Stenonema
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2009
- Messages
- 466
Swattie no offense meant. I honestly did not read your response before posting anything. I'm no longer having fun if have offended. My apologies.
BrookieChaser
Well-known member
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2013
- Messages
- 2,467
Steno, you make some very valid points.
The question I come up with while reading this thread is; why can't a Class D stream be just that (a stream that holds a small population of wild trout)? Why does it have to be turned into an instant fishery? Those views are antiquated. It's the same mindset that gave us deforestation in the early 1900's.
Why can't someone who wants to catch stocked fish go to a stocked stream, or lake, where there are no wild trout to hinder?
The question I come up with while reading this thread is; why can't a Class D stream be just that (a stream that holds a small population of wild trout)? Why does it have to be turned into an instant fishery? Those views are antiquated. It's the same mindset that gave us deforestation in the early 1900's.
Why can't someone who wants to catch stocked fish go to a stocked stream, or lake, where there are no wild trout to hinder?
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
The one thing not mentioned here is potential. Why is stream X a class D? Temp issues, water chemistry, habitat? To stock or not stock a stream should be based on the potential of a stream to produce wild trout.
I'm all for stocking streams with no wild trout populations and streams that have a Class D wild trout population without the potential to improve based on the factors stated above. If conditions improve on any stream and the potential for wild trout production goes up, stocking the stream should be reevaluated.
I'm all for stocking streams with no wild trout populations and streams that have a Class D wild trout population without the potential to improve based on the factors stated above. If conditions improve on any stream and the potential for wild trout production goes up, stocking the stream should be reevaluated.
pcray1231
Well-known member
I think it was implied in several responses. Certainly was meant to be in mine.
If a stream is a decent class C or better, you have a sizable trout population that is not holding on by a thread. Water temps are not the issue. Perhaps with better water chem, habitat, less harvest, or some other factor it could be better. But this is not a stream that's on the margins of whether or not it holds wild fish.
In most cases, at least in my experiences, the limiting factor is habitat. That's not to ignore water chem and harvest and other stuff, and say they never matter. But generally class C's seem to have a fish just about everywhere you'd expect there to be a fish. There's just fewer of those places per surface area. Maybe more riffle and less pool area, etc. A fisherman generally fishes only the productive looking water anyway, so in general these streams seem to fish as well as higher classes. You merely cover more ground. So when you pick up to walk to the next good looking spot, you go 100 yards instead of 20 yards. That's the difference between class C and B/A. They are candidates for improving, and you have to take it case by case on whether the best thing for them is additional harvest restrictions, structural work, etc. And that should all be considered. But they're viable sport fisheries as-is and should not be considered for stocking.
Class D's, on the other hand, quite often have a limiting factor that's not simply the amount of good holding water as a % of the surface area. Marginal water temps are the most common. Low summer time flows and lack of suitable breeding water are two other common ones (the latter typically due to acidity or siltation).
All I was saying is that these streams should be IN CONSIDERATION for stocking, not that they absolutely should be stocked. The PFBC would be able to pick and choose depending on the specific situation. An ability to improve to class C or above should be one of the considerations.
Realistically, the number of B's and high class C's that are stocked is a relatively small % of the total stocking numbers. So what Swattie and I and others were saying is not a wild change from the status quo.
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
I agree with this 100%, only I can say it in much fewer words.
It give the freezer fillers a place to go. ;-)
I have fished many class D, and actually I find the brook trout in those streams tend to be easy to catch as long as you don't spook them. But stock it and I will go elsewhere. Unless I am looking to harvest which isn't very often.
Stenonema
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2009
- Messages
- 466
Quote
If a stream is a decent class C or better, you have a sizable trout population that is not holding on by a thread.
Isn't it great that in this state we have so much good water that if a population is holding on by a thread we can say screw it.
At what number can your conscience accept the demise of a naturally reproducing population? What is that number? Isn't that the question? Read the question again. At what point is a wild trout special because it is wild? The answer. When there are enough of them to provide us with good fishing and if not, it is acceptable to destroy their future potential for our temporary benefit.
The notion of what is good fishing is relative and perhaps we define it differently.
One thing I have learned while growing up on a farm and hunting pheasants and quail is that when their gone, They Are Gone Baby and in all our wisdom we cannot bring them back.
Are there any two streams in the state exactly the same in every way? Wouldn't the adaptations needed for survival in those streams also be different? If every stream in some way is unique then wouldn't it also stand to reason that the trout surviving in those streams may also be unique?
My answer is as my signature reads because they stocked my favorite less than favorable stream over 30 years ago and I am still pissed. The wild trout are hanging on and I admire them for it. There aren't many but they are there. They stock fewer trout with almost every passing year and the population appears to be responding. My fingers are crossed.
When I think about it. I remember being happy when I heard the news they were going to stock it. I didn't have a stocked stream to fish within bicycle distance before. After it was over I felt like no one knew what we had lost and when I read the posts here I get that same feeling.
Natural reproduction is the magic and where that happens we need to stop playing God and let there be as many as there should be, where they should be and when they should be there.
Stocking trout creates a lack of respect for the trout and a higher importance on ourselves and I see that as the most damaging effect of stocking trout.
If a stream is a decent class C or better, you have a sizable trout population that is not holding on by a thread.
Isn't it great that in this state we have so much good water that if a population is holding on by a thread we can say screw it.
At what number can your conscience accept the demise of a naturally reproducing population? What is that number? Isn't that the question? Read the question again. At what point is a wild trout special because it is wild? The answer. When there are enough of them to provide us with good fishing and if not, it is acceptable to destroy their future potential for our temporary benefit.
The notion of what is good fishing is relative and perhaps we define it differently.
One thing I have learned while growing up on a farm and hunting pheasants and quail is that when their gone, They Are Gone Baby and in all our wisdom we cannot bring them back.
Are there any two streams in the state exactly the same in every way? Wouldn't the adaptations needed for survival in those streams also be different? If every stream in some way is unique then wouldn't it also stand to reason that the trout surviving in those streams may also be unique?
My answer is as my signature reads because they stocked my favorite less than favorable stream over 30 years ago and I am still pissed. The wild trout are hanging on and I admire them for it. There aren't many but they are there. They stock fewer trout with almost every passing year and the population appears to be responding. My fingers are crossed.
When I think about it. I remember being happy when I heard the news they were going to stock it. I didn't have a stocked stream to fish within bicycle distance before. After it was over I felt like no one knew what we had lost and when I read the posts here I get that same feeling.
Natural reproduction is the magic and where that happens we need to stop playing God and let there be as many as there should be, where they should be and when they should be there.
Stocking trout creates a lack of respect for the trout and a higher importance on ourselves and I see that as the most damaging effect of stocking trout.
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
Sten, you have a good point there, and I had a similar experience with a less than perfect trout stream a little over 35 years ago. I told this story before, so I apologize to the old timers for sharing it again.
When I was 16, I had a summer job in a state park and part of that time we did stream improvements. Shoring up banks, adding structure, creating channels to increase depth in flat areas and improve flow, etc. A few years after that I had another summer job in the same park. I'd occasionally fish during my lunch break, or after work. Very few people knew the stream had trout. Didn't catch a lot of natives, but some that I did catch were of decent size.
I just checked some old PF&BC records I have and it lists this stream as a Class D.
I distinctly remember one fine summer day where I fished at lunch for a few minutes. Caught a nice roughly 10 inch native and threw it back. It was the largest I had caught to that point, and might also be my largest ever. I don't keep track of those things. After work, I returned to the same spot to see if I could catch more. I caught several more brook trout in the 8 or 9 inch range. The only problem was, all of these were freshly stocked trout.
Needless to say, I was surprised. Not pleasantly or negatively, just surprised and a little confused. The next day I found out it was secretly stocked that afternoon with something like 50 brook trout in an effort to determine survival rate.
The following year they started stocking the shart out of it.
If I knew then what I know now, there is a good chance I would have deliberately tried to catch and keep as many of those 50 as I could. Most people thought the crick only had minnows.
I continued to fish it from time to time and did have some pleasant experience there. On the downside, I only caught a couple more natives after the heavy stocking was started, and they were tiny and only at the very upper reaches of where they stocked.
From a personal standpoint, I say stop stocking all together, except maybe in lakes. But in an effort to be reasonable, I am ultimately more or less OK with stocking some streams. I understand this one, because it is in a well known state park and provides additional recreation for the visitors. That is why I chose number 4 over number 2. And I assure you, the natives are doing just fine in the tributaries which likely explains the occasional native in the main stream.
The other reason I chose 4 over 2 is the wording. "at any time." Was never a fan of all inclusive statements like that.
There are streams out there that have virtually no trout reproduction, but still occasional have wild trout that migrate there. To me, chosing number 2 as worded would be like saying Oil Creek and the Yak shouldn't be stocked.
I actually almost chose number 1, but see no harm in Steelhead even though a couple of those creeks do actually have some reproduction.;-)
When I was 16, I had a summer job in a state park and part of that time we did stream improvements. Shoring up banks, adding structure, creating channels to increase depth in flat areas and improve flow, etc. A few years after that I had another summer job in the same park. I'd occasionally fish during my lunch break, or after work. Very few people knew the stream had trout. Didn't catch a lot of natives, but some that I did catch were of decent size.
I just checked some old PF&BC records I have and it lists this stream as a Class D.
I distinctly remember one fine summer day where I fished at lunch for a few minutes. Caught a nice roughly 10 inch native and threw it back. It was the largest I had caught to that point, and might also be my largest ever. I don't keep track of those things. After work, I returned to the same spot to see if I could catch more. I caught several more brook trout in the 8 or 9 inch range. The only problem was, all of these were freshly stocked trout.
Needless to say, I was surprised. Not pleasantly or negatively, just surprised and a little confused. The next day I found out it was secretly stocked that afternoon with something like 50 brook trout in an effort to determine survival rate.
The following year they started stocking the shart out of it.
If I knew then what I know now, there is a good chance I would have deliberately tried to catch and keep as many of those 50 as I could. Most people thought the crick only had minnows.
I continued to fish it from time to time and did have some pleasant experience there. On the downside, I only caught a couple more natives after the heavy stocking was started, and they were tiny and only at the very upper reaches of where they stocked.
From a personal standpoint, I say stop stocking all together, except maybe in lakes. But in an effort to be reasonable, I am ultimately more or less OK with stocking some streams. I understand this one, because it is in a well known state park and provides additional recreation for the visitors. That is why I chose number 4 over number 2. And I assure you, the natives are doing just fine in the tributaries which likely explains the occasional native in the main stream.
The other reason I chose 4 over 2 is the wording. "at any time." Was never a fan of all inclusive statements like that.
There are streams out there that have virtually no trout reproduction, but still occasional have wild trout that migrate there. To me, chosing number 2 as worded would be like saying Oil Creek and the Yak shouldn't be stocked.
I actually almost chose number 1, but see no harm in Steelhead even though a couple of those creeks do actually have some reproduction.;-)
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,768
I've had a similar experience with two brookie streams that I enjoyed fishing back when they were unstocked.
Then stocking began and the native brookie populations went way down, both in numbers and in size.
One was definitely rated by the PFBC as Class D, as I got that info directly from the area fisheries manager. The other was probably Class D also.
But even though they had Class D populations, they still had enjoyable fishing.
On the one stream we had VERY good brookie fishing. The other one was not as good as that, but still fun.
But when the stocking began, by clubs, not the PFBC, the native brookie fishing went kablooey.
IMHO, brookie populations are much more harmed by stocking than brown trout.
Then stocking began and the native brookie populations went way down, both in numbers and in size.
One was definitely rated by the PFBC as Class D, as I got that info directly from the area fisheries manager. The other was probably Class D also.
But even though they had Class D populations, they still had enjoyable fishing.
On the one stream we had VERY good brookie fishing. The other one was not as good as that, but still fun.
But when the stocking began, by clubs, not the PFBC, the native brookie fishing went kablooey.
IMHO, brookie populations are much more harmed by stocking than brown trout.
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,768
It might seem contradictory that a stream could be rated as Class D, and still have good fishing. But that is the case sometimes. So, what are some possible explanations?
1) The surveys are usually done near road access. But the best populations are typically not near road access.
2) The surveys are usually done in the summer. On some streams, including the one brookie stream I mentioned above, water temps get warm in the summer, and fish move to find cooler water, going upstream, to the mouths of tribs, and up into tribs.
3) Some streams have a mostly wide channel. Both the streams I mentioned have wide channels, probably because they were greatly altered during the splash dam era.
A wide channel reduces the biomass/area ratio, i.e. the kg/ha ratio, which is what the Class A-D system is based on. But you are not fishing for a ratio, you are fishing for trout.
Consider two streams with the same quantity of trout per mile, but one stream is on the wide side and the other more narrow.
One stream will have a higher kg/ha ratio than the other, so maybe fall into a higher class. But fishing up those streams, you have the same amount of fish to fish for per mile.
1) The surveys are usually done near road access. But the best populations are typically not near road access.
2) The surveys are usually done in the summer. On some streams, including the one brookie stream I mentioned above, water temps get warm in the summer, and fish move to find cooler water, going upstream, to the mouths of tribs, and up into tribs.
3) Some streams have a mostly wide channel. Both the streams I mentioned have wide channels, probably because they were greatly altered during the splash dam era.
A wide channel reduces the biomass/area ratio, i.e. the kg/ha ratio, which is what the Class A-D system is based on. But you are not fishing for a ratio, you are fishing for trout.
Consider two streams with the same quantity of trout per mile, but one stream is on the wide side and the other more narrow.
One stream will have a higher kg/ha ratio than the other, so maybe fall into a higher class. But fishing up those streams, you have the same amount of fish to fish for per mile.
salvelinusfontinalis
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,284
those are great points dwight
Stenonema
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 17, 2009
- Messages
- 466
Exactly Troutbert and if a fisherman did'nt know better he would blindly accept and even justify the stocking and suppression of a naturalized or native population.
pcray1231
Well-known member
I don't believe that stocking ruins the future potential. As in long term, anyway. I think it can have an impact temporarily. But it also has benefit, temporarily.
Yes, whether or not it CURRENTLY provides a viable sport fishery is the line. That's the goal, isn't it? If it does it on it's own, then you don't endanger that with stocking, and consider streamwork to make it even better. If it doesn't, then stocking becomes an option to make it a viable sport fishery.
An option. Not a demand. I also said that below the line, the PFBC should be judicious. Meaning, if they feel it is CAPABLE of more, maybe you don't stock that one, and instead do some stream work to encourage it to reach the line.
pcray1231
Well-known member
1) Ideally they'd survey the whole stream and rate different sections appropriately. But to be fair, stocking is generally also done near roads. And no, they shouldn't stock sections that haven't been surveyed.
2) Granted. Any system you have will have flaws. Again, if it's below whatever line you draw, that doesn't mean we'd DEMAND it'd be stocked. We'd merely not mark it off limits. Hopefully the PFBC would become aware of situations like this and adjust accordingly.
Note that stocked fish, too, move to find cool water. It's a common situation where a stream is stocked down low where wild trout pops are poor, but up higher it isn't stocked and wild trout are present. Those stockies do move up.
Our system today doesn't address this well, and neither does the one I proposed, or any proposal I've heard.
3) Yep. Fisherman are good at picking "fishy" looking water, and skipping the rest. A class C type stream can fish as well or better than a class A for this reason. A fisherman focuses only on the fishy spots, and even if there are fewer of those per surface area, so long as those spots do hold fish the stream can fish quite well.
Really, the point we're trying to define is the point when those spots stop reliably holding fish. Swattie and I agreed a mid class C as that mark, on average.
Biomass per surface area is an imperfect measuring system, and as such, whatever line you draw is going to be imperfect as well. But you gotta draw a line. And I don't have a better objective measure, really.
pcray1231
Well-known member
Expanding on this, I know of a stream with the opposite situation. It was channeled by the CCC. Vertical block walls. It's a constant 8 ft across or so, but uniformly 5 ft deep as well.
As such, "trout" holding water comprises a full 100% of it's surface area. It could hold the same exact # of fish as it did prior to being channelized, but it's much easier to reach class A status now because the surface area was decreased.
The biomass/surface area rating artificially favors narrow, deep streams.
A better measure than surface area would be the cross sectional area. But, of course, harder to measure.
FarmerDave
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2006
- Messages
- 14,185
Dwight, the one I was talking about fits very neatly into number 3. Plus it is somewhat acidic.
I agree with that, too.
pcray1231
Well-known member
True, but it has to be normalized SOMEHOW for the size of the stream. If a step across brookie stream has 10 fish every 50 yards, that might be pretty dang good. If Penns Creek has 10 fish every 50 yards, not so good. And I'd submit that the brookie stream would fish MUCH better. Because it takes a lot more casts to cover 50 yards on Penns. On the brookie stream, that 50 yards may only have 2 pools, and be covered in 2 casts.
Like I said, cross sectional area would be a better measure than surface area. But there has to be some size measure of the stream. Fish per mile is a very poor predictor of fishability.
salvelinusfontinalis
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,284
pat,
While your example stream works for the puposes of this thread.
The channalizing of it hinders its class a status. Because of the removal of trees in the riparian allowing the over abundant sunlight to create excessive weed growth that leaves little holding/spawning areas and the past erosion from the project leaving poor substrate for spawning.
While your example stream works for the puposes of this thread.
The channalizing of it hinders its class a status. Because of the removal of trees in the riparian allowing the over abundant sunlight to create excessive weed growth that leaves little holding/spawning areas and the past erosion from the project leaving poor substrate for spawning.
salvelinusfontinalis
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 7,284
that stream if ever restored to a natural flowing spring with some cover would be a brookie factory
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,768
The 2 streams I was talking about are acidic/infertile also. One is in NC PA, and another is in NE PA.
In another thread you mentioned that there are many such streams in the ANF area, in NW PA.
These infertile streams just don't get no respect!
What's happening now is that some of the infertile streams that were previously unstocked and that had enjoyable brookie fishing, are getting lime dumped in them, then hatchery trout dumped in them. And the brookie populations are now lower than before. Such is progress.
pcray1231
Well-known member
Sal,
Agree, although as you said, it fit my point. I wasn't attacking whether or not it hurt the population.
The point was, if the physical changes didn't change a dang thing regarding the ACTUAL biomass in said stream, it would have improved it's rating per the PFBC. Because the width was narrowed.
In other words, it takes far less fish to make this stream class A than it would for an equivalently sized stream with a natural (shallower and wider) streambed.
In comparison with FD's example, this stream is most certainly NOT acidic or infertile, lol. T_Alk = 202, about as limestone as it gets. And yes, it remains on the class A list. I gave it as an example of the polar opposite of their stream, to reinforce their point.
Agree, although as you said, it fit my point. I wasn't attacking whether or not it hurt the population.
The point was, if the physical changes didn't change a dang thing regarding the ACTUAL biomass in said stream, it would have improved it's rating per the PFBC. Because the width was narrowed.
In other words, it takes far less fish to make this stream class A than it would for an equivalently sized stream with a natural (shallower and wider) streambed.
In comparison with FD's example, this stream is most certainly NOT acidic or infertile, lol. T_Alk = 202, about as limestone as it gets. And yes, it remains on the class A list. I gave it as an example of the polar opposite of their stream, to reinforce their point.
