Spruce Run Tests and Checkup (Stocking Tests)

[KrsnaM]

Looking at the pic above, if that stretch is representative of an approximately 2 mile long minimal length required for PFBC trout stocking, except special reg areas, it may be too narrow. Mean width for a stocked trout section needs to be 4.0 meters or wider, with widths usually taken in the summer.

No need to get so specific and technical, don't think anyone is stocking it. Trout probably just travelled upstream, there are bound to be some significant populations in parts of the Allegheny just cause.

 

[jifigz]

No need to get so specific and technical, don't think anyone is stocking it. Trout probably just travelled upstream, there are bound to be some significant populations in parts of the Allegheny just cause.

You're right, brown trout are very adaptable. Also, that little brown that fella is holding appears to be a wild fish. Brown trout are in lots and lots of places.
Just a quick aside/FYI: The guy with the handle "mike" is a retired PFBC biologist. He definitely has a lot of knowledge on wild fish, where they turn up, etc.

I don't doubt that there might be some wild brown trout there. If there are, then why stock it? The fish are there. Go catch em. Maybe improve the habitat if you can to help them.

Spending resources and time for stockies if a population of browns already exists seems silly, though. I'd report the findings to the PFBC so they can come do a survey and check the biomass levels.

 

[dryflyguy]

No need to get so specific and technical, don't think anyone is stocking it. Trout probably just travelled upstream, there are bound to be some significant populations in parts of the Allegheny just cause.

Nine mile run empties directly in the Mon river.
Guess it's possible that a few came up from it after the stream was cleaned up.
But man.........

 

[KrsnaM]

You're right, brown trout are very adaptable. Also, that little brown that fella is holding appears to be a wild fish. Brown trout are in lots and lots of places.
Just a quick aside/FYI: The guy with the handle "mike" is a retired PFBC biologist. He definitely has a lot of knowledge on wild fish, where they turn up, etc.

I don't doubt that there might be some wild brown trout there. If there are, then why stock it? The fish are there. Go catch em. Maybe improve the habitat if you can to help them.

Spending resources and time for stockies if a population of browns already exists seems silly, though. I'd report the findings to the PFBC so they can come do a survey and check the biomass levels.

Nah bro, I'm talking about stocking Spruce Run, not the Ninemile. I love fishing the Ninemile run, tons of fish and a healthy ecosystem. Stocking Spruce Run would make it so that water is the same, or at least close... plus, since its practically in my backyard, its like my own little project, a blank canvas of sorts. Nobody at all cares about the run, no big efforts to take data, nothin like that. Its healthy enough so I'm just taking data and picking up what little trash there is.

 

[hemlock]

Stocking trout is not conservation.

 

[KrsnaM]

Stocking trout is not conservation.

Bruh I never said I was trynna do anything but add to the ecosystem and provide some more recreational options for the local community.

 

[wildtrout2]

Just a quick aside/FYI: The guy with the handle "mike" is a retired PFBC biologist. He definitely has a lot of knowledge on wild fish, where they turn up, etc.

I'm glad you made him aware of that, it might serve him well in the future.

 

[jifigz]

I'm glad you made him aware of that, it might serve him well in the future.

LOL. I thought it was fitting since he was saying, and I mean no disrespect by this KrsnaM, that everyone didn't have to be so technical. Mike, being a scientist and all, is always technical. Plus, we like technical. It helps us fully understand.

 

[wildtrout2]

LOL. I thought it was fitting since he was saying, and I mean no disrespect by this KrsnaM, that everyone didn't have to be so technical. Mike, being a scientist and all, is always technical. Plus, we like technical. It helps us fully understand.

Yeah, when I read "No need to get so specific and technical", I was like, this young fellow doesn't know who he's talking to.

 

[KrsnaM]

Yeah, when I read "No need to get so specific and technical", I was like, this young fellow doesn't know who he's talking to.

Yeah ur right I guess haha, it’s just I feel people are acting like it’s impossible for trout to habitat the ninemile

 

[Mike]

When was that stipulation implemented? Has it always been that way? They used to stock a specific stream here in Central PA that was TINY

1982

 

[Mike]

Yeah, when I read "No need to get so specific and technical", I was like, this young fellow doesn't know who he's talking to.

That’s ok. Lots of people don’t know the requirements that must be met for a stream section to be considered for addition to the PFBC adult trout stocking program. I was just pointing out one of them because of the pic that was provided.

 

[jifigz]

1982

Interesting. Were small streams that were stocked before that that did not meet the width requirements "grandfathered in?"

 

[KrsnaM]

That’s ok. Lots of people don’t know the requirements that must be met for a stream section to be considered for addition to the PFBC adult trout stocking program. I was just pointing out one of them because of the pic that was provided.

Im confused, are you talking about the pic of the nine mile or the stuff on my original post?

 

[Mike]

Interesting. Were small streams that were stocked before that that did not meet the width requirements "grandfathered in?"

No. They were either gradually removed entirely or instantly removed; I don’t recall which. If they were long enough, however, the upper, narrower stretch that was problematic was shaved off and a new upper stocking limit was established downstream. The prior avg width requirement had been 4 feet.

I shaved off the upper end of Mill Ck, trib to the Schuylkill R in northern Berks Co. in the early 1980’s. As I recall, it was narrow, quite brushy, and parking was poor.

A stream section may still be less than 4 m wide in its upper end, but a representative avg width of the stocked section can’t be less than 4 m. When talking about the prior 4 ft avg width requirement, as a practical matter one must also consider whether the stream is even fishable for most anglers if there is a lot of overhanging brush on both banks.

 

[Mike]

Im confused, are you talking about the pic of the nine mile or the stuff on my original post?

See #11

 

[hemlock]

Bruh I never said I was trynna do anything but add to the ecosystem and provide some more recreational options for the local community.

bruhhhhh add to the ecosystem? a non native fish? posted in the conservation sub forum? bruhhh

 

[KrsnaM]

bruhhhhh add to the ecosystem? a non native fish? posted in the conservation sub forum? bruhhh

Lmao someone else moved my post to that thread, I posted this in the general forum... on top of that, yes, putting non native fish in the waters can have positive effects. Not only would it increase the stream diversity and competition, but like I said earlier, it could also gain the attraction of locals and help preserve the stream in general. There's like nothing big in the water dude, and of course I'm gonna wait till the summer to really determine if I'm gonna stock it or not, I just think it would be pretty badass. Aint gotta get so worked up over it haha

 

[KrsnaM]

See #11

Ohh ok, my apologies, I thought you were talking about the pictures in #14. Yeah, I've measured a lot of the widths in the stream, they range but don't really get smaller than around 8 feet wide, and I've measured upwards of 14-15 feet in width... at this point, I'm leaning more towards just trying to get a Notice of Stocking and stocking it myself anyways. Like I said previously, the PFBC fisheries managers and biologists have told me they're super backed up, won't be until at the very least next year until they can even test the waters... anyhow, I'll wait until mid summer to measure the water temps, width, depths, and pH level, so for now not doing much more than exploration of the water. and yeah ur right, I gotta get really specific and technical for this stuff haha

 

[bdhoover77]

on top of that, yes, putting non native fish in the waters can have positive effects. Not only would it increase the stream diversity and competition, but like I said earlier, it could also gain the attraction of locals and help preserve the stream in general. There's like nothing big in the water dude, and of course I'm gonna wait till the summer to really determine if I'm gonna stock it or not, I just think it would be pretty badass. Aint gotta get so worked up over it haha

Tell us you know nothing about how ecosystems work without actually telling us you know nothing about how ecosystems work.

If I understand the gist of this thread, you essentially want the equivalent of your own aquarium you can stock with non-native fish so you can fish it. So you’ve made up some theory that’s putting non-native fish in waters where they do not exist can have positive effects. Other than potential recreational enjoyment (i.e., catching stocked fish), what positive effects do you imagine come from introducing invasive species in a body of water where they currently do not exist? Just because there’s “like nothing big in the water dude” that does not justify introducing an invasive species into a body of water AND certainly not doing so on your own accord. Just because there’s “like nothing big in the water dude” that does not mean you get to just dump a few buckets of your preferred gamefish into a stream (or any body of water) without the need for actual scientific study of the impact on the species that currently inhabit that body of water! For the love of god, have we learned nothing from the past 150+ years.