A Proposal for Spring Creek

[PennKev]

Ok, so this relates to the C&R overuse thread.

There is the sentiment that Spring is overrun with small trout to the detriment of the larger fish. While I personally believe that there are good numbers of larger fish in Spring, I also think that there could be more if there were fewer 6-9" trout. Now when I say I think there could be more large fish I mean more 14"-16" fish, not necessarily 20" fish.

So here is my proposal: The PAFBC would electroshock Spring each year and remove a designated number of fish that are under 8". Those fish would then be moved to lower Bald Eagle. Hatchery fingerlings stockings would be cut on BE in proportion to the number of fish taken from Spring and replanted.

I think this is reasonable, at least as a sort of experiment. Not only that, but I think it can serve two functions. First, we would see if managing trout populations at a certain level would improve average size on Spring. Electroshocking would seem to be a more reliable and controllable way to regulate this rather than relying on angler harvest. Secondly, We would be able to test the wild fingerling stocking theory that is often mentioned on this board. PA's fingerling stocking program has shown dismal results in most cases. Here, we would be able to see if the stockings improved with fish of wild origin. In fact, the fish would be from the same watershed, so one would think that if any fingerlings would be successful, it would be the ones from Spring. Granted we would not be able to stock the same numbers of wild fingerlings that we do hatchery fish, but if the success was dramatically better, it might not matter.

Thoughts?

 

[afishinado]

PennKev wrote:
Ok, so this relates to the C&R overuse thread.

There is the sentiment that Spring is overrun with small trout to the detriment of the larger fish. While I personally believe that there are good numbers of larger fish in Spring, I also think that there could be more if there were fewer 6-9" trout. Now when I say I think there could be more large fish I mean more 14"-16" fish, not necessarily 20" fish.

So here is my proposal: The PAFBC would electroshock Spring each year and remove a designated number of fish that are under 8". Those fish would then be moved to lower Bald Eagle. Hatchery fingerlings stockings would be cut on BE in proportion to the number of fish taken from Spring and replanted.

I think this is reasonable, at least as a sort of experiment. Not only that, but I think it can serve two functions. First, we would see if managing trout populations at a certain level would improve average size on Spring. Electroshocking would seem to be a more reliable and controllable way to regulate this rather than relying on angler harvest. Secondly, We would be able to test the wild fingerling stocking theory that is often mentioned on this board. PA's fingerling stocking program has shown dismal results in most cases. Here, we would be able to see if the stockings improved with fish of wild origin. In fact, the fish would be from the same watershed, so one would think that if any fingerlings would be successful, it would be the ones from Spring. Granted we would not be able to stock the same numbers of wild fingerlings that we do hatchery fish, but if the success was dramatically better, it might not matter.

Thoughts?

That would be a fascinating experiment.

 

[SteveG]

Isn't the purpose of having wild trout populations, for them to be wild and not micro managed like a trout park. Also, wouldn't the smaller fish be able to move back into Spring Creek, just like some of the bows have?

I think resources could be better utilized for large fish habitat, if that's what the goal is. Last time I checked, there wasn't any shortage of bugs drifting along in the current.

 

[PennKev]

Why not micro manage? That's is what a lot of folks already suggest when they propose tinkering with harvest regs, fingerling stocking etc. on various streams. Outright methodical removal of a certain number of fish is really no different. It is just a more direct manner of influencing the fish population in the desired way. I'm not suggesting this as a widespread standard for managing our streams, but I think it could be a proof of concept and encourage true responsible harvest on our better streams. I think a lot more c&r anglers would buy into it and even participate in well controlled harvest if they saw proof that it would work here in PA. The ultimate goal being the encouragement of a larger average size in our best wild trout streams.

The fingerling experiment in BE would be a secondary experiment. I used BE as the recipient stream for a quick and convenient way to UTILIZE the removed fish from spring. The fish in BE would only be able to make it to Bellefonte before being stopped by the damn there so re-migration of fish would not be a factor in the primary experiment if the fish were originalky collected from upstream of town. Of course, the fish could be trucked to some other watershed entirely too.

Finally, habitat is important but this experiment is not about stream structure. Although, it could easily disprove the theory that the number of small fish is hindering the number of larger fish. In which case the need for better big fish habitat would be better supported.

 

[SteveG]

Ok, so you're talking removal of smaller fish from above Bellfonte? I'm not familiar with all of the dams on Spring.

One other factor that's a possibility regarding large fish, could be their handling during a catch. I posted an article on the forum recently regarding handling practices for taking pics of fish. I wouldn't be shocked if some trophy size fish die shortly after their release due to their heart being crushed, stress, etc. We've all seen large dead fish in stream that don't appear to have been victims of predation.

I think its natural to have a limited amount of large vs smaller fish. That's how nature works. I think the culling/harvest/predation of small fish to benefit growth of a smaller amount of large fish would only apply for infertile streams where there is little migration.

But, the proposed experiment could provide insight into trout lifecycles.

 

[WildTigerTrout]

I fish Spring Creek quite a bit. Small fish grow into big fish. IMO leave it alone. I have not had a problem catching 12-16" trout there along with a 18 to 19 incher once in a while.

 

[MKern]

I would bet that the small ones just swim right back up within days.

 

[PennKev]

MKern wrote:
I would bet that the small ones just swim right back up within days.

They would only make it to the dam in the park at Bellefont.

 

[krayfish2]

Kev's idea is very interesting except I propose the fish are planted below Raystown after the flows are modified. Oh that's right, that will never happen. Carry on.

 

[sarce]

If you put the fingerlings below Bald Eagle lake, they wouldn't even make it that far.

I think it's an interesting idea, but think it might not necessarily result in more big fish in Spring above bellefonte. I think the big fish habitat up there already has big fish. I'd love to see it done and see what happens.

 

[phiendWMD]

I'm not that familiar with SC or the dams. Could they make it back over in high water?

I've seen stocked trout come really close to making it over a 6 or so foot tall dam in normal conditions. After a good rain I don't think they would have much trouble jumping by. The dam(s) on SC might be different from what I've seen elsewhere.

 

[krayfish2]

Link with pics of dam in town. It's unlikely that fish get over it.

http://www.yelp.com/biz/talleyrand-park-bellefonte

 

[blueheron]

So,you're proposing moving naturally occuring populations of fish around as an experiment? Is it just me that thinks it's a bad idea?

 

[PennKev]

blueheron wrote:
So,you're proposing moving naturally occuring populations of fish around as an experiment? Is it just me that thinks it's a bad idea?

Sure. Why not? We are already dumping thousands of adult and fingerling hatchery trout in all sorts of streams. In comparison, the fish in this experiment wouldn't even be leaving their original watershed. These fish could (and probably do) already get into Bald Eagle anyway.

 

[LeTortAngler2]

Id rather catch the average fish and the occasional earned bigger ones the way it's been for a long time now. This isn't the west where bigger fish are the usual.
"I fish Spring Creek quite a bit. Small fish grow into big fish. IMO leave it alone".
+1

 

[InTheMend]

I don't get into this often, but in my humble opinion this is a bad idea. In PA there are very few true high density trout waters (3000+ per mile), tinkering, screwing, or managing a stream like that to me is ludicrous. There are PLENTY of streams that harbor good populations of large wild trout in the state, not to mention there are plenty of them already in Spring. Not every stream is meant to be a "big fish" stream, and trying to make every stream one simply isn't realistic or a good idea.

High density population fisheries present different challenges and require a different method of attack to fish than mid to low density streams, taking away one of those fisheries seriously limits the angling opportunities in the state. If one wishes to catch a large wild trout in the State College area Fishing Creek and Penn's are not that far.. Leave the streams be and let nature dictate what kind of populations there are, its natures job.

I don't meant to suggest that it wouldn't be a interesting study to do, but in a state, or region where streams of this caliber are truly rare, screwing with the populations is too big of a price to pay.

 

[SteveG]

If someone is that concerned with only catching large fish, there is always the option to join a private club that has their own water.

 

[dryflyguy]

Interesting idea.
But I doubt that it would be very feasible.
You would have to cull fish from the whole stream - not just a stretch here and there, as is done in regular electroshocking surveys. And that would be quite a challenge IMO.
Otherwise, fish would just move up and down from the un-culled sections - along with tributaries too.

I'm quite happy with the way spring creek is right now. I rarely get anything over 14", and do catch many more smaller fish for sure.
But that's likely because I only fish with dries. I'm guessing - and have heard from other anglers - that there are bigger fish there. They just require different tactics.

George Harvey used to write about going night fishing for the real big fish, and maybe that would be the ticket for catching them there.
I believe there are a few night fishermen on this forum. Perhaps a few of them have done it on spring creek, and could weigh in on that subject?

 

[Chaz]

I say know shocking to move fish, but your idea is intriguing. I suspect the fish moved to Lower BE Creek would do well. As for the leftovers, I like that name, in Spring Creek it's very dependent on fish genetics. Not all brown trout strains have genetics to grow big piscivorous browns.
Many of the brown trout streams have loads of brown up to 14 inches and then the drop off is dramatic, very few fish above that size in any brown trout streams. A good stream always had plenty of forage, both vertebrate and invertebrate, trout don't eat all the food, so something else is driving the smaller fish to out compete the large ones.
It very well may be angler pressure in combination with incidental mortality.

 

[pcray1231]

I would predict the experiment to fail. That said, I'm for it as a trial.

I too like Spring Creek as it is. And I wouldn't propose doing this every year on a regular basis. But do it a couple of times and the stream will recover quickly. The intriguing part is using wild fish to help "seed" wild populations in other parts of the same drainage, which could be more effective than using stocked strains to try and do the same.

I think such attempts will fail 90% of the time. But there's relatively little trade-off (other than money), and the 10% of the time it succeeds I see as a huge boon. Low risk, low chance of success, high reward for success. Yup, I'd be on board.