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.

 

[k-bob]

Thanks Mike! In case someone didn't notice, if you click the three links starting with "<dir> class a..." in the page opened with link in post 40, they open to many more bio reports.

 

[Mike]

Thanks Mike! In case someone didn't notice, if you click the three links starting with "<dir> class a..." in the page opened with link in post 40, they open to many more bio reports.

Thanks for the tip on opening those up as well. They provided some additional trips down memory lane and some opportunities to revisit some good to great improvements in wild trout populations.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

For whatever reason the state looks like they made many agencies migrate to the single overriding platform. A sort of state umbrella for websites. In the long run it does save money on hosting, licensing, management and content creation. Personally the costs of running websites are relatively low, it's the upgrading and migrating that is the real cost.

My speculation is they were made encouraged to make this change with the carrot of it will save them money. But they didn't have or were not provided the funding /resources in the migration to move over all the old data and reports. You would likely see PFBC point fingers at the Pa State Informations Systems Agency and vice-versa. They may have set this up as a phased migration and the old records will be ported at a later date. Haha

more than that it makes management easier.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

Many times, we have discussed (complained) why projects/surveys are not made available on the PFBC website. I attended a presentation at the January meeting of the LJRA on the survey on the LJR last summer. A discussion ensued about disseminating the results on the website and why so few make it out to the public. The discussion and my similar experiences largely confirmed my suspicions. The bullet is that there is no one between the biologists and the IT people who maintain hardware- in other words, someone to develop and format the content for website dissemination. I have seen a similar situation at the university. The IT people have their hands full updating software, tackling computer issues, and maintaining the server. The biologists are collecting and analyzing data. No one is specifically assigned to develop and prepare web content. It's more involved than just data entry. The staff do what they can when they have time. They feel that their time is better spent doing surveys and analyzing data. I asked about utilizing undergraduate students as interns. They said intern slots are filled by people wanting to do fieldwork, which makes sense to me. The biologists have limited background or interest in developing and posting web content. I don’t blame them. If there had to be a compromise of duties, I’d rather they focus on what they do best rather than maintaining websites. You can't post what you don't collect and analyze.