Question (Mike ?) Regarding Young Women's Creek

[salvelinusfontinalis]

As far as the AFM for that region:

http://articles.mcall.com/1998-06-14/sports/3195133_1_trout-anglers-stocking-trout-populations

 

[outsider]

I tend to agree with the fisheries manager for the following reasons:

1) I built my cabin in the mid 70's off Kettle Creek 2 miles north of Kettle Creek State Park for 2 reasons. First and foremost was that was located centrally to several watersheds with excellent fly fishing opportunities. 2 miles to Kettle Creek; 15 minutes to Hammersley Fork, 20 minutes to Cross Fork Creek, 35 minutes to Young Woman, Creek, 45 minutes to the East Fork Sinnemehoning Creek, and one hour to Slate Run. And fish those streams I did.

I also witnessed the decline of those creeks. Not only the decline of brook trout in the lower regions of these stream, but the decline of the insect population as well. I doubt we can blame the stocked fish for the decline in insect population.

2) precipitation: As I stated in my original post, this area was hit with several droughts in the 90's and 2,000's. A friend of mine (jack Mickievicz) documented precipitation in the Kettle Creek watershed v. the area where his cabin is located at the confluence of the Pine Creek and the Genesee Fork. The results were pretty astounding. The heavier precipitation typically bypassed the Kettle Creek watershed. And just to let you know how much time I spend there, my wife and I spent approx. 80-90 days there last year. And if the weather was good, we fished (well, I fished and she sits along the bank with me). So I always had the opportunity to monitor stream flows.

3) Rainbow trout v. brown trout: A lot of the brown trout stocked way back when moved from their stocking point in a reasonable amount of time. My experience with the rainbow trout stocked is different.

I will give you 2 examples. First, the rainbows stocked in the Kettle Creek C&R seem to disperse pretty quickly. The second example is Cross Fork Creek, which is smaller than the Kettle Creek. I tend to fish the stocking points in Cross Fork Creek and a few really good holding areas above and below for a reason - health issues. And here is the interesting point, drilled down deeper: When the rainbows are stocked at point "A" they for the most part stay there for a long period of time, not only in the same pool, but in a tight circle like they are in a pen. And IMHO they are as dumb as dirt. I fish the same pool 3 weeks after stocking and there they are in a tight 4' diameter circle. It almost becomes boring catching them. But above and below the stocking points where there is really good holding areas? Few fish caught or seen.

Not the case when the browns were stocked, they were dispersed in good holding water above and below the stocking points. Some of those areas offered excellent fishing.

4) The Hammersley, which is not stocked. As the fisheries manager pointed out, the brookie population waxes and wanes with the volume of precipitation/water temp/oxygen content.

 

[outsider]

One more note:

I fish the upper regions of Cross Fork Creek and seldom if ever catch rainbows. Native brook trout and stream born browns, yes.

 

[troutbert]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
As far as the AFM for that region:

http://articles.mcall.com/1998-06-14/sports/3195133_1_trout-anglers-stocking-trout-populations

The article quotes the Commissioner from NCPA, not the Area Fisheries Manager.

They are not always in agreement on these issues. The fisheries managers were trying to get some of the better Class Bs off the stocking list.

It makes sense to move the hatchery trout from the wild trout streams to other streams, IMHO. Better for the wild trout fisheries. And better for the fishing on the streams that stockies are moved to.

And as can be seen from the article, Commissioner Sabatose was opposed to that. There were also legislators on the Game and Fish Committees who opposed it.

 

[Mike]

Maurice,
In number 15 above, you indicated that you quoted me. Where did that quote come from? I don't recall saying that and I would be interested in the full context. If I was discussing impacts on selected individual streams vs statewide impacts I could see how I might have said that, but I don't recall it. Data that I presented at the trout summit certainly did not indicate a statewide impact for BT: some pops went up, some stayed the same, and others declined after stocking was terminated. Regarding ST, I said that terminating stocking would be the better way to improve wild ST populations in comparison to special regs as long as the habitat was suitable.

As for Sal's Morning Call article of reference, that is old news. That very type of study has been going on for a few years in the north central region.

Maurice, by the way the signage is supposed to be straightened out on E Br Codorus. thanks.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Because his boss has no influence one him what's so ever :roll:

Outsider,

I'm confused, you asked a simple question as to why we thought the rainbows vs browns in YWC was different. You never included any of those observations and it sounds to me like you made up your mind long before you ever asked that question.

 

[outsider]

No, the intent of my original post centered around the populations of native brook trout in the lower regions of said streams today v. years past. Yes, I did have beliefs as to why. I just wanted input from others, including the fish commission to find the answer.

 

[outsider]

Salwhatever, you seem to have foregone conclusions regarding this topic. so I ask you what experience do you have with respect to these particular streams/watersheds?

 

[Maurice]

Mike, it was more of an "air quote" based on your continual assertion that wild trout pops are less impacted by stocking compared to other factors. But i think that from the trout summit presentation you did for us back a few years ago the conclusion was based on the numbers of streams that had pops improve, stay the same, and decline it was determined the statewide conclusion supported the continuation of stocking. You seem to be favoring individual stream management solutions above. That's not the impression I had earlier.

 

[troutbert]

Native brook trout are doing well on unstocked streams in NC PA, in my experience.

So they are not doing so well on the stocked streams?

Hmmm. Something to think about.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Whatever what?

I just ask why you asked, being that you already had a very detailed thought about why and it seemed you had thought a lot about the topic already.

As far as my experience with YWC I used to have a fair amount. My family had a cabin in tioga county and still has a land lease in potter.
I for the most part have stopped fishing stocked watersheds a long time ago so not so much anymore because the fishing is always so much better on unstocked waters. So no more than you my friend. Though I didn't know you had to log a million hours on this watershed to be apart of the conversation. I thought maybe a persons experience and thoughts on observations "statewide" could be useful. My apologies.

I never got the impression Mike favored watershed based management either. I always thought of him as a statewide guy.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

As a side note I did most my fishing in the 80's and early 90's in NCPA and Sepa. Now I do most my fishing in Scpa, sepa and Nepa.

 

[Chaz]

In my original post #2 I over simplified my answer in order to get things going. Now after roughly a week, the OP seems to have had his mind made up from the beginning. Ok. I'll repeat what I said in subsequent posts. It's drought related mortality, and the fact that the C & R section is being stocked now. while it wasn't before. Floods have wrecked habitat on the creek. The combination of floods and drought can and will decimate a wild trout population. In the trouts world, habitat is everything, habitat = rainfall, flows, temperature, structure, LWD, cut banks, and many other factors. The wild card in all of it is, is there poaching, high mortality caused by over fishing(truck chasing), are all the surveys harmful when it maters most(during summer with high temps and drought?
Section 1 and 2 as TB said are the wild trout sections, yes numbers of trout vary in the lower reaches of the creek, that's a function of available habitat, mostly flows.

Flows
I've included the link that illustrates the flows during a 30 year period. I believe it illustrates what the flows are for any given period of time. What I think it shows is that compared to the mean during this period, the flows were below the mean most summers for extended periods. Low flows mean higher temperatures.
The following graph shows what the temperatures are over a 12 month period. That's all of the data available.
Temps

 

[troutbert]

I also fished both YWC and Cross Fork Creek in the early 1970s. At that time both were stocked.

Then there was a period after Operation Future when both were unstocked.

Now both are stocked again.

The OP says that the native brookie population is lower now than back in the 1970s. I don't know if that is true or not. I don't have the data from PFBC surveys. And though I fished those places both back in the early 1970s when they were stocked, and in the 80s and 90s when they were unstocked, I have not fished there since stocking was begun again.

During the period when those streams were unstocked, we caught lot of brookies in YWC, even at the very lower end of the special regs area.

And on Cross Fork Creek, it seemed to me that it was mostly browns from Hungry Hollow Road on down, but there were some brookies. I recall catching them as far down as the snowmobile bridge, which is less than a mile from the mouth.

Let's assume that the brookie population has declined in these special regs area in recent years, and we're thinking about theories about what might cause that.

So far nothing has been stated that is different now than in the 1970s. Droughts and floods have always occurred. The streams got warm in the summer then, as now. And these streams were stocked in the 1970s, and now.

To explain a cause of why the brook trout population is lower now than then, you have to identify some DIFFERENCE that would cause the change. None has been stated so far.

Here is one thing that is different. In the 1970s, the regulations on both streams allowed the harvest of 3 trout per day, 9 inch minimum. (If my memory is correct.) Now both are catch and release.

The 3 fish per day rule allowed people to remove the stockies 3 at a time. And many people did keep fish to eat, including us. The 9 inch rule protected the great majority of the native brookies.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Dwight,

That is some interesting insight and history. I think a 9 inch minimum on Brookie streams like you stated would be good for YWC . However, after the c&r study on Brookie streams I doubt getting anything like that passed "statewide" will ever happen.

 

[krayfish]

I don't have a dog in this fight but see a few reoccurring things in this thread:

#1. The OP asked about the wild fish numbers and the change in species stocked.

#2. Some keep posting that the stocking is the reason for the decline in population of wild fish. I'm not seeing a definitive agreement from Mike on that and the area fisheries manager is pretty clearly saying the decline is due to temps. If it's man caused, natural progression of a watershed, shift in water table or changing weather patterns......it's happened and it's the primary issue for the declining wild fish numbers.

#3. "I fished there in the 70's, 80's, 90's or pick a date. I was the only person around and could C&R over 100 fish in a weekend. Blah, blah. Now, there's harvest allowed, stocking, truck chasers and the wild fish are gone. I'm never going back."

 

[troutbert]

I doubt that water temps are warmer now than in the early 1970s in either Cross Fork or Young Womans Creek.

No reason has been given why that should be the case. It does get warm on those streams during a drought and when air temps are high. But that has always been the case. There were severe droughts in the early 1960s, which I remember. And I have also seen photos of streams completely dry during a drought earlier than that, in the 1950s, I think.

There have not been many landscape changes in either watershed between the early 1970s and now. If anything the water temps may be cooler now than in the 1970s, because the trees are taller.

 

[troutbert]

Just to follow up on post #36. Back in the 1970s, the regs allowed the harvest of 3 fish per day, so people knocked down the numbers of hatchery fish.

Now the regs are C&R so you have to leave the stockies in there. So, the situation may be similar to what Mike K described on Donegal Creek. A C&R area loaded with adult stocked trout that suppress the wild trout population simply by eating the fry.

The difference in the regs is the only difference I can think of on these streams between the 1970s and now. Droughts, water temps, floods etc. all are just normal and have occurred forever. The pops bounce around, going down when hammered by severe drought and flood, and go back up in period of good conditions.

There was a severe flood in NC PA in Jan. 96 and a severe drought in 1999, one of the worst. That was a real low point for freestoners in that region. But that did not have lasting impact. By 2003 and 2004 the freestone fishing was excellent again. And it has been good in the last several years also. The brookie fishing in 2012 and 2013 was good in NCPA. From my own fishing, and from talking to other people into the mountain stream fishing.

 

[outsider]

Well I certainly did stir the pot with post 22. My intent was just to give you some of my personal history with said streams, offer my opinion, and seek opinions and information from others. Other than being there many decades and making observations, I have no qualifications. But those were personal observations, not second or third party observations.

Sal, I didn't mean to offend you by calling you Salwhatever: Your screen name is just to long for me to remember. No offense meant, was made in jest.

 

[Mike]

Take a look at the channel configurations on a number of NC streams in their lower ends. Erosion upstream has not been their friends (rubble and gravel deposition) and the lower ends are wide and shallow under lower flows. Despite perhaps better shade now than in the past, shallow water with poorly defined thalwegs heats up. It is true for the lower end of Cross Fork. The channel change is also true for lower Hammersley, although I don't know whether it heats up as much as Cross Fork. As for the lower end of YW, I could not say, but I had seen substantial erosion in the special reg area about ten yrs ago during a survey. By the way, that special reg area's population did not impress me. It was no better than what we find in many streams without special regs that are similar in width and habitat. I remember thinking as we Electrofished that there is nothing extra special here and special regs are probably not adding much. Frankly, I was wondering what had led to this stream being under special regs in the first place. If you don't think what I have said is true, then perhaps you are spending too much time in special reg areas.