Why is PA still stocking trout?

PennKev wrote:
bikerfish wrote:
"Also in my opinion, if we solved the attitude problem PA trout fishing could equal MT trout fishing."

Never.
Click to expand...

Exactly, "bad" creeks in MT are still better than the good streams we have. And that's no BS. Put Penn's or the LJR in MT and you'd have em all to yourself. No one would bother with them.

There was a really misleading article I saw a while back that compared trout per mile between PA streams and several famous western waters. I suppose it made some people feel better about being stuck in PA, but it was misleading as heck. Go fish those rivers and see if your think anything n PA is that good. Maybe the Delaware, that's about all.
Click to expand...

Not even going to mention Idaho or Wyoming!! oh wait, oops!!
 
The comparisons with New Zealand and Montana aren't relevant, and don't alter this fact:

The potential to improve wild trout populations in PA is very high, for both native brook trout and wild brown trout.


 
The trout fishing in PA (and most of the northeast) is pretty good. How many of the famous western trout rivers are tailwaters? Big water = big trout. Dams create artificial (albeit sometimes wild) fisheries. I'm not saying PA is as good as a western state but it has very good trout fishing.
 
I only brought up comparisons is to point out that one really can't compare Montana and New Zealand or Pa. Certainly Pa. has the potential to be far better than it is, but how to get there is the concern. Far to many artificial fisheries ie. steelhead in the Erie tribs.
Maybe that money would be better spent on habitat improvement? I doubt that Pa. anglers would give up that fisheries in favor of restoration of native brook trout habitat. GG
 
Here's the top 3 streams/rivers from Pa compared to the top 3 of western streams/rivers from a 2015 report.


# Adults/Mile
Spring Creek 4503
Monocay 3230
J 3036


Western Rivers

Missouri 5939
Bighorn 4200
Middle Fork (WY) 4000


I'd also like to see less attention focused on Erie and would like to see more
interest in helping restore wild trout waters (and acquisitions on WILD trout water).
That 2015 list above had Big Spring at the very bottom, which ended up being the only class A with Brook/Rainbow Trout on the list. It came in at a little over 900 fish per mile. Not to bad for a small section of stream, but that number could easily be in the thousands if middle BS would get some TLC/habitat improvement.
 
I think the whole Erie/steelhead thing is partly a political thing concerning tourism and economic crap, So I doubt there will be less effort there. Pretty much falls right in with the whole trout stocking thing, just bigger trout.

Eventually, we may actually have rain in the fall, and be able to fish like we did 20 years ago!
 
Don't bash the Erie area as there is a large vocal community of fisherman up here pushing for more from the FBC. You have to remember the Erie area is often forgotten down in Harrisburg and the area is bleeding good paying jobs. Our politicians are fighting very hard for state moneys, be it FB or general fund dollars to help the area economically. The area is expected to lose 500+ jobs from GE Transportation early in 2018. Those jobs are $50-100,000+a year. So Erie is going to go through some hardships in the next few years. Tourism will pay a bigger part of the economy Here because of it.
Just saying.
An increase in License fees would help out the rest of the state.
 
LetortAngler wrote:
Here's the top 3 streams/rivers from Pa compared to the top 3 of western streams/rivers from a 2015 report.


# Adults/Mile
Spring Creek 4503
Monocay 3230
J 3036


Western Rivers

Missouri 5939
Bighorn 4200
Middle Fork (WY) 4000
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's misleading.

After having done a fair amount of fishing in SW MT, I find that the hardest thing is finding a way to convince those who haven't that it is as good as everyone says.
 
CRB, sorry, didn't mean to sound like I was bashing Erie. FWIW, Most of the state except for pitts and philly are often forgotten by Harrisburg. It's as easy as seeing where the roads are paved the best.
I DO enjoy fishing for steelhead, just wish for the days of old, when there were more fish than fishermen! While I agree the steelhead fishery has been a bit of a boost for the area, it's not the answer to the economic hardships, especially with the weather patterns we've had the past decade. Erie needs development that brings jobs.
in other words, I wouldn't gamble my future on some fish. The area, and actually, lots of areas in this state, need to address some big problems.
until then, lets hope for some normal fall rains and good steelhead runs! I will continue to fish during the week when the crowds are thin!
 
PennKev wrote:
LetortAngler wrote:
Here's the top 3 streams/rivers from Pa compared to the top 3 of western streams/rivers from a 2015 report.


# Adults/Mile
Spring Creek 4503
Monocay 3230
J 3036


Western Rivers

Missouri 5939
Bighorn 4200
Middle Fork (WY) 4000
Click to expand...

Like I said, it's misleading.

After having done a fair amount of fishing in SW MT, I find that the hardest thing is finding a way to convince those who haven't that it is as good as everyone says.
Click to expand...

one look at a picture should do it, hell, even if there are only 8 inch fish in the creek, your fishing in the middle of a postcard, not next to a goddamn mall or yuppie housing plan!!
I don't even fish the "famous" streams, but on the crap streams I do fish, they are WAY better than most of our "famous" streams, AND, I don't have to fight any crowds, in fact, I usually have the place to myself. THAT is what makes the west so special.
PA will never be like montana, unless everyone moves away, and the mountains upheave a few thousand feet. I will continue to fish and enjoy both places, but will only dream about fishing one of them.
 
troutbert wrote:
The comparisons with New Zealand and Montana aren't relevant, and don't alter this fact:

The potential to improve wild trout populations in PA is very high, for both native brook trout and wild brown trout.
Click to expand...

Exactly. We don't NEED to be another Montana. PA has her own charm. People come to the Appalachian Mountains for different reasons than they go to Big Sky Country. Our job is to manage the resources we have faithfully.
 
For the above comparison, what constitutes an adult fish? Bc that means nothing without sizes listed. A good day of fishing in PA is world apart from a good day fishing out West. I'm not bashing PA, bc big clean water with minimal human sprawl = lots of big fish.
 
Steve G, as I sit here at home the thought arises that if you get into the big fish vs more fish debate here you may not like the trend in the responses. Given the response to a similar question in a questionnaire handed out at the wild trout summit this past summer, around 70 percent of the anglers chose the expectation of more fish in special reg areas rather than bigger fish. A review of all wild trout stream data in Wisconsin also revealed that the average lengths of Brook and Brown trout decreased as density increased. No surprise there, but taking that a bit farther it suggests that no-kill in streams that tend to build up high densities of small fish, such as limestoners and moderate fertility tail-races like Codorus Ck, is not a good idea for those of us who prefer large trout or more large trout, assuming that the streams in question have big fish habitat and adequate forage for large fish.

Perhaps the decline in Logan Branch's once great large Brown Trout fishery was not only a flow problem, but a cessation of stocking problem as well. Intense stocking of the 1970's and very high, unusual, long lasting angling pressure seemed to keep the populations of small and moderate size fish depressed by the time that summer rolled around. Large fish thrived with limited competition, ideal habitat in many locations (a low width to depth ratio) unlimited scud, cress bug, and sculpin forage, and their innate or learned abilities to make their capture difficult, despite the efforts of those who specifically targeted them with appropriate big fish techniques. The abundance of forage may have also contributed to the difficult capture of less than hungry fish, as this is a problem, for instance, in some walleye lake fisheries where alewife are overly abundant.

It has been observed by me in the past naturally low density wild trout population streams that are also spring stocked often seem to produce unusually large Brown trout for anglers in off-seasons, such as fall and winter. A Carbon County stream immediately comes to mind, as does an angler who winter fishes the bigger holes.
 
Mike wrote:
Steve G, if you get into the big fish vs more fish debate here you may not like the trend in the responses. Given the response to a similar question in a questionnaire handed out at the wild trout summit this past summer, around 70 percent of the anglers chose the expectation of more fish in special reg areas rather than bigger fish. A review of all wild trout stream data in Wisconsin also revealed that the average lengths of Brook and Brown trout decreased as density increased. No surprise there, but taking that a bit farther it suggests that no-kill in streams that tend to build up high densities of small fish, such as limestoners and moderate fertility tail-races like Codorus Ck, is not a good idea for those of us who prefer large trout or more large trout, assuming that the streams in question have big fish habitat and adequate forage for large fish.

Perhaps the decline in Logan Branch's once great large Brown Trout fishery was not or was not only a flow problem, but a cessation of stocking problem as well. Intense stocking of the 1970's and very high, unusual, long lasting angling pressure seemed to keep the populations of small and moderate size fish depressed by the time that summer rolled around. Large fish thrived with limited competition, unlimited forage, and their innate or learned abilities to make their capture difficult, despite the efforts of those who specifically targeted them with appropriate big fish techniques.

It has been observed by me in the past naturally low density wild trout population streams that are also spring stocked often seem to produce unusually large Brown trout for anglers in off-seasons, such as fall and winter.
Click to expand...

The other side of the argument is the larger fish are cropped out by harvesting leaving smaller fish and fewer fish.

One example of a stream/river that fairly recently was changed to C&R and stocking was ceased (fingerlings) is the Little J. Both the quantity and quality (size) of the fish has never been better in the opinion of nearly everyone that fishes it.

Another consideration is, even with C&R regulation on a stream, there is a natural mortality of fish as well as mortality from fishing and handling fish preventing overpopulation and stunted fish.

I can't think of one C&R fishery where anglers are complaining there are too many fish and it should be turned into a harvest stream.

In fact, one of the problems for many is the C&R fishing is so good on the few streams that have the regulation, they become overcrowded. C&R streams are popular, more of them would help spread out the pressure and offer a better quality experience for all anglers.

Finally, if the wild stream is currently stocked, not stocking it and making it C&R would save funds during the current FBC budget crunch by not having to incur the high costs of stocking the stream.
 
Which brings us back to the political end of it all. If the PFBC does something that doesn't gel with the political whores, they simply pass a law limiting what the PFBC can do!! :hammer:

 
Afish,
That's what I was saying, 70 percent of the anglers fishing special reg sections expect and like catching an abundance of fish and are not expecting large fish in anticipation of fishing such streams.

I disagree about the Little J. It has an over-abundance of smallish fish and in some cases thin fish. Likewise Codorus in the special reg area, but not outside the special reg area. Likewise the Saucon when good year classes are working their way through the system. Regardless, in Saucon you will find more bigger fish where harvest is allowed and despite it being common knowledge for decades the larger fish there still thrive. And then we have Letort...more big fish outside of the special reg area. The Bushkill may also be headed in the direction of more bigger fish outside of the special reg area, at least that's my impression from recent surveys inside and outside the special reg area, depending upon where you go.

I would like to hear the names of some streams where the large wild Brown Trout that would otherwise be there are cropped off and especially the names those where any historical data suggest that as being a possibility instead some habitat or water quality change, as in the stormwater induced habitat changes in Valley Ck over the decades.
 
I can't think of one C&R fishery where anglers are complaining there are too many fish and it should be turned into a harvest stream.
Click to expand...

In addition to Mike's comments, I've read remarks here concerning Spring Creek and a decline in the size of the average fish caught as catch rates/fish per mile has gone up over the years.

Mike, regarding the Letort, comparing the lower open water with the heritage stretch is a bit of apples and oranges due to better large fish habitat in the lower reaches.
 
Which brings us back to the Spring Ck at 4500 fish/mile vs the Missouri R at 5900 fish/mile. Spring Ck flow is only about 50 cfs while the Missouri R flow is about 5000 cfs. Spring Ck then has a much larger number of trout per acre, which of course means they will be a lot smaller in tight quarters. The Missouri in MT is a drift boat river about as large as the Delaware in the Water Gap area. I fish with a older friend who can't walk much anymore. I can park him in one spot on Spring Ck and he will catch fish all day only moving a few steps. Can't do that on the Missouri.
 
Afish,
That's what I was saying, 70 percent of the anglers fishing special reg sections expect and like catching an abundance of fish and are not expecting large fish in anticipation of fishing such streams.

I disagree about the Little J. It has an over-abundance of smallish fish and in some cases thin fish. Likewise Codorus in the special reg area, but not outside the special reg area. Likewise the Saucon when good year classes are working their way through the system. Regardless, in Saucon you will find more bigger fish where harvest is allowed and despite it being common knowledge for decades the larger fish there still thrive. And then we have Letort...more big fish outside of the special reg area. The Bushkill may also be headed in the direction of more bigger fish outside of the special reg area, at least that's my impression from recent surveys inside and outside the special reg area, depending upon where you go.

I would like to hear the names of some streams where the large wild Brown Trout that would otherwise be there are cropped off and especially the names those where any historical data suggest that as being a possibility instead some habitat or water quality change, as in the stormwater induced habitat changes in Valley Ck over the decades.
Click to expand...

Blah blah blah.

All studies you have conducted through angler surveys show without a doubt that more anglers want the special regulations program expanded.
You guys are all about science on if a special regulation would benefit a population but stock over many wild populations when science shows its bad for the fish. You are fine with the social aspects of anglers desires when it comes to stocking but not for the social aspects of angler desires for expanded special regulations?

Makes no sense to me.
 
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