PFBC Old Website Data and Information

[CRB]

I liked reading the old Angler magazines from the 40's-early70's.

 

[Mike]

We are not asking for prepared essays and fancy, eye, catching web pages. Just data. Other states have no trouble posting raw data and leaving the reader to make of it what they will.

This is not an IT, problem. it's a policy problem IMO.

When it comes to raw trout stream data specifically, I would not want that based on time consuming bad experiences unless the angler had accompanied the crew on the survey or had done so in the past so that the data had a better chance of being interpreted correctly by the angler based on an understanding of the survey procedures. Interpretation was/is one of the advantages of the Biologist Reports

 

[PennKev]

Interpretation was/is one of the advantages of the Biologist Reports

Well we hardly ever get a new BR, let alone a wild trout related report. So, what's the advantage of hiding virtually all of the data collected?

Sorry Mike, while I completely understand the dangers of an uneducated public misinterpreting data, the NEAR TOTAL lack of recent biologists reports is not a good look for the PAFBC. We often hear about how many miles of trout streams we have in this state and every year more streams are added to the wild trout list or even Class A. Yet all we've had for years are the same few stale biologists reports for a handful of "big name" streams. Given the choice between the opening day hilljacks misunderstanding the data and not having the data easily available, I'd take my chances with the former.

And no, I shouldn't have to call a guy and wait for them to get back to me or some other nonsense for every bit of info I'm curious about. This is not 1890. I've spent enough time "waiting to hear back" to know how that would go anyway.

 

[Mike]

Well we hardly ever get a new BR

We do in certain regions, as revealed by a quick scan and tally of each region’s biologist report output in 2023 and 2024. I would note that there was never a requirement that the reports be limited to or include any particular resource type. Perhaps you are not seeing reports written that pertain to your region(s) of primary interest, but my regions of interest as an angler are well-covered.

As for the wild trout stream data from streams being added to the wild trout streams list, I don’t know if this still occurs since I have not checked for a few years, but my recollection (correct me if I’m wrong) is that when Commission meetings occurred and the list of candidate streams for new wild trout stream designations appeared in the agenda, each was accompanied by a map. Embedded within the map was a length/frequency distribution of trout collected during the qualifying survey.

 

[Jessed]

There would be nothing wrong with posting stream data from class A/ natural reproduction streams. The state should be happy about people interested in data they pay for. I always would wonder about natural reproduction streams that would have 2 miles listed, completely stop and then a mile or two downstream resume the natural reproduction listing. It would be cool to see data on why that section was different from the rest or if it just wasn’t sampled at all.

 

[PennKev]

We do in certain regions, as revealed by a quick scan and tally of each region’s biologist report output in 2023 and 2024. I would note that there was never a requirement that the reports be limited to or include any particular resource type. Perhaps you are not seeing reports written that pertain to your region(s) of primary interest, but my regions of interest as an angler are well-covered.

What percentage of field work do you think results in a biologists report?