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


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 2 (3) 4 5 6 »


Re: Fryin' up wild browns

Joined:
2012/10/24 19:22
From Da 'Berg, PA
Posts: 1240
Offline
this is a good question - i think the answer is how much do you want a native fishery as opposed to a wild fishery, and what means will you support to get it ?

that i think is down to individual preference.

personally, i don't like to kill living things and don't kill fish so someone else can catch them and/or help sustain the fishery. Which i would call my normal conscience level.

However, when someone WANTS me to kill fish to sustain the fishery then I will - have done with smallies in the Magalloway river up in Rangeley, Maine where they are invasive and degrading a native brookie fishery where 15-18" brookies are common.

I'd be uncomfortable killing bows or brownies in large numbers, just for the sake of it - if they could net and transport them that would be better, but i'd happily take wild fish for the pot or a stream side fry up - duck fat and bacon & shallots. lovely.

forced harvest is not ideal, but a lot better than dithpro posioning or whatever, which kills the stream and never gets all the eggs anyway.



Posted on: 2013/5/1 13:38
_________________
nowhere is so sweet, as the bosom of the vale where the bright waters meet.


Re: Fryin' up wild browns

Joined:
2008/6/28 15:57
Posts: 713
Offline
In regard to the projected future rise in air temperatures and brook trout- I just found this recent study:

Quote:
...Federal agency managers, conservationists, anglers, and people in general have coalesced around the brook trout's plight in relation to the robust nonnative trout, in some cases completely removing all trout from a stream and then starting over with brookies. But in 2006, Forest Service research on the possible effects of rising air temperatures on stream water temperatures sent new ripples of alarm through the community of land managers and trout advocates. The research found that over the next century projected rises in temperature might leave only very high mountain headwaters as refuges for coldwater-dependent native brook trout.

The dismal projection relied on widely accepted assumptions about the relation between air and water temperatures; if the air temperature rises by a degree, the water temperature will follow suit, rising by approximately 0.8 of a degree. Since most climate change models predict a 4 degree rise in air temperature over the next century, this would mean a 3.2 degree increase in stream temperatures. For trout and other coldwater creatures that are already at the southern-most extent of their range, this temperature increase could make their homes too hot for comfort—and maybe for survival.

This seemed like very bad news, but it got Forest Service researcher Andrew Dolloff thinking about factors other than temperature rise—slope aspect, forest canopy, and elevation—that aren't taken into account in the large-scale climate models used in the trout habitat studies. "The models used in the coldwater fish habitat studies assumed a pretty close correspondence between rising air and water temperatures," says Dolloff. "My colleagues and I decided to try to verify this—and to provide some very specific information for future planning—by measuring air and water temperatures in streams that fell within patches identified as brook trout habitat."...

...When studies, including one by researchers in Dolloff's team, suggested drastic reductions in the historical range of native eastern brook trout based on predictions of temperature rise from the major climate change models, scientists from the National Forest System and the Forest Service Southern and Northern Research Stations, launched a pilot study. Fifty study sites were randomly selected from habitats that presently or historically hosted brook trout populations. Mark Hudy, Forest Service Washington Office National Aquatic Biologist at James Madison University, identified the habitats or patches, which are located on both public and private lands. The researchers adorned each of the 50 study sites with two thermographs (digital thermometers) one in the water at the outlet of a brook trout stream and another dangling from a nearby tree.

Day in and day out, the thermographs record air and stream temperatures every 30 minutes. Originally the researchers intended to show how factors like slope and aspect might affect stream temperature, but were in for a surprise when they got readings back from the pilot study in Virginia. "Even in the 50 sites we used for the pilot study it was soon apparent that water temperatures are not always coupled with air temperature, sometimes not at all," says Dolloff. "This suggests that it's really a local matter, and that brook trout might not be as vulnerable to climate change as first projected." During the pilot study, Dolloff began collaborating with Paul Angermeier, a scientist with U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) also based in Blacksburg, to start developing models that combine stream information from the Forest Service and the USGS, a task long in the making and now in process because of a joint climate change research project launched in 2010. For Dolloff it was an easy fit: he and Angermeier have a 25-year history of collaboration.

A wider lens

What started in Virginia has spread, both conceptually and geographically and grown into a full collaboration between the Forest Service and USGS. The study now includes 204 sites and extends from Georgia to Maryland, and the first full year of data has brought good news for trout; the relationship between water and air temperature is relatively insensitive, which means that a rise in air temperature does not lock in a corresponding rise in water temperature. "That said, we also found that the correspondence between water and air temperatures varies a lot from one site to the next," says Dolloff, "It really matters where you are." In sites with a larger drainage area, for example, the water temperature tends to be much more sensitive to air temperature."...


More here-- http://www.fs.fed.us/ccrc/narratives/good-news-trout.shtml

That's only a forecast, of course. But the indications are hopeful- as long as the forest canopy manages to stay intact under the projected future climate conditions. I think that's the big unknown factor.

Posted on: 2013/5/1 14:08


Re: Fryin' up wild browns
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 21704
Offline
At least one person has already said what I would have said had I said it.

Posted on: 2013/5/1 14:13
_________________
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: Fryin' up wild browns

Joined:
2011/5/26 10:12
From Dauphin PA
Posts: 2577
Offline
No harvest for me...ever.

Posted on: 2013/5/1 14:27
_________________
"Excelling at making people angry since 1967"


Re: Fryin' up wild browns

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 12923
Offline
Regarding the climate change thing, in a previous life (internship), I studied climate at a DOE lab. I'll try to sum it up like this.

Has the Earth warmed? Yes. It's undeniable fact.

How much has it warmed? Difficult to say. The slope is generally UP. But how much up depends greatly on how you average the sampling sites, baseline it with satellite data, etc. And how much correction you give for urban heat island effects and so forth at the sampling sites.

Hasn't it stayed steady in the last decade or so? By some accounts, yes. But when measuring changes in climate, you don't look at individual months, years, or even decades. That's just noise, i.e. weather and shorter term cycles/patterns. Both sides of the political debate are highly guilty of ignoring this, with deniers cherry picking data to discredit science, and alarmists cherry picking data to blame every major storm or warm season on global warming. There's a lot of data and noise. If you come in with a conclusion, you can find something to support it.

How much is human induced? Tough to say. Likely some. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It has increased beyond natural cause explanations. Outside of other factors, it would cause the Earth to warm. But "outside other factors" is a false condition, CO2 and greenhouse warming doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are an infinite number of complex positive and negative feedback loops. A cooling effect can cause a warming effect and vice versa. As a simplistic example, if say, CO2 did increase temperatures via the greenhouse effect, this would cause:

A slowdown of the ocean conveyor currents - results in cooling at the poles, more warming at the equator.

Increased water vapor in the atmosphere from evaporation of seas - water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas, and would cause more warming. However, IF it condenses to form clouds, increased cloud cover has a strong cooling effect.

Decreased snow and ice cover - a warming effect.

Increased algae blooms in the seas - consumes CO2, pumps more oxygen into the atmosphere, pretty much as a counter to our influence on CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Further, so we know CO2 has risen. Is it purely due to burning fossil fuels? How about deforestation, since trees consume CO2 and create oxygen and all?

How to weight all these things? Not enough data yet to draw any hard conclusions. Will take centuries to collect statistically significant data.

Best guess for the future? More warming. If you don't understand the current trend, you're best option is to predict it to keep happening.

Posted on: 2013/5/1 15:17


Re: Fryin' up wild browns

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 12923
Offline
And regarding how it effects the trouts, trout stream temperatures are a stronger function of precipitation patterns than of air temperature. Could continued global warming affect precipitation? Sure, it's bound to. How? We don't know, and it very likely depends where you are.

But if in PA, we say, raised our average yearly temperature a full 5 degrees (which is a lot), but combined this with more precipitation in July and August and less frequent droughts during this time frame, it could actually help the fishery. I'm not saying that's going to happen. But it's just as likely as the reverse.

After all, mountain trouts do just fine in the mountains of Virginia, Tennessee, North Carolina, etc. Their average temperatures are warmer than ours.

Posted on: 2013/5/1 15:23


Re: Fryin' up wild browns

Joined:
2011/7/6 12:30
From Ephrata, PA
Posts: 5978
Offline
We just got pcrayed! OT pcrayed!

Back on topic, if BT have existed in NCPA since the early 20th century (which I'm not arguing), then I wonder by what measure the state used to designate Lyman and Kettle a "WBTE" stream.

Posted on: 2013/5/1 15:43


Re: Fryin' up wild browns

Joined:
2010/5/1 9:10
From NE OH
Posts: 1228
Offline
Quote:

pcray1231 wrote:
Regarding the climate change thing, in a previous life (internship), I studied climate at a DOE lab. I'll try to sum it up like this.

Has the Earth warmed? Yes. It's undeniable fact.

How much has it warmed? Difficult to say. The slope is generally UP. But how much up depends greatly on how you average the sampling sites, baseline it with satellite data, etc. And how much correction you give for urban heat island effects and so forth at the sampling sites.

Hasn't it stayed steady in the last decade or so? By some accounts, yes. But when measuring changes in climate, you don't look at individual months, years, or even decades. That's just noise, i.e. weather and shorter term cycles/patterns. Both sides of the political debate are highly guilty of ignoring this, with deniers cherry picking data to discredit science, and alarmists cherry picking data to blame every major storm or warm season on global warming. There's a lot of data and noise. If you come in with a conclusion, you can find something to support it.

How much is human induced? Tough to say. Likely some. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It has increased beyond natural cause explanations. Outside of other factors, it would cause the Earth to warm. But "outside other factors" is a false condition, CO2 and greenhouse warming doesn't exist in a vacuum. There are an infinite number of complex positive and negative feedback loops. A cooling effect can cause a warming effect and vice versa. As a simplistic example, if say, CO2 did increase temperatures via the greenhouse effect, this would cause:

A slowdown of the ocean conveyor currents - results in cooling at the poles, more warming at the equator.

Increased water vapor in the atmosphere from evaporation of seas - water vapor is a strong greenhouse gas, and would cause more warming. However, IF it condenses to form clouds, increased cloud cover has a strong cooling effect.

Decreased snow and ice cover - a warming effect.

Increased algae blooms in the seas - consumes CO2, pumps more oxygen into the atmosphere, pretty much as a counter to our influence on CO2 levels in the atmosphere.

Further, so we know CO2 has risen. Is it purely due to burning fossil fuels? How about deforestation, since trees consume CO2 and create oxygen and all?

How to weight all these things? Not enough data yet to draw any hard conclusions. Will take centuries to collect statistically significant data.

Best guess for the future? More warming. If you don't understand the current trend, you're best option is to predict it to keep happening.


This one of the better things you have written. Well said sir.

Posted on: 2013/5/1 15:59
_________________
"You don't need 7x. All right, 7x...now you're just being stupid. That's ridiculous. You know what else...throw away the 6x, because that's garbage too." -Hank Patterson


Re: Fryin' up wild browns

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 12923
Offline
Simple. They wanted to promote our brook trout fisheries, and figured they'd highlight a few to help the cause. More public awareness than "management", IMO, though if they can test some management policies, great!

They picked a few that were publicly accessible, capable of growing good fish and providing an overall good experience, yet not class A. And they put signs up.

Posted on: 2013/5/1 16:02


Re: Fryin' up wild browns

Joined:
2009/5/29 6:40
From harlansburg
Posts: 4372
Offline
I think the more important question is "how are we gonna cook them?"!!!!!!!!

Posted on: 2013/5/1 16:41


Re: Fryin' up wild browns

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 5782
Offline
Quote:

The_Sasquatch wrote:
We just got pcrayed! OT pcrayed!

Back on topic, if BT have existed in NCPA since the early 20th century (which I'm not arguing), then I wonder by what measure the state used to designate Lyman and Kettle a "WBTE" stream.


Some of the streams chosen for WBTE regs are all brookie streams, and some are streams that have a lot of brookies, but also some browns.

I think it was reasonable to try some examples of both, to see what happens on both.

Whether Lyman Run was a particularly good choice, I'm not sure. The stream was already under special regs before the WBTE regs.

Posted on: 2013/5/1 17:51


Re: Fryin' up wild browns

Joined:
2009/2/19 19:59
From Mont Co, Pa
Posts: 1868
Offline
I think taking a wild brown from a mainly brookie stream is a good thing. Other than small feeder streams, I've only encountered a couple of brookie only streams anyway. I have kept 2 wild brown trout and they are both on my wall (18"/19"). I have never intentionally killed a a native brook, I never will. Those bigger browns can and will play hell on small natives, so I say keep the big ones. Here's one of those two.

Attach file:



jpg  IMG_1503 (Custom).JPG (27.05 KB)
2119_518194d4cdb92.jpg 460X345 px

Posted on: 2013/5/1 18:05
_________________
Protect the resource, let them go!


Re: Fryin' up wild browns

Joined:
2006/9/18 8:28
From Attitudinally, one mile south of Lake LeBoeuf
Posts: 810
Offline
>>They picked a few that were publicly accessible, capable of growing good fish and providing an overall good experience, yet not class A. And they put signs up.>>

That may be true of the majority of the streams being managed under the WBTE program (Minister, etc.), but I'm pretty certain it is not true of Sec 02 of Lyman, the section under discussion here. It has been on the Class A list for as long as there has been a Class A list, that is, from the conclusion of Operation Future in the early 80's to the present.

In any event, "they" (whoever they are...) can encourage all the selective harvest of browns they want from the WBTE section of Lyman, it almost certainly won't do much to change the percentage composition by species of the trout in the stream section.

I've never seen one of these Affirmative Action programs for brook trout at the expense of browns ever achieve its goal. One reason for this is that once you put a stream section under special regs, you immediately draw a much higher percentage of anglers who simply will not harvest any fish at all, regardless of species.

That's just been my observation, at any rate..

Posted on: 2013/5/1 18:47


Re: Fryin' up wild browns

Joined:
2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 1689
Offline
WBTEP regs may have been created due to controversy over whether harvest is reducing the number of bigger brookies on small PA freestone streams. I have read that fish biologists were skeptical that this cropping was a significant problem.

When I started fishing, I kinda bought the argument that brookie streams are rare, and I went to the special-reg brookie streams, that is WBTEP across the state, so I could find some rare brookies. IMHO, they range from ridiculous to sublime :)

Now I realize that there are many streams with brookies, and if they are small, remote, and/or overgrown, they probably dont really have the bigger fish cropped off. Still may not be many bigger brookies, due to habitat. Shrug.

(true story ... I walk in to a fly shop NE PA when I started and ask about streams with wild brook trout. guy says "this is not the 19th century." OK, I get confused about whther it's the 20th or 21st or whatever, but I knew that. At the time, I thought he just didnt know me and would not tell. Now I think that not so many guys fish for brookies, he really might not have known many streams)

imho, habitat is a better predictor of numbers of bigger brookies than harvest, from the least known to best known brookie streams.

So if you work really hard to get on a stream two miles from a road, no trails to speak of, there may be bigger brookies if the habitat supports them. Stream with average habitat in the middle of nowhere will have only average fish. Stream with decent habitat and reasonable access will often have more biggish brookies. Habitat > harvest. I am not really chasing bigger brookies, dont really care.

Sure, I still believe that cropping theoretically can reduce the number of bigger brookies in a small stream. I seldom post stream names here, I dont like to fish behind people and in some cases I was given leads that I should not publicize. I dont really like it if I tell someone about an off-the-radar stream and they ID it on the internet, either.

But practcially speaking, there are so many small streams with brookies in say NE PA, and not that many people who fish them. There may be cropping on a few better known streams partcularly at nice big or deep pools with easier access. Shrug. A WBTEP listing might lead to more of this. Be careful what you wish for?

Biggest wild brook trout I ever caught was in a stream with good habitat but brutal hiking and climbing, right by a highway :)

With some hiking and map scouring, you can fish brookie streams where you'd be very surprised to run into another fishermen on the nicest weekend of the year. :)






Posted on: 2013/5/2 7:18

Edited by k-bob on 2013/5/2 7:36:35
Edited by k-bob on 2013/5/2 7:37:47
Edited by k-bob on 2013/5/2 7:38:37
Edited by k-bob on 2013/5/2 7:38:57
Edited by k-bob on 2013/5/2 7:42:33
Edited by k-bob on 2013/5/2 7:43:46
Edited by k-bob on 2013/5/2 7:45:36
Edited by k-bob on 2013/5/2 7:46:53
Edited by k-bob on 2013/5/2 7:48:19
Edited by k-bob on 2013/5/2 7:49:23
Edited by k-bob on 2013/5/2 7:53:59
Edited by k-bob on 2013/5/2 8:04:47


Re: Fryin' up wild browns

Joined:
2009/7/29 10:25
Posts: 1689
Offline
btw I would rather not have some of my favorite streams go WBTEP... I am not too concerned about cropping and it'd just make it more likely that I fish behind someone..

Posted on: 2013/5/2 7:35



« 1 2 (3) 4 5 6 »



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
What kind of streams do you primarily fish?
Approved Trout Waters (Stocked Fish)
Class A Wild Trout Streams
Special Regulation Areas
Wilderness Trout Streams
No Preference All Trout Streams
95 total votes!
The poll will close at 2014/4/30 15:00
3 Comments
USGS Water Levels





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