Your plan to end Stocking over Wild

[sixfootfenwick]

I guess I should try to explain it this way, to clarify what I think in regards to harvest.

Take a main watershed , it's population is brown trout, it has anywhere from 900-3000 fish per mile, it's long maybe 10 miles or more. It has a total of anywhere between 9000-30000 fish in it. The largest population ranges in size of 8-14 inches long

It has multiple tributaries. Those tribs have much less fish in them, some are brook trout, some are brown trout and some are both, they are shorter in miles, they also have the largest population ranges between 4-6 inches with some 7" fish and not many above but some.

Now we say all these streams, both the main stem and all it's tributaries are open to 5 fish a day at 7" or larger.

That's crazy to some anglers.

So then these anglers advocate for C&R stretches, slot limits on others, etc, etc....

So now we have the main stem of the watershed that has many more fish than its tributaries, it also has a less vulnerable fish population of brown trout than the book trout in some of it's tributaries, it also now has restrictive regulations to "protect fish populations" because anglers seem to think it's under a perceived possible threat, while it's nursery waters are opened up completely....

To me that seems backwards and crazy.

rather, why not manage the populations for harvest where it seems better to do so, when it is better to do so?

 

[Swattie87]

Mmmmmm. Tasty Stockies.

I plan on going on my usual Sunday of opening weekend “Stocker Bonker” outing this year. Stockies beware, if you see an egg or mop fly, stay far far away.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Mmmmmm. Tasty Stockies.

I plan on going on my usual Sunday of opening weekend “Stocker Bonker” outing this year. Stockies beware, if you see an egg or mop fly, stay far far away.

You mean you aren't spin casting on opening day?😮

 

[Swattie87]

You mean you aren't spin casting on opening day?😮

I didn’t say I wasn’t. 😜

The Stockies should also stay away from Thomas Special 1/6 oz’ers.

 

[PennKev]

Take a main watershed , it's population is brown trout, it has anywhere from 900-3000 fish per mile, it's long maybe 10 miles or more. It has a total of anywhere between 9000-30000 fish in it. The largest population ranges in size of 8-14 inches long

This would be one of the best wild trout fisheries in the country, let alone the state.

 

[Roofin' Trouter]

Yep.. 2010 Little J report estimated 2900 BT per mile from Ironville to mouth.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

This would be one of the best wild trout fisheries in the country, let alone the state.

We have more than a few with those kinds of fish populations dont we and of those, do they not have special regulation areas and tributaries with lesser populations under general regs?

I'm not understanding what you are driving at, you didn't approach what my point was.

Even the Lackawanna River has 1100 fish per mile in the Class A section, which is 11 miles long 🤷, it has a 37 miles of trout water with significant wild brown trout populations, special regulation areas and tribs with under general regs.

This isn't even one most think of. If I remember,
Even the Letort had 900 fish per mile at one time.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Meanwhile Hot Creek in California has 8000-10000 fish per mile.

The Missouri River, 5500......

Best Fly Fishing Rivers - Highest Trout Per Mile - Fly Fishing Field Guides

Here we countdown some of the best fly fishing streams, that hold so many trout you could almost trip over them. Guaranteed to make you plan your next trip!

www.flyfishingfieldguides.com

Ours wouldn't even be close 😂
I'm not even sure Penns or the Little J cracks the top 50 but I could be wrong

 

[PennKev]

Yep.. 2010 Little J report estimated 2900 BT per mile from Ironville to mouth.

Is the LJR a typcial PA river in terms of trout population? Should we use it to draw conclusions about trout fisheries across the state?

 

[silverfox]

I believe Penns was/is around 2500 per mile, and the average is probably right in that 8-14 range.

Interestingly, the concept of protecting "nursery waters" was floated in "The Vanishing Trout" ca. 1931.

It seems the regs are implemented based on use, not on fragility. Playing devil's advocate here, but if there were some random overexploitation on some random tributary, it would be an anomaly rather than a norm. So its impact would likely be rendered moot in a season. It might even benefit the population in the long run.

Again, harvest likely plays little role in population size/health outside of high-pressured areas or with selective harvest (slot limit). The biggest benefit of regs, IMO, is the message they send.

 

[PennKev]

And for the record, I do agree that the application of special regs is often backwards, being applied to waters that could most withstand some harvest.

 

[PennKev]

I believe Penns was/is around 2500 per mile, and the average is probably right in that 8-14 range.

Interestingly, the concept of protecting "nursery waters" was floated in "The Vanishing Trout" ca. 1931.

It seems the regs are implemented based on use, not on fragility. Playing devil's advocate here, but if there were some random overexploitation on some random tributary, it would be an anomaly rather than a norm. So its impact would likely be rendered moot in a season. It might even benefit the population in the long run.

Again, harvest likely plays little role in population size/health outside of high-pressured areas or with selective harvest (slot limit). The biggest benefit of regs, IMO, is the message they send.

I did not say that NO waters in PA were comparable to the best across the country, Only that the numbers used in the example were in that spectrum

 

[silverfox]

I did not say that NO waters in PA were comparable to the best across the country, Only that the numbers used in the example were in that spectrum

I get it. There was a slide somewhere that PFBC made that compared several of PA's best waters to world-renowned western rivers, and the numbers were comparable and, in some cases, better.

I don't think any of this changes what Sixfootfenwick is saying, though. I don't think he was implying that those numbers represent the average trout stream in PA. Likely just the ones that are managed in the way he's describing them (mainstem with C&R/harvest restrictions while the tribs are general regs).

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I did not say that NO waters in PA were comparable to the best across the country, Only that the numbers used in the example were in that spectrum

That's the point.
We think the best needs some kind of protection, so we apply special regulations, yet the best likely can handle pressure and harvest.

Now anglers equate special regulations to the best waters, so when applied they flock there.

Meanwhile , special regulations should be applied to things and areas struggling or in decline.

Not only does the PFBC have anglers backwards regarding stocking, we are backwards regarding regulations.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I get it. There was a slide somewhere that PFBC made that compared several of PA's best waters to world-renowned western rivers, and the numbers were comparable and, in some cases, better.

I don't think any of this changes what Sixfootfenwick is saying, though. I don't think he was implying that those numbers represent the average trout stream in PA. Likely just the ones that are managed in the way he's describing them (mainstem with C&R/harvest restrictions while the tribs are general regs).

Yes, thank you.

 

[Mike]

One place where overharvest of wild Brown Trout was clear was in the long pool where individuals had thought that Joe Humphreys had caught his state record fish at that time. Given that I had representatively surveyed the length of Fishing Ck at various locations, it was clear that it was only in this isolated stretch where such extensive harvest had taken place. Likewise, there was a wild ST stream in Schuylkill Co that later supported a very good Class A population (once stocking was terminated first by the PFC and later by the local co-op nursery). The sampling site characterizing the lower segment of the stream was within the most heavily stocked/fished (high stocking rate, highly accessible, fishing rodeo) portion of the stream and the ST population substantially overharvested, knocked down to a Class D as I recall. Once stocking was completely terminated, the standing stock soon rose to Class A and well beyond. In the process of the PFC inventorying every stocked stream in the state from 1976-1981, of the many waters that I surveyed during that entire period in NW, NC, SC, and NE Pa, that small segment of Fishing Ck was the only stretch of a wild BT stream, an isolated stretch at that, where I ever saw that overharvest had clearly occurred, but with respect to wild ST streams that were being stocked, it was not unusual to find very few legal size wild ST in a sampling site on some streams where habitat suggested that there should have been more or where sampling outside of the stocked stretches produced noticeably more legal size fish.

I would add that in later years it became clear that the now special reg stretch of Codorus Ck , and its former longer reach, had been very substantially overharvested (BT) as a result of angling pressure brought on by adult trout stocking. The extent was unusual for a BT stream. Once it became a DH area, also very heavily stocked, it quickly (2 yrs) rose to Class A and way beyond. It was the harvest associated with stocking, not the stocked fish themselves, that had resulted in depression of the wild BT population. I then removed it from the DH program, terminating stocking of that section, and placed it in the more appropriate Selective Harvest Program.

The above is not to suggest that some other BT streams didn’t respond favorably to stocking termination, but I would not say that they were necessarily OVERharvested. Some may have been; I didn’t sample every stream in the state. Even with the harvest brought on by stocking though, most still supported good numbers of legal and moderate size to trophy size BT. Additionally, it was not unusual for streams that continued to be stocked to eventually develop wild populations to the extent that biomasses rose to the Class A level and beyond, allowing stocking to be terminated. Sometimes that biomass growth could be generated in wild BT streams by the shift to stocking only RT AND with the change in the past decade to stocking a much higher proportion of RT it would not surprise me if wild BT biomasses in some presently stocked wild trout sections have now expanded to Class A equivalents. That could be determined through fish population surveys.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

One place where overharvest of wild Brown Trout was clear was in the long pool where individuals had thought that Joe Humphreys had caught his state record fish at that time. Given that I had surveyed all of Fishing Ck at various locations, it was clear that it was only in this isolated stretch where such extensive harvest had taken place. Likewise, there was a wild ST stream in Schuylkill Co that later supported a very good Class A population (once stocking was terminated first by the PFC and later by the local co-op nursery). The sampling site characterizing the lower segment of the stream was within the most heavily stocked/fished (high stocking rate, highly accessible, fishing rodeo) portion of the stream and the ST population substantially overharvested, knocked down to a Class D as I recall. Once stocking was completely terminated, the standing stock soon rose to Class A and well beyond. In the process of inventorying every stocked stream in the state from 1976-1981, of the many waters that I surveyed during that period in NW, NC, SC, and NE Pa, that small segment of Fishing Ck was the only stretch of a wild BT stream, an isolated stretch at that, where I ever saw that overharvest had clearly occurred, but with respect to wild ST streams that were being stocked, it was not unusual to find very few legal size wild ST in a sampling site on some streams where habitat suggested that there should have been more or where sampling outside of the stocked stretches produced noticeably more legal size fish.

I would add that in later years it became clear that the now special reg stretch of Codorus Ck , and its former longer reach, had been very substantially overharvested (BT) as a result of angling pressure brought on by adult trout stocking. The extent was unusual for a BT stream. Once it became a DH area, also very heavily stocked, it quickly (2 yrs) rose to Class A and way beyond. It was the harvest associated with stocking, not the stocked fish themselves, that had resulted in depression of the wild BT population. I then removed it from the DH program, terminating stocking of that section, and placed it in the more appropriate Selective Harvest Program.

Thought I remembered something you said, that was it.

Very rare, more associated with stocking for sure.

 

[Fish Sticks]

One place where overharvest of wild Brown Trout was clear was in the long pool where individuals had thought that Joe Humphreys had caught his state record fish at that time. Given that I had representatively surveyed the length of Fishing Ck at various locations, it was clear that it was only in this isolated stretch where such extensive harvest had taken place. Likewise, there was a wild ST stream in Schuylkill Co that later supported a very good Class A population (once stocking was terminated first by the PFC and later by the local co-op nursery). The sampling site characterizing the lower segment of the stream was within the most heavily stocked/fished (high stocking rate, highly accessible, fishing rodeo) portion of the stream and the ST population substantially overharvested, knocked down to a Class D as I recall. Once stocking was completely terminated, the standing stock soon rose to Class A and well beyond. In the process of the PFC inventorying every stocked stream in the state from 1976-1981, of the many waters that I surveyed during that entire period in NW, NC, SC, and NE Pa, that small segment of Fishing Ck was the only stretch of a wild BT stream, an isolated stretch at that, where I ever saw that overharvest had clearly occurred, but with respect to wild ST streams that were being stocked, it was not unusual to find very few legal size wild ST in a sampling site on some streams where habitat suggested that there should have been more or where sampling outside of the stocked stretches produced noticeably more legal size fish.

I would add that in later years it became clear that the now special reg stretch of Codorus Ck , and its former longer reach, had been very substantially overharvested (BT) as a result of angling pressure brought on by adult trout stocking. The extent was unusual for a BT stream. Once it became a DH area, also very heavily stocked, it quickly (2 yrs) rose to Class A and way beyond. It was the harvest associated with stocking, not the stocked fish themselves, that had resulted in depression of the wild BT population. I then removed it from the DH program, terminating stocking of that section, and placed it in the more appropriate Selective Harvest Program.

The above is not to suggest that some other BT streams didn’t respond favorably to stocking termination, but I would not say that they were necessarily OVERharvested. Some may have been; I didn’t sample every stream in the state. Even with the harvest brought on by stocking though, most still supported good numbers of legal and moderate size to trophy size BT. Additionally, it was not unusual for streams that continued to be stocked to eventually develop wild populations to the extent that biomasses rose to the Class A level and beyond, allowing stocking to be terminated. Sometimes that shift could be generated in wild BT streams by the shift to stocking only RT.

I definitely agree it is not one size fits all. Sliverfox may have some data that suggests stocking effects brown trout less negatively than brook trout, i forget. I am fascinated by pine and kettle in-terms of what would happen if stocking stopped in those watersheds as people already know oh here.

I do not think it would be like Mikes Skook county example though. I don’t think surveys would show any change in wild native brook trout biomass in those large rivers. BECAUSE they shock in summer of course and brook trout’s growing season in the big water is in the colder weather months. However, I would be interested to see what happens to life span, gene flow(a critical metric for their ability to adapt and stay in the watershed), and average fish size.

This is why i’m curious

David Thorne WV DNR Brook Trout Biologist

“They need to be a large, contiguous and well connected native brook trout watershed,” said Thorne. “This is a watershed idea based on a lot of the research I and other people have conducted. Connectivity between the tributaries and main stems is how we see increased growth in fish. They have larger habitat, more food available, and can move to different habitats during different parts of their life cycle.”

 

[pcray1231]

Regarding fish per mile, IMO it's a poor measure. It's really a measure of stream SIZE. If you have a truly large river that has trout, like the Missouri, then it's going to rule in this measure. A smaller stream could be filled with fish, just fish, no water, and it still wouldn't measure up.

Trout density is what makes it fish good. The PFBC's measure is per acre. Surface area. Which is a better measure than per mile. It's 2 dimensional instead of 1 dimensional. Even that measure has weaknesses, for instance if you artificially narrow a stream but make it deeper, and keep the exact same number of fish, you can increase the per acre measure considerably. A true fish density measurement would be per unit of water volume, but, that's not an easy measurement to make.

In true fish density, our best trout waters more than meet western counterparts. Spring, BFC, etc. I believe they'd be among the highest in the country in terms of trout density. The difference is size. For natural trout streams in PA, spring and BFC are truly large. Penns and the LJR are massive. Out west, streams of that size holding trout is the norm. Here, it's the exception, they are exceptional streams.

Tailwaters can give us a few more western styled rivers. Allegheny, Lehigh, Delaware, etc. are already good trout fisheries. But if we just said the heck with it, lets go full White River like, and the only management priority is trout, and we will re-build all the dam infrastructure solely aiming at creating a fantastic trout fishery. Then these waters could absolutely be on par with western rivers in terms of trout per mile. But they still would fall in trout per volume to our richest waters like Spring Creek and BFC.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Regarding fish per mile, IMO it's a poor measure. It's really a measure of stream SIZE. If you have a truly large river that has trout, like the Missouri, then it's going to rule in this measure. A smaller stream could be filled with fish, just fish, no water, and it still wouldn't measure up.

Trout density is what makes it fish good. The PFBC's measure is per acre. Surface area. Which is a better measure than per mile. It's 2 dimensional instead of 1 dimensional. Even that measure has weaknesses, for instance if you artificially narrow a stream but make it deeper, and keep the exact same number of fish, you can increase the per acre measure considerably. A true fish density measurement would be per unit of water volume, but, that's not an easy measurement to make.

In true fish density, our best trout waters more than meet western counterparts. Spring, BFC, etc. I believe they'd be among the highest in the country in terms of trout density. The difference is size. For natural trout streams in PA, spring and BFC are truly large. Penns and the LJR are massive. Out west, streams of that size holding trout is the norm. Here, it's the exception, they are exceptional streams.

Tailwaters can give us a few more western styled rivers. Allegheny, Lehigh, Delaware, etc. are already good trout fisheries. But if we just said the heck with it, lets go full White River like, and the only management priority is trout, and we will re-build all the dam infrastructure solely aiming at creating a fantastic trout fishery. Then these waters could absolutely be on par with western rivers in terms of trout per mile. But they still would fall in trout per volume to our richest waters like Spring Creek and BFC.

I disagree.

I've fished class C streams that fish like class A.

Fish density measured with surface area is a poor measure in the relationship to "good fishing" which is very abstract.

But I wasn't discussing good fishing, I was discussing fish numbers in relationship to our misapplication and management of regulations to fisheries so I yield to you.