CRB
Well-known member
I liked reading the old Angler magazines from the 40's-early70's.
PFBC Old Website Data and Information
- Thread starter DaveKile
- Start date
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
Last edited:
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,446
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.
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.
Last edited:
Jessed
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 1, 2016
- Messages
- 515
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
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,446
What percentage of field work do you think results in a biologists report?
Couldn’t say. Depends on how much fieldwork is done by each AFM region, what resources are sampled (individual lakes and rivers take more time than individual streams in most cases), how many special projects each region does, such as the Area 6 striped bass spawning stock survey, and which efforts find their way to the specially designed Biologist Reports on the web that are written for general public consumption with greater explanation, pictures, etc included that would not be found within a standard fisheries management report.
k-bob
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2009
- Messages
- 2,377
no fish reports, but pH, alkalinity, etc., info on some streams from link below. multiple reports under ... <dir> ... links:
Within the list provided, the lines between Class A2 to Class A4, inclusive, will open up to lists of streams showing biomass and other info. Clicking on one of these lines opens up a series of stream maps. In other cases, when one clicks a line one finds linked individual stream names. Clicking on those will result in the reader being able to see a PFBC stream report or a PaDEP stream report.
Attention troutbert…you’ll like this:
The first one that I opened within line Class A4 was Bear Ck, Sections 01 and 02, because Bear was in Area 6 and I wanted to refresh my memory on a few details re Sections 01 and 02 re wild trout. A stocked stretch within a portion of Section 01 was removed from the stocking program after a 1977 survey. The ST population apparently responded quite favorably by the time of the next survey in 1994, becoming Class A, Furthermore, the wild BT population biomass declined somewhat. The combined ST and BT biomass went from Class B to Class A and dominance shifted from BT to ST. It would be interesting to see whether the ST/BT ratios (abundance, biomass) have changed significantly since then, especially since the the wild BT population has apparently improved since then in Section 03, the DH Area.
Last edited:
