PFBC Biologist Report, SW PA

Good stuff.
 
+1. I always enjoy looking at the biologist reports whether I fish the area or not. Thanks for sharing!
 
streamerguy wrote:
I always enjoy looking at the biologist reports whether I fish the area or not.
Click to expand...

Me too. Thanks for posting the link - boatloads of info for the backcountry trout fisherman in SW PA.

 
Cool stuff. I hope to see similar info for NW, NC, and SC in the future.
 
PennKev wrote:
Cool stuff. I hope to see similar info for NW, NC, and SC in the future.
Click to expand...

Yeah, a consolidated spot burn for the whole region all in one page! :roll:
 
But wait! We don't want wild trout. It makes it more difficult for industry to operate.
 
I saw a couple of my favorite WT streams listed there. Glad they're mixed in with a lot of other waterways!

My brother-in-law has a camp in somerset county. And he told me about seeing some fish - that he thought were probably trout - in a little stream that runs off the mountain behind it.
So I gave it a try during a family get together there over memorial day weekend last year. And caught a few brook trout, but wasn't real impressed with it. And I saw it assessed on that list as a low density wild brook trout fishery. But that's the first time I've seen it named on any WT survey
 
And this: "Results from the study indicate that Brook Trout Enhancement Regulations did not increase the number of
legal sized trout in Camp Run at either site. In actuality, a decrease in the number of legal trout was seen at
both treatment sites on Camp Run."

To get the full impression, check the data table and the results for the C&R reg stream (Camp Run), known as an experimental "treatment" stream, and those for the corresponding experimental "control" (statewide regs) stream, Roaring Run.



 
What's the explanation? Why/how would those regulations cause a decrease in brookie populations?
 
Camp Run-seems to get more anglers because of it's designation, proximity to a delayed harvest that it flows into and public access than most other small streams in the area- based on my anecdotal evidence. Seeing people fish it vs never seeing anglers on similiar waters in the area.

Not sure if that would have an impact on the pops.
 
There is no suggestion that the regs "caused" a decline in the population. From the scientific paper below: "Low angler use, high voluntary catch and release, and slow growth rates infertile headwater streams are likely the primary reasons for the lack of response."

See: Detar, J., D. Kristine, T. Wagner, and T. Greene. 2014. Evaluation of Catch-and-Release Regulations on Brook Trout in Pennsylvania Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 34:49-56.

 
acristickid wrote:
Camp Run-seems to get more anglers because of it's designation, proximity to a delayed harvest that it flows into and public access than most other small streams in the area- based on my anecdotal evidence. Seeing people fish it vs never seeing anglers on similiar waters in the area.

Not sure if that would have an impact on the pops.
Click to expand...

It could have an impact on the pops. Either through:

1) more C&R mortality than we usually think.

2) it attracts the attention of people who harvest trout, and are willing to take their chances getting caught breaking the rules.
 
Mike wrote:
There is no suggestion that the regs "caused" a decline in the population. From the scientific paper below: "Low angler use, high voluntary catch and release, and slow growth rates infertile headwater streams are likely the primary reasons for the lack of response."

See: Detar, J., D. Kristine, T. Wagner, and T. Greene. 2014. Evaluation of Catch-and-Release Regulations on Brook Trout in Pennsylvania Streams. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 34:49-56.
Click to expand...

Between Camp and Roaring Runs, Camp is way more accessible and I doubt usage has increased since the experimental regs were applied.
 
Mike,

The wild brook trout enchantment program is a joke.
We all know that environmental impacts such as drought play a larger role than regs on a small freestone stream. I mean duh. What does it prove?

Let's look at a limestone spring that has Brookies and c&r regs on it, ie Big Spring. Constant cold flows and food. That population has been bursting since you guys closed the hatchery. Obviously harvest would play a larger role on that stream.

Is the findings any surprise? Is this study trying to beat into peoples heads a point only someone with absolutely no insight to trout fisheries can't understand? Or is it just a total waste of resources?

I think we are flattered that the PFBC would create a study and regs just to prove a obvious point to us fringe environmentalist
 
Yeah, the effect of the Brook Trout enhancement regs depends on situation.

FWIW, the regs only went into effect on 3 streams I've fished (none of which are the SW PA example), and on 2 that I've fished before the regs were enacted. So, focusing on those two only, I'd say:

1. The regs harmed the fishing near the access point.
2. Had no effect farther from the road.

I'd assume #1 is due to simply publicizing them. Prior to that they were rarely fished. After that they are fished pretty heavily, and there's usually a car or two at the access points. I'd assume a combination of C&R mortality, disturbing the stream and eggs with wading, and perhaps just making the existing fish smarter leads to my impressions of being worse fishing.

Far from the access points they were rarely fished before and remain rarely fished today, so no noticable change.

However, on a popular stream that gets fished hard already, I could only imagine such regs to help.

And I'm willing to allow those regs to harm a stream or two. The ones I fish have similar streams nearby anyway, so I'm good. I'd rather other anglers start diverting their attention away from the ATW's and discover wild trout. In the long run it's good for the sport.
 
Sal,

I appreciate your thoughts.

By the way, the regulations, this study, and its conclusions were not directed at limestoners; the study applies to Pa's freestone brook trout streams Additionally, it supports the conclusions of the statewide 2004 wild trout stream angler use and harvest study with respect to low angler use and low angler harvest on wild trout streams when 200 streams sections were examined on a statewide basis.

The regulation evaluation also represents the statewide freestone wild brook trout resource in that some streams were road accessible and some were not. Accessible or not, there were no differences after the C&R regulations were implemented when the treatment streams were compared with their controls.

I think you could debate your paragraphs 1 and 3 with some of your fellow anglers.

Mike
 
Mike,

I know that high fertility limestone streams were NOT part of the study. Which is part of my point. We can NOT use this study to determine that c&r has no impact on wild brook trout. The days of blanket management has to stop. At no point in the paper you cited did it give a stream by stream evaluation on what the primary cause for the lack of adult trout or population decreases.
It's anyone's guess.

Either way, I agree that fellow anglers need to get a grip when think c&r is the end all be all to saving fisheries. Then again, the PFBC needs to get a grip when thinking and trying disprove it's effects statewide.

Want to manage fisheries better? Try working with local anglers and conservation groups to solve a resources issues on a stream by stream basis.

Now that we established this study is a waste of time and money, can we move on to bigger and better things?
 
I will hold all future responses to you until you have had 3 hours to finish editing and adding to your posts.

So now, I pose some questions. This "study " supports the 2004 angler use and angler harvest study.

So given the findings of the 2004 study, what did the wild brook trout enhancement study expect to achieve?

Did you think it would work?

Did you think it would contradict the 2004 study?

If you answered no to any of the last two then this was a waste of resources. The only possible conclusion I can draw from the whole thing is it was to further prove a already known point but only to wasted dollars to the further division of anglers and the PFBC.
None of which is any good for anyone.

I'd like to know how much was spent on this whole endeavor so I can calculate the loss of possible restored habitat on such streams.
 
Purpose: To determine if eliminating angler harvest would result in an increase in the number of adult (100 mm and larger) or large brook trout (175 mm and larger). 100 mm-approx 4", 175 mm-approx 7"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top