Once again a wild BT population blossoms on a stocked trout stream

M

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 10, 2006
Messages
5,420
A December electrofishing survey on a stocked trout/wild trout stream was conducted in York County. This stream has been stocked since the 1950’s and has now developed a substantial wild Brown Trout population. Biological surveys occurred at the same sampling site in 1978, 1996, and 2013. In 1978, one trout was captured in 300 m of electrofishing. It is unknown whether it was stocked or wild. In 1995, 16 wild trout were captured in 230 m of electrofishing. In December, 2013, 99 wild Brown Trout were captured in the first of three electrofishing passes through 284 m of the stream. The 2013 biomass was 60 kg/ha, the equivalent of a Class A biomass. The abundance of 9 inch and longer wild Brown Trout per mile exceeded the statewide 90th percentile for that statistic, indicating along with the biomass an excellent wild Brown Trout population.

By the way, the sampling site began at a bridge, which is typically attractive to anglers, and effectively overlapped all or part of a stocking point.
 
Good Stuff Mike, keep it coming.
 
More evidence of the wild trout boom across central PA.

Mike,
Care to hazard a theory to explain the increased wild BT biomass in this particular waterway? :)

Also, with Class A biomass now, this section would be a good candidate for removal from stocking in keeping with the PFBC need to identify streams for an abatement of stocking. Or, if not complete removal, then perhaps a 50% reduction in number of stocked fish or just drop this section from the in-season stocking.

Anyway......some more good news.
 
Fishidiot wrote:

Mike,
Care to hazard a theory to explain the increased wild BT biomass in this particular waterway?

Yes. What caused the increase in the wild trout population?

And why was that info left out? It wasn't considered important?

 
Rather than ceasing stocking, I would think that fingerlings would be a good way to supplement the existing wild pop.

 
Again - this is good news. I'm certainly not trying to hijack this thread into another monster debate about stocking vs wild trout.

However, this particular case is worth talking about as I'm convinced stories like this aren't isolated. Wild trout populations are doing very well in central PA and for reasons I cannot begin to explain. I think what you're seeing here: a small stream with little if any change in management strategy goes from virtually no wild fish to Class A in a generation is not that unusual. Why did it improve so much? I can only speculate. Hopefully Mike will proffer an opinion on this. However, considering these findings, there's two ways to look at this:

1) That this stream demonstrates that we can have the best of both worlds; that stocking can continue on a presumably popular put and take fishery and, at the same time, wild trout can thrive in high numbers in that same waterway despite stocking and provide the sort of quality fishery most of us on this forum appreciate.

2) The other view is that a case like this - where wild trout suddenly emerge in good numbers in a stream section previously without them - is tailor made for the transition that was originally envisioned in Operation Future; that streams newly identified with Class A biomass should not be stocked because they don't need to be regardless of the "social" conditions surrounding the stream (ie. it was a popular put and take fishery with traditional anglers).

Of the two points of view above......I lean in favor of "2" but recognize the reality of "1."
 
Fishidiot wrote:
Again - this is good news. I'm certainly not trying to hijack this thread into another monster debate about stocking vs wild trout.

I don't think it's hijacking. Because it's not changing the subject. The OP makes another argument/assertion in the long running debate.
 
Gradual improvement in water temperatures over time as reflected in changes in fish community composition.
 
Water temperature and quality perhaps? Substantial increase in food availability?
 
What caused the change in water temperatures?

A great deal of what has been tried to improve trout populations has not worked. But something worked here.

What worked on this stream could be applied to other streams.
 
It seems to me that much of the landscape in central PA - this is esp true on the CV limestoners - is more forested and thus a bit more shaded than 30 yrs ago. I think there's also better control of storm water in many communities around here as well. Perhaps these factors - they're so gradual they often go unnoticed - may be playing a role in improved water temps across central PA, and maybe this stream in particular.
 
The Clean Water Act, which applied to the surface waters of the
United States, went beyond protection and sought restoration of
our nation’s waterways. Restoration of polluted waterways was
a relatively new concept in 1972. Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams
Law
, passed in 1937 to protect “clean” waters from becoming
polluted, did not require that polluted waters be restored.

Nearly thirty years passed before the Clean Streams Law was
amended to include the goal “to reclaim and restore to a clean
unpolluted condition every stream in Pennsylvania that is
presently polluted.”
Pennsylvania’s Clean Streams Law was
further amended in 1970 to state that the discharge of materials
contributing to pollution was against public policy and
constituted a public nuisance.

The Clean Water Act provides for the delegation of authority
to states. In 1978, the EPA determined that Pennsylvania’s
Clean Streams Law met the minimum requirements of the Clean
Water Act and delegated to the Commonwealth the power to
implement the provisions of the federal law. Pennsylvania
regulations meet and in many respects exceed federal law. The
Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection is
designated as the state agency with authority to enforce the
powers of the Clean Water Act, however municipal
governments play a key role protecting water quality and in
meeting the water quality goals of the Clean Water Act.

Like the 1899 Rivers and Harbors Act and the 1972 Clean
Water Act, laws protecting water quality have generally
originated at the federal level and primarily addressed point
source pollution, leaving the regulation of nonpoint source
pollution to state governments. Water quantity and water supply
protections have also been left primarily to the states. By
contrast, zoning and land use management decisions have
generally been left to the control of local government.
In Pennsylvania, local governments, or municipal
corporations, include cities, boroughs, incorporated towns, and
townships of the first or second class. Each of these local
government structures is a creation of the state and “may
exercise any power or perform any function not denied by this
Constitution, by its home rule charter or by the General
Assembly at any time.”

Express powers, such as the power to
enact zoning provisions that protect public health and safety,
preserve natural, historic, and agricultural resources, and
prevent damage from flooding can also be exercised by
Pennsylvania’s local governments.

Guberment regs gone wild....:-o

Thank the pollies (with some foresight) for doing the right thing.

Decades later, we are seeing some of the positive results, IMHO.

 
I would not assume that government regulations or actions had anything to do with it.

We don't know what happened there. That information has not been stated.

It may simply be that the stream used to be "cow bombed" from severe over-grazing by dairy cows. And now the land use/ownership has changed and there are no longer cows grazing there. That can completely transform a stream, and pretty quickly.

 
Increased shade (vegetation establishment and maturation) over time in the fallow riparian areas a mile or two above the woodlands where the sampling site has always been located. This has been a common theme in SE Pa where wild trout have appeared or extended farther downstream.
 
From the OP title Re: Once again a wild BT population blossoms on a stocked trout stream

Not necessarily looking just at this one stream....looking at the big picture in PA. This report is one of many about more and more wild trout being discovered in streams that had little or no wild trout reproduction in just about every region of the State.

Overall cleaner water and cleaner air as well as better management and oversight of the resources is bearing the fruit (the fish)...I believe so.

I would ask every one of us that cares about our streams and rivers in PA to be vigilant, and not let the current administration roll back all the progress that has been made.

Beware of lame ducks and anyone claiming to do things in the name of "jobs." The "job" you actually get may be not what you really wanted or expected.:-o
 
The population increased because of land use change. There is no indication that this was caused by government regulation. Nor was there in the previous example Mike gave.

What these examples show is that land use, vegetation management, in riparian areas can make a huge difference in the health of streams and therefore wild trout populations.

What you could conclude from this is that perhaps the government should do something prevent devastation of riparian areas from "cow-bombing", extending corn fields right up to the water's edge, extending groomed lawns up to the water's edge, parking lots right up to the water's edge, and other riparian travesties.

Right now the government does not prevent any of these things. They are all legal. I have seen riparian fencing where the cows are kept INSIDE the riparian fences. And places where the barn yard includes the creek. And places where corn fields are extended as close to the creek as the farmer can go without the danger of tipping the tractor into the creek.

BTW, this thread ought to have been in the Conservation forum, and titled something like "Once Again Improved Riparian Land Use Leads to Blossoming Wild Trout Population."

Because that is gist of what really happened.
 
Very good Afish in comment #15. The theme was more important than the specific stream, and that was in large part why I left the stream name out of it.

As for Fishidiot's one suggestion, the December survey allowed us to get the survey in under the 2013 wire. If you recall, the policy for removing Class A streams from the stocking program is that two successive surveys during two different years (there is no requirement to do the surveys 2 years in a row, however) must reveal Class A equivalent biomasses. Doing the survey in 2013 opened the door for potentially doing the second one in 2014. Additionally, per Fishidiot, the stream is already stocked by the PFBC at the bare minimum allocation, preseason only, and with only ST. It is my understanding that a Cooperative Nursery also stocks the stream.

Per Troutbert comment immediately above, if I recall correctly, NJ has a regulation that was put into place a few years ago that does much to protect riparian areas.
 
Mike wrote:

if I recall correctly, NJ has a regulation that was put into place a few years ago that does much to protect riparian areas.

I wonder how that is working out, in practical application. Maybe someone from NJ has some info they can share about that.

A similar rule is probably going to be needed in PA if we are going to make much progress with our streams. People were trying to create riparian buffers, fence cows away from streams etc. back when I started flyfishing around 1970. But so many of the riparian areas are still a total wreck, and are likely to remain that way as long as it's legal.
 
Until some of the older heads leave the PFBC, I don't expect much but more of these strawmen to prove points ,already disproven throught the course of pa angling history.
 
I am not so sure this is a result of land use changes. The area surveyed has remained largely unchanged over the past few decades. It is heavily forested along a gravel road where only a few areas come close to the road. So yes it has a great buffer and is well shaded. Upstream is farm land and rural housing plots but not in the "grazing up to the banks" sense. And even up there land use hasn;t changed much.

I think this is more the result of reductions in fishing pressure as result of stocking numbers and "trophy fish" eliminations. This stream used to receive preseason and inseason stockings and the 10 trophy fish (which were too big for the stream). When Big Spring closed and stocking numbers were reduced the inseason stocking was eliminated IIRC and a few years later the Trophy Fish were eliminated from several smaller stocked streams in York County. This was one of them.

So the result was fewer angling hours I am sure as there were no reasons for the "big fish guys" to go there.

Sure it gets some co-op fish and the preseason stocking but it doesn't receive near the pressure it did early in the season.

This gives the wild trout pops a reprieve and a greater opportunity to flourish as fewer adult wild trout are creeled as a result.

So perhaps the title should be "Once again a wild BT population blossoms [d]on a stocked trout stream[/d] as a result of a reduction in stocking."
 
Back
Top