Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



(1) 2 »


NW PA Stocking Over Wild Trout Survey Results

Joined:
2006/10/26 23:01
From Ohio
Posts: 657
Offline
Alright all, after a two hours with the PFGC web site and my gazeteer, here are the results of a survey of nine contingous NW counties that are my stomping grounds (Erie, Crawford, Mercer, Lawerence, Butler, Venago, Clarion, Forrest, and Warren) regarding whether the PFBC stocks over wild trout streams.

First, as is stated by the PFGC, there is no stocking of class A wild trout stream SECTIONS.

However, of the 11 class A stream sections in these counties:

3 had stocked trout in directly adjacent sections. Two of these were class A brook trout streams had brown trout stocked directly adjacent in the same stream.

4 additional streams flowed into stocked water. One of these was a class A brook trout stream that flowed into a stocked brown stream.

So:

7/11 class A wild trout stream sections had directly adjacent stocked water.
3/3 class A brook trout streams had adjacent sections of river that held stocked browns.

In addition, 2 of the 6 "wilderness" trout streams, which are generally brook trout streams that are supposed to be afforded the highest protection, had brown trout stocked directly adjacent. However, I know one of these streams very well and there is a waterfall that serves as a natural barrier between stocked brown and non-stocked wild brook trout sections. This may be a factor in other "adjacent" sections.

So I can see why people have different perceptions of reality. Techniquely, no class A water is stocked, but a lot of adjacent water is.....

Comments?

Posted on: 2007/3/11 1:05


Re: NW PA Stocking Over Wild Trout Survey Results

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 6456
Offline
i think the main point is....

stocking over wild fish is wrong. class a, b, c........to z regardless
also that regulations on wild trout streams need changed.
plus this is for nw pa. what about the rest?

Posted on: 2007/3/11 5:31
_________________
http://cvtu.homestead.com/





Re: NW PA Stocking Over Wild Trout Survey Results

Joined:
2006/12/7 18:13
Posts: 217
Offline
sal:

In a project that took me several months to complete; I have mapped, researched, logged and categorized and charted all of the Class A, Wilderness and Special Regulation streams by location; type (section of AT or trib) in the following counties:

Delaware, Chester, Bucks, Berks, Montgomery, Lancaster, Lebanon, Northampton, Lehigh, Luzerene, Lackawanna, Pike, Wayne, Monroe, Schuylkill, Center, Dauphin, Northumberland, Clinton, Potter, Tioga, York, Perry, Adams, Franklin, Cumberland, Susquehanna, Sullivan, Wyoming, Carbon, and Lycoming and portions of nine other counties.

My results are identical to OhioOutdoorsman. It IS a section thing as he described and as I pointed out in the other thread. Unfortunately also like he said, there are a lot of adjacent sections stocked but good luck ever trying to get that changed. Pine Creek with miles and miles of stocked water has a Class A section in Potter. Could you imagine them not stocking Pine?

Whether the state stocks sections that COULD be Class A to appease local interests is all speculative but like everybody else; I too wonder when I fish places like the Monocasy Creek AT in Bethlehem and can count less that 5 stockers in 20 years of fishing that stretch!

Posted on: 2007/3/11 7:43


Re: NW PA Stocking Over Wild Trout Survey Results

Joined:
2006/10/26 23:01
From Ohio
Posts: 657
Offline
Salvineus -

As bamboozle points out this process is very tedious, i only had the patience to survey my section of the state.

I think to have a supply of fishing opprotunities to meet the demand, stocking is a necessary evil. If stocking of "wild" trout streams of any class was intututed I think you'd have atituation much like trout stocking in Ohio......a springtime put and take affair. It would dramatically lower coldwater fishing opprotunities. Would people stop fishing for trout? No. They would hit the wild streams all the harder unless more regs were passed, which would further limit fishing opprotunities. This would upset a lot of fisherman, which is the group (not the fish) that the PFBC has to serve. I don't think that the class B-D fisheries would "rebound" to the degree to provide a quality, sustainable sportfishery that is equivalent to the stocked fishery. So I think class B-D wild trout fisheries (at least brown and rainbow fisheries) need to be stocked in some fashion.......these lesser quality fisheries are able to support a large population of holdeover trout and make economic sense to stock from a resource management perspective.

What I think is that stocking should be done in a way that is least intrusive to wild fisheries, in particular, brook trout fisheries.

What I propose as a plan of action that I think we could all agree on is asking the PFGC to alter their practices of stocking browns next to brook trout streams that have no natural barrier. This would be a good place to start and I think has the best evedence behind it. We could lobby to stop stocking at some streams and ask them to study the effects on the adjacent brook trout fishery. If there was an improvement, this could then be used as evidence to alter the policy of stocking adjacent sections statewide.

I would also be interested in the effects of stocking brook trout next to wild brook trout populations. Maybe this could be an alternative to stopping stocking all together. Maybe this is what we could lobby for if the PFBC says they absolutely need to stock next to a given section of stream. This practice would also need to be studied.

I think working with a regional manager on a few targeted streams would be the best way to start the process.....

Posted on: 2007/3/11 8:18


Re: NW PA Stocking Over Wild Trout Survey Results

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 6456
Offline
stocking wild trout streams is not necessary. y not overload marginal streams and let the meat killers hack at it?

it is a section thing...but unless there is a barrier that it not important.

i argee that stocking browns next to brooks is a good place to start.

i dont know how this stocking thing got brought up. my only point is that WILD BROOK TROUT STREAMS OR ANY WILD STREAMS NEED REGULATION CHANGES!

Posted on: 2007/3/11 13:14
_________________
http://cvtu.homestead.com/





Re: NW PA Stocking Over Wild Trout Survey Results

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6274
Offline
Does anyone know if the "no stocking on Class A waters" is a law, a regulation, an internal guidance type thing, a recommendation, or just what. In other words, does it have any legal force, is it a formal rule that they are obligated to follow? Or just a sort of management idea that they say that they follow, in general, but will make exceptions to in some cases.

Because they DO stock some Class A sections.

Below is a post that was on this site several years ago, in regard to stocking of a Class A section on the Little Lehigh. This is not the only case where this done.

Anyone who wants to follow this subject further could simply send a letter to Dr. Austen, head of the PFBC, and ask him if the PFBC stocks trout in some Class A sections, and if so, what are those sections, and why is it done there.

--------------------------------------
paflyfish.com 9/11/04. Jeff S
“A while back someone posted a question regarding the amount of wild brown trout in the Little Lehigh above the Heritage Angling special reg section. I emailed the PFBC about this section of water and this is their reply. Keep in mind that this section of water is stocked on a yearly basis.

Jeff, your email has been forwarded to this office for reply. Section 7
contains a abundant population of brown trout. One site was surveyed in July of 2001 and 2002. The site was located 460 m (or 503 yards) downstream of
Kecks Bridge and was 440 m (or 481 yards) in length. During both years the
biomass of wild brown trout present reflected that of a Class A fishery
(Brown trout biomass > or = to 40.00 kg/ha or 35.67 lbs/ac) with values of
159.07 (141.85 lbs/ac) and 118.91 kg/ha (106.04 lbs/ac)respectively.

I hope the above information address your request.

David A. Arnold
Area Fisheries Manager
Fisheries Management Area 5
US Route 209
Bushkill, PA 18324
(570) 588-6388
(570) 588-7700 (FAX)
daarnold@state.pa.us
---------------------------------------

Posted on: 2007/3/12 12:28


Re: NW PA Stocking Over Wild Trout Survey Results
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 19:16
From Dallastown, PA
Posts: 7088
Offline
Quote:

troutbert wrote:
Does anyone know if the "no stocking on Class A waters" is a law, a regulation, an internal guidance type thing, a recommendation, or just what. In other words, does it have any legal force, is it a formal rule that they are obligated to follow? Or just a sort of management idea that they say that they follow, in general, but will make exceptions to in some cases.

Because they DO stock some Class A sections. --


TB,

Here is something from the Rulemakings section of the F&BC site. Keep in mind that this is up for public comment but I am sure the verbiage emboldend was there before.

Page 1
Notice
Changes to List of Class A Wild Trout Waters
Spring 2007
Notice is hereby given that the Fish and Boat Commission (Commission) is considering changes to its list of Class A Wild Trout Streams. Pursuant to 58 Pa. Code §57.8a (relating to
Class A wild trout streams), it is the Commission’s policy to manage self-sustaining Class A wild trout populations as a renewable natural resource to conserve that resource and the angling it provides. Class A wild trout populations represent the best of Pennsylvania’s naturally reproducing trout fisheries. The Commission manages these stream sections solely for the perpetuation of the wild trout fishery with no stocking.
Criteria developed for Class A Wild Trout fisheries are species specific. Wild Trout Abundance Class Criteria include provisions for:
(i) Wild Brook Trout Fisheries
(A) Total brook trout biomass of at least 30 kg/ha (26.7 lbs/acre).
(B) Total biomass of brook trout less than 15 cm (5.9 inches) in total length of at least 0.1 kg/ha (0.089 lbs/acre).
(C) Brook trout biomass must comprise at least 75% of the total trout biomass.
(ii) Wild Brown Trout Fisheries
(A) Total brown trout biomass of at least 40 kg/ha (35.6 lbs/acre).
(B) Total biomass of brown trout less than 15 cm (5.9 inches) in total length of at least 0.1 kg/ha (0.089 lbs/acre).
(C) Brown trout biomass must comprise at least 75% of the total trout biomass.
(iii) Mixed Wild Brook and Brown Trout Fisheries
(A) Combined brook and brown trout biomass of at least 40 kg/ha (35.6 lbs/acre).
(B) Total biomass of brook trout less than 15 cm (5.9 inches) in total length of at least 0.1 kg/ha (0.089 lbs/acre).
(C) Total biomass of brown trout less than 15 cm (5.9 inches) in total length of at least 0.1 kg/ha (0.089 lbs/acre).
(D) Brook trout biomass must comprise less than 75% of the total trout biomass.
(E) Brown trout biomass must comprise less than 75% of the total trout biomass.
(iv) Wild Rainbow Trout Fisheries
Total biomass of rainbow trout less than 15 cm (5.9 inches) in total length of at least 2.0 kg/ha (1.78 lbs/acre).
In order for a water to be removed from the Class A Wild Trout Streams designation, total trout biomass must be documented below the set criteria for two consecutive stream
examinations. At its meeting on April 16 and 17, 2007, the Commission intends to consider adding Tannery Hollow Run, Section 01, in Cameron County to its list of Class A Wild Trout Streams. Tannery Hollow Run is a tributary to Sterling Run. Section 01 extends for a distance of 2.75
miles, from the headwaters downstream to the mouth. Based on a stream examination inventory conducted by Commission staff in August 2006, Section 01 supported an estimated wild brook
trout biomass of 40.04 kg/ha and met the biomass criteria for designation as a Class A wildbrook trout water. The Commission will not consider the removal of any streams from the list at
the April 2007 meeting. Persons with comments, objections or suggestions concerning the addition are invited to submit comments in writing to Executive Director, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, P.O. Box 67000, Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000, within 30 days after publication of this notice in the Pennsylvania Bulletin. Comments also may be submitted electronically by completing the form at Electroniuc comment form. If an acknowledgment of electronic
comments is not received by the sender within 2 working days, the comments should be retransmitted to ensure receipt. Electronic comments submitted in any other manner will not be
accepted.
FOR THE PENNSYLVANIA FISH AND BOAT COMMISSION:
Douglas J. Austen, Ph.D.
Executive Director



Its a pdf file located here

changes to the wild trout list
Another notice up for Public Comment regarding disposition of some streams to the wild trout list...what ever that is.

I would get behind these two items with public comment to the F&BC.

Maurice

Posted on: 2007/3/12 13:02
_________________
Don't hit me with them negative waves so early in the morning. Think the bridge will be there and it will be there. It's a mother, beautiful bridge, and it's gonna be there. Ok?


Re: NW PA Stocking Over Wild Trout Survey Results

Joined:
2006/10/2 10:08
From Westmoreland County (near fairgrounds)
Posts: 3770
Offline
I know Tannery Hollow Run. Its across the street from my Dad's house. I caught a few brookies in there this January.

Its clearly a good sign that it qualifies to be added to the class A list, but I fear the added publicity won't do it any good.

Any thoughts? What has happened to other streams when they make the list?

Posted on: 2007/3/12 22:00
_________________
Resized Image
Only one constant in the universe, all men are equal in the eyes of the fish.
-GulfGreyhound paraphrasing Herbert Hoover


Re: NW PA Stocking Over Wild Trout Survey Results

Joined:
2006/9/9 17:18
From lancaster county
Posts: 6456
Offline
albatross,

i think it depends on location. i think it would hurt a stream in say lancaster,lebanon or york. i think the effects would be less in say potter or tioga county

Posted on: 2007/3/13 2:32
_________________
http://cvtu.homestead.com/





Re: NW PA Stocking Over Wild Trout Survey Results
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22412
Offline
For what it is worth, when a stream is classified as Class A because of sufficient trout biomass, it automatically gets elevated on the DEP protection list to EV Exceptional Value water. This limits development, discharge and other detrimental activities. It is my belief that very few anglers pay any attention to the Class A listings. While it may increase pressure slightly, I doubt it will turn a stream into an opening day free-for-all atmosphere. On balance, the added protection is worth the publicity. After a couple years, it will be just another of the hundreds of Class A waters, but the protection afforded from degradation will last longer, perhaps forever.

Posted on: 2007/3/13 6:09
_________________
Peace, Tony


Re: NW PA Stocking Over Wild Trout Survey Results

Joined:
2006/12/7 18:13
Posts: 217
Offline
Jack is right.

I fished a slew of small Class A streams last season many in somewhat urban areas. Excluding the "famous" creeks like Slate Run, etc. I saw ZERO other fishermen.

It is also directly proportional to the size of the stream too and I really think MOST fishermen who regularly harvest or take a somewhat less passionate attitude toward trout fishing have this fear of getting skunked when they pit their giant brain against the pea brain of a WILD trout, (or is it the other way around?).

In any case I just don't see the fishermen on the "regular non-famous" Class A streams to think that the list causes as much interest as being declared a Special Regulation Area which IMHO causes MAJOR additional pressure but at times is a necessary evil.

Posted on: 2007/3/13 8:07


Re: NW PA Stocking Over Wild Trout Survey Results

Joined:
2006/10/2 10:08
From Westmoreland County (near fairgrounds)
Posts: 3770
Offline
I guess theres's not much to worry about. Tannery will be the 25th class A stream in the tiny (380 square miles) county of Cameron.

The folks with camps along the stream already fish it. There's not much to distinguish this stream from other area wild trout streams for someone comming into the area.

Posted on: 2007/3/13 10:14
_________________
Resized Image
Only one constant in the universe, all men are equal in the eyes of the fish.
-GulfGreyhound paraphrasing Herbert Hoover


Re: NW PA Stocking Over Wild Trout Survey Results

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6274
Offline
Quote:

albatross wrote:
I know Tannery Hollow Run. Its across the street from my Dad's house. I caught a few brookies in there this January.

Its clearly a good sign that it qualifies to be added to the class A list, but I fear the added publicity won't do it any good.

Any thoughts? What has happened to other streams when they make the list?


From what I've seen adding a stream to the Class A list doesn't add much fishing pressure, and the few people it does attract are the C&R flyfisher type.

That doesn't mean there is no harvest on these streams. The people who harvest on those streams didn't learn about the streams on the internet. These guys usually hit the streams very early in the season. Opening day is when these streams get the most harvest-oriented fishing pressure. Just like the stocked streams.

It's interesting to go to several of these streams on opening day and see. If you do this several years in a row you start to get some sense of the level of harvest going on unstocked wild trout streams.

Posted on: 2007/3/13 10:25


Re: NW PA Stocking Over Wild Trout Survey Results

Joined:
2006/10/2 10:08
From Westmoreland County (near fairgrounds)
Posts: 3770
Offline
Quote:
Criteria developed for Class A Wild Trout fisheries are species specific. Wild Trout Abundance Class Criteria include provisions for:
(i) Wild Brook Trout Fisheries
(A) Total brook trout biomass of at least 30 kg/ha (26.7 lbs/acre).
(B) Total biomass of brook trout less than 15 cm (5.9 inches) in total length of at least 0.1 kg/ha (0.089 lbs/acre).
(C) Brook trout biomass must comprise at least 75% of the total trout biomass.
(ii) Wild Brown Trout Fisheries
(A) Total brown trout biomass of at least 40 kg/ha (35.6 lbs/acre).
(B) Total biomass of brown trout less than 15 cm (5.9 inches) in total length of at least 0.1 kg/ha (0.089 lbs/acre).
(C) Brown trout biomass must comprise at least 75% of the total trout biomass.
(iii) Mixed Wild Brook and Brown Trout Fisheries
(A) Combined brook and brown trout biomass of at least 40 kg/ha (35.6 lbs/acre).
(B) Total biomass of brook trout less than 15 cm (5.9 inches) in total length of at least 0.1 kg/ha (0.089 lbs/acre).
(C) Total biomass of brown trout less than 15 cm (5.9 inches) in total length of at least 0.1 kg/ha (0.089 lbs/acre).
(D) Brook trout biomass must comprise less than 75% of the total trout biomass.
(E) Brown trout biomass must comprise less than 75% of the total trout biomass.
(iv) Wild Rainbow Trout Fisheries
Total biomass of rainbow trout less than 15 cm (5.9 inches) in total length of at least 2.0 kg/ha (1.78 lbs/acre).


Am I reading this correctly? For Brookies, you need at least 30 kg/ha of any size and 0.1 kg/ha of little ones. Similarly for Browns, you need at least 40 kg/ha of any size and 0.1 kg/ha of little ones. But for Rainbows, its only the density of little ones of at least 2.0 kg/ha that matters.

Why does a rainbow stream need 20 times the density of little fish to qualify as class A?

I'm guessing they don't want to have a lot of wild rainbow streams on the class A list.

Posted on: 2007/3/13 11:37
_________________
Resized Image
Only one constant in the universe, all men are equal in the eyes of the fish.
-GulfGreyhound paraphrasing Herbert Hoover


Re: NW PA Stocking Over Wild Trout Survey Results

Joined:
2006/12/7 18:13
Posts: 217
Offline
Here's something interesting I found yesterday that is either indicative of improving conditions or more effective analysis and manpower allocation.

I found a Class A list of unknown vintage although I suspect 1980's; that has the streams listed by STREAM, not section. In any case the list only has 98 streams on it.

Without trying I can easily add another 50-100 I know about off the top of my head.

I guess it really hasn't hurt too much now that all of this more expansive information is available now because I haven't really noticed the additional pressure on the smaller Class A streams NOT on this old list or some of the more famous streams on the list.

I also would have missed many a fine day of fishing if I had to discover all of the added stream names myself.

Posted on: 2007/3/16 7:48



(1) 2 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Will you be fly fishing this autumn?
Yes
No
Thinking about it
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll will close at 2014/10/31 17:56
1 Comment





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com