Why?

[TimMurphy]

jifigz wrote:

Swattie87 wrote:

troutbert wrote:

It's the same with asparagus.

Both are tasty?

That there is the honest to God truth!

Especially when both are wrapped in pancetta and grilled in garlic butter! ;-)

But seriously, I never took to small stream fishing for brookies. I did enough of it to know it's not my bag. I've had fun doing it, and I've caught some really nice ones over the years. The key to success is to go a day or two after a turd floating rain and fish them on the drop with streamers, and not size 14, I'm talking 6's and 8's.

But that's not the real reason I don't like tiny streams. Anyone who know me personally knows that I'm big enough to stop most small blues lines from flowing just by sticking my foot in them.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[TimMurphy]

troutbert wrote:

poopdeck wrote:
I like asparagus but otherwise agree with Mr. Meister. I have no desire to catch 4" fish on every other cast.

I also have no desire to catch 4" fish. And I LOVE brook trout fishing.

I fish for the adult brook trout.

Which means brookies 8 inches long or longer.

If a stream is in good condition, it should have 8 inch brookies in the better habitat spots.

If not, then it is getting hit. Cropped off. Hammered.

Dear troutbum,

This right here is the straight up truth. I remember one Sunday morning a long time ago when I drove up along Cedar Run looking for a place to fish? Heavy storms had come through the night before and Cedar Run itself was unfishable.

I turned up along a road that ran close to a tributary to Cedar Run and happened to see an older gentleman returning to his car with his morning's catch. He wasn't a big man but the stringer was on his belt and it had 3 trout on it that easily were over 40" in combined length.

The fish are there, they just don't like to show themselves except when conditions favor them.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[Mike]

Can't agree with #20 above regarding cropping off. With documented angling practices today per the 2004 statewide wild trout stream angler use and harvest study, wild trout harvest is very low. On the other hand, lack of larger fish in appropriate habitat is much more commonly the result of poor year classes some 4-5 years earlier. This is so much more common because it occurs naturally and can occur across wide geographical areas as well as locally, depending upon weather conditions. Streams can go from an abundance of larger ST one year to hardly any larger fish the next just based on natural mortality related to age and the size of the following year classes.

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear Mike,

And I can personally tell you that I've probably eliminated entire year classes of brook trout from streams in an afternoon of fishing before I learned better.

Fortunately that was a quick lesson. I learned a long time ago when the fish are so tiny that even the slightest hookset sends them off into the toulee weeds it's time to go somewhere else.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[FarmerDave]

Mike wrote:
Can't agree with #20 above regarding cropping off.

You are entitled to disagree, but the small brookie streams that I fish (or used to fish), the size of the trout increase as you get further from the road.

With documented angling practices today per the 2004 statewide wild trout stream angler use and harvest study, wild trout harvest is very low.

So, it's still 2004. ;-) Regardless... I agree that harvest of wild trout is relatively low, which is why so many streams shouldn't be stocked. However, if I was harvesting trout from small streams, do you really think I would answer such a survey honestly?

On the other hand, lack of larger fish in appropriate habitat is much more commonly the result of poor year classes some 4-5 years earlier. This is so much more common because it occurs naturally and can occur across wide geographical areas as well as locally, depending upon weather conditions. Streams can go from an abundance of larger ST one year to hardly any larger fish the next just based on natural mortality related to age and the size of the following year classes.

True, but it doesn't mean a stream can't be cropped.

My own experience in addition to the above is that I can crop a population. I may not have completely eliminated a year class like Tim, but I put a hurting on them on one tiny stream one year, and it didn't take much. Did I mention the stream was tiny? As with Tim, it was a quick lesson. It was close to where I lived at the time, and I still caught lots of trout, but I really had to work at it to get any more of decent size for the rest of that year (which I quickly released).

 

[Mike]

Dave,
What we find using electricity close to a road may differ considerably from what anglers find. We can electrofish nearly all habitat effectively while anglers have limitations with respect to vegetation, undercut trees, snag piles, etc. Additionally, trout that see more pressure can readily learn from experience, making them harder to catch, perhaps then giving anglers the impression that harvest is the culprit.

I don't see the differences that you report with respect to road proximity. In fact, the only places where isolated population reductions appear to occur are under bridges, but even at that most bridge holes usually harbor a decent fish, but often not the number of fish that near-by holes of similar size support.

As for angler harvest surveys, they occur on or along the water. There is no incentive for anglers to not report their catch and harvest unless it is illegal. In fact we often ask to see their fish and we have even been shown illegal fish at times. Survey clerks are not enforcement officers.

As for the relevence of the 2004 survey, there is no reason to think that more harvest occurs today than it did in 2004. There are fewer anglers and the importance of harvest to anglers continues to slide downward across popular species.

 

[Dave_W]

Mike wrote:
In fact, the only places where isolated population reductions appear to occur are under bridges, but even at that most bridge holes usually harbor a decent fish, but often not the number of fish that near-by holes of similar size support.

Interesting.
Much of my small stream experience across SCPA tends to reflect this, both on stocked and non-stocked streams. Due to their structure and often bank rip-rap, bridges on small streams often exhibit a nice, deeper pool that one would think would get hit hard by anglers. Nevertheless, they often fish well and sometimes produce my biggest ST of a trip.

Another counterintuitive habitat matter that I have often experienced (or at least think I'm experiencing) is the good bass fishing I often find right at PFBC boatramps on larger rivers. These areas definitely get hammered and see a tremendous amount of human activity at them all day long on summer days. In spite of this, I often catch my best bass of the day very close to these ramps. I have a theory that all the prop, paddle, and wading disturbance churns up nutrients that attract baitfish and thus SMBs and other game fish. Just a half baked theory.

Anyway, you don't always have to get far away from bridges and access sites to find a big smallie or wild brook trout.

 

[FarmerDave]

Mike wrote:
Dave,
What we find using electricity close to a road may differ considerably from what anglers find. We can electrofish nearly all habitat effectively while anglers have limitations with respect to vegetation, undercut trees, snag piles, etc. Additionally, trout that see more pressure can readily learn from experience, making them harder to catch, perhaps then giving anglers the impression that harvest is the culprit.

I don't see the differences that you report with respect to road proximity. In fact, the only places where isolated population reductions appear to occur are under bridges, but even at that most bridge holes usually harbor a decent fish, but often not the number of fish that near-by holes of similar size support.

As for angler harvest surveys, they occur on or along the water. There is no incentive for anglers to not report their catch and harvest unless it is illegal. In fact we often ask to see their fish and we have even been shown illegal fish at times. Survey clerks are not enforcement officers.

As for the relevence of the 2004 survey, there is no reason to think that more harvest occurs today than it did in 2004. There are fewer anglers and the importance of harvest to anglers continues to slide downward across popular species.

Mike, Please explain to me how your second paragraph doesn't agree with what I said?

I wasn't talking about a mile from nearest road. Some times that was the case, but often times I'd see significant improvement within a couple hundred feet ESPECIALLY if it is a road crossing with a big plunge hole.

It may not be as bad as it was back in the day (lat 70s to early 90s), but again, you seem to agree it is still happening to some degree.

Also consider you are from SEPA. Almost all of my fishing was in NWPA where streams are less fertile, and nearly everything with road access and wide enough to get your foot wet while crossing is stocked. Many were in the big woods where brush wasn't much of a factor. It's apples to oranges. But I agree that where the brush was heavy, the fishing was better. Part of that was fishing pressure or lack there of.

And BTW, my crack about 2004 was meant as a joke.

 

[k-bob]

I know Dave was talking about some better fishing further from roads in NWPA. as he notes, can be stocking and widespread fertility issues out there.

But in parts of NEPA such as Sullivan County, I might see bigger brookies in a very ez-access stream with relatively hi-buffering geology such as Huntley bedrock (red in map below), versus walking out to a stream that's far from roads but in lower buffering bedrock (blue =burgoon bedrock).

Except for some nice pools you can see from roads, the ez access/better bedrock streams often fish much better, and you get to lunch faster.

 

[k-bob]

on subject of wild brookie size, nice psu study below gives charts of number of fish by size for a few dozen pa brookie streams... see about page 62.. interesting to see this versus just the biomass number usually given...

https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/1310

 

[k-bob]

Interesting to see data in article linked above for say blair run... can imagine year classes, low year to year survival, few brookies living past 5 years...

 

[PennypackFlyer]

This is where the specialty rod (1 to 3 Wt) really pays off. It's pretty awesome to see that some of these little creeks (a jump across) can support fish life, and especially a trout's life.

One of the big advantages of small stream fishing is that you will know the difference between a fishes tug vs a fishing license tug.

 

[FarmerDave]

PennypackFlyer wrote:
This is where the specialty rod (1 to 3 Wt) really pays off. It's pretty awesome to see that some of these little creeks (a jump across) can support fish life, and especially a trout's life.

I'm amazed how small a stream can be and still hold trout.

 

[Kevin82]

k-bob, Im curious as what what that map screenshot is showing, is there a website I can go to to find out more about that bedrock like you mentioned? Also thanks for posting that link to the PSU study, Im gonna read through it later when I get a chance.

 

[FarmerDave]

Good question, Kevin. I'd like to know where he got that one, too.

While waiting for an answer, you could try googling "Geological maps" and the locations you want.

USGS has a lot of maps that I sometimes find useful.

DCNR has many useful maps. Here is a link to their county rock maps.

I still would like to know where k-bob got his map.

 

[k-bob]

I drew that map using Google Earth. You can download from the USGS a bedrock map of Pennsylvania. I don't remember exactly how to do this but the file format is kml. (Layer then appears in the places panel of google earth.) Once I had that layer in Google Earth, I changed the colors of the various bedrocks. I changed the colors because I am more familiar with the ones that are on many pa state maps. I also made the colors transparent so you can see ravines etc.

Some better bedrocks for wild trout are Huntley, any Catskill, and Mauch Chunk. Some bedrocks that are trouble are Pottsville, Allegheny, and Tuscarora -- these ones are not as good at buffering acid rain. Spechty kopf and Burgoon are also low buffering.

There can be good buffering bed rock like Huntley right next to low buffering bed rock like Burgoon in some parts of PA. Happens in Sullivan, see this linked report:

https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2013/5085/support/sir2013-5085.pdf

(p 4 has bedrock map for sullivan. p 8 says median well water pH was 5.9 in burgoon; 6.6 in mauch chunk; 6.9 in catskill; and 7.0 in huntley.) (pH is a log scale so 6 = twice the acidity of 7)

I also have a layer in Google Earth that shows trout natural reproduction streams, those are the green lines.

One nice thing about Google Earth you can save a map as an image in a nice small file that you can actually upload to PA fly fish. (!)

You can get the same basic information without the trout lines by going to PA dcnr mapping site, zooming out a bit, and hitting the geology tab upper right.

http://www.gis.dcnr.state.pa.us/maps/index.html

I have a much better sense for the bedrocks that are good and bad Northeastern PA than the rest of the state. However some bedrocks like Pottsville and mauch chunk also exist in Western PA.

 

[k-bob]

pennypack... yeah I like short two weight rods and dry flies for brookies... usually overline a 6' elkhorn 2wt w/ a 3t line... then of course bring fish in just as fast as you would w a heavier setup...

 

[k-bob]

some charts from article post 30 do seem to fit the ideas that PA headwater brookies have max 3-6 lifespan and low survival year to year.

the spectacle run numbers suggest year classes out to 5 and 6 ... (streams were screened for having some resistance to acid impacts, which could result in fewer damaged year classes versus a lower alkalinity brookie stream)

high mortality idea mentioned here p 54:

http://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Fisheries/TroutPlan/Documents/EvaluationOfCatchReleaseRegulationsOfBrookTrout.pdf

 

[k-bob]

chart above also suggests that selective harvest of bigger headwaters brookies doesn't explain the smallish size of these fish via genetics... the bigger fish have already spawned before (and might not live to spawn again)

"Reproduction: On average, brook trout reach sexual maturity around the age of 2 and spawn each year. Spawning is triggered by decreasing water temperature and day length; in Maryland most spawning takes place in late October and early November.
Brook Trout - Maryland DNR"
dnr.maryland.gov/education/Documents/BrookTrout.pdf

 

[JackM]

To the OP, If I had a dime for every "aaaaaaahhh!" I utter versus every "whooo-hooo!," I'd be a very rich man. That is to say, I enjoy tricking dumb trout, no matter their size.