Young Womans

[RLeeP]

Just to be clear, I am not in favor of stocking either stream, even when the biomass dips below the threshold for Class A. Both are standard issue PA mountain freestones and are prone to the roller coaster trout population fluctuations that characterize these sorts of streams. So, it wouldn't surprise me if either or both had dipped well below Class A at some point since they originally came off the stocking lists in the early 80's. Yet stocking was not initiated at these times. In that sense, I guess the Commission's willingness to commence stocking constitutes a change in management thinking. And not a change for the better, IMO.

I'm just not convinced that the stocking is a change for the worse, either. Especially if it is transitory (which I'm hopeful it will be...) and especially given the numbers and species of the fish being stocked and the timing of the stockings. Certainly, in streams like these, with this level of stocking we are talking about a negative impact (if any...) that is routinely dwarfed by a whole host of things from runoff scour to summer temperature spikes, etc. etc. Probably the smallest of all the tempests in the teapot...

 

[Chaz]

One of the reasons that YWC is not Class A is that it is listed as a brown trout stream, probably because the biomass of the browns is high enough for the brown population to out far outweigh the brookies that have far superior numbers. I'f it were listed as a brook trout stream it would be Class A. The combined species make it a Class A Stream, it's sort of an anomaly and doesn't happen often in PA but this is one of those streams. Because Class A is biomass based and brookies don't make 25 % of the biomass it's listed as brown trout, despite the sheer numbers of brookies.
End the stocking and it would be Class A.
For the record I haven't fished YWC since it started being stocked, and probably will never experience the stream again in my lifetime. If I'm traveling 200 miles to fish, I'm not wasting time fish a small stocked stream.

 

[kobalt335]

RLeeP wrote:
If the stocked RT in the YWC special reg water really are depressing the wild trout population (and it is an "if"...) that is all the more reason to survey it regularly so that once the biomass consistently returns to Class A levels, it can once again be a candidate for cessation of stocking.

Which I'm willing to bet would happen if there were a big enough bump up in the surveyed density/size of the wild trout population.

So, by all means, survey it regularly..

I agree, surveying the stream regularly would only be beneficial.

 

[JackM]

Shocking can be an effective way to eradicate stocked trout and to collect wild specimens for transplanting populations. But someone or some entity must have the permission and manpower to do it. Once a month should do it. I would propose a buffer zone between fishable (recreationally significant) wild populations and stocked stream sections in which shocking occurs monthly (assuming that is safe for the wilds). That's a lot of work, but no expense should be spared in satisfying the needs of wild trout enthusiasts.

 

[outsider]

This stream and this topic have been brought up before, as has Cross Fork Creek, and I have fished both streams heavily since the late 60's. And both streams suffered the same condition in the 90's and the 2,000's: drought. The lower ends of these streams have been marginal at best to support wild brown's and native brook trout. And the fish commission's survey's support this theory.

Hard to believe when I drove over Young Woman's Creek during the 90's at North Bend and slammed on my brakes to verify what I thought I saw: no visible water on the creek bed. Think of the impact on the fish and the insects. This condition repeated itself off and on for several years.

While I don't condone stocking rainbows in these streams, I believe it has little to do with the absence of wild browns or native brook trout in the lower regions of these streams. Brook trout co-existed with the stocked/hold-over/wild brown trout in the lower sections of these streams for decades.

Perhaps if the conditions change, the lower regions of these streams will be restored. Until that happens it just sucks compared to what I knew they were.

 

[outsider]

Information regarding Young Womans Creek, as sent to me from Jason Detar, Area 3 Fisheries Manager:

Kirk,

The lower reaches of both Young Womans Ck and Cross Fk are sensitive to water temperature during the summer months. When we’ve conducted fish surveys on these two streams during the past 10 year or so, we’ve been picking up species such as margined madtom, river chubs, smallmouth bass (cross fk). This tells us that these areas are getting too warm in the summer to support robust wild brook trout populations. We still do find brook trout, but in low densities. When we have a cooler summer with good rainfall, the wild trout in these systems tend to trend upwards the following year.

Thus, the primary limiting factor in these systems in water temperature.

Where there is good habitat in these streams, there still seems to be good numbers of wild brook and brown trout, even in their lower reaches, but as you know both streams have long stretches of shallow riffle, pocket water. I believe both of these streams were severely impacted by historic logging practices to the point that it resulted in long term, morphometric changes to their channels and have also been further impacted by hurricane Agnes in 1972 and Ivan in 2004. And as you mentioned, both systems are drought/low flow sensitive, especially in the reaches with limited pool habitat. Nonetheless, trout are resilient and if we can work to improve habitat I believe we would see increased and more consistent numbers of wild trout in the lower reaches of these streams. You can share this information.


Thanks,

Jason Detar

Area 3 Fisheries Manager