Trophy Trout Regs Worthless

He's right Slump....
 
Lehighreg,

I fish Penns a lot and I totally agree with you. There's lots of fish and lots of big ones. Sometimes you catch them, sometimes you would think the stream is barren. But if you spend some time on the stream and observe you'll get to see what it's all about.

And I agree w/ Maurice about goals. (What's this world coming to? :-D )

John
 
Troutbert said in '79 it was 18kg/ha...not even class B. My guess is there were not many in the 7' - 14" range. Now (the past 8 years) it floats around 100. thats a 5x change. I don't think it was habitat improvements tha changed that number.
Click to expand...

I conjecture exactly the same thing. It makes sense on a fertile stream with heavy fishing pressure.

However, if you were able to show not only that you affected to biomass but also that the size distribution went from peaking just below 7" (old size limit) to just below 14" (new size limit) over the time period immediately post change in regulations it would be much more convincing that it is fishing regulations limited then and continue to limit now the potential of this fishery to produce trophy fish.

I would hope water quality and fish habitat has improved from 1979 to 2007. But I can't remeber, I was only 5 back then, and had never travelled to PA.....

Also, I would be more optomistic about getting C and R regs at Penn's Creek than almost any other stream in PA because it is:

1) Famous, attracting a lot of out-of-town and out-of-state fly fisherman like me(and their money)
2) Fertile enough to support big fish
3) Full of fly-fisherman, supported by a fly-fishing industry, looking for a large fish, "grip-and-grin" photo, C and R fly fishing experience.

If public support couldn't be mustered for a C and R experience on Penn's, where could it be supported? Should we be content with the trickles of water with stocked fish that they make C and R FFO now?
 
This may be a little off topic, but I think one of the biggest problems with Penns Creek is BASS! I grew up in that area and spent many days fishing Penns as a little kid with my Dad until I left Centre County for the service. In all my years there, I never saw anything in Penns except beautiful trout and suckers (not so beautiful). Recently I have noticed that small mouth bass have moved into Penns and are apparently thriving, Caught several in the 16-19 inch range while trout fishing. If I'm not mistaken, this could be a sign of rising water temperature and in time won't the bass push out the trout? This worries me, but I hope I am mis-informed. Any viable info on this from anyone?
 
Before we draw conclusions using troutbert's statement that the 1977 biomass was only 18 kg/ha it would be useful to know where that number came from. Was it from the same creek section, etc.? I could not find the source of this claim.
 
I started fishing Penns in the early 80s as a youngster and I can say by experience wild trout populations have increased tremedously on Penns. Based on the 2005 Report I recieved from the PFBC, the data shows an increasing trend in wild trout populations since 1991. My father use to fish Penns when the PFBC use to stock the stream heavily, even before the C&R or "Fish For Fun" stretch was implemented. He does not remember catching many wild fish back in those days, so Troutbert's numbers could be close, but it would be nice to see a reference.


Corn - as for smallmouth populations, I have seen the same in the numbers of bass present over the years. I actually think (IMO) that the smallmouth population is migratory, they will move in and out of the C&R/TT stretches following bass favorable water temps. That is all speculation by me of course. In fact I don't recall catching many if any smallmouth in the TT stretch. I have caught them in the C&R stretches and have seen them spawning in June as well.
 
JackM wrote:
Before we draw conclusions using troutbert's statement that the 1977 biomass was only 18 kg/ha it would be useful to know where that number came from. Was it from the same creek section, etc.? I could not find the source of this claim.
Click to expand...

It's from the same section. You won't find it on the Internet. It's PFBC data. You can confirm it with them if you like. Their office in Pleasant Gap has this info.
 
If the bass arent a problem in themselves, they surely are a sign. Penns gets so warm anymore I haver to wonder if sometimes the trout dont even feed at night. Hard to grow trophies if they arent feeding year round.
Funny, its called trophy waters but they only survey them up to 19 ".
Ive seen trout quite a bit larger on FFO and C+R waters like Letort, Big Spring, and Spring.
 
troutbert wrote:


It's from the same section. You won't find it on the Internet. It's PFBC data. You can confirm it with them if you like. Their office in Pleasant Gap has this info.
Click to expand...

Pardon my skepticism, so while I wait to hear from Pleasant Gap to see if they will share the data with me, I am just curious whether you have the data in a form you can share and whether the data you have covers more than one year. A couple things that seem odd about your statement:

1. Why 1977 data? Is this all you have, all PFBC has for the creek section in question, or is it the highest biomass recorded for any year prior to 1997 (the data shared on the PFBC link I provided)? Or, perhaps, the lowest? Or maybe just a representative survey result?

2. Was stocking ended or special regs imposed on the section immediately after the 1977 survey? If not, what other factors might account for increased biomass of 4-5 times between 1977-1997?
 
Little late but on the why the small amount of large fish?
I've never witnessed Electro-shocking (at least for fish anyway), but ... It's a little hard to believe that it could stun a large brown from under a large boulder in a deep hole, or from 5-10' under and undercut bank with the muskrats. Maybe that explains why the number of large fish is low. or maybe someone whose witnessed this can vow for it's capability.
 
Like the majority of most "freestone" streams - and I say this to reference the TT & C&R sections because that is the setting these stretches are located - there will be good years and bad years with populations of trout fluctuating. 2004 was a great year. Lots of rain, great flows, cool water all summer long. I fished Penns all summer that year and water temps rarely exceed 65 F. This year has been tough. Penns has and will always get warm during the lean precip years, I don't think that is anything new in the past 100 years.

Believe me, there are trout bigger than 19" in Penns. I usually land a fish over 20+ every year. Although, I havent fished it much this year, so I may go without that happening this year. Plus in the Fall during the spawning season, I see a number of fish well over 20 inches each fall. Penns grows big fish...there is no doubt in my mind. But they are big for a reason and have many places to hide. But I do agree, there are years Penns does have a limited "growing" season. July & August are usually the tough months. But the other 8 - 10 months aren't too bad, January and February get cold. Overall, I really don't consider Penns being too limited.

To clarify my "freestone" reference (because i see the writing on the wall). For those out there not in the know....Penns Creek (below Coburn) looses its "spring creek" characteritics and takes on a more typical freestone style stream. The setting and fluctuation in flows are more typical of a freestone stream, therefore the reference. But the combination of the "spring creek" influence and freestone setting is why Penns is a virtual bug factory and home for good populations of wild trout.

Jack M

In reference to your 2nd item...I believe the Fish For Fun area was designated in the early to mid 70s. I can check w/ my father on that. I beleive stocking of the C&R/FFF stretch was terminated in the late 70s time frame. Not sure when the TT section was designated but my best guess would have be in the mid 80s and stocking was terminated there as well. Therefore, I believe REGULATIONS and ceasing of stocking card board trout being the big factors in the increase in wild trout populations....GO FIGURE :-o
 
How many trout over 14" per visit do you catch on trophy reg waters compared to FFO C+R?
For me hands down I catch more in FFO waters. Probably 5 to 1. If you consider wild trout only it would be atleast 3 to 1.
I have to admit that the only trophy waters I remember fishing are Penns and Fishing. And the only wild trout FFO I remember are Big Spring, Falling Spring, and the Letort. All were wild on the Letort and most over 14" were wild on FS and BS.
This year I didnt see one trout over 14 come out of Penns or Fishing and last year I saw 1 at Penns and 2 at Fishing. Me or anyone else on the stream.
I love Penns and Fishing dearly. Both bug factories for sure.But I believe trophy regulations hinder ACTUAL trophies, not the PFBC's definition of one.
 
But I believe trophy regulations hinder ACTUAL trophies, not the PFBC's definition of one.
Click to expand...

IN some cases I think you are right.
 
I've seen bass pretty frequently in the lower end of the C&R area. The furthest up I've seen them is at the bridge at the tunnel, above Poe Paddy. The warm temps and the bass are a concern, but I don't think it's new. It was like that at least 20 years ago. There is a lot of Penns Creek and tribs that doesn't have tree cover.Tree cover is decent on the public land sections, but you'll see lots of shadeless are if you explore further up on Penns and on Elk, Pine etc.

Jack, I wish I had data from the other years, but only have that one year.

For a look at another limestone stream and populations in relation to regs see: http://www.fish.state.pa.us/images/fisheries/afm/2004/5_09-17saucon.htm

I forgot already how to make the small link. Maybe somebody can fix that.
 
The biologist report link above for the Saucon is a good illustration of how the TT regulations are successful in increasing the both the overall population and average size of wild trout vs. general regulations. My fishing experience has been that the water above the SR also maintains a good population of wild brown trout, but the average size is quite a bit smaller. This is one of the streams I think of when the PFBC states that they don’t stock over wild trout in Class A water. C’mon!
 
One major difference between Saucon and Penns is habitat. Saucon is a very good small-ish stream with some decent habitat. But it does not have the habitat to carry high numbers of large trout (> 14" or even 20").

But Saucon is a good example where the TT/14" minimum regs do work. Once again, to go back to what Maurice stated, its about goals. Based on the data from Penns, it appears the PFBC doesnt have the goal to create a fishery with good or high populations of "trophy" trout (trophy meaning >14"). Rather their goal here maybe to create an oppurtunity for anglers to harvest nice sized wild trout.

I guess it comes down to personal preference and what the vast majority of anglers want????
 
What hypothesis? I don't recall a lengthly discussion of Penns Creek related to TT regs,except in the context of the proposed new regs. However the biomass is up, not a lot but it is up. What would interest me is what the numbers are for the same years in the C & R section. The real surprise is that the numbers of large trout are up.
 
It may have been the C & R section biologists reports that were hypotheisized over in the lengthy discussion I am recalling. It was more than 6 monyhs ago, so I can't be expected to recall precisely.
 
Afishinado, the increases on Saucon Creek all happened before TT Regs, that is not to say they won't have an impact on the population structure of the trout, TT probably will. But in about 94 the move was put forward to place Special regs on Saucon, it seems to me that some wanted DH. I remember this well because the shops in the area were promoting the status quo. I wrote a letter to PFBC asking for a halt in stocking, the population had already increased to > 40 kg/ht by then. To PFBC credit they not only halted stocking but placed Selective Harvest Regs on the stream. The population of trout went as high as 190 kg/ht. but the size of the trout didn't increase.

They dropped Selective Harvest altogether during the regs simplification because PFBC found it did not do what PFBC though it would do, i.e., increase size distribution of the trout. Nearly every limestone stream where stocking has been halted that PFBC has data on has seen the same explosion of the trout population without regs. When regs were placed on them the increase was even higher. However, the LL doesn’t fit the same profile as other limestone streams, why that is I don’t know.

Jack, PFBC did not regularly collect data on wild trout populations before 1977. So we have none, but in the succeeding years they have data, which I myself would like to see. In my search for other data on Penns Creek I turned up a report for the Spring Mills Section, which more or less shows that the wild trout population is being surpressed by stocking.
 
It would not surprise me in the least that streams that are fertile and have appropriate habitat to hold large self-sustaining populations of wild trout would benefit from the cessation of stocking. Penns Creek, while having some thermal problems, otherwise fits this model. I do not recall the discussion of months ago regarding Penns biologist reports as involving the issue of stocking. Surely in the past we have discussed the effects of stocking on wild trout streams and Penns may have been involved, particularly when they proposed fingerling stockings there, but that was not the discussion I was refering to.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top