Wild Trout Stream Survey

[vcregular]

PA Trout Management Plan

Above is a link to the PA Trout Mgmt Plan.

Here is a snippet pertaining to wild trout - class A water....below. Also, at the end of the document, its states that it was to be updated in 2005. Here we are in 2007 and nothing. I guess since Wild Trout see so little pressure, and very few folks fish for them, then what is the point of updating it re Wild Trout. Tounge in cheek of course.

Class A Wild Trout Waters

Rationale. The Class A wild trout waters option is designed to provide anglers with an opportunity to catch and harvest (if desired) wild trout from a population totally sustained by natural reproduction. This option is proposed for stream sections that support populations of brook trout, brown trout, mixed brook-brown trout, and rainbow trout capable of providing a desirable fishery without stocking. Some of these waters may be judged to have a low potential to produce an obvious biological response to the application of highly restrictive regulations.

Goal. To provide recreational trout angling opportunities in waters where wild trout populations are capable of supporting an attractive fishery without stocking.

Objectives

1. To protect wild trout populations from possible harmful effects of stocking due to interactions with hatchery trout.

2. To minimize the potential of overharvest of wild trout due to attraction of anglers through stocking.

3. To maintain standing stocks of wild trout at a Class A biomass density. An increase in the population of age 3 or older trout by a factor of two (after cessation of stocking) is desirable. (The amount of habitat, the full force of fishing mortality, and natural variation in response to climatic events may limit this response in older fish and should not be considered a rigid measure of program success.)

4. To protect habitat and water quality through public education, and by seeking the highest DEP water quality standards applicable.

5. Disseminate information to other Commonwealth regulatory agencies.

 

[Wulff-Man]

Look guys, the PFBC has done a study, it shows that very few anglers harvest wild trout, so there's no need to restrict harvest of wild trout, and that's that. It seems that we are just tilting at windmills.

 

[troutbert]

Wulff-Man wrote:
Look guys, the PFBC has done a study, it shows that very few anglers harvest wild trout, so there's no need to restrict harvest of wild trout, and that's that. It seems that we are just tilting at windmills.

And you believe it? It doesn't correspond to what I've seen on unstocked wild trout streams, especially early in the season, and on particular on opening day.

This was why I suggested anglers go check out unstocked Class A streams on opening day for themselves. I've done this quite a few years in the past and I was amazed at the number of people on unstocked streams on opening day. And I saw a lot of people with creels and people with fish on stringers.

It looks like Chaz checked it out. Did anyone else? I couldn't make is south for the early opener, but will definitely check it out on the regular opening day. Anyone who is interested, just go out and see for yourself on opening day.

I realize it's much more fun just to chat about a topic on the internet. But if you are really interested, if you want to know what goes on on the wild trout streams, there is no substitute for going there.

I suspect the study is badly biased by the fact that the anglers they surveyed were the anglers who are interested in talking to someone carrying a clipboard. That's a particular sub-sample of the people fishing out there. The guys dressed in camouflage and carrying creels full of brookies that are "around" 7 inches are almost certainly less likely to want to strike up a conversation with someone carrying a clipboard.

A lot of experienced backcountry anglers wouldn't even stop to fish a stretch if they see the surveyor's vehicle. Not that they would identify it as a surveyor's vehicle, but they would just go elsewhere if they see ANY vehicle along that stretch.

 

[JackM]

I'm not above believing the PFBC studies and conclusions are biased, but it always strikes me as a little peculiar that people will insist that their own unscientific limited observations are somehow more accurate than a study conducted by the PFBC. I think what is at work here is that people have certain "convictions" and get a little upset when studies refute them. I'm just making an observation, so don't get all twisted out of shape. Chaz' observations, his conjecture about how many anglers the cars represented and his assumption about how many fish were caught and kept is proof enough that one must be careful about this type of personal anecdotal "evidence."

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear Jack,

You mean to tell me that people on this board make things up and believe only what "they" want to believe?

I'm shocked, shocked beyond belief. :-D

Regards,
Tim Murphy

 

[FarmerDave]

Good point Jack, and i know you weren't singling me out. But I have to respond.

Here is my observation of most of the studies in the past along these lines. I seem to remember a few Class Bs were taken off the stocking list to see if they would improve to Class A. The freezer fillers complained so loudly that stockign was resumed. Conclusion? No noticeable improvement??? Of course not, but if you had closed it for a couple years, it might have shown noticable improvement. And they called it scientific.

Also, have you noticed how many of these "scientific" studies are inconclusive??

There is usually a reason for that. Too many variables, and not enough time.

I always get a kick out of when they close small portions of streams to do some kind of a study. Does the fish commission really think those silly signs keep people from fishing in those areas? I got news for you, they don't. I can say that with complete certainty since the statute of limitations is up. And yes, that was my experience. The signs didn't work on me, and were more of an atractant than a deterant after the first week of the season. not just for me, either.

It also seems that the PF&BC knows the outcome of their "scientific" studies before they even start.

There is also an inherant flaw in their sampling techniques. Shocking the fish causes a certain amount of mortality. How is that taken into consideration. Do they always shoci for the same amount of time or the same number of times? I seriously doubt it. The fish are better off left alone. I say quit studying the freakin things and start observing them.

Creel surveys??? Are they really searching people, or just asking? "But officer, that is just my trouser trout, and it is over the legal size." How many of you always tell the truth when fishing. Come on. Be honest. in my younger days, I wouldn't tell them Jack. The creel surveys and frankly, many of the studies remind me of the deer harvest numbers posted every year. I believe that is based on reports received, plus a certain percentage added for people who fail to fill out the form. How the heck do they know how many don't fill out the form. Do they ask??? LMAO! I know I shot quite a few deer in PA, but I think I only filled out two of those silly cards. Oh, but they check some butcher shops!!! Well, Whooptydoo!!! I've only ever had one deer cut up by a butcher and that is only because I didn't have time to do it myself. Of course, sometimes telling the truth is the best way to get out of a jam, as long as the truth is not very believable. Here is one for you. My grandfather used to drive coal truck, and he always had his deer rifle with him during the season. He believed in feeding his family. I was tole that one day he was stopped at a checkpoint. The game warden (who happened to know him) jokingly asked, "how many do you have this time Andy." His response was, I got a whole darn truck load! The warden laughed and said get out of here. So the deputy stepped off the truck before checking it and my grandfather left ... with three deer in the back of his dump truck. Creel surveys? I can't even type it without smiling.

OK, I'm going to climb down one step, but not entirely off the soap box. When the PF&BC uses things like mortality rate to justify that harvest has no impact, they are more than likely correct when speaking in long term health of the population. However, this is not the case in short.

They say based on creel surveys, the majority of anglers don't harvest wild trout. I don't doubt that, even if everyone told the truth. The fact is, some streams can handle more harvest than others. I say the population is cropped in most of the wild trout streams in NWPA near easy access. If I'm wrong, please explain why the numbers of legal size fish increase as you go away from the access, and it doesn't matter if you go upstream or down. Explain why along the bank at the first pool there are forked sticks in the ground. Do people who practice C&R use forked sticks to prop up their fishing pole??? It may not destroy the stream, but it does screw it up for awhile.

(pause while i take a deep breath)

I am not one of these people who think we should have no harvest laws on all wild streams. i throw them back by choice. I don't even think we need to lower the creel limit for the time being. However, i do feel that the PF&BC posting lists of all Class A streams and nearly all wild streams for easy access is a mistake. why not put a neon sign at each stream. Come fish me!!! The reason we are seeing more people fishing those streams on opening day (even though license sales continue to drop) is because they are advertising them. In my younger days, we stayed away from those streams for the first few weeks so as not to draw attention to them. Let the 1 to 2 week trout anglers catch stocked trout. That is what they are for. Instead, the fish commission is trying to push people to those streams. We used to deliberately park far away from a stream so as not to draw attention. Park way up on a hill, and people don't think much about it. Park at a bridge, and "hmmm, there must be trout in there!!!"

You guys ar slowly convincing me not to buy a PA license again this year.

 

[Wulff-Man]

Just so you know, I was being cynical in my earlier post. First, from what Mike has said several times, the PFBC IS hanging their hats on this study. Second, I have several times expressed doubt at the validity of the study, for all the reasons others have stated, and because it would seem that just a few harvesters could nearly clean out many wild streams of legal trout, but they may not be surveyed just because of probabilities, not to mention what has been said about them perhaps avoiding the census taker.

 

[JackM]

I will just leave my observations as they stand, but I have a suggestion for everyone who knows why the PFBC studies are flawed and thinks a well-crafted study would support their contentions-- put your money where your mouth is (actually, use the government's money) but use your time and design a study that you think will support your convictions. Then pursue a grant to conduct the study and subject your data and conclusions to peer review. Otherwise, to the PFBC and skeptics like me, your anecdotal evidence is a bunch of hot air.

Did you ever wonder whether your inability to catch legal-sized trout near easy access might have something to do with the amount of pressure the area receives, but not necessarily a result of supposed harvest and cropping? We all know how "educated" trout can become after being caught and released. They may be there just as you find them away from the bridges, but you may be having a harder time catching them because of the pressure.

There's an idea for your study:

"Are trout near bridges really smaller than the one's further away or do I just have a harder time catching the bigger ones?"

Then we can move on to the issue of whether kiss-and-tell posts on a message board result in additional angler pressure.

 

[FarmerDave]

JackM wrote:
I will just leave my observations as they stand, but I have a suggestion for everyone who knows why the PFBC studies are flawed and thinks a well-crafted study would support their contentions-- put your money where your mouth is (actually, use the government's money) but use your time and design a study that you think will support your convictions. Then pursue a grant to conduct the study and subject your data and conclusions to peer review. Otherwise, to the PFBC and skeptics like me, your anecdotal evidence is a bunch of hot air.

Here's one. you might not consider it scientific. I certainly don't. It relys on common sense. we both know that there is no "scientific" study that will be fool proof, or satisfy everyone. Many are a waste of time. Common sense on the other hand can be quite useful. this one is so obvious, the PF&BC will never consider it. It won't cost a dime more than what is already spent on "scientific" studies. in fact it will save a boat load of money, so they can inforce a boating laws. It will also help reduce the production of greenhouse gasses that are causing global warming!!!

Park the freaking white trucks and if you still need to stock trout, stock them in ponds, preferable on the hatchery property to make inforcement easier. If you must stock them elsewhere, stock them in lakes. ... And leave the freakin wild trout alone. try this for about 5 years. Then do your stream surveys. don't do them o just class a either. see what ahppens of the less worthy streams. Compare it to the boatload of existing stream survey info.

Did you ever wonder whether your inability to catch legal-sized trout near easy access might have something to do with the amount of pressure the area receives, but not necessarily a result of supposed harvest and cropping? We all know how "educated" trout can become after being caught and released. They may be there just as you find them away from the bridges, but you may be having a harder time catching them because of the pressure.

That depends on what you mean by consider. OK, lets say i am considering it. The streams I am talking about don't get that kind of pressure. I'm talking days or even weeks between angler visits. Also, I don't catch more trout as I move further away from the access, i just catch bigger ones, fishing the same types of holding areas. Wild Brook trout are so easy to catch, it isn't hard to crop a population. I've done it. If you were talking about a fertile, heavy traffic stream, then your statement would get much more consideration. I suspect those are the streams that were "scientifically" studied.

There's an idea for your study:

"Are trout near bridges really smaller than the one's further away or do I just have a harder time catching the bigger ones?"

Then we can move on to the issue of whether kiss-and-tell posts on a message board result in additional angler pressure.

That actually wouldn't be hard, but i doubt you will ever see the PF&BC do a study like that. Find a stream that has just a bridge crossing. Sample near the bridge. Now walk at least a mile from the bridge in both directions and take samples. Eureka!!!! I've already done this!!!! However, i have to do it by legal means (with a fishing rod). It would be illegal if i did that using electro fishing. The fish commission doesn't want to do that. Why? My guess is it's because it is too much like work, or is it because it might prove common sense is sually right.

Jack, do you honestly believe that a population in a Class C stream cannot be cropped. Sure they eventually recover. They probably even recover by the Fall which was supported by the study ... I'm not arguing that.

Let me ask you something. did the study actually say that populations are not cropped in the early season? I don't think it did. however, I think it said bigger fish are caught in the fall. I have no problem with that.

There is a catch 22 here. The only way to prove that harvest has no effect on streams like I am talking about is to close a stream to fishing. However, signs attract attention. you can't enforce it 24/7. Can you???

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:
I'm not above believing the PFBC studies and conclusions are biased, but it always strikes me as a little peculiar that people will insist that their own unscientific limited observations are somehow more accurate than a study conducted by the PFBC. I think what is at work here is that people have certain "convictions" and get a little upset when studies refute them. I'm just making an observation, so don't get all twisted out of shape. Chaz' observations, his conjecture about how many anglers the cars represented and his assumption about how many fish were caught and kept is proof enough that one must be careful about this type of personal anecdotal "evidence."

So, are you going to check it out opening day? Is anyone on this board? Anyone interested in this subject could learn a great deal about it by visiting several unstocked wild trout streams on opening day.

 

[troutbert]

Even many PFBC personell don't believe this stuff about harvest not impacting populations. I was at a meeting and overheard a PFBC biologist telling a colleague about electrofishing a 12 inch native brook trout (yes 12 inches, measured with a ruler by a real biologist), and on a small freestone stream. I asked him the name of the stream and where it was. He said, "Oh no you don't." He wouldn't tell me. And this is common. Many PFBC people are very close mouthed about giving out locations of brook trout streams with bigger fish. Because they know if the word gets out, those fish will be GONE.

Here's another example. A brookie stream up in Potter County met all the criteria for the wilderness list. But this stream had a quite an unusually good brookie population. He did not submit the stream for the wilderness list because he was afraid the attention would lead to overharvest.

 

[RLeeP]

>>However, i do feel that the PF&BC posting lists of all Class A streams and nearly all wild streams for easy access is a mistake.>

It's been a few years and I could have it messed up, but if I recall correctly, this was not entirely a volitional action on the Commission's part. If I remember right, they got involved in a real dilly of a legal wrangle over a proposed landfill somewhere near Brockway. And I believe one of the things that came out of this was a court decision saying that this information had to be published under the Sunshine Law.

So, I'm not sure it can be said that they made a "mistake" here. I don't think they had many options.

 

[JackM]

See, I mock the persuasiveness of armchair evidence and what do I get? More armchair evidence.

 

[RLeeP]

I'll say one thing about all this and that'll be it for me.

I think everybody has a piece of the truth in this harvest impact matter.

But I'm not sure anybody's piece is as big as they think it is...


Thank You.

 

[Wulff-Man]

JackM wrote:
See, I mock the persuasiveness of armchair evidence and what do I get? More armchair evidence.

Aw, c'mon, Jack. It's just that we're not lawyers and we haven't learned the fine art of ignoring common sense and disbelieving what we see with our own eyes. ;-)

 

[LehighRegular]

This past Saturday, I drove buy a stream that holds a decent population of wild trout. This stretch is NOT stocked...but it is above and below it. I saw Three (3) cars there on opening day. In all my years (13) living near this stream I have never seen that many cars at this one stretch of water. I could see at least 4 fisherman fishing.

The most I have ever seen at this stretch of water was one car and I know the angler who fishes it.

But the fact of the matter is....on wild trout streams under the current regulations for harvest....it will not take a large amount of pressure to impact the population of wild trout.

 

[troutbert]

So Jack, are you going to check it out on opening day? There are some wild trout streams down your way aren't there? You can be the SW PA researcher.

I'll check some here in centralcentral PA (as opposed to southcentral and northcentral PA). Other people can check unstocked wild trout streams wherever they may be. Let's take a look. I've been doing this since 1994, and it's pretty interesting what you see out there on the actual streams, in the real world.

The only way to know, is to go.

 

[JackM]

My license fees each year go to support an agency that is staffed with qualified scientists and fisheries managers. While I recognize there may be certain influences that might interfere with them doing a completely honest and fair job of managing the resources entrusted to their care, I don't believe they falsify data, nor do I think they are half as inclined to seek and find evidence which only supports some preconceived notion of proper fisheries management as are some of those here who think they know better.

The fisheries managers are employed full-time. If all that was needed to understand the impact of various events on the streams was to go fishing 50-100 days a year, I would think they'd all rather do that instead.

I may or may not make some observations on opening day, but if I do, you will hear from me whether it supports any preconception I have or whether it refutes it. In the meanwhile, since you'd like to press me to complete your homework assignment, are you going to complete mine by designing a study and requesting a grant to carry it out? Just make sure that the sampling method you choose is something more scientific than whether a trout decides to mistake the imitation on the end of your leader for food.

 

[FarmerDave]

RLeeP wrote:
>>However, i do feel that the PF&BC posting lists of all Class A streams and nearly all wild streams for easy access is a mistake.>

It's been a few years and I could have it messed up, but if I recall correctly, this was not entirely a volitional action on the Commission's part. If I remember right, they got involved in a real dilly of a legal wrangle over a proposed landfill somewhere near Brockway. And I believe one of the things that came out of this was a court decision saying that this information had to be published under the Sunshine Law.

So, I'm not sure it can be said that they made a "mistake" here. I don't think they had many options.

Rob, I only said that I feel it was a mistake. i didn't say who's mistake. :-D

 

[afishinado]

Jack,

I agree that scientific evidence is needed to manage wild trout, but PA is not the only State that uses scientific evidence to manage fish and wildlife. Not long ago I posted the new rules for the Savage River watershed in West MD – not far from where you live. MD has made the entire watershed in that area C&R for brook trout. Further, their findings were that “easily accessed” areas were found to be depleted of wild trout, and the C&R regulations were instituted for the entire watershed to protect the native brook trout population.

I’m with Jack on this, I’m not one to label the PFBC the “evil empire”. I see them for what they are, a government agency struggling for their fiscal life, since they depend almost solely on fishing license sales and boat registration fees for their funding. They must maximize sales of both to remain in existence. I know that there are a lot of PFBC people that care about the conserving wild resources including wild trout, but sometimes it is difficult to choose what’s best for the resource, while still trying to maximize fishing license sales. It’s a balancing act. I don’t agree with all that they do, but if you keep the aforementioned in mind you begin to understand.

As I said before, I believe that the costs of stocking and maintaining hatcheries are now beginning to outstrip revenue, and stocking will be reduced in the future. Self-sustaining trout streams will not be stocked, and the stocking of marginal put-and-take streams will continue for those who wish to keep fish.

BTW, I was one of “those fisherman” out for the opener on Saturday. I caught and kept five stocked trout and fried ‘m up Saturday…and they tasted good! I haven’t missed an opening day since my first, when I was seven years old. I plan to keep the tradition going…some of my fondest memories of fishing when I was a kid were on opening day.