Pa. wild trout creel survey report and some comments

[Mike]

Regarding the Pa. wild trout steam creel survey report, a few comments are in order that would perhaps improve understanding and some implications of the study. These comments have been expressed in other threads, but often "lost" within those threads. Additionally, while angling mortality has been discussed in the past on this site, it was in general terms. The creel survey provided more clarity on the subject, as you will see below.

While I have seen critiques of the study written on boards by anglers, the most stinging criticisms that I remember were also completely inaccurate. First, sampling did occur on opening day and it is unclear to my why anyone who read the report would think that it had not. Second, a sub-sample of the major (most well known) streams, such as Penns, Spring, Fishing, and Little J did occur. Again, all that had to be done by readers was to scan the list of streams that were studied as part of the random sample of Pa.'s wild trout streams. That random sample was comprised of 200 wild trout stream sections.

The wild trout creel survey recorded harvest rates of 5 per km and 4 per km of brook trout from wide and narrow streams, respectively, and harvest rates of 3 and 0 brown trout per km on wide and narrow streams, respectively. Such low harvest rates are hardly a call for more conservative statewide regs.

The average annual total mortality reported by the PFBC at the trout summit was 60 to 65 percent depending upon whether or not one was speaking about freestone or limestone wild trout streams. Total mortality is comprised of two components: angling mortality and natural mortality. It is generally calculated for fish that are age 2 and older. although age 1 fish are sometimes included. Young-of-year fish are not included. The statewide wild trout creel survey revealed that the angling mortality component of the average annual total mortality was on average around 4 percent. Given the low angling mortality in general on a statewide basis in wild trout streams, is it any wonder why so few wild trout streams in Pa (except for the major limestoners and a very few freestoners) respond favorably to special regulations designed to increase the abundance and size distribution of the fish? One scientific paper cited in the wild trout creel survey report suggested that an angling mortality rate of 50% is needed to see a favorable response to special regs of the type mentioned above.

 

[JackM]

If I understand the implications of this data, you are saying that in PA,

(1) limiting harvest on wild trout streams by regulations is unneccesary, and
(2) limiting harvest on wild trout streams by regulations is unhelpful.

Correct?

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

Another question I have been trying to explain:

How can fish being killed not result in a signifigant reduction in wild trout populations?

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

I also wonder, that given the study findings, why have DHALO regs and FFO regulations, other than to cater to anglers who want a particular type of angling experience?

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

I realize DHALO and FFO areas are largely stocked areas, sometimes over wild trout. Just curious on why this practice is done.

I think I know why, but want to hear it from someone else.....

 

[spectorfly]

I've read all the posts on the subject and have yet to chime in.

I personally belive that a catch and release only reg should be put on all wild trout streams and stocking overtop of wild trout (as is the case in several streams, Asaph Run in Tioga being one example) should cease and dissist immediately. Yes, I know that the stockers will push the wild ones out, get caught or die off and the wild fish resurface. Why even put them trough the stress and take the chances on having someone, fishing the stream because it was stocked and end up takeing home one of the streams few legal sized wild fish decreasing the population by just one more?

We have very few wild trout streams left in South East PA because of bad farming, water runoff and overdevelopment and should do everything in our power to protect them. They (meaning the trout and stream as it pertains to water quality) are a valuable resource that is being decimated before our eyes.
One day we will wish we had done so when there is virtually no clean water left. I remember years ago hunting with my father and being able to drink directly from a mounatin stream. You take your chances if you do it today.
Everyone knows that trout (especially brook) need cold clean water and are the first fish to die off if a polutant is introuced.

The brook trout is PA's official fish. There will be no wild brook (or brown or rainbow for that matter) trout left in PA if we don't stop stocking over them, protect their waters from overdevlopment, creeling (mortality of the man-made kind), pollution, or any other man-made evils.

As far as the natural motrallity is concerned. Yes, all things must die eventalluy. Nature takes care of it's own. How many wild trout were in PA streams back in the 1700's, 1800's, 1900's when man was killing trout souly for creeling them for food.
What concerns me is the ways in which we kill them and the streams now. We don't need to creel wild trout for food. We need to protect them.
Sure there will be some mortallity from just the fishing experience after we release them. Some will die, some will not. But if all were released after catching them more would survive than if they were placed on a stringer afterwards.

 

[troutbert]

Has this study been submitted to any of the fisheries journals? Has it been accepted and published by any of them?

Mike, does this study seem scientifically solid to you? Do you see any problems with the study at all?

 

[LehighRegular]

Mike

I have read the report about 5 times and each time something jumps out and grabs me....mostly negative that will not improve our wild trout fisheries. In addition, this report is only a "snapshot" into the what may or maynot be happening on PAs trout waters. I would find any scientific evidence being presented in this report to be taken as the "gospel", for various limitations. But it does give you insight and should be used in a manner to improve upon our states fisheries instead of just "writing them off" as it appears based on the conclusions and recommendations

Also, some of the things you stated are not reflected in the text.
esp about the "most well known streams" as discussed in the final bullet of the recommendations where it discusses the economic impact evaluation portion of the study. THere it says these streams were not included or was it just for the economic evaluation?? Confusing.

As for the opening day confusion, it was likely a result of the study being conducted 2 years prior to actually issuing the report. Personally, I looked at Last seasons opening day date and did not correlate the two. I assumed the PFBC would be able to have a report out quicker than 2 years.

Angling mortality: How did the PFBC actually take into account angling mortality? Visually or estimation based on interviews, electro shocking surveys?? Or other? Please elaborate more on this subject of actually how this was determined.

In addition, it appeared that the majority of anglers interviewed were using bait. Depending on bait preference and angling ability, hooking mortaility rates may be higher than presented. This is esp so for brook trout which are highly susceptible to hook mortality (another reason for protection - see below).

Harvest rates: Based on the information presented in the text, harvest rates on brook trout, to me, appear to potentially affect the size class and populations of brook trout in PA. Based on that, it appears that a statewide regulation to protect brook trout should be established. This would fall nicely into the brook trout enhancement program that is being conducted regionally.

I also find 60-65 % total mortality as being high. I would suspect this number to be lower given the "lack of use" on these wild trout streams as presented in the report.

Now comes the "absence of evidence is not evidence of abscense" that I have stated before. Just because you didnt find it, doesn mean its not happening. And given a 5 fish, 7 in limit - it does not take a lot of anglers to have an impact on wild trout streams, esp brook trout based on the numbers presented.

In addition, the size distribution for the fish harvested appears to be very low or small in size class. Figure 2 shows this information, but there is no discussion in the text that I could not find. This is disturbing to me!!!! I would think a goal of a fisheries agency is to try to improve on fish size class. How does the PFBC plan on improving on this? Or don't they?? Avg lenght for a harvested brook trout is 8.38 inches...MY GOD, that is appauling!!

The economic information presented is, IMO, hogwash. If one does not account for its most popular streams in PA (Spring, Penns, Upper D, etc), then the information presented is bascially worthless and why even bother presenting it??? 2ndly, it should be a goal for the PFBC to improve upon this. Is it?? and how does the PFBC plan on doing this?

Futhermore, to have any scientific minded agency's staff state that special regulations are not needed to protect wild trout, is obsurd. Then why have a PFBC...everything must be great in this state of PA that has more trout miles of water than any other state but can't even beat Arkansas for out of state license sales?? HUMM????

I have a lot more questions and points that I find disturbing, but my head is spinning.

 

[Gone4Day]

If we were debating climate change and not wild trout, the study would be dismissed because it has not been published in a peer reviewed journal and was paid for by the stocking industrial complex. Kind of like Exxon publishing its own climate change study.

 

[Mike]

Jack,

The statewide general trout creel and size limits clearly have an effect on law abiding anglers who would otherwise harvest fish that are smaller than 7 inches long or harvest more than 5 trout. That is what they are designed to do. At certain levels of fishing pressure and harvest, this impacts legal trout abundance.

 

[Mike]

Lehigh Regular,

Economic info. from the most popular limestoners, such as Penns Creek, was included in the study. As I said previously, a number of these popular waters were included. Again, check the table of study waters. The reason why it is recommended that the most popular waters, such as Penns be looked at separately, is to document the economic contributions of these waters alone.

Wild brook trout 9 inches long and longer represent 1.5% of Pa.'s wild brook trout population. Why would you expect the average wild brook trout harvested to be much larger than 8 inches? The majority of brook trout harvest came from small streams less than 6 m. wide and brook trout in Pa. are largely, but not entirely, relegated to the upper segments and higher elevation segments of streams. Habitat for large fish is often limiting in these areas and in many streams a 9 inch fish is likely at the end of its natural life.

Finally, regarding random sampling and large sample sizes, both of which occurred in this study, the results represent the population as a whole. Like it or not, this represents what is happening in the vast majority of Pa.s' unstocked wild trout stream segments within the standard deviations and confidence intervals presented in the text.

Finally, in preparing for this study the PFBC sought and received the help of leaders in their respective fields. Bob Carline, for instance, listed as an author, is a highly respected fisheries researcher, past president of the American Fisheries Society, has probably published 100's of scientific journal articles, and is most highly respected among his peers. The sampling design was largely put together by Penn State researchers in fisheries, biometry, and economics. They are experts.

 

[Maurice]

Mike wrote:

Wild brook trout 9 inches long and longer represent 1.5% of Pa.'s wild brook trout population. Why would you expect the average wild brook trout harvested to be much larger than 8 inches? The majority of brook trout harvest came from small streams less than 6 m. wide and brook trout in Pa. are largely, but not entirely, relegated to the upper segments and higher elevation segments of streams. Habitat for large fish is often limiting in these areas and in many streams a 9 inch fish is likely at the end of its natural life.

Well I must be dumb or something but if the size limit is 7" and you sample very few 9" fish after the creeling season...I think we may be onto something.

And if the 9" ST's are reaching the end of their natural lives, then harvest them at 9"

As far as I can see..you are supporting my argument.

Maurice

 

[Maurice]

Mike wrote:

Wild brook trout 9 inches long and longer represent 1.5% of Pa.'s wild brook trout population. Why would you expect the average wild brook trout harvested to be much larger than 8 inches? The majority of brook trout harvest came from small streams less than 6 m. wide and brook trout in Pa. are largely, but not entirely, relegated to the upper segments and higher elevation segments of streams. Habitat for large fish is often limiting in these areas and in many streams a 9 inch fish is likely at the end of its natural life.

Well I must be dumb or something but if the size limit is 7" and you sample very few 9" fish after the creeling season...I think we may be onto something.

And if the 9" ST's are reaching the end of their natural lives, then harvest them at 9"

As far as I can see..you are supporting my argument.

Its like a Gary Larsen cartoon...
I can see all you guys arround the conference table with white coats, round glasses, (of course skinny arms and large girthed) piles of scientific journals...studies, maps and charts around the room. And the guy with the F&BC jacket on says, never mind all that...how many can we kill?

Maurice

 

[Mike]

The wild brook trout enhancement program when evaluated should shed some light on the subject.

 

[Stone_Fly]

If a 9 inch brook trout is so rare then how come some of the streams that are far less fertile then the nice NC PA mountain streams have lot's of 9 inch and larger brook trout? If it isn't related to harvest what is it? I'm talking about some streams that don't even have good popualtions of pollution tolerant midges some streams have no other fish in them. I'll tell you why, because they aren't being fished because they are orange and anglers who would otherwise be there killing brook trout, don't think they are safe to eat or don't think they are there.
If you survey a brook trout stream even 2 months after the season opens, are you really capturing what is happening to the larger fish by saying they just aren't there? Wouldn't that be a red flag, given that when the size limit was raised back in the later 80's the fish caught in surveys were found to be larger then previously caught? I think these are important questions that should be answered. I don't think that harvest should be dismissed so easily. honestly I'm not picking on you personally Mike, I'd think the PFBC in order to do the best job they can would want to know.

 

[Mike]

Actually, we did check into this as you will now probably recall. we found more larger fish later in the season than we found before opening day at the wild trout electrofishing sites.

As for those "orange" streams, if they are the ones that I am thinking of, they have much better large fish habitat than many northcentral brookie streams, they most likely have a much better food supply throughout the year (terrestrials in high numbers due to the surrounding vegetation), and more constant temps due to high input of groundwater, much like limestoners in this regard. Recent research in this regard points to April and May being the prime growing months for Appalachian brook trout. Throughout the rest of the year there is only enough food for maintenance, and little if any for growth.

 

[RRR]

All I know about the subject is what I see with my own two eyes. I do, however spend at least 100 days a year fishing wild Brown trout streams in SE PA. One of my favorites flows right through my property. Up until two years ago, on most days I could expect to catch 20 to 30 fisn in several hours of fly fishing. Many of these fish were in the 11-12 in. range and it was not unusual to catch one or two a day 14 in. with an occasional fish exceeding 15. Two years ago two bait fishermen found out about the stream and fished it nearly every day for several weeks keeping their limits of the LARGEST fish almost every time they went. For the rest of that year I did not catch ANY trout over about 10 in. and the numbers you could catch in a day dwindled to maybe 5 or 6, most of which were in the 6 to 7 in. class. Last year thanks to the flood washing many trout downstream from the upstream posted areas, the fishing was a little better and I caught several fish in the 12 in. class. But that was out of maybe 10 trips where I used to catch that many in a day. God only knows how long it takes a wild Brown to reach 12 in. in one of these small streams but it is my guess that these two guys destroyed in several weeks, and all legally I might add,what it took many years to produce. I don't know if the fishing will ever be the same in this stream again. One can only hope.

 

[Wulff-Man]

Excellent illustration of the issue, RRR. Unfortunately you don't have a statistically valid study to prove your hypothesis. :-x

But you know, the large majority of wild trout C&R fishermen shouldn't be selfish and prevent those 2 guys from cleaning out the stream, because that's what they like to do.

I often wonder what would happen to Valley Creek if harvest was allowed. Despite all the studies and expert analysis by the PFBC professionals, I just find it impossible to believe that the fishing would be half as good (not to mention even 10% as good) as it is now. It just doesn't make sense.

 

[FarmerDave]

Mike wrote:
Lehigh Regular,

Wild brook trout 9 inches long and longer represent 1.5% of Pa.'s wild brook trout population. Why would you expect the average wild brook trout harvested to be much larger than 8 inches? The majority of brook trout harvest came from small streams less than 6 m. wide and brook trout in Pa. are largely, but not entirely, relegated to the upper segments and higher elevation segments of streams. Habitat for large fish is often limiting in these areas and in many streams a 9 inch fish is likely at the end of its natural life.

This may be true, but it is still a bunch of crap, especially in NWPA. the only reason brook trout are relegated to streams less than 6m is because you guys stock EVERY stream larger than that in NWPA that will hold any trout. and you guys even stock some smaller than that if it has road access.

Here's the deal. PF&BC policy is to not stock Class A streams. Just how many streams are there in NWPA that are larger than 6 meters wide, and are class A for Brook Trout? Can you say Zero?

You guys are so worried about fishing opportunities across the whole state, but only when it serves your agenda (stock more streams means more revenue). the truth is, the best streams in NWPA are Class B and C. In order to give equal opportunities, the PF&BC should stop stocking a couple of those, and you will see lots of brook trout over 8 inches. Tom's Run in Cook Forest was that way before you started stocking it, and it was probably a recovering class D at the time. Not only that, you would have to put a few knots in your tape for that one to measure out to 6 meters on average. I catch lots of 8 inch brook trout in streams that I can step over, once I get a fair distance from any road access. Near the roads, they are cropped to just under 7. that my friend is what we have to settle for in NWPA if we want quality wild trout fishing outside of a couple of special regs areas. Personally, I don't view those as quality. What, with all the pressure, and the stupid signs screwing up the view...

OK, I'm relaxed now. I do think the PF&BC does a pretty decent job trying to please everyone. But my personal opinion is that the fishing would be a whole lot better if you guys cut way back on the number of streams you stock. ... and get rid of the stupid signs, or at least limit them to half the number of trees you put them on now. they are screwing up the scenery. It would certainly mean less revenue, but the way it is now, most of my friends gave up buying trout stamps a long time ago. I know if you did, I'd go back to buying a PA license every year and spend more money there (PA native, but currently a non-resident).

 

[OhioOutdoorsman]

A contrarian view.....

I've been coming to PA about 5 years now and love the fishing.

When I come alone or with fly-fishing friends to PA (75% of my fishing), I'm exclusively C and R, and prefer wild fish in a wilderness setting so I/we hit smaller creeks that usually require some hiking.

When my wife comes with me, she, too practices C and R, and fly-fishes but enjoys catching lots of big trout. So we hit some stocked DHALO or FFO water.

When I take begginers or go on my anual trip with my inlaws, they usually want some meat. So I take them to some stocked water, give them an ultralight with a spincast reel and a panther martin, and play stand here, cast there. We don't keep more than three and don't keep anything under 12" and cook them up that day. And having stocked fish that will probably die during the summer heat if they don't end up in my frying pan, allows me to do this guilt free.

You may think ill of me, but I don't think I'm all bad, especially considering I grew up gear fishing all summer in Port Clinton, OH where 50 perch and 6 walleye creels were the norm.

Again, I love PA fishing as it is......

Maybe thats because I don't know how it once was....

Maybe its because I realize how good PA fisherman have it compared to other states.....

Gotta go catch some STOCKED steelhead this evening, later all....