Trophy Trout Regs Worthless

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.
Click to expand...

Chaz
Based on PFBC reports from 2005 surveys for the C&R and TT sections that I have reviewed, biomass is higher in the TT section than the C&R section. However, the TT section does not have as many "large" (14" or larger) trout than the C&R. The TT section does have a better size distribution (more smaller fish) than the C&R section.
 
I suspect that the Ingelby section has fewer large trout just because the habitat isn't great, I don't know about the other section I don't believe I've ever fished it. That doesn't mean that other sections within the TT area don't have big trout they probably do, for my money I think fishing Creek has more big trout.
 
Habitat shouldn't be a limiting factor in the TT...its as good as the C&R, if not better. Water is cooler up there too during warm dry summers.
 
LehighRegular wrote:
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.
Click to expand...

Chaz
Based on PFBC reports from 2005 surveys for the C&R and TT sections that I have reviewed, biomass is higher in the TT section than the C&R section.
Click to expand...

That is interesting because back in 1977, it was just the reverse.
Section 4, the C&R section, had 69.2 kg/ha, while Section 3, now the TT section, but at that time stocked and under general regs, has 18 kg/ha.

Even though Section 3 is further upstream, with cooler water.
 
Because back then, Section 3 was stocked and open to general creel regs (7 or 9 fish a day???)...that is why the biomass was so low. People killed the trout.
 
That fact that all the trout over 7 inches (actually 6 inches until about 90) were removed might explain why the larger trout are in the C & R section now, but so would habitat. But we're also only talking about 2 sections of 100 meters within the TT secion. It could be the big trout are not in those sections because there is better water for them to hold a rest in elsewhere within the TT section.
 
Chaz
I know where they shock the TT section. Its good habitat for big fish. They should be there if they are there...but it appears they aren't for some reason...wonder why???
 
LehighRegular wrote:
Chaz
I know where they shock the TT section. Its good habitat for big fish. They should be there if they are there...but it appears they aren't for some reason...wonder why???
Click to expand...


Where specifically do they shock?

Not related directly to the discussion but I was reading a book this weekend that mentioned how when a short stretch is shocked sometimes big trout set up downstream and nail the stunned fish drifting downstream as they recover.
 
If I recall, they did the shocking at the lower end in the "DCNR stretch." One thing to consider is the relative amount of pressure there as opposed to somewhere in the middle of the section where you have to walk-in a-ways.

Correction, though it was the DCNR stretch, it is not the lower section but the middle section. here is what they say:

"Fisheries Management personnel have extensively monitored the wild brown trout population in this section through biennial sampling efforts during June at the DCNR access area near Ingleby."
 
One thing to consider is the relative amount of pressure there as opposed to somewhere in the middle of the section where you have to walk-in a-ways
Click to expand...

So what is your point??? So what if there is a lot of pressure there??
 
For those who think, for instance, that there is cropping at the TT limit of 14", they may wonder if the size distribution would look the same if sampling occured in the less-pressured area. For those that think harvest limited stream sections such as TT suffer from an inordinate amount of incidental handling/hooking mortality, they may wonder if the biomass would differ if sampling occured in less-pressured sections. These are just two issues off the top of my head that I thought people may want to think about while theorizing.
 
ah...localized cropping!
 
I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many posters have claimed that fish are cropped at bridges on wild trout streams and you need to get away from them to catch larger wild trout. I don't have any theories to offer, but I just wanted to point out the fact that the surveying occured at a location where there was easy access in case anyone missed that detail.
 
>>I don't have enough fingers and toes to count how many posters have claimed that fish are cropped at bridges on wild trout streams and you need to get away from them to catch larger wild trout. I don't have any theories to offer, but I just wanted to point out the fact that the surveying occured at a location where there was easy access in case anyone missed that detail.>>

Do you have enough fingers and toes to count how many posters have made this claim in reference to a stream in the same size class as Penns in the marking run/sampling area in question?

I don't remember anybody saying anything like that.
 
I'm confused. Do trout travel further in Penn's than in other streams? I never subscribed to either the cropping theory, nor that it was more evident near bridges, etc. As I said, I thought the sampling at an access area was a fact that should be considered by anyone theorizing about the meaning of the biologists reports. If it isn't significant in your opinion, then leave it out of your theory.
 
If the DCNR access point is Ingleby, it's definately not an easy access. I fished the Ingleby stretch last year and it's so far back a dirt road, that I would not have ever found it without a guide.
 
Do trout travel further in Penn's than in other streams?
Click to expand...

I think you would be surprised how far they travel. Wild trout will travel great distances, esp in a stream with water temps that get warm during summer or on streams such as Penns where temperatures are greatly affected by low water and high air temps during drought periods. For example, the Upper Delaware, it is known and has been studied that wild trout in that system travel great distances.....I recall from the DEC study I read that a fish traveled out of the Beaverkill to swim many miles up the West Branch to find refuge....an astonishing amount of river miles covered.

As for the DCNR access, this is a very popular location and does get a good amount of pressure....maybe slightly more than other locations just out of convenience.
 
I would only be surprised if they traveled farther in Penns than other streams.
 
I would only be surprised if they traveled farther in Penns than other streams.
Click to expand...

What is your reasoning why they wouldn't? Is it soley due to the length of the fishery?? or are you saying that Penns trout don't migrate much through out the stream at all??
 
We must be talking past one another. RLeeP suggested that prior "bridge cropping" theories never were used in reference to Penns. This comment confused me because I didn't think Penns Creek trout would move farther than other trout, so the theory should still pertain to Penns. You suggested I'd be surprised how far trout travel. I would not be surprised, because I know trout travel; but other than the limitations of the stream length itself, I would believe they traveled just as far in other creeks as in Penns, hence my surprise only if this were not true.
 
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