T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,808
People complain about catching lots of smallish trout in Spring Creek, and not so many of the larger persuasion.
But when you are catching lots of smallish fish, do you assume that these fish are stunted? That is, have a slow growth rate? That is one possible explanation.
Another possible explanation is that these fish are smallish because they are young. Their growth rate may be normal, but they are only 2 or 3 years old.
Are there studies that show that trout in Spring Creek are stunted (have a slow growth rate?)
But when you are catching lots of smallish fish, do you assume that these fish are stunted? That is, have a slow growth rate? That is one possible explanation.
Another possible explanation is that these fish are smallish because they are young. Their growth rate may be normal, but they are only 2 or 3 years old.
Are there studies that show that trout in Spring Creek are stunted (have a slow growth rate?)
R
rrt
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2006
- Messages
- 2,326
Regarding post 87: I have heard the explanation that the trout of Spring Creek have a population skewed toward smaller trout because the fish are handled so many times, which stresses them and causes their deaths. I cannot say whether this is true or not, but it does make sense.
Perhaps this is true on the LJR, too. I do not fish the J too often, but I cannot say the fish there are stunted. They appear to be healthy and have a nice distribution of sizes/ages in the places where I have fished. In fact, I believe there are more larger fish since the river became totally c/r. When there was a kill size of 14 inches, I landed fewer trout over that size than I have after the establishment of c/r regs.
But, these are anecdotal observations, not scientifically proved ones.
Perhaps this is true on the LJR, too. I do not fish the J too often, but I cannot say the fish there are stunted. They appear to be healthy and have a nice distribution of sizes/ages in the places where I have fished. In fact, I believe there are more larger fish since the river became totally c/r. When there was a kill size of 14 inches, I landed fewer trout over that size than I have after the establishment of c/r regs.
But, these are anecdotal observations, not scientifically proved ones.
S
SteveG
Member
- Joined
- Aug 2, 2014
- Messages
- 980
I would lean toward constant stress as a potential reason if spring creek had a truly stunted population.
But given water quality improvements over the years, is it possible more large fish are moving out into Bald Eagle?
I'm a firm believer that regardless of "food abundance", if there isn't structure that big fish want, it isn't that they're stunted, it's that they moved out in search of greener pastures.
But given water quality improvements over the years, is it possible more large fish are moving out into Bald Eagle?
I'm a firm believer that regardless of "food abundance", if there isn't structure that big fish want, it isn't that they're stunted, it's that they moved out in search of greener pastures.
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,808
I've posted that explanation several times on here. It's nice that someone remembers it.
And I think that is the "Hidden Factor" discussed in post 87. I was just curious to see what other people had to say about it.
Thanks to Eccles for the name "Hidden Factor." That's a good name for it.
Spring Creek is probably the most heavily fished stream in PA. The trout are caught on average 6 times per year (study done by PSU & the PFBC). So in 5 years, that would be 30 C&R events.
That's a lot. I think this greatly decreases the chances of a trout getting old enough to get large.
I think this is the reason for the skewing of Spring Creek's population towards smaller trout. Not stunting.
salmonoid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,721
Hidden Factors are called lurking variables in statistics and research.
I don't think fish of all sizes in Spring Creek are caught at a constant five times a year. Assuming a five year old fish is caugh 30 times is probably not accurate. Wary 20" fish are not going to be caught as easily or as many times as 9" fish. Handling may be a factor, but it is not THE factor. And 20" fish have few peers, because, well, old age, thermal stress, predators, anglers stress, you name it, all take their toll.
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,808
As long as managing for wild trout populations (no stocking, low/no harvest) is considered "special" and limited to just a small percentage of waters, this extreme crowding, with its negative consequences on the fishing experience, and on the trout populations, will continue.
Managing for wild trout populations (no stocking, low/no harvest) should not be "special" regulations, it should be "general" regulations, i.e. applied wherever wild trout exist.
That would spread people out, rather than concentrating them into a small percentage of the stream mileage.
Managing for wild trout populations (no stocking, low/no harvest) should not be "special" regulations, it should be "general" regulations, i.e. applied wherever wild trout exist.
That would spread people out, rather than concentrating them into a small percentage of the stream mileage.
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,300
The trouble is that a 20" trout needs to survive the years in which IT IS VULNERABLE to anglers, predators, etc.
While a 20" fish might not get caught very often, it could very well have been caught many times when it was in the 8-16" size range for example. That period may represent several years of it's life.
J
JeffK
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 1,313
I think Troutbert hit the nail on the head; stocked trout are considered "normal" by most and wild fisheries are "special". The people on this board do not feel that way, but how do you get most anglers on board?
Another part of the problem is that different techniques are effective on stocked vs wild fish so people raised on stocked trout fishing don't always catch many wild fish. In years past in NYS the Esopus had one of the best wild trout populations, but it was heavily stocked so tourists could catch fish. When wild fish are considered normal then maybe people more people would learn how to catch them.
Of course the 800 lbs gorilla is habitat. In the rural/forested part of the states management issues may mean more. However, in the more urban parts habitat degradation is the key issue IMHO. I have seen the Lehigh Valley streams degrade over the last 50 years with siltation, loss of weed beds, fewer hatches, dewatering etc so maintaining fishing is more an issue of habitat than management. Regulations on sections of the Bushkill mean little when the stream runs dry.
Another part of the problem is that different techniques are effective on stocked vs wild fish so people raised on stocked trout fishing don't always catch many wild fish. In years past in NYS the Esopus had one of the best wild trout populations, but it was heavily stocked so tourists could catch fish. When wild fish are considered normal then maybe people more people would learn how to catch them.
Of course the 800 lbs gorilla is habitat. In the rural/forested part of the states management issues may mean more. However, in the more urban parts habitat degradation is the key issue IMHO. I have seen the Lehigh Valley streams degrade over the last 50 years with siltation, loss of weed beds, fewer hatches, dewatering etc so maintaining fishing is more an issue of habitat than management. Regulations on sections of the Bushkill mean little when the stream runs dry.
E
Eccles
Member
- Joined
- Oct 7, 2008
- Messages
- 121
I absolutely accept what Mike and Salmonid have said about their being a number of variables involved in all this (with ref to my post earlier and Troutbert's and others comments). However, I do think we underestimate the impact C&R has on these popular waters. We look at C&R mainly in terms of the benefits it provides - the much reduced mortality rate leading to the ability to recycle these resources for our own enjoyment and the resources continued productivity.
And it's certainly true that if anglers just want fish to catch (as has been pointed out in this thread) then even intense C&R works remarkably well. But the idea that these waters contain a population behaving as they would in the absence of fishing, that they are some sort of pristine trout where natural population regulation is going on is likely wishful thinking.
Our fishing shapes a trout population (or any other fish for that matter - most research has been done on bass) to be a reflection of the angling pressure we impose on it. The energetic costs, the changes in feeding behavior, the disproportional capture of one behavioral type over another, the regular disruption of dominance hierarchies, the learnt place avoidance to particularly risky lies and runs (the creation of "landscapes of fear" in the current research jargon!), are all known consequences of angling pressure on both caught fish and those that respond to the vacuum left by the caught fish. All of these bring with them associated costs which the fish adapt to - a trout being picky about accepting our midge imitation is just the outward example of all that change going on under the surface. The old story about the difference between the town mouse and the country mouse is both true and an apt comparison for comparing a remote wild trout population with a heavily fished-for trout population.
So our pressure creates a new normal for the fish - both the caught and uncaught, one they have to adapt to and live with. Given how much we must regularly disrupt the social structure that is otherwise apparent in natural trout streams, I don't think it is too much of a stretch to imagine that intense C&R can homogenize the size distribution of trout and lead to impacts on the fishes condition. C&R populations on places like Spring Creek are not stocked obviously but it's a little hard to classify them as "wild". What do we call animals that have got used to man - habituated? Is the town mouse wild?
And now I think I'm straying well off topic, apologies
Eccles
And it's certainly true that if anglers just want fish to catch (as has been pointed out in this thread) then even intense C&R works remarkably well. But the idea that these waters contain a population behaving as they would in the absence of fishing, that they are some sort of pristine trout where natural population regulation is going on is likely wishful thinking.
Our fishing shapes a trout population (or any other fish for that matter - most research has been done on bass) to be a reflection of the angling pressure we impose on it. The energetic costs, the changes in feeding behavior, the disproportional capture of one behavioral type over another, the regular disruption of dominance hierarchies, the learnt place avoidance to particularly risky lies and runs (the creation of "landscapes of fear" in the current research jargon!), are all known consequences of angling pressure on both caught fish and those that respond to the vacuum left by the caught fish. All of these bring with them associated costs which the fish adapt to - a trout being picky about accepting our midge imitation is just the outward example of all that change going on under the surface. The old story about the difference between the town mouse and the country mouse is both true and an apt comparison for comparing a remote wild trout population with a heavily fished-for trout population.
So our pressure creates a new normal for the fish - both the caught and uncaught, one they have to adapt to and live with. Given how much we must regularly disrupt the social structure that is otherwise apparent in natural trout streams, I don't think it is too much of a stretch to imagine that intense C&R can homogenize the size distribution of trout and lead to impacts on the fishes condition. C&R populations on places like Spring Creek are not stocked obviously but it's a little hard to classify them as "wild". What do we call animals that have got used to man - habituated? Is the town mouse wild?
And now I think I'm straying well off topic, apologies
Eccles
J
JeffK
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 1,313
I'm sorry I was a little provocative about the Western fisheries. In the spirit of full disclosure my son lives in NV and one of my best friends moved to CO, so those are the states I go to most with a little MT thrown in.
On one hand, fly fishing maintains a lot of constants wherever I go. One observes to find fish, figures out a strategy, and executes the strategy. Focusing on a drifting dry fly seems the same everywhere. hatches may be different, but the main observation are the bugs big or small and light or dark goes a long way to working everywhere.
I have also often found my best fishing in the lesser known streams, East or West. However, the lesser fished places in the West do see far less pressure than any streams in PA and have surprising numbers of trout. Rock Cr in MT was mentioned. I was sent to some similar sized streams near Missoula that had fabulous fishing with a fraction of the pressure. Some of these streams weren't in the guidebooks even though they were easily accessible and on public land.
The scenery out West is spectacular; PA is more intimate. I love both.
The West does have some odd attributes though. In general it is drier so travelling among streams can be time consuming. The East has a lot more streams packed together. Mine drainage issues are big all across the West. PA has it's mine acid issues, but the West suffers as well. Often I see less interest in native trout in the West. In CO I often want to try for native strains of cutthroat that I can't catch here and usually get a "why do you want to catch them?" answer. PA fishermen love their brookies more than the Western anglers love their natives in my experience and I rarely have trouble finding people to talk natives in PA. Oddly enough, native trout management is a big deal in NV. The desert has isolated populations of trout and NV has 6 native salmonids. The state has a trout slam certificate for those that catch all 6.
On one hand, fly fishing maintains a lot of constants wherever I go. One observes to find fish, figures out a strategy, and executes the strategy. Focusing on a drifting dry fly seems the same everywhere. hatches may be different, but the main observation are the bugs big or small and light or dark goes a long way to working everywhere.
I have also often found my best fishing in the lesser known streams, East or West. However, the lesser fished places in the West do see far less pressure than any streams in PA and have surprising numbers of trout. Rock Cr in MT was mentioned. I was sent to some similar sized streams near Missoula that had fabulous fishing with a fraction of the pressure. Some of these streams weren't in the guidebooks even though they were easily accessible and on public land.
The scenery out West is spectacular; PA is more intimate. I love both.
The West does have some odd attributes though. In general it is drier so travelling among streams can be time consuming. The East has a lot more streams packed together. Mine drainage issues are big all across the West. PA has it's mine acid issues, but the West suffers as well. Often I see less interest in native trout in the West. In CO I often want to try for native strains of cutthroat that I can't catch here and usually get a "why do you want to catch them?" answer. PA fishermen love their brookies more than the Western anglers love their natives in my experience and I rarely have trouble finding people to talk natives in PA. Oddly enough, native trout management is a big deal in NV. The desert has isolated populations of trout and NV has 6 native salmonids. The state has a trout slam certificate for those that catch all 6.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
A lot of really interesting comments and observations in the above posts.
Just some random thoughts that came to mind while reading the last several posts:
No doubt there is "intense pressure" on C&R streams and many other special reg streams. Creating more of these streams very popular streams would undoubtedly ease the pressure on the fish and reduce overcrowding by spreading things out. The "special" reg areas would not be so special. Different harvest rules for stocked trout streams vs wild trout streams would be a huge step forward.
I agree that fish that have never been fished over certainly act differently. Some of the most boring fishing I have ever experienced was in Alaska, over fish that probably have never seen a fly or an angler (too easy). Some of the most challenging and rewarding fishing I've had has been in places where the fish were highly educated.
While fishing on Spring Creek last season, and seeing hordes of anglers all up and the down the stream fishing and catching during a great evening sulphur hatch....I felt bad for the fish and stopped fishing.
No doubt mother nature can and will regulate stream populations and age distribution of fish, she's been doing it successfully for millions of years. But if from the hand of man, the stream stripped of it's natural macro population, or suffering from siltation, or loss of natural vegetation and cover, or water is polluted by chemicals or artificially drawn out of the aquifer; mother nature may not be able to restore such an impaired stream in it's present state to it's natural state.
Just some random thoughts that came to mind while reading the last several posts:
No doubt there is "intense pressure" on C&R streams and many other special reg streams. Creating more of these streams very popular streams would undoubtedly ease the pressure on the fish and reduce overcrowding by spreading things out. The "special" reg areas would not be so special. Different harvest rules for stocked trout streams vs wild trout streams would be a huge step forward.
I agree that fish that have never been fished over certainly act differently. Some of the most boring fishing I have ever experienced was in Alaska, over fish that probably have never seen a fly or an angler (too easy). Some of the most challenging and rewarding fishing I've had has been in places where the fish were highly educated.
While fishing on Spring Creek last season, and seeing hordes of anglers all up and the down the stream fishing and catching during a great evening sulphur hatch....I felt bad for the fish and stopped fishing.
No doubt mother nature can and will regulate stream populations and age distribution of fish, she's been doing it successfully for millions of years. But if from the hand of man, the stream stripped of it's natural macro population, or suffering from siltation, or loss of natural vegetation and cover, or water is polluted by chemicals or artificially drawn out of the aquifer; mother nature may not be able to restore such an impaired stream in it's present state to it's natural state.
T
tomitrout
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,539
Isn't this already the case wrt "Approved Trout Waters" and the "Extended Season" on those waters? Maybe not the distinction you're looking for, but it seems that there already are certain harvest limits in play for stocked vs non-stocked streams.
afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
^I'm well aware of the current regulations. The vast majority trout fishing angler hours and thus trout harvest occurs during the spring and early summer. Closing the streams for harvest during the times when angler are least likely to fish greatly lessens the impact of the regulation.
Do you believe the current regulations as they now stand are best for the trout as well as the trout angler? Fine-tuning regulations costs nothing and can go a long way to improving the angling experience as well as better protecting and conserving wild trout in PA.
Not stocking many of our stocked wild trout streams and not allowing or limiting harvest will help build up the populations and improve fishing as well as spread out the pressure on our streams.
In addition, shifting stocking away from wild trout streams will allow more fish to be stocked in designated stocked trout waters. I have no doubt stocking more fish more times in these streams is something that will appeal to anglers. Nearly all stocking is finished by April now. Back not that long ago, trout were stocked well into May providing some decent fishing through the entire spring into the early summer. Further, there was something called a "fall" season with fall stockings, that pretty much has gone away. Perhaps that could be revived, giving angler further opportunities for some decent fishing in stocked streams.
I really don't agree with all the naysayers and the politicians that try to influence how things are run. Everyone wins if things are done fairly to improve angling for all types of fishermen and women. Better protection of wild trout streams and wild trout can benefit all.
Fly-Swatter
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 23, 2014
- Messages
- 1,243
Amen, Afish!
T
tomitrout
Active member
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2010
- Messages
- 1,539
Well, if that's the case, then you probably shouldn't be making inaccurate statements in support of your argument. By not demonstrating that you have a handle on the basics kinda diminishes the weight of your opinions on the matter, just sayin'.
Personally, I'm more in the line of thinking of if you build it, they will come. Regardless of whether the fish is stocked or wild, if it doesn't have a cold, clean water habitat to live and thrive in, everything else including this never ending stocking debate ya'll are engaged in is pointless. I'm quite content with the state of trout angling as I enjoy it with plenty of opportunities to catch quality wild fish within a quite easy commute from my door. Sure, the stocking program could be tweaked, but for the most part, I think they're doing a fine job with the resources they have available.
PA will never be MT or whichever top shelf destination you wish it could be, period. PA will never return to the glory days of Vince, Charlie or the legendary Mill Dams of Big Spring of yesteryear, or the private Pocono clubs, it just ain't gonna happen. Regardless of stocking policies or 'changes in attitude' from those that rely on the stocking trucks for their pursuits, that's just the way it is. We no longer have the habitat or the bare basic resources available to be so. Continuously expanding development is having its impact on our aquifers and watersheds one additional sub-divided forest or farmland or warehouse hard surface or sunk well or expanded quarry permit or pipeline at a time. Probably even more so than moving a few stocked fish from this stream or that to here or there and instituting a bunch of new fangled regulations that will probably only drive down already dropping license sales and thus revenue for an already strapped fish commission. Whether it's a direct cost or not, there would be a cost to 'fine tuning' current regulations.
R
rrt
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2006
- Messages
- 2,326
tomi,
I see great sadness in your last paragraph, and I sadly have to agree with you about what has happened. I guess it is wishful thinking to hope things could return to the "glory days of Vince, Charlie...."
I have to think we have to make the best of what we have and should support those organizations who are trying to save what we have and enhance places that can be helped. I am one who thinks the PFBC does a creditable job of trying to do things that benefit fish and fishermen.
Anyhow, when I re-read Vince and Charlie, I guess it is a wistful look backwards to a time that seems to have been pretty special.
I see great sadness in your last paragraph, and I sadly have to agree with you about what has happened. I guess it is wishful thinking to hope things could return to the "glory days of Vince, Charlie...."
I have to think we have to make the best of what we have and should support those organizations who are trying to save what we have and enhance places that can be helped. I am one who thinks the PFBC does a creditable job of trying to do things that benefit fish and fishermen.
Anyhow, when I re-read Vince and Charlie, I guess it is a wistful look backwards to a time that seems to have been pretty special.
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,808
The habitat determines the potential trout population of a stream section.
The fisheries management determines to what extent that potential is realized.
A section may have the potential to support 150 kg/ha. But only have 50 kg/ha because of the way it's managed.
The fisheries management determines to what extent that potential is realized.
A section may have the potential to support 150 kg/ha. But only have 50 kg/ha because of the way it's managed.
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,300
I've been as critical as anyone about the condition of wild trout fishing in PA in this thread but I have to disagree with the above to a certain degree. Some heavily romanticized streams of past decades may be degraded, but we've gained back some really good fisheries that were once very marginal or eradicated completely.
Heck, the very stream we've focused on in this thread, Spring, has been decimated and rebounded to the point where we're arguing about too many trout. Sure the hatches are gone/different from the early part of the 20th century, but the trout are there. The little J has a similar history. While we may have lost some trout water, we are gaining water back even in the shadow of suburban sprawl, and highway construction.
Several of the streams that have my attention at the moment have similar stories to LJR, and Spring. They might never have famous writers extolling their greatness, but the trout are there. Often in good numbers and sometimes of impressive size. Eventually these streams will come to light and I'll have to move on again to find solitude.
It's sad that we can't go see and fish certain streams as they were many decades ago, but things change and some things are changing for the better.
You can never step in the same river twice and all that.
Dave_W
Moderator
Staff member
While we can all agree on the need for some reforms in PA trout management - I'm in the camp that favors modest reforms - but the good ole days of wild trout fishing in PA are now.
There are more wild trout in more places in central PA these days than you can shake a fly rod at.
There are more wild trout in more places in central PA these days than you can shake a fly rod at.
