jifigz
Well-known member
For sure.. There are better streams than Spring that aren't far away that don't get as much pressure......just sayin'....
For sure.. There are better streams than Spring that aren't far away that don't get as much pressure......just sayin'....
B
Brown71
Active member
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Messages
- 285
A lot of good replies here, thanks for the conversation.
I would tend to be in the camp, as others have said, that less fish would actually mean more bigger fish. But im no biologist. So who knows, but going off my experiences, and I fish an almost ridiculous amount lol, places with many fish have smaller fish, and places with less fish seem to have bigger fish, and in some places that I fish, low quality water, very few fish, there is very, very large fish. And I think its not coincidence.
The bottom line is Spring is what it is, and its a great fishery for smaller-medium fish, a place you can be pretty much assured your gonna get a bunch of strikes/catches. That is one of the problems of today, everyone wants to change everything, and sometimes things are ok as is.
And as others replied, as far as big fish, there is a ton of other places to get them, and its not overly difficult for those that put in the time to find them. So Spring is fine as is, and I enjoyed reading this.
I would tend to be in the camp, as others have said, that less fish would actually mean more bigger fish. But im no biologist. So who knows, but going off my experiences, and I fish an almost ridiculous amount lol, places with many fish have smaller fish, and places with less fish seem to have bigger fish, and in some places that I fish, low quality water, very few fish, there is very, very large fish. And I think its not coincidence.
The bottom line is Spring is what it is, and its a great fishery for smaller-medium fish, a place you can be pretty much assured your gonna get a bunch of strikes/catches. That is one of the problems of today, everyone wants to change everything, and sometimes things are ok as is.
And as others replied, as far as big fish, there is a ton of other places to get them, and its not overly difficult for those that put in the time to find them. So Spring is fine as is, and I enjoyed reading this.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
I agree with above. Spring is a unique stream with one of the highest number of adult trout per mile in PA (over 3000 / mile from what I've read). Access is open for the most part and you should not have a problem finding a place to fish. It's also a place where there is a good chance you will catch a decent amount of trout but not likely many larger trout. If larger trout are what you are after fish other streams in central PA. Finally, Spring Creek is a place you can fish when many other streams in the area are blown out or closed to fishing by regulation, like right now in mid March.
B
Brown71
Active member
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Messages
- 285
afishinado, yep! Good post.
sarce
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,504
Want to throw this angle out there...pure speculation. Could there be less "nutrients" in the water over time as some of the discharges and pollutants have been cleaned up over the years? For example if hatchery discharges now have to meet new water quality standards, that would lead to a decrease in the amount of nutrient loading downstream. Now apply this across a couple discharge points and decrease in raw sewage in the watershed overall and it adds up to better water quality but perhaps less literal crap for bugs and other forage items to eat.
There are lots of places where large brown trout live in really poor quality water with all sorts of unpleasant pollution. Especially where large volumes of cold water mix in (springs, mine discharges). Is that coincidence? Maybe the bigger fish in Spring in the past were a product of pollution.
Obviously, we should continue working toward cleaner water. But it may lead to less big fish. The tradeoff, if there is one, is 100% worth it. I don't personally have a long history with spring creek, so take this theory with a heaping pile of salt, but it's something I wonder about.
There are lots of places where large brown trout live in really poor quality water with all sorts of unpleasant pollution. Especially where large volumes of cold water mix in (springs, mine discharges). Is that coincidence? Maybe the bigger fish in Spring in the past were a product of pollution.
Obviously, we should continue working toward cleaner water. But it may lead to less big fish. The tradeoff, if there is one, is 100% worth it. I don't personally have a long history with spring creek, so take this theory with a heaping pile of salt, but it's something I wonder about.
wildtrout2
Well-known member
The Elkhorn Creek in WV is a great example of this. That stream is loaded with some really nice trout, but seriously polluted.
Fly-Swatter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,238
I'm not sure it's a good kind of nutrient load, but SC get's a gray water bump every morning when the town and university residents take showers and flush toilets. I don't think the waste treatment in State College can handle the sudden load.
sarce
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,504
Elkhorn was an example I had in mind!
I don't know if it's the nutrients that cause a difference in fish size or the fact that reproduction gets easier for the browns as the water is cleaned up, leading to higher density populations and more small fish.
One of spring creek's tributaries flows from a single large spring that used to mix with sewage overflow. This was back in the 70's or 80s and earlier. At the time the trib was dead. No fish of any species. But apparently spring creek had a lot of big fish around the same time. Now the trib is cleaned up and has plenty of wild fish while people are noticing Spring has few big fish.
I'll take the cleaner water and additional miles of trout streams any day, though.
I don't know if it's the nutrients that cause a difference in fish size or the fact that reproduction gets easier for the browns as the water is cleaned up, leading to higher density populations and more small fish.
One of spring creek's tributaries flows from a single large spring that used to mix with sewage overflow. This was back in the 70's or 80s and earlier. At the time the trib was dead. No fish of any species. But apparently spring creek had a lot of big fish around the same time. Now the trib is cleaned up and has plenty of wild fish while people are noticing Spring has few big fish.
I'll take the cleaner water and additional miles of trout streams any day, though.
O
OldLefty
Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
- Messages
- 686
Let's take this just a bit further. I've used this line of thinking many times in the past when I've been involved in conversations regarding the changes we've seen in the size of Spring Creek's trout. If we use the info provided here (actually, the study stated the average trout in Spring Creek was caught 6.3 times/year) and we use a general mortality rate of 5% considering all forms of angling methods the average trout wouldn't live past 5 years old. It takes an average of 5 years to grow to 14"+; therefore, Spring Creek's trout population may very well include a small number of fish 15" or larger.
I do have a question for Brown71. As a bait angler do you fish passively or actively and do you fish differently when fishing catch & release waters?
I do have a question for Brown71. As a bait angler do you fish passively or actively and do you fish differently when fishing catch & release waters?
O
OldLefty
Member
- Joined
- Jan 30, 2007
- Messages
- 686
Come on, folks...Elkhorn Creek??? I was living in Coaldale when that hatchery truck broke down and had to dump its load of trout into Elkhorn. Anyone fishes that stream really needs to wear protective gloves to handle their exposed tackle and touch fish!! Yuk!!
B
Brown71
Active member
- Joined
- May 15, 2013
- Messages
- 285
Oldlefty, I fish what I call finesse bait fishing. Similar to Great Lakes trib fishing, I use long rods, light line, and size 12 or 10 hooks typically. I fish this way almost everywhere I fish. I generally focus on fishing areas/streams for large trout, but do fish places like SC at times, especially when taking/helping others. The size of trout possible to catch in PA is amazing, and I feel bait gives an advantage, so that’s what I use, simple as that lol.
I don’t really fish differently in C & R than anywhere else, as I release 99.9 percent of what I catch anyway. Only keep a fish once in a great while to mount, as that is something I like also. I rarely hook a fish deep. you’ll miss a bunch setting the hook quick, but the trade off is worth it.
I don’t really fish differently in C & R than anywhere else, as I release 99.9 percent of what I catch anyway. Only keep a fish once in a great while to mount, as that is something I like also. I rarely hook a fish deep. you’ll miss a bunch setting the hook quick, but the trade off is worth it.
ryansheehan
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2015
- Messages
- 2,517
This is the reason I actually believe it's too many fish not too many fisherman. There are a tremendous number of 9-11 inch fish in spring. This means all those 9-11 inch fish survived being caught 20 times to get to 9-11inches in 3+ years. Then that 4th year when they get to 12+ inches they all die from being caught?
jifigz
Well-known member
Yeah, doesn't really make sense, does it Ryan? There are too many trout in Spring Creek. If it isn't too polluted, open it up for a 2 fish a day limit with a slot in place. Not that most would keep many fish there, anyways..plus the shaming that occurs when one harvests certain coveted fish.....but that's a debate for a different thread.
jifigz
Well-known member
I plan to camp at Poe Paddy this year and harvest a wild brown from Penns to cook for dinner. It should be delicious, but I guarantee I would get terrible looks from plenty of other serious trout anglers.....oh well.
R
RLeep2
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 15, 2009
- Messages
- 1,463
I don't fish Spring Creek enough to really have a recently informed viewpoint, but instinctively, I tend to agree with the too many fish/overcrowding explanation. These sort of population/size structures are or at least were pretty common in a lot of the Driftless limestones I fished in Wisconsin and NE Iowa. The Wisconsin biologists said it was largely due to too may fish for the habitat/forage base.
Something is still missing though, at least based on my anecdotal experience in catching pretty good numbers of larger fish (12-15 or 16") from Spring back in the 80's. It seems like something has changed, but i don't know what..
Something is still missing though, at least based on my anecdotal experience in catching pretty good numbers of larger fish (12-15 or 16") from Spring back in the 80's. It seems like something has changed, but i don't know what..
F
fishhead
Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
- Messages
- 121
It is all about the biomass. The correlation between trout density,overall biomass and trout growth/size is the "problem". Do some digging, talk to the right biologist and ask the right questions.
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,767
If your theory was true, then streams that get very little fishing pressure would be filled with stunted, small fish.
And that's not the case at all. There is a reason why people go to such extremes to find places with very little fishing pressure. Think of Lee Wulff in his floatplane and people taking helicopters to remote areas in Russia and New Zealand.
Are they going these places to catch small, stunted fish? No, they are going there to catch big fish.
I haven't fished in such exotic places, but I have gone to some places in PA and the west that very few people fish. And the pattern is the same. "Big fish and lots of them." Not stunting.
The theory that wild trout populations "need" humans to keep the population down is totally wrong.
The evidence disproves it.
And that's not the case at all. There is a reason why people go to such extremes to find places with very little fishing pressure. Think of Lee Wulff in his floatplane and people taking helicopters to remote areas in Russia and New Zealand.
Are they going these places to catch small, stunted fish? No, they are going there to catch big fish.
I haven't fished in such exotic places, but I have gone to some places in PA and the west that very few people fish. And the pattern is the same. "Big fish and lots of them." Not stunting.
The theory that wild trout populations "need" humans to keep the population down is totally wrong.
The evidence disproves it.
jifigz
Well-known member
Which is what Ryan and I have been saying. Would you care to share your digging? It's also about holding water, structure, etc.
jifigz
Well-known member
What you are saying doesn't prove anything other than the fact that the waters you speak of hold big fish. The reason they are there may have nothing to do with angling pressure and everything to do with the system itself. The right ingredients will make big fish and lots of them. Some of these places are well known places that get fished a lot. Why does Lake Erie produce such good numbers of trophy smallmouth? It gets fished a lot and is very well known for its ability to produce these fish the same holds true for the New River. High angling pressure on these waters and plenty of big fish. I know of a stream right here in central PA that gets very little fishing pressure and is not filled with lots of little fish. In fact, it is filled with lots of above average and very large trout. It is also a marginal stream which doesn't stay super cold in the summer and lacks a lot of aquatic insect life. Why are those big fish there and not a lot of tiny stunted fish? Because it's got the right combination of attributes to produce big fish.
F
fishhead
Member
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2011
- Messages
- 121
A river's ability to SUPPORT the overall biomass, of which the trout density is only a piece, is what matters.I have been fortunate enough to fish all around the world and whether you are talking about Russia or New Zealand or Chile/Argentina, etc. What the systems have in common are the facts that they have more than enough holding water/cover, hatches/invertebrates/forage,oxygen content and temperature stability to support and sustain incredible populations of large fish. And that is why those fish flourish there.Spring creek, while a great success story, has surpassed its ability to provide what it needs to for its wild trout at their current density, which continues to rise, by the way.
