Mo money mo problems

[tomgamber]

Stop posterbating..

 

[Fish Sticks]

Stop posterbating..

LEAVE ME ALONE MOM I’M CLEANING MY ROOM

 

[Mike]

But great habitat project PFBC, and good job driving outbreeding depression, introgression and basically just putting hatchery strain brook trout in it to this day, taking credit for a “reintroduction” when submitting your brokk trout conservation activity to EBTJV and thanks for protecting invasive raimbows likely limiting the demographics,size, and resiliency of the population!!!!!!

THANK YOU PFBC

View attachment 1641230741

I don’t know when reintroduction that you’re referring to was reported as such, but the results were meager at best. Six years of fingerling stockings were done based on the report that I just read in an old report found in an internet search. The fish were fin-clipped for later ID as to their origin. Percent short term survival was measured the last 4 yrs of those intros. The best survival rate was 8%; the other three years had short term survival rates of 2%, 1%, and less than 1%. I didn’t know of this aspect of past studies before, but the results further support my comments in the past that survival of modern PFBC ST in streams either due to natural mortality or harvest or both is, in my view, poor.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I don’t know when reintroduction that you’re referring to was reported as such, but the results were meager at best. Six years of fingerling stockings were done based on the report that I just read in an old report found in an internet search. The fish were fin-clipped for later ID as to their origin. Percent short term survival was measured the last 4 yrs of those intros. The best survival rate was 8%; the other three years had short term survival rates of 2%, 1%, and less than 1%. I didn’t know of this aspect of past studies before, but the results further support my comments in the past that survival of modern PFBC ST in streams either due to natural mortality or harvest or both is, in my view, poor.

But if your just stocking fingerlings that ate hatchery stock and not translocations or F1 gen conservation hatchery fish the low survival rate is expected and would not generalize to reintroduction projects because outside of Pa they use wild native brook trout or F1 gen conservation hatchery fish from wild native parents. Also they select similar life histories which further increases fitness for that stream. Now we are even seeing conservation genetics applied to this to further increase fitness.

 

[chinacat]

Five fish per day would translate to 5 fish per trip. The avg trip length on Pa wild trout streams is 2.84 hrs. Anglers fishing on wild trout streams the size of Fishing Ck in the narrows average 3.3 trout per trip, but when just considering brown trout fisheries the statewide avg brown trout per trip drops to 1.59. The point is that when placed in the context of average catch rates in Pa, 5 trout per day (trip) is three time the average. What is expected from a stream that sees so much pressure (avoidance learning by BT) particularly in the narrows?

As for hatchery discharges affecting the size of the fish, if one used Big Spring and Logan Branch as historical examples, an angler could attempt to argue just the opposite: that the impact on trout size was beneficial. I’m not suggesting that it’s the case, but I am suggesting that a relationship between hatchery discharges and fish SIZE are unlikely unless nutrients in discharges boost forage biomass and habitat exists that would support bigger fish associated with enhanced growth rates brought on by increased forage.

I see your point - Where is the average catch rate from? Just curious. Is that the catch rate of all PA streams, or is that the catch rate on wild repro streams and or class A streams? I do believe there to be avoidance behavior and that BFC has seen ridiculous pressure in recent years. I mean, I used to have what seemed like unlimited water pre-COVID. There were nights I'd drive back the narrows over into Penn's Valley and pass one car during peak season.

And I guess I should clarify the statement - what scares me more is the number of fish and less the size of the fish. In a healthy ecosystem, one expects to find many, many more small fish, a smaller number of medium sized fish, and just a few truly large, predators. I just don't see that, and neither do the interns - at least from what they insinuated. I see few big fish, which is hard to suggest is real considering the variables, but I definitely see fewer third year, second year, or young of the year fish. YOY might be tough to suggest, but definitely the 2nd and 3rd years. And it might have less to do with the hatchery than I think, but generally speaking, it's safe to say that hatcheries in general, because of DO, dissolved organics, or thermal pollution are hinderances to a wild ecosystem.

From the article linked below >

Big Spring Creek was once a nationally renowned brook trout fishery, but is now thought to hold little or no wild fish. Big Spring is included on the state’s list of impaired streams due to siltation, low dissolved oxygen and excessive nutrients. Environmental studies conducted by the DEP and independent biologists have linked the problems to discharges from the hatchery, which contain high levels of fish excrement and uneaten food.

The Cumberland County hatchery opened at the headwaters of Big Spring Creek in 1972 and had a devastating impact on the creek’s native brook trout population, according to Ken Undercoffer, president of Pennsylvania Trout, the state Trout Unlimited council representing 11,000 members in 57 chapters.

“There is no question the fish commission was responsible,” Undercoffer said. “These fish culture stations are the equivalent of a corporate hog farm, and all the waste goes down stream.”

Pollution problems force closure of Big Spring hatchery

The Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission will close its Big Spring Fish Culture Station Friday because of polluted wastewater from the facility. The closure was ordered by the state Department …

www.mcall.com

I love the hog farm analogy. But yes, this ^^

 

[Mike]

I see your point - Where is the average catch rate from? Just curious. Is that the catch rate of all PA streams, or is that the catch rate on wild repro streams and or class A streams? I do believe there to be avoidance behavior and that BFC has seen ridiculous pressure in recent years. I mean, I used to have what seemed like unlimited water pre-COVID. There were nights I'd drive back the narrows over into Penn's Valley and pass one car during peak season.

And I guess I should clarify the statement - what scares me more is the number of fish and less the size of the fish. In a healthy ecosystem, one expects to find many, many more small fish, a smaller number of medium sized fish, and just a few truly large, predators. I just don't see that, and neither do the interns - at least from what they insinuated. I see few big fish, which is hard to suggest is real considering the variables, but I definitely see fewer third year, second year, or young of the year fish. YOY might be tough to suggest, but definitely the 2nd and 3rd years. And it might have less to do with the hatchery than I think, but generally speaking, it's safe to say that hatcheries in general, because of DO, dissolved organics, or thermal pollution are hinderances to a wild ecosystem.

I love the hog farm analogy. But yes, this ^^

Thank you for your response and question.

From a randomized selection of 200 Pa unstocked wild trout stream sections where angler use and harvest was studied in 2004. One of the analyses included the data on wild brown trout caught from the wider of the two width categories for trout stream sections in the study. That’s what I used in my comments. There was a separate analysis of catches from the narrower width category as well.

 

[chinacat]

Thank you for your response and question.

From a randomized selection of 200 Pa unstocked wild trout stream sections where angler use and harvest was studied in 2004. One of the analyses included the data on wild brown trout caught from the wider of the two width categories for trout stream sections in the study. That’s what I used in my comments. There was a separate analysis of catches from the narrower width category as well.

Interesting. Thank you for that info!