Recently, this is my thought process for choosing a trout stream.

- Likely to hold trout - check
- Will not have a lot of fisherman - check + star
- Peaceful and pretty surroundings - check + star^2
- Will have no cell phone reception - check + star^3

At this point if I can satisfy all of the above, I just go ahhhhh. If I catch a fish (and I usually catch at least one) great. If not, so be it at least I spent some peaceful time in the great outdoors.

The older I get the more it becomes about the experience and the less it is about the size or quantity of fish, but that is just me.

Don

PS. Biomass.... Perhaps we should consider the triple integration of the stream using the density function of a trout... It's been a couple of challenging weeks at work and now I think it's time for another bourbon. LOL.

 

[Chaz]

1 hectare =10,000 sq meters. If you're looking at the weight per ht as stated for the trout list PFBC publishes the measurements the PFBC uses for Class A Class etc. =s a lot of fish. Even Class C streams can fish very well.