PFBC Old Website Data and Information

[DaveKile]

So I heard back from Mike Parker, Communications Director at PFBC, within a bout six hours. I very quick response.

He acknowledged the new website was mandated by the state and they had constraints with the new site. Many of the old reports are not there but recommended reaching out to the Fisheries Management Office where they need reports from. You can find contact info at the link below:

https://www.pa.gov/agencies/fishandboat/about-us/contact-us.html#Fisheries

 

[Mike]

some bio reports via:

https://files.dep.state.pa.us/water/drinking%20water%20and%20facility%20regulation/WaterQualityPortalFiles/Class_A_PFBC_Reports/

For those who debate the wild brook trout vs wild brown trout issue and cringe at the stocking over wild trout issue, the Laurel Run at Port Matilda reports data from the historical sites numbered 0201 and 0202 will interest you and is best viewed in Table 3 for comparisons by species and years. Note that the narrative describes the last yr’s data (1999) as being from a severe drought year. Such was not the case during the survey conducted the year before (1998).

You’ll note how ST abundance, year class representation, and species composition changed at 0202 during the drought, but you’ll also note how the ST population held its own at 0201 from 1979 to 1999 and the BT declined. Total numbers of ST went down (populations naturally fluctuate with year class strength), but numbers within length groups that would interest most anglers went up.

The Coldwater Unit did the 1979 survey, but I no longer recall whether the stream was being stocked with a single preseason stocking or preseason and inseason stockings in 1979, although preseason only stockings on small streams were common in that era. It’s also possible that it was receiving more or less stocked fish in 1979 (pre Operation Future) in 1979 than in 1998 and 1999. Regardless, it was stocked in all years that are reflected in these reports. You’ll also note in the narrative that the AFM in 1999 recommended that the sectioning (and thus stocking limits) strategy be changed (upper limit moved downstream .56 mi) so that the 0201 site and vicinity would no longer be stocked due to the biomass recorded at 0201.

Lastly, if you check the 1979 data at 0201 you’ll see that the ST were either 1) pretty much cropped down to the legal length limit at that time of of 6”, 150-174 mm length group in the survey, or 2) there was a poor year class within the legal ST ranks. Cropping of ST due to stocking generated harvest rates, limited C&R fishing, and much higher license sales at that time was pretty common prior to Operation Future. In the later survey report (1998) you’ll note that there is a comment about perhaps lower angler use (and/or associated harvest).

 

[sixfootfenwick]

For those who debate the wild brook trout vs wild brown trout issue and cringe at the stocking over wild trout issue, the Laurel Run at Port Matilda reports data from the historical sites numbered 0201 and 0202 will interest you and is best viewed in Table 3 for comparisons by species and years. Note that the narrative describes the last yr’s data (1999) as being from a severe drought year. Such was not the case during the survey conducted the year before (1998). You’ll note how ST abundance, year class representation, and species composition changed at 0202 during the drought, but you’ll also note how the ST population held its own at 0201 from 1979 to 1999 and the BT declined. Total numbers of ST went down (populations naturally fluctuate with year class strength), but numbers within length groups that would interest most anglers went up. The Coldwater Unit did the 1979 survey, but I no longer recall whether the stream was being stocked with a single preseason stocking or preseason and inseason stockings in 1979, although preseason only stockings on small streams were common in that era. It’s also possible that it was receiving more or less stocked fish in 1979 (pre Operation Future) in 1979 than in 1998 and 1999. Regardless, it was stocked in all years that are reflected in these reports. You’ll also note in the narrative that the AFM in 1999 recommended that the sectioning (and thus stocking limits) strategy be changed (upper limit moved downstream .56 mi) so that the 0201 site and vicinity would no longer be stocked due to the biomass recorded at 0201.

This seems like a thread derailment troll job asking for a debate on brook trout. 🤷

 

[Mike]

This seems like a thread derailment troll job asking for a debate on brook trout. 🤷

Not at all; that was not the intent. It’s an opportunity for individuals to observe real Pa data from ONE (meaning not definitive) stream where there is a data set reflecting the presence of both species over time AND observe data from the same stream because it was also being stocked by the PFC/PFBC throughout that time period.

Frankly, I think it’s educational when anglers can see evidence that perhaps things are “a bit” more complex regarding wild trout than often stated from within their ranks. I also pointed out that readers might want to check what happened (changes) at sampling station 0202 regarding species composition and length distribution during a drought (including the appearance of warmwater species). Furthermore, I noted the management recommendation that proposed eliminating stocking in the short Class A portion of the overall stocked section, shifting that short portion from Section 02 into Section 01, which was already being managed for wild trout. This educates readers as to how such situations may be handled by AFM’s.

This report also confirms what I said earlier in the thread, specifically in #33…that some reports include the biomass estimates and that one can determine the biomass classifications from those reports if one looks up the biomass ranges for each class and that sometimes the biomass classification is stated within the reports.