Improving Wild Trout Angling in PA

[krayfish2]

Mike,
You said "When Logan Branch used to hold an abundance of trophy trout,"

That makes me want to ask why it still doesn't.

 

[CRB]

Is this not a fly fishing site?
I don't want to read about spinner fishing.
Can this topic be moved to the conservation pages? or a spinner/bait fishing page?

 

[Wild_Trouter]

@Kray...Logan's ground water base flow has been significantly diminished since the early 1980s. The stream is a shell of its former self. Still a decent fishery, but nothing like the good ole days.

 

[troutbert]

Wild_Trouter wrote:
@Kray...Logan's ground water base flow has been significantly diminished since the early 1980s. The stream is a shell of its former self. Still a decent fishery, but nothing like the good ole days.

That's true that the baseflow is much less than before.

Also the hatchery has installed water treatment facilities. This means less big hatchery escapees than before. The same change has happened at many other hatcheries.

Also, with less nutrients going into the stream the food base probably decreased.

 

[Chaz]

Habitat, Habitat, Habitat. And I don't mean doing a bunch of rock tossing, that can work for a short period of time but is never permanent.
Go into a State Forest and correct the issues of channelization and human encroachment it those streams.This can include knocking down trees in selected areas, and opening up the old channels by getting rid of channel blocks. In many cases all you need is a few good men.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

I agree Chaz.

I recently toured a so called stream improvement area which had been completed in the past year or so. Not much difference at all as far as depth of water or cover created after all the bulldozing and rock tossing. Loads of $ spent with nothing much to show. The real problems are often not the actual stream itself but erosion coming from elsewhere. The feel good rock tossing isn't taking care of the root cause.


Of course a big deal was made of this local improvement effort by all the groups involved. Plenty of horn tooting and back patting by the various agencies and clubs. The fishing was actually much better before this project. Have seen it done on larger streams with similar bad results.

 

[afishinado]

foxtrapper1972 wrote:
I agree Chaz.

I recently toured a so called stream improvement area which had been completed in the past year or so. Not much difference at all as far as depth of water or cover created after all the bulldozing and rock tossing. Loads of $ spent with nothing much to show. The real problems are often not the actual stream itself but erosion coming from elsewhere. The feel good rock tossing isn't taking care of the root cause.


Of course a big deal was made of this local improvement effort by all the groups involved. Plenty of horn tooting and back patting by the various agencies and clubs. The fishing was actually much better before this project. Have seen it done on larger streams with similar bad results.

I hate when those dang conservationists ruin my fishing....

 

[foxtrapper1972]

afishinado- Why is it when I voice my perspective I get this kind of crap? And you are a moderator,correct?

 

[krayfish2]

FT,
You CAN voice your opinion or perspective. The bad news is that not everyone will agree with them. If this means that people having an opinion DIFFERENT than yours is perceived as "micro aggression", you'd best hunker down in your "safe space" til this all blows over.

 

[jifigz]

It is a shame that the Logan Branch is just a shell of its former self. I never knew that because its current state is the only way that I've ever fished it. What has stolen most of the water from its supply? More houses with wells, the hatchery, or a combination of both?

If more human demand for water will continue to lower our stream levels then that is a serious problem for both people and fish.

 

[FarmerDave]

Come on guys. Show some sensitivity. ;-)

FT did have good points. I can't argue with what he actually said. I've also seen stream "improvements" that I wouldn't consider improvements at all.

Then again, I can't argue with afish's come back either, and not because he is a moderator. That never stopped me before.

Objections presented on here are often not a result of what we actually say, but how we say it. Unless they come from Pennypack. Then all bets are off. (he knows I am joking).

As far as I am concerned, I agree 100% with KenU, Chaz, troutbert, and a few others on here on this subject, and that list probably includes FT.

I hesitate to even use the term "stream improvement." I prefer the term "habitat improvement," which to me means fixing sins of the past (and present) and encompasses the stream and surrounding landscape. Those I support 100%. When you do that, the stream will improve on it's own.

 

[afishinado]

foxtrapper1972 wrote:
afishinado- Why is it when I voice my perspective I get this kind of crap? And you are a moderator,correct?

Hey Fox,

I am a moderator, but I also am an active member (for nearly two decades) and I too have an opinion to voice.

I read every post on here, everyday. I can honestly say I've never seen more sniping and smartass posts from any member, and it's wearing thin with many on here.

In fact, your posts disparaging the efforts of conservation groups caused me to send PMs to various members on here thanking them for their efforts, and assuring them the vast majority on here support all they do and all they have done.

While there may be some conservation projects that are ineffective and maybe a little misguided, the vast majority of organizations work really hard, volunteering their time and making a effort to make things better or to make things right. In fact, their efforts are the main reason we have decent places to fish in this state, and have clean water to drink.

I'm not sure which conservation group messed up your fishin' hole, in your mind anyway. Get over it! Join the folks out there to keep things natural, and make right what's been spoiled.

Join here or here and become part of the solution, not the problem.

 

[foxtrapper1972]

afishinado-Well the proof is in the pudding.
I have said before I am all for realistic clean water efforts and habitat restoration. I think my point is really about the stream improvement projects and specifically the "devices". Will they do more for the fish or for those who organized the project?
From what I have seen many projects don't actually produce results. Might make folks feel good but aren't cost effective and often have unforeseen consequences.
IMHO

 

[tomitrout]

Will they do more for the fish or for those who organized the project?

Something to keep in mind is that a lot of these devices aren't necessarily intended to provide habitat specifically for the fish(ing).

In my direct involvement, a lot of the work is meant to help stabilize eroding streambanks for example. Do the devices directly create habitat at that exact spot or do they help improve the overall health of a stream by reducing sediment loads along the downstream reach which can impact the spawning success of the local population? Do they prevent the banks from being devastated during high flows which if left unchecked can lead to a widening and shallowing of the stream to the overall detriment of the fishery?

Stream conservation work is a complex undertaking and sometimes the benefits aren't immediately apparent to the casual observer.

 

[sarce]

One of my favorite Centre County small limestoners I firmly believe would have been almost totally wiped out by urban runoff if not for flowing through a narrow channel with large rip rap. The sections without this riprap are 5 times as wide and featureless. Then you get narrow deep runs in the rip rap areas and you find wild browns and rainbows sometimes up to 20". I don't believe riprap is a bad thing at all. It would be better to have a natural riparian buffer but if storm flows from upstream have gotten so bad that the banks are getting ripped up, you might need rocks to stabilize things.

 

[rrt]

I think some stream improvement projects do some good and help the stream and its benthic life. I am a particular fan of streambank fencing where cattle wreak havoc with riparian zones. I have seen trout populations increase dramatically in a couple of these places.

Yes, I also realize that some projects are "feel good" projects. But, I helped with a couple of these "feel good" projects that I believe kept the stream sections worked on open to public fishing because the landowners were grateful to see that other people cared about their properties. Perhaps this is a collateral benefit for fishermen of working to try to improve streams.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Narrow rip rap channels most likely will cause increased erosion downstream. Riprap and hard bank armoring is not the answer to the vast majority of stream bank erosion issues. establishing riparian buffers and allowing streams access to their floodways when needed will do much more for the long term stability of a stream system. Hard armoring one side of a stream usually causes increased erosion on the opposite bank. Every situation is unique but as a whole hard armoring needs to be used less, not more.

 

[troutbert]

Improving riparian vegetation can be very beneficial to streams. There isn't any doubt about that.

Improving the physical aspects of streams can also be very beneficial. But what is the best approach is very different from place to place.

What is the best approach in different situations is a book length topic not a flyfishing forum length topic.

I see nothing wrong with stating that a particular project didn't work well. Then explaining the situation and illustrating it with photos, and giving opinions on why it didn't work, and offering suggestions on what would work better. All good.

But simply making personal attacks against those who worked on the project, I think that's unethical and a little sick.

And I don't see why a flyfishing website should publish that kind of "content." Those kind of personal attacks on people making an effort to conserve and restore streams should be deleted.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

+1

 

[nymphingmaniac]

My experience/knowledge of projects in the centre/blair/huntingdon county area indicates they are focused on reducing erosion first and foremost and creating "fishing habitats" is only a secondary consideration. The projects I am aware of were designed and overseen by a professional habitat manager of the PFBC, which includes designing the precise location(s) of boulders midstream to create habitat (if that's part of the project). They use riprap only when more natural solutions are not possible.
I can think of no feel good projects near me. granting mechanisms I am aware of focus on habitat improvement and one must make a strong case their design will do so.
If the expectation is that these projects will improve fishing in the vicinity, I can understand why you would be disappointed in some of them. But I have not found that to be the motivator of the projects, its designers or the volunteers who contribute to them.