Requesting a stream be surveyed for Wild Trout

[Mike]

Yeah it’s hard to spot burn a stream if it is removed from the trout stocking program because it becomes Class A. A report of all changes to the trout stocking program and the reason(s) for the changes is published by the PFBC each year leading up to trout season.

I’m still waiting to hear about Class A’s that get much angler use that are not streams with special regs somewhere along their lengths, are not PFBC stocked, don’t flow by a state park campground, and are not one of the “big name” Pa Class A’s. Exclude those and the one Class A that I know of that receives fair angler use for a Class A is Wyomissing Ck because it flows directly through the Borough of Wyomissing’s well-maintained, riparian park and pretty much bisects the residential community. It sees use from kids and a few adults. (Note, the stream does have a small fishing rodeo in a short stretch, so that may be a contributing factor in its continued spring and summer usage. It draws attention to the stream as a fishery).

 

[greenghost]

PennKev wrote:
It really depends on the area of the state the stream is located in. I have only one official Class A water near me and it has gotten the living daylights pounded out of it since the PAFBC published the Class A list online years ago.

Kev,
You are 100% correct. I used to fish that stream back in the 80's. Only a few local anglers knew it contained wild fish. I never saw anybody fish it back then, even though it flowed through a State Park and a hiking trail paralleled it. And as selfish as it sounds, we went to lengths to keep it to ourselves.

As soon as the PBFC "advertised" it, the blue line chasers came in droves, especially since it was the only wild trout stream around. Basically, any sort of quality fishing experience since then has been ruined.

I still know of a couple other streams that hold wild fish in that area. Mum's the word.

 

[PennKev]

jifigz wrote:
"Secrets" don't always stay well protected. Streams with friends have a much better chance.

This is true, but still I think it is situational. Is there a threat to this particular stream such that Class A designation would benefit it and offset and exceed the potential negatives of being outed as an excellent wild trout fishery?

In the case of my local stream, there is are several nearby quarries and gravel pits. Status as a class A has definitely brought about long term awareness of the water quality there and the wild trout population. It may have ruined the fishing experience, but it may also very well have prolonged the life of that fishery from an environmental perspective.

 

[tabasco_joe]

Can't have this both ways. If we want public awareness and support to improve habitat we have to publish information on streams. Success stories and stories about potential improvement candidates.

I see this continual cycle going on. "Gee, why aren't more people supporting this?" "We need to educate and communicate to get more support." "We need to get more young people into the sport so they get involved and share our interest in the environment." "Dang, there are a couple more people fishing my secret stream." "We shouldn't publish info on productive streams." "How come no one cares about cleaning up xxx creek?"

 

[Mike]

There is a legal obligation to publish the names of these streams. Actions by the Commission to place new waters on the wild trout streams list and the Class A streams list are subject to public comment, which includes anglers, landowners, industry, etc. How could they seek public comment without publishing the names?

 

[silverfox]

I know I've said this before, but I personally believe it bears repeating. I'm not of the opinion that "spot burning" is the greater of evils when talking about state-level protections. I just don't see how everyone is going to see the same social media post, classification list etc. and all decide to go hit the same place at the same time.

A group of friends and I have been working for months to arrange a trip to TN this weekend and it's a miracle that we could all get our schedules to align. One still might back out.

Then there's the argument of "streams need friends" which I wholeheartedly agree with.

Then there's the current lag between final register listing by PFBC and DEP actually classifying. There was a big article about that the other day and the current batch of additions.

There's also the conflict of opinion between whether harvest has some benefit to certain streams. The recent Spring Ck. discussion comes to mind.

Also, the newly listed streams list is only "new" for so long. Do you remember the stream that was added in 1994? Me neither.

 

[jifigz]

Silverfox, I'm not sure I understand your points. If a stream wasn't classified forever and maintains a good population of wild trout, then why does a small lag time matter? I mean, really, the enforcement behind additional protections is virtually nonexistent.

Most Class A's are not fished at all in my area..most people fish for stocked trout, plain and simple. The few I run into on Class A waters are basically catch and release fisherman such as myself.

Harvest on a Class A could easily be managed by stream, such as Spring, but otherwise the Class A's seem to do fine under statewide regs because, in my opinion, they barely get utilized here in central PA. We have so much Class A water and chasing wild fish in small creeks where the average trout is 7 inches just doesn't appeal to many people.

 

[silverfox]

jifigz wrote:
Silverfox, I'm not sure I understand your points. If a stream wasn't classified forever and maintains a good population of wild trout, then why does a small lag time matter? I mean, really, the enforcement behind additional protections is virtually nonexistent.

Most Class A's are not fished at all in my area..most people fish for stocked trout, plain and simple. The few I run into on Class A waters are basically catch and release fisherman such as myself.

Harvest on a Class A could easily be managed by stream, such as Spring, but otherwise the Class A's seem to do fine under statewide regs because, in my opinion, they barely get utilized here in central PA. We have so much Class A water and chasing wild fish in small creeks where the average trout is 7 inches just doesn't appeal to many people.

I'm talking more about the DEP protections, not angling protections/regs. Those protections absolutely matter, and I guess my point is, more so than any temporary harm caused by listing.

 

[Mike]

Silverfox,
To me, your #26 above refers less to DEP protections for Class A’s and more about protection from angler harvest and use per paragraphs 1, 3, 5, and 6.

Your follow-up response suggests to me that for Class A’s the DEP Chapter 93 protections are much more important than special regs or C&R regs. I fully agree because angling pressure in general and harvest in particular is so light on the Class A’s, other than the relatively few famous ones and at best maybe a few outliers, not including the stocked Class A’s. Only PennKev has pointed out an unstocked outlier Class A that gets hit hard, primarily because it is isolated in a region lacking for Class A’s if I interpreted his comment correctly.

 

[salmonoid]

greenghost wrote:

PennKev wrote:
It really depends on the area of the state the stream is located in. I have only one official Class A water near me and it has gotten the living daylights pounded out of it since the PAFBC published the Class A list online years ago.

Kev,
You are 100% correct. I used to fish that stream back in the 80's. Only a few local anglers knew it contained wild fish. I never saw anybody fish it back then, even though it flowed through a State Park and a hiking trail paralleled it. And as selfish as it sounds, we went to lengths to keep it to ourselves.

As soon as the PBFC "advertised" it, the blue line chasers came in droves, especially since it was the only wild trout stream around. Basically, any sort of quality fishing experience since then has been ruined.

I still know of a couple other streams that hold wild fish in that area. Mum's the word.

Did the quality fishing experience decline because you were more likely to encounter an angler on the stream (or realize that an angler had fished it recently), therefore potentially reducing your catch rate, or did the quantity and quality of the fish go down? I agree that stream is an anomaly when it comes to the overall spot-burn discussion, because it is in a virtual wild trout desert.

FWIW, I've fished five surveyed Class A streams recently. All five had either anglers fishing them, or had fresh boot tracks on them. Three of the five are remote, meaning you had to walk a mile or more to get to them. Naturally, the ones that had roads by them or were nearer to civilization had more pressure on them. Everyone talks about never seeing anglers on Class A streams or everyone fishing C&R on them already, but they do get some pressure, even the ones you have to hike to, which I expect will mostly die out as summer arrives.

Adding this thought, which has already been posted on this thread.. The threats of development, either through home building or industry are real. The potential water quality protections that a Class A fishery receive are far greater than any short-term angling pressure a stream might see. Sometimes, we have to look beyond our own short-term angling pleasure and take the long view of what protection of a stream ultimately adds to the stream. Like our kids being able to fish it, when they are adults, for instance...

 

[silverfox]

Mike wrote:
Yeah it’s hard to spot burn a stream if it is removed from the trout stocking program because it becomes Class A. A report of all changes to the trout stocking program and the reason(s) for the changes is published by the PFBC each year leading up to trout season.

I’m still waiting to hear about Class A’s that get much angler use that are not streams with special regs somewhere along their lengths, are not PFBC stocked, don’t flow by a state park campground, and are not one of the “big name” Pa Class A’s. Exclude those and the one Class A that I know of that receives fair angler use for a Class A is Wyomissing Ck because it flows directly through the Borough of Wyomissing’s well-maintained, riparian park and pretty much bisects the residential community. It sees use from kids and a few adults. (Note, the stream does have a small fishing rodeo in a short stretch, so that may be a contributing factor in its continued spring and summer usage. It draws attention to the stream as a fishery).

I guess what I said was kind of muddy. Trying to say that the concern over temporary increased angling pressure from PFBC listing is less concerning (to me) than the long-term protections provided by DEP classification.

I agree on the average Class A angling pressure. It's usually stocking that drives pressure. That's why I'm so against stocking over wild fish at all. No way a low biomass stream could ever move up the ladder (environmental limitations aside) if we continue to dump fish there to attract anglers.

I do think a single, or handful of anglers can put a real dent in a population in a stretch of stream though. About 2 years ago a local discovered the population in a small Class A (browns) and set about fishing it to death. He kept a lot of fish, but I also watched him fish several times and his fish handling was atrocious. His preferred method of landing the fish was to run his index finger up in their gills, then hold them out of the water for a minute and a half to take pictures. He also kept every single "big" fish he caught.

It absolutely temporarily ruined the stream. I just quit going because all the big fish were either dead or highly spooky from the constant harassment. I know streams bounce back, but that one guy absolutely wrecked that stream for a while. Thankfully, he's given up since the fish there now are all little. The circle of "life" I guess.

 

[MKern]

I have a decent idea the stream in question. It's one of those streams that everyone knows about and fishes, but no one talks about.

I don't think a class A label would hurt this stream.

This is one of the rare cases where it would see less pressure.

 

[Mike]

It isn’t the case that there is “no way a low biomass stream could ever move up the ladder if we continue to dump fish there to attract anglers.” I can give you six examples from SE Pa where in general angling pressure is/was relatively high and the number of stocked wild trout streams is relatively low, yet I have these examples...all Brown Trout stream sections.
Blymire Hollow Rn, York Co
Leibs Ck, York Co
Codorus Ck, York Co
Valley Ck, Chester/Montgomery Co
W Br Perkiomen Ck, Berks Co
Conowingo Ck, Lancaster Co.
Some of these would have been Class E (no wild trout) and some Class D and C. I don’t recall that any of these were B’s when first surveyed, but maybe some were.. All went to Class A while being stocked, but in the case of Valley stocking was stopped after one site reached Class A and the other two reached Class B (likely on their way to Class A) not because we thought the other two sites needed to have stocking stopped to reach Class A but because of an unrelated issue.

It would not surprise me if Wild Brook Trout streams that are stocked would have a more difficult time reaching Class A. There was one in SE Pa that went from Class D to Class A when unusually high rates of stocking and fishing pressure ( PFBC stocked, co-op hatchery next to stream also stocked its fish, fishing rodeo) ceased. In another case, PFBC stockings were terminated and the stream bounced around annually with respect to biomass. The entire section was sometimes a high Class C, sometimes a Class B, and once a Class A. Recently, a segment of that section (about a quarter or third) was officially classified Class A. I took that stream off of the stocking program in about 1981.

It seems to me that most here who condemn stocking over wild trout fail to make a distinction between high and low biomass streams, wild species involved, stocked species involved, frequency of stockings, stocking rates, stocking timing, and extent of angling pressure generated. These factors can make a big difference on the extent of any impact. It would not surprise me that the lower stocking rates and frequencies enacted within about the past decade or more as larger but fewer trout were stocked and the shift since the trout residency study to stocking a much higher proportion of RT has or will have made a difference in enhancing wild trout biomass in some stream sections even to the extent that some new Class A’s may be generated.

 

[jifigz]

Mkern, I'd love to see you take a guess about this stream, you can PM if you'd like as I'd be interested as to your guess.

And Mike, well said. I honestly don't even care if this stream becomes Class A. Additional protections would be nice but the stream is doing great and I really don't see those additional protections doing much.

My biggest fear is that less stocking leads to less public access and more posted land.