The "B's" have it ( sometimes)

[Mike]

It has been observed here that there are some Class B streams that fish as well as or better than some Class A's. That's probably true, depending upon the anglers' preferences regarding size and abundance. The definition of fishing better would probably be up for debate here and for some would focus on fish size and for others would focus on abundance. What makes the B's that you like as satisfying as the A's?

 

[steveo27]

One word - pressure.
The class B streams around here seem to get less pressure on them since they arent as widely published. Less pressure = less spooky fish

 

[DGC]

^About how I look at it except the spooky part.

 

[dryflyguy]

I agree with Steveo.
Just about every class A stream that I've fished has been disappointing in my experience.
And some of my favorite waters for WT aren't even listed as "supporting WT"
My guess is that it's simply a matter of less pressure.

 

[JackM]

More fish, smaller size can make a stream Class A over a stream with less fish, but larger specimens. Class A streams have no upper limit. I suggest classifying further into single A AA AAA. A triple A will almost always be a better experience than a Class B-

 

[pcray1231]

The biomass and fishing success aren't a perfect correlation.

Often it's stream structure. A stream where 80% of the surface area is good holding water will have a higher biomass than one where 40% of surface area is good holding water. But they may fish exactly the same. Why? Because us anglers are actually decent at reading water and regardless of which of these streams we fish, we are casting to only the good holding water.

The rating we would want is the biomass that sees our fly on any given cast. Often that's higher in situations where the holding water is sparse and fish are more concentrated, even if the biomass per surface area is less overall. In the above example, the stream with twice the holding water needs twice the biomass to fish the same. Often it's more, but not twice....

Class C usually fishes well too. D is hit or miss. If it's a legitimate population to fill the holding water they also fish well. But sometimes D is used for very weak populations, where maybe the limiting factor is water temps or breeding substrate instead of a lack of holding water. In those cases there can be a lot of good looking, empty water and we will unknowingly waste our time fishing it. Cause it looks fishy. But still in one spot, by a spring or something there can be a middling population making it legitimate class D.

Whereas class C and B generally indicate a solid population that will fill the available habitat.

 

[TimRobinsin]

I don't know about that Pat. You are making several assumptions. I would argue that structure is only one of many variables that affect biomass. Also, everyone fishes differently. I fish all parts of the water good, bad, and ugly. I have caught and spooked fish out of lies I never imagined would hold fish. Of course, this is all anecdotal evidence.

Our streams are dynamic. They are also parts of larger watershed ecosystems that work together. With that in mind, I would like to how the "B's" and "A's" are interconnected. I think we could learn a great deal of valuable information from tracking fish. Esspecially in this state.

 

[k-bob]

streams aren't surveyed very often, so given year-class issues (do floods, droughts, acid spikes w big snowmelts affect trout?), one stream may have different trout fishing when it was surveyed vs five years before or five years after.

link gives evidence of fluctuation in surveys, at least in # of legal brookies... for example, the post-2000 legal brookie numbers move around in repeated surveys on these small streams:

http://www.fishandboat.com/images/fisheries/afm/2006/5x10_19brook.htm

so a class B biomass stream at a good year-class point may fish better than a class A at a low year-class point?

pfbc link also points out that the steep streams I like could be more affected by a big flood than a flatter stream, for example

Finally, some As (singer run, wolf swamp) are so small that the Travelocity gnome applies serious fishing pressure and bags the trout.

 

[jifigz]

I don't think that I generally prefer Class B streams to Class A or vice versa. It is very personalized when it comes to each stream. I have had tremendous days and landed many, many fish on many different styles of streams. I do agree that pressure, holding water/stream cover and habitat, and abundance of food all play pretty large roles. I will note that, although the number of large trout may not be as high, the overall chances of me catching larger specimens is much better in a lower classified/marginal stream. I think Class B streams are often easier because the fish are corralled into smaller pockets or pools, so therefore they are more concentrated, and also given that there is most likely less food in the stream makes your offering standout that much more.

 

[jifigz]

On a side note I can think of one Class B or C (I'm not really sure what it would be classified as) that holds some truly large trout and I generally catch an abundance of fish each time I go there, however sometimes I hate fishing this stream because there is so much "dead water" in between places where all of the trout are concentrated. You may walk several hundred yards before you find water that is actually worth casting too. That is one strike against such streams. Also, this scenario kind of amplifies pressure, if you will. What if you walk that lengthy stretch to the next place that holds trout to only find someone all ready there? Points such as this support Class A waters and their merits.

 

[pcray1231]

I don't know about that Pat. You are making several assumptions. I would argue that structure is only one of many variables that affect biomass.

And I would agree. I was adding an additional point. Not negating others that were mentioned previously (pressure, aggressiveness of fish, infrequent surveying, and all that).

When you get into bigger waters fertility and water temperature start to play a larger role. But especially on smaller freestoners, the structure of the stream is a huge variable in how many fish it holds per the PFBC ratings. Such streams rarely have temperature or substrate issues and among freestoners, they're all pretty infertile. Yet, class A, B, or C, they all seem to have fish everywhere they look like they should have fish. Those places are just more common in the A's. Yet, even in the C's, you're still focused on those spots, you're just skipping past a little more water between them.

I fish all parts of the water good, bad, and ugly.

Well, that's your problem then.

I wasn't just talking by length. But by width, too. Picture 2 streams of the same width. One drops off right at the bank and has fish holding water from bank to bank. The other is ankle deep to halfway out, then a channel.

Effectively the former is a larger stream (by cross section, not surface area) and thus will hold more fish, but by the PFBC rating, they're the same surface area. The second one, though, if we are fishing, we are focusing on that channel anyway, and TREATING it like it's the smaller stream that it is.

And even by length. In no way, shape or form do I fish EVERY part of the stream equally. I don't deny there's fish in unlikely looking places. Nor will I deny that I occasionally throw a few casts to only marginally fishy looking places. But very clearly, I try to spend the majority of time with my fly in spots that I think look the most likely to hold the most fish. It's called reading water. I'd challenge anyone who says they don't do it. None of us are perfect at it, and some do it better than others. But everyone tries. And we're pretty much all good enough at it to increase our success levels over closing our eyes and fishing blind.

 

[afishinado]

I agree with K-bob, the survey is a snapshot. Stream populations change, and a 5 or 10 year old stream survey does not necessarily reflect the current population, giving all the variables that go into the survival of trout, the condition of the stream, as well as the success of the spawn on a yearly and multi-year basis.

To agree with Pat and others, as a general rule, there is less prime habitat found on B's and C's and one may have to fish a longer section of the stream to find quality fishing.

To some anglers, a lower classed stream is actually easier to fish since the trout are concentrated in smaller areas.

Angler satisfaction is personal thing, and one angler's ideal stream may be a stream another angler would X off their list.

Interesting question, though.

 

[sarce]

I agree with K-bob too. Especially on the last point. A lot of the Class A brookie streams are tiny. The biomass might mathematically make sense as a class A but it doesn't provide a fun fishing experience. You can take the same number of fish, put them in a larger stream, and it's now class B or C, but at least it is physically possible to fish it.

One of my favorite Clinton County streams is not listed as Class A - but when my friend and I would go, we would catch dozens of brookies and browns, both growing up to 12-13" (surely some larger browns in there that didn't show themselves in midsummer). And it was large enough for both of us to fish. Occasionally we'd go up a Class A tributary that was about 1/4 the size. It was loaded with smaller brookies, but was far less enjoyable than the main stream because every cast seemed to be trying to hit a 1' X 1' window between sticks and rocks.

I guess my point based on the above is that size of fish plays a big role in where I like to fish, and the class ranking has no correlation to the average size of the fish. Though often times, a stream is class A because it is small, in which case, you can expect only small fish. Especially with brook trout.

 

[Mike]

Afish is correct in that populations can vary considerably. Some changes may be relatively permanent (ex habitat changes, including temperatures); some may be temporary (ex strong yr classes). Whether strong year classes result in better fishing a few years later depends on natural mortality rates and whether or not the habitat is capable of supporting additional fish of various sizes.

 

[SteveG]

The verbiage has always been a little cloudy for me, but the formula calls for kg per hectare. Am I safe to assume that the hectare is just length of a stream and not area, e.g. cfs/volume of water?

If so, I don't think it's as much a matter of designation, as it is total volume of water, which can coincide with fish size. A stream can be a Class A brookie stream that I can step over without a running start, but it'll never consistently harbor large fish.

I personally like hitting some of the atw water, which often has no classification, in the Fall for wild fish. Reading the water and observation of what's going on really come into play, but for me there's nothing more rewarding than finding a nice fish "where there aren't any". Which I suppose is why I have such a hard line stance regarding stocking. I just don't agree with the "trout parameters" that are espoused, because they don't recognize that nature is a constantly changing platform.

 

[tomitrout]

Before Pcray writes his dissertation..... ;-)

Hectare is a unit of area, so the classification is mass of fish per unit of area. Hectare calculated by length of reach and some sort of measured width of the stream to come up wth the surface area of the stretch being surveyed, not sure about the specifics of the method used though.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hectare

Which is why you find small to tiny streams with lots of small to tiny trout being class A's, it's all about the ratio. To figure out the volume density, would need to do a lot more figuring and modeling to analyze the stream depth thru the tested reach.

Lot of B's and C's probably fish like A's thru perception because you might only target the 'good water', which is chock full of trout, but short stretches of A density don't always pan out in the classification if bordered by less productive stretches of water, which still go into the hectare calculation and will subsequently drop the ratio.

 

[Mike]

SteveG: All ATW's have a biomass classification, as evidenced by comments here that occasionally state that Class B's should not be stocked. Likewise, there are even more Class C's and D's combined that are stocked, so it is not surprising that you would find some trout in ATW's in fall depending upon which ones you fish.

 

[pcray1231]

The verbiage has always been a little cloudy for me, but the formula calls for kg per hectare. Am I safe to assume that the hectare is just length of a stream and not area.

Hectare is a unit of area. Surface area.

That's not the same as volume, or flow. For instance, if you take a wide, shallow stream, and channelize it, you just cut the surface area down.

The stream didn't get any "smaller", as the flow rate as measured by CFS stayed the same.

# and size of fish stayed the same. They can be in exactly the same spots, too.

But now the classification is higher because there is a lower surface area. You've chopped off those sides, which were never fish holding water anyway, and you never really fished anyway. But those spots where you fish, where the fish are, now comprise a higher % of the total surface area.

 

[BrooksAndHooks]

You guys keep talking about whether a Class whatever will hold big fish or not. The measurement is kg/hectare under "x" inches to look for reproduction, aka young year class/small fish. So a tiny stream is going to have more small overall fish anyways (especially a brookie stream) so of course it's going to look like it has a higher population compared to a stream that allows more fish to grow over the size they measure for which don't count towards the total kg used for the classification.

Two streams could have a Class B kg/hectare, but stream 1 has all brook trout under 7 inches, while stream 2 has the same kg of mixed brook and brown under 7 inches but also another 30 kg/hectare of brown trout over 7.

Food for thought.

 

[troutbert]

BrooksAndHooks wrote:
You guys keep talking about whether a Class whatever will hold big fish or not. The measurement is kg/hectare under "x" inches to look for reproduction, aka young year class/small fish. So a tiny stream is going to have more small overall fish anyways (especially a brookie stream) so of course it's going to look like it has a higher population compared to a stream that allows more fish to grow over the size they measure for which don't count towards the total kg used for the classification.

Two streams could have a Class B kg/hectare, but stream 1 has all brook trout under 7 inches, while stream 2 has the same kg of mixed brook and brown under 7 inches but also another 30 kg/hectare of brown trout over 7.

Food for thought.

The biomass, given in units of kg/ha, is for ALL the wild trout present, not just the small trout.