lycoflyfisher wrote:
"One other big takeaway from the presentation is the diversity in populations in regard to movement. Shannon mentioned Big Run and Monroe Run and how the genetic diversity didn't match that of the Loyalsock study. There are no barriers between Big Run and Monroe, yet the genetic makeup didn't indicate that there is a lot of gene flow between the two. I think that highlights how different watersheds behave and illuminates the dangers of managing by interpretation of results from one watershed or even one region to another."
This point is of the most importance, how do we as anglers encourage the PFBC take this data and relate it to other parts of the state? IMO what occurs on the Loyalsock is probably similar to other NCPA watersheds ie Pine Creek, Lycoming Creek, Kettle Creek, Sinnemahoning, West Branch Susquehanna above Williamsport etc, that have brook trout streams directly tributary to a larger system.
I think her genetic work is key, and if perhaps that sets an example that could be replicated throughout the state at a relatively low cost to determine which streams are showing genetic connectivity and thus movement. Once movement corridors are identified, then becomes the challenge of determining whether fishing regulations can be used to further protect or enhance the "movers" in a watershed.
One key factor not discussed in her presentation is the presence of a substantial barrier in the dam at Worlds End SP. I would find it difficult for fish to even make it down over this dam without injury and any upriver migration would be entirely impossible.
I meant to respond to that point earlier and got sidetracked. This isn't based on Shannon's research, but my own observations. I personally don't think that we can even assume that watersheds within the same region behave the same.
Given your name/location, I'm sure you've fished a lot of the streams off the SE of the WB above Williamsport. As I'm sure you've encountered, and like you said elsewhere, some of these streams have impressive numbers of
small fish. I've fished there myself and can attest that there is an upper size limit on those streams that is usually pretty small. They all have unimpeded connectivity to larger systems, but that hasn't resulted in a population of big fish.
So with regard to fish size being impacted by access to large water, I think that's not always the case.
This is my opinion only. I think the
type and characteristics of the larger water is important. The WB is a good example. Whether it's the effect of Moshannon or the character of the WB itself, or maybe the species that inhabit that portion of the river, I don't think those tribs that connect directly to the WB behave the same as the ones that connect to the sock. You're probably right about Pine, Kettle and Sinnemahoning though.
Even with those named rivers, there are probably places along them that do have an impact and other places that don't. IMO, it's streams of a certain size/character where all of this comes together.
I have to plug MD DNR again here. I think it's important to keep in mind that what MD did on the Upper Savage River is vastly different than anything that was done in PA or even most of the NE. They proved that C&R regs on a large system (100+ miles of interconnected waters) does have a positive impact on population size and max fish size (as well as population resiliency).
"Annual brook trout population monitoring has indicated that the upper Savage River supports a stable population even with the normal environmentally driven annual fluctuations. Furthermore, compared to pooled sites open to harvest by anglers (2 fish per day, no closed season) from around the state, the upper Savage River has maintained statistically significant greater brook trout densities for each year of monitoring following the regulation change"
I know there are some folks who seem to think that C&R regs will have no impact, but there's proof that it can and will. The bottom line is that "we" should be pursuing a multipronged approach to brook trout conservation using every tool in the box rather than kicking the can and hoping for the best.
