Penns Ck BT length distributions Sections 04, 05

[Mike]

If you did not review the graphs and data closely, here are the biomasses summarized and a few calculations that I made from the graphs regarding % larger fish in the samples.

Section Biomass: Section 04, 2017, 73 kg/ha; Section 05, 2017, 45 kg/ha; Section 05, 1977, 5 kg/ha

Percent of trout greater than or equal to 16 in. calculated from graph. I used 16 inches because in Pa 16 inch and larger BT represent approx 1% of the BT population across its range.
Section 04, 2017, 10%
Section 05, 2017, 11%
Section 05, 1977, 3%

 

[HopBack]

They don’t care about your survey Mike, they just like to grumble. Fact is that weather, water levels and temp, stream habitat were constantly changing over the last 25 years yet tactics remain more or less the same.

Sling some big streamers when the water is off color, you’ll see how many big trout are in there.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

They don’t care about your survey Mike, they just like to grumble. Fact is that weather, water levels and temp, stream habitat were constantly changing over the last 25 years yet tactics remain more or less the same.

Sling some big streamers when the water is off color, you’ll see how many big trout are in there.

Perhaps in this is a off topic but relevant question that can be applied here and elsewhere in PA.

In streams that have potential to grow large trout, how many large fish habitat restoration projects are being done while habitat changes over time?

 

[troutbert]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:

They don’t care about your survey Mike, they just like to grumble. Fact is that weather, water levels and temp, stream habitat were constantly changing over the last 25 years yet tactics remain more or less the same.

Sling some big streamers when the water is off color, you’ll see how many big trout are in there.

Perhaps in this is a off topic but relevant question that can be applied here and elsewhere in PA.

In streams that have potential to grow large trout, how many large fish habitat restoration projects are being done while habitat changes over time?

Are you talking about differences between building fixed habitat structures and restoration based on dynamic aspects of streams and floodplains?

If so, that's a GREAT topic. Probably would be better discussed in its own thread, though.

 

[Mike]

When a stream as wide as Penns Ck, Section 05, achieves Class A status it means that there are a heck of a lot of wild trout present or a heck of a lot of larger fish deemed to be wild at the time of the survey. ( Due to the early summer timing of the survey stocked fish would have been very recognizable and they would not have been used in the wild trout biomass data).

This is another case of a stocked trout section having a quality wild brown trout population and that population having expanded from very low abundance to very good abundance despite having been stocked throughout that time period. You could argue that the wild trout population might had been better if it had not been stocked over, and you will get a chance to see that in the future, but my response would have been “how many wild fish do you need in a population in order to catch a few trout?” In a stream like Penns and many others, trout populations do not have to be anywhere near maximum carrying capacity in order to have good fishing.

Frankly, I would have preferred that Section 05 be kept as a wild trout fishery without stocking and without special regs. It would have been very interesting and perhaps very educational to have learned what would have occurred to the biomass and abundance of larger trout without special regs especially with a “control” section located immediately upstream. Other variables that could affect abundance, particularly flow and water temps, could have easily been monitored and factored into the results. Creel data...not so easy.

 

[silverfox]

Mike wrote:
When a stream as wide as Penns Ck, Section 05, achieves Class A status it means that there are a heck of a lot of wild trout present or a heck of a lot of larger fish deemed to be wild at the time of the survey. ( Due to the early summer timing of the survey stocked fish would have been very recognizable and they would not have been used in the wild trout biomass data).

This is another case of a stocked trout section having a quality wild brown trout population and that population having expanded from very low abundance to very good abundance despite having been stocked throughout that time period. You could argue that the wild trout population might had been better if it had not been stocked over, and you will get a chance to see that in the future, but my response would have been “how many wild fish do you need in a population in order to catch a few trout?” In a stream like Penns and many others, trout populations do not have to be anywhere near maximum carrying capacity in order to have good fishing.

Frankly, I would have preferred that Section 05 be kept as a wild trout fishery without stocking and without special regs. It would have been very interesting and perhaps very educational to have learned what would have occurred to the biomass and abundance of larger trout without special regs especially with a “control” section located immediately upstream. Other variables that could affect abundance, particularly flow and water temps, could have easily been monitored and factored into the results. Creel data...not so easy.

I agree 1000000% on that last part. Then depending on the effects on the population, adjust creel limits/size limits to try to stabilize or even increase the population. I'm really interested to see if a stream could be managed as 100% wild trout WITH harvest. Of any of them, Penns would be it.

 

[mt_flyfisher]

I first began fishing Penns Creek while a student at Penn State during the 1960’s and fished it often throughout the 1970’s. Gradually, more of my fishing turned elsewhere and from 2001 onward most of my fishing has been in Montana, and other northwestern states, where my wife and I spent our summers. I fished Penn’s several times last year, and intend to spend a lot more time there this year. (All in Section 04.)

Honestly, other than the changes in the stream’s structure, I did not notice any material changes in the volume of hatches, or the quantities and sizes of the fish I saw or caught last year compared to the 1960’s and 1970’s. It was good the first time I fished there in the 1960’s, and it is still just as good now from what I could tell.

The only material change, from what I could tell, is that the quality of the fishing seemed to improve whenever the state stopped or reduced stocking in or nearby the areas that I fished. It’s too bad that all of the stocking couldn’t be eliminated in Penn’s for a few years to see what the longer term effect there would be.

John

 

[Hook_Jaw]

A lot of trout in there

 

[Acristickid]

Maybe the eagles are eating the trouts

Also, the olives did not pour off yesterday and it was a pretty slow day on the mistress.