Sinnemahoning/Portage Contamination Update
- Thread starter JackM
- Start date
tomgamber
Well-known member
Thanks Jack...the first and last paragraphs at least show some positive progress.
From a legal standpoint, I wasn't sure whether the PFBC would do as little as posible so that when this went to court they would have an exisitng situation to show or if spending whatever they need now to have a dollar figure to recoup in damages. Or is there another philosophy alltogether? What's your take?
From a legal standpoint, I wasn't sure whether the PFBC would do as little as posible so that when this went to court they would have an exisitng situation to show or if spending whatever they need now to have a dollar figure to recoup in damages. Or is there another philosophy alltogether? What's your take?
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,350
From all I've read, it appears everyone is doing what they should be doing. As long as politics does not intervene to protect the RR company, this should result in positive things for repairing the damage. Locals and other interested parties should be vigilant about PFBC's plans in attempting to restore the fishery. If conservationist sleep, you may find the wild fish that were extirpated being replaced by stocked strains. In fact, if jump-starting the populations seems wise, the availability of sufficient volunteers could persuade PFBC to try to move wild fish from within the watershed into the effected areas. This type of effort may not be necessary, but if something must be done, this would seem better than supplementing with hatchery trout.
tomgamber
Well-known member
Well, according to the article, on the wild sections, they have decided to do nothing right now. Below portage creek, on the sinnemahoning they say they will restock. But on portage they say they are considering seed plantings ( not sure EXACTLY what that means) but are holding off.
albatross
Well-known member
Seems to me that if anything needs to be "seeded" it would be aquatic insects and not trout. If the forage base comes back, I think trout will be attracted from the tributaries.
Does anyone know if its feasable to help the insects along?
Does anyone know if its feasable to help the insects along?
The insects come back even quicker than the trout. Neither insects or trout should be "seeded." The whole thing will be back to normal in 3-4 years. I'm not just making this up. This has been the pattern in other places that have suffered similar catastrophes.
The only reason to "seed" trout would be to satisfy political pressures from local sportsmens's groups and legislators.
Or if the PFBC wishes to gain some un-deserved credit for the natural recovery. Stocking hatchery strain trout would not hasten the recovery of the wild trout population in the slightest. The recovery of the population will come from the wild trout coming from upstream areas.
But of course most of the public doesn't know that, and the PFBC would likely gain credit with many in the public for "doing something." I hope they make the right decision and tell the truth about this. They will take their lumps but if you want people to understand about wild trout you have to make an effort to educate them, not delude them.
The only reason to "seed" trout would be to satisfy political pressures from local sportsmens's groups and legislators.
Or if the PFBC wishes to gain some un-deserved credit for the natural recovery. Stocking hatchery strain trout would not hasten the recovery of the wild trout population in the slightest. The recovery of the population will come from the wild trout coming from upstream areas.
But of course most of the public doesn't know that, and the PFBC would likely gain credit with many in the public for "doing something." I hope they make the right decision and tell the truth about this. They will take their lumps but if you want people to understand about wild trout you have to make an effort to educate them, not delude them.
Yes, yes and more yes.
Of course it depends on how much of a fishery still exists in Protage. I didn't read the article and am not familiar with the watershed. Your bugs will come back fine from natural drift scenarios. The trout however, need to have a viable population to repropogate the stream that was decimated. Three-four years might be a stretch...look at Big Spring...its been a slow go because there was little to no reproduction present before the closure.
What should happen this summer before any action is taken is a survey to determine what the populations are in the area above the spill and their viability for repopulation. Then perhaps a survey in several locations downstream to see if repopulation has begun.
Youare right Troutbert that this is an excellent opportunity for the F&BC to present a case study of the viability and resilliance of wild trout to the fishing community. The best way to do this is to say no to stocking and allow the stream to pepopulate itself...if the surveys present the available year classes to be successful.
Maurice
Bamboozle
Well-known member
While hardly an apples to apples comparison; a similar situation existed on both the Letort and the Monocasy Creek in Bethlehem.
And while some may disagree that "things are the same or better" now versus before the spills that caused the fish kills on those streams; the bottom line is the fish came back WITHOUT the help of stocking.
If I remember correctly with the Letort; CVTU, Charlie Fox & company made their desires known to the then PA Fish Commission, that they wanted NO stocking. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea if folks e-mail the PFBC and let them know that concerned anglers would prefer that a decimated Class A stream be allowed to come back on its own.
And while some may disagree that "things are the same or better" now versus before the spills that caused the fish kills on those streams; the bottom line is the fish came back WITHOUT the help of stocking.
If I remember correctly with the Letort; CVTU, Charlie Fox & company made their desires known to the then PA Fish Commission, that they wanted NO stocking. It probably wouldn't be a bad idea if folks e-mail the PFBC and let them know that concerned anglers would prefer that a decimated Class A stream be allowed to come back on its own.
tomgamber
Well-known member
troutbert,
your reasoning may just be whay they are holding off on the seeding. We don't know. There is just not enough infomation being released. With that said, there isn't a hell of a lot of upstream left after the town of Gardeau. Its only a mile or so more to the summit and down the other side to the Allegheny drainage. It would be great if there were enough fish in that small upstream section.
What i'm wondering (in a completely selfish way) is if they do stock the driftwood ranch and below, and there is little other aquatic life there, will those fish seek up stream or downstream alternatives for food and cover. My camp is downstream and for all except the hottest of summer weeks, has the capability to hold trout. We got a few wandering down in the past. The smallmouth populations in the far lower stretch (a few miles up from the mouth) was affected very little.
Was also wondering if they were thinking of extending the downstream limit of where they used to stock since its probably the better part of the stream, at least for now.
I hope the info doesn't trickle out as in the past. It would be nice to know somethings in reasonble time this go around.
your reasoning may just be whay they are holding off on the seeding. We don't know. There is just not enough infomation being released. With that said, there isn't a hell of a lot of upstream left after the town of Gardeau. Its only a mile or so more to the summit and down the other side to the Allegheny drainage. It would be great if there were enough fish in that small upstream section.
What i'm wondering (in a completely selfish way) is if they do stock the driftwood ranch and below, and there is little other aquatic life there, will those fish seek up stream or downstream alternatives for food and cover. My camp is downstream and for all except the hottest of summer weeks, has the capability to hold trout. We got a few wandering down in the past. The smallmouth populations in the far lower stretch (a few miles up from the mouth) was affected very little.
Was also wondering if they were thinking of extending the downstream limit of where they used to stock since its probably the better part of the stream, at least for now.
I hope the info doesn't trickle out as in the past. It would be nice to know somethings in reasonble time this go around.
albatross
Well-known member
My Dad (a Cameron County resident) said todays Echo ( Emporium newspaper) said they will stock the Driftwood Branch and Sinnemahoning Portage Creek. I havn't been able to verify this online yet. Too bad about Sinnemahoning Portage Creek.
The lower portions of Sinn. Portage Creek, from Cowley Run to the mouth have been stocked for years. That section didn't have many wild trout, I don't think, because most of it is basically a channelized ditch along the road. So if they are stocking that section again, no problem.
The Class A section was from Cowley Run upstream. Some of that is real straight and flat (channelized) but there's an area up there with big deep pools that used to hold lost of wild browns.
That area was unstocked, and I hope they don't stock it. The wild trout would come back in just a few years if they just leave it alone. The wild trout upstream from the spill site and from the tributaries would provide all the "seed" necessary.
The Class A section was from Cowley Run upstream. Some of that is real straight and flat (channelized) but there's an area up there with big deep pools that used to hold lost of wild browns.
That area was unstocked, and I hope they don't stock it. The wild trout would come back in just a few years if they just leave it alone. The wild trout upstream from the spill site and from the tributaries would provide all the "seed" necessary.
Bamboozle
Well-known member
According to the PFBC Stocking Schedule posted today the Portage will NOT be stocked above Cowley Run in the Class A section but just below in Section 3 which is from Cowley Run to the mouth.
The Driftwood Branch will be stocked in the usual sections below the unaffected Class A section.
I guess common sense prevailed.
The Driftwood Branch will be stocked in the usual sections below the unaffected Class A section.
I guess common sense prevailed.
I am curious as to thoughts of how quickly the Driftwood Branch will make a come-back re: insect re-population far downstream of Portage (e.g. town of Driftwoood). I have heard conflicting reports on this topic ranging from a generation to a few years to get back to what it once was.
2nd question somewhat unrelated to Portage and Driftwood Branch. It seems some pretty knowledgeable people are commenting on this page re: wild trout stocking. I have never understood (and have tried to communicate w/ Fish Commission and other organizations about this) how Young Womens Creek and Cross Fork were "allowed" to be stocked. Also, I am not clear on what the long term effects will be on these two gems, i.e. what happens after Rainbows are stocked year in and year out? Any thoughts?
Padraic
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 1,756
The decision to stock Young Woman's Creek had nothing to do with proper fisheries management. It had to do with pressure from local business and community leaders.
If rainbows are stocked, they are unlikely to gain a foothold as a reproducing population. They will however, compete for food and holding lies. So the rainbows will depress the wild population in the stream. In the case of Young Woman's this is tragic, because it is a stream that could be a class A. It has been sampled at this level a number of times. Finally, after years of drought though... the FBC got the result they needed! Class A 3, Class B1, so let's dump fish in it! Because you know, next year, the stream might be a Class A again... and that won't do!
Not very long. It should be pretty close to normal in about 3-4 years. There are lots of tribs that will be the source of bugs. And bugs reproduce fast and they move. Plus they'll be colonizing an area of stream without many fish to eat them!!!
albatross
Well-known member
Chaz,
The local papers are the Endeavor Endeavor News
and the Echo
300 S Broad St 1
Emporium, PA , 15834-1470
Phone: 814-486-3711
FAX: 814-486-0990
Are you suggesting the locals do some seeding?
The local papers are the Endeavor Endeavor News
and the Echo
300 S Broad St 1
Emporium, PA , 15834-1470
Phone: 814-486-3711
FAX: 814-486-0990
Are you suggesting the locals do some seeding?
If nothing were done, you would probably be able to catch some wild brown trout there even this season. They'll move in from the headwaters and tribs. By next year there will be even more. In 3 or 4 seasons the population will be about the same as before.
If you "seed" with wild trout, see above. The results will be the same.
If you stock with hatchery trout, the wild trout population will still come back in 3 or 4 seasons, not because of the stockings, but DESPITE the stockings. It will just come back to a slightly lower level than if you had done nothing, because you'd have some hatchery trout occupying the stream, competing with the wild trout. And the additional fishing pressure the stocking would attract would increase harvest of the wild trout.
If you "seed" with wild trout, see above. The results will be the same.
If you stock with hatchery trout, the wild trout population will still come back in 3 or 4 seasons, not because of the stockings, but DESPITE the stockings. It will just come back to a slightly lower level than if you had done nothing, because you'd have some hatchery trout occupying the stream, competing with the wild trout. And the additional fishing pressure the stocking would attract would increase harvest of the wild trout.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Kayak Fishing Allegheny for Smallmouth and Musky
- Latest: skeeter bite
