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


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 ... 5 6 7 (8)


Re: Electroshocking survey on Little "J"

Joined:
2010/6/9 12:35
From down the block from the Letort.
Posts: 888
Offline
sooooo, how's the fishin' been up there lately?

have the day off tomorrow, looking at options....

thanks.

Posted on: 2010/8/26 12:39


Re: Electroshocking survey on Little "J"

Joined:
2009/9/24 15:02
From Montgomery County
Posts: 1585
Offline
If you compare the size of the wild and stocked fish (figure 2)over the last two years, it appears the stocked fingerlings have an inch size advantage over the wild fish. Must be the fish food they're fed the first 6 months of their lives...

Posted on: 2010/8/26 12:48


Re: Electroshocking survey on Little "J"

Joined:
2007/1/2 11:55
From Bozeman
Posts: 19932
Offline
My theory (and this is completely without basis) is that the wild fish you're seeing are of a wide array of genetic quality. You're seeing "the fittest", but also a good number of the less fit.

With the stockers, you're only seeing the true best specimens survive, and they therefore have a higher average growth rate.

Posted on: 2010/8/26 13:02


Re: Electroshocking survey on Little "J"
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22109
Offline
Quote:

Fishidiot wrote:
Here's the PFBC report with comments/analysis:

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/images/reports/2010bio/7x08_26ljun.htm

Nearly 3,000 wild trout per mile - wow!


Can the study be read to suggest that catch and release regulation are harming the average weight of the fish or do you think that data is only due to the low and warm water conditions prevailing in the period immediately prior to the survey?

Posted on: 2010/8/26 13:04
_________________
I don't like spinach, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked it I'd eat it, and I just hate it. --Clarence Darrow


Re: Electroshocking survey on Little "J"

Joined:
2009/9/14 12:48
Posts: 863
Offline
Quote:
Can the study be read to suggest that catch and release regulation are harming the average weight of the fish or do you think that data is only due to the low and warm water conditions prevailing in the period immediately prior to the survey?


I would say this is definitely not due to the C&R regulation. The average weight of the larger trout in the little J dropped significantly due to the lack of rain during june and july. For example, compare the first fish, caught in early august, to a typical fish caught in mid-april:

Click to see original Image in a new window
Click to see original Image in a new window
.

The trout in the little J are really skinny right now. Unusually so, even compared with past summers. They will put the weight back on with sustained cool water temperatures. In this case fish weight has nothing to do with C&R. The length of the fish may be a different story.

Posted on: 2010/8/26 13:35


Re: Electroshocking survey on Little "J"
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22109
Offline
So a less dense population during the thermal stress period would not relieve the surviving/remaining fish by reducing the competition for forage? This was what I was wondering.

Posted on: 2010/8/26 13:49
_________________
I don't like spinach, and I'm glad I don't, because if I liked it I'd eat it, and I just hate it. --Clarence Darrow


Re: Electroshocking survey on Little "J"

Joined:
2009/9/14 12:48
Posts: 863
Offline
Quote:
So a less dense population during the thermal stress period would not relieve the surviving/remaining fish by reducing the competition for forage? This was what I was wondering


I believe that the weight loss is due to increased metabolism combined with the fact that the trout won't eat if water temperatures are too high. The food is there, they just don't have enough oxygen to go pick it up. If temps stay much above 70 for long, my understanding is that trout will basically starve no matter how much food is available.

Posted on: 2010/8/26 13:58


Re: Electroshocking survey on Little "J"

Joined:
2006/9/11 21:48
Posts: 571
Offline
Quote:
So a less dense population during the thermal stress period would not relieve the surviving/remaining fish by reducing the competition for forage? This was what I was wondering.


Mother nature will take care of this in her own way.

Posted on: 2010/8/26 14:07


Re: Electroshocking survey on Little "J"

Joined:
2009/9/14 12:48
Posts: 863
Offline
Another point that I think relates to this is that the smaller fish aren't effected as severely... which is something that you'll see if you catch a few fish in the J right now. The smaller trout aren't quite so skinny. Supposedly, larger trout are the first to be effected by low oxygen and the last to recover.

Based on my experience, the smaller fish are in better condition and more active than the larger fish. If competition were food were exacerbated by high population density, I'd expect the smaller trout to be effected equally, if not more, since:

1) Bigger trout get the better spots
2) Smaller trout are forage for bigger trout

I think this conclusion is consistent with the survey results, since the weights of fish less than 12" were pretty close to the state average.

Posted on: 2010/8/26 14:09


Re: Electroshocking survey on Little "J"

Joined:
2009/9/24 15:02
From Montgomery County
Posts: 1585
Offline
I agree with all of midnight angler's points. The trout I catch in the spring were always nice and solid on the J. As a general rule, I seem to find more and more fish look disproportionately thin as they get larger, regardless of the season, and regardless of the waterway.

As for smaller trout being in better health in warm water conditions, it makes sense. A small trout can pick up a few bugs to stay full, whereas a few bugs does nothing for a 16inch trout. A large trout has a lot more mass to feed and either needs to eat tons of bugs or some fish to keep from starving as it's metabolism increases.

Posted on: 2010/8/26 15:14


Re: Electroshocking survey on Little "J"

Joined:
2010/8/5 20:05
Posts: 40
Offline
bam,

That is correct. The fingerling are stocked at 2 to 4 inches during early May, while wild trout in the system are likely less than one inch in length during May. Also the growth rates of stocked fingerlings appear to be greater than wild fish. Age-0 stocked fingerling were between four and seven inches during the recent survey in August and wild trout captured during August were between two an five inches (this references the length frequency distribution graph)

Posted on: 2010/8/26 22:38



« 1 ... 5 6 7 (8)



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





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