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: Wild Trout Stream Survey
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/11 8:26
From Chester County
Posts: 8851
Offline
Mike,

Why doesn’t the PFBC stock Class A wild trout streams?

After you answer that, answer why does the PFBC allow private clubs to stock Class A streams?

Isn't the result the same, no matter who stocked it?

Posted on: 2007/4/4 10:12


Re: Wild Trout Stream Survey

Joined:
2006/12/7 18:13
Posts: 212
Offline
If the PFBC doesn't allow private stockings of listed Class A sections or streams as I suspect they don't; I highly suggest to those who are aware of the practice and the locations where it occurs, to contact the PFBC in your region and/or gather some evidence like possibly a photo of the bucket brigade.

I'm sure if you called the offending organization and offered your assistance to "stock" they would gladly accept which would provide you with dates/times. Somehow I don't think that IF they are really stocking LISTED Class A sections; that they are doing it under the cover of darkness with the membership sworn to secrecy.

JMHO

Posted on: 2007/4/4 10:47


Re: Wild Trout Stream Survey
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/11 8:26
From Chester County
Posts: 8851
Offline
Bamboozle,

I'm not at all sure that the PFBC does NOT allow stocking of Class A streams by private concerns. If Chaz and many others (like every club member) knows what's happening on the stream, it would seem logical that the PFBC knows what's going on too, since that's their job. Either there is no policy against stocking class A's or the PFBC is turning a blind eye toward stocking. I'm interested in the answer from Mike.

Posted on: 2007/4/4 12:03


Re: Wild Trout Stream Survey

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18108
Offline
They do allow it, or should I say they do not disallow it as a rule. I asked a fw years ago.

Posted on: 2007/4/4 12:26
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: Wild Trout Stream Survey

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18108
Offline
Quote:

Maurice wrote:


I still can't wrap my arms around the fact that taking the bulk of the larger fish doesn't crop a population. I mean, if there are 33 trout over the legal limit and half of them are harvested won't that reduce the angler experience? I know the 40-50% mortality thing is science but keep in mind the ones taken are the larger ones only.....

So say for instance you take the total number of fish stocked in an APW and reduce that number by 40%....like at Muddy Creek. Do you think it won't have an impact on the angler experience? I can tell you from what I am hearing...things are not good. The natives are getting restless.

I mean, we have only one inseason stocking in our big creeks because of reasons we've discussed and the Co-ops are stocking wild trout streams. I'm having a little trouble coming to grips with all this.

Maurice


I'm with you Maurice.

The way I see it, they are pulling a Ross Perrot and making the charts to fit the agenda. For example, the 40 to 50 percent mortality thing (or whatever the numbers are). That is not a daily or overnight mortality or they would be gone in a hurry. However, harvesting 40 percent can be a single day occurance. On some of the small streams i used to fish, one or two people could noticeable screw things up for a month or two. Heck, I've don it myself. Trout just don't grow all that fast especially in the infertile freestone streams. But lets look at the bright side. Lets say a group of anglers reduce the total number by 40 percent one week. Then you reduce what is left by 40 percent the next week. that mean they have actually harvested less fish, AND that is only 24 percent of the original population??? Thing are looking up for that stream!!! They aren't the only people who can play with the numbers!!!

Posted on: 2007/4/4 12:36
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: Wild Trout Stream Survey

Joined:
2006/9/9 22:44
Posts: 715
Offline
PA Trout Management Plan

Above is a link to the PA Trout Mgmt Plan.

Here is a snippet pertaining to wild trout - class A water....below. Also, at the end of the document, its states that it was to be updated in 2005. Here we are in 2007 and nothing. I guess since Wild Trout see so little pressure, and very few folks fish for them, then what is the point of updating it re Wild Trout. Tounge in cheek of course.

Class A Wild Trout Waters

Rationale. The Class A wild trout waters option is designed to provide anglers with an opportunity to catch and harvest (if desired) wild trout from a population totally sustained by natural reproduction. This option is proposed for stream sections that support populations of brook trout, brown trout, mixed brook-brown trout, and rainbow trout capable of providing a desirable fishery without stocking. Some of these waters may be judged to have a low potential to produce an obvious biological response to the application of highly restrictive regulations.

Goal. To provide recreational trout angling opportunities in waters where wild trout populations are capable of supporting an attractive fishery without stocking.

Objectives

1. To protect wild trout populations from possible harmful effects of stocking due to interactions with hatchery trout.

2. To minimize the potential of overharvest of wild trout due to attraction of anglers through stocking.

3. To maintain standing stocks of wild trout at a Class A biomass density. An increase in the population of age 3 or older trout by a factor of two (after cessation of stocking) is desirable. (The amount of habitat, the full force of fishing mortality, and natural variation in response to climatic events may limit this response in older fish and should not be considered a rigid measure of program success.)

4. To protect habitat and water quality through public education, and by seeking the highest DEP water quality standards applicable.

5. Disseminate information to other Commonwealth regulatory agencies.

Posted on: 2007/4/4 12:43


Re: Wild Trout Stream Survey

Joined:
2006/9/14 10:34
From Southeast PA
Posts: 521
Offline
Look guys, the PFBC has done a study, it shows that very few anglers harvest wild trout, so there's no need to restrict harvest of wild trout, and that's that. It seems that we are just tilting at windmills.

Posted on: 2007/4/4 12:45
_________________
"It ain't the meat, it's the motion"


Re: Wild Trout Stream Survey

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6022
Offline
Quote:

Wulff-Man wrote:
Look guys, the PFBC has done a study, it shows that very few anglers harvest wild trout, so there's no need to restrict harvest of wild trout, and that's that. It seems that we are just tilting at windmills.


And you believe it? It doesn't correspond to what I've seen on unstocked wild trout streams, especially early in the season, and on particular on opening day.

This was why I suggested anglers go check out unstocked Class A streams on opening day for themselves. I've done this quite a few years in the past and I was amazed at the number of people on unstocked streams on opening day. And I saw a lot of people with creels and people with fish on stringers.

It looks like Chaz checked it out. Did anyone else? I couldn't make is south for the early opener, but will definitely check it out on the regular opening day. Anyone who is interested, just go out and see for yourself on opening day.

I realize it's much more fun just to chat about a topic on the internet. But if you are really interested, if you want to know what goes on on the wild trout streams, there is no substitute for going there.

I suspect the study is badly biased by the fact that the anglers they surveyed were the anglers who are interested in talking to someone carrying a clipboard. That's a particular sub-sample of the people fishing out there. The guys dressed in camouflage and carrying creels full of brookies that are "around" 7 inches are almost certainly less likely to want to strike up a conversation with someone carrying a clipboard.

A lot of experienced backcountry anglers wouldn't even stop to fish a stretch if they see the surveyor's vehicle. Not that they would identify it as a surveyor's vehicle, but they would just go elsewhere if they see ANY vehicle along that stretch.

Posted on: 2007/4/4 13:58


Re: Wild Trout Stream Survey
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22113
Offline
I'm not above believing the PFBC studies and conclusions are biased, but it always strikes me as a little peculiar that people will insist that their own unscientific limited observations are somehow more accurate than a study conducted by the PFBC. I think what is at work here is that people have certain "convictions" and get a little upset when studies refute them. I'm just making an observation, so don't get all twisted out of shape. Chaz' observations, his conjecture about how many anglers the cars represented and his assumption about how many fish were caught and kept is proof enough that one must be careful about this type of personal anecdotal "evidence."

Posted on: 2007/4/4 14:04
_________________
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: Wild Trout Stream Survey

Joined:
2006/9/9 20:09
From Harrisburg
Posts: 2178
Offline
Dear Jack,

You mean to tell me that people on this board make things up and believe only what "they" want to believe?

I'm shocked, shocked beyond belief.

Regards,
Tim Murphy

Posted on: 2007/4/4 14:20


Re: Wild Trout Stream Survey

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18108
Offline
Good point Jack, and i know you weren't singling me out. But I have to respond.

Here is my observation of most of the studies in the past along these lines. I seem to remember a few Class Bs were taken off the stocking list to see if they would improve to Class A. The freezer fillers complained so loudly that stockign was resumed. Conclusion? No noticeable improvement??? Of course not, but if you had closed it for a couple years, it might have shown noticable improvement. And they called it scientific.

Also, have you noticed how many of these "scientific" studies are inconclusive??

There is usually a reason for that. Too many variables, and not enough time.

I always get a kick out of when they close small portions of streams to do some kind of a study. Does the fish commission really think those silly signs keep people from fishing in those areas? I got news for you, they don't. I can say that with complete certainty since the statute of limitations is up. And yes, that was my experience. The signs didn't work on me, and were more of an atractant than a deterant after the first week of the season. not just for me, either.

It also seems that the PF&BC knows the outcome of their "scientific" studies before they even start.

There is also an inherant flaw in their sampling techniques. Shocking the fish causes a certain amount of mortality. How is that taken into consideration. Do they always shoci for the same amount of time or the same number of times? I seriously doubt it. The fish are better off left alone. I say quit studying the freakin things and start observing them.

Creel surveys??? Are they really searching people, or just asking? "But officer, that is just my trouser trout, and it is over the legal size." How many of you always tell the truth when fishing. Come on. Be honest. in my younger days, I wouldn't tell them Jack. The creel surveys and frankly, many of the studies remind me of the deer harvest numbers posted every year. I believe that is based on reports received, plus a certain percentage added for people who fail to fill out the form. How the heck do they know how many don't fill out the form. Do they ask??? LMAO! I know I shot quite a few deer in PA, but I think I only filled out two of those silly cards. Oh, but they check some butcher shops!!! Well, Whooptydoo!!! I've only ever had one deer cut up by a butcher and that is only because I didn't have time to do it myself. Of course, sometimes telling the truth is the best way to get out of a jam, as long as the truth is not very believable. Here is one for you. My grandfather used to drive coal truck, and he always had his deer rifle with him during the season. He believed in feeding his family. I was tole that one day he was stopped at a checkpoint. The game warden (who happened to know him) jokingly asked, "how many do you have this time Andy." His response was, I got a whole darn truck load! The warden laughed and said get out of here. So the deputy stepped off the truck before checking it and my grandfather left ... with three deer in the back of his dump truck. Creel surveys? I can't even type it without smiling.

OK, I'm going to climb down one step, but not entirely off the soap box. When the PF&BC uses things like mortality rate to justify that harvest has no impact, they are more than likely correct when speaking in long term health of the population. However, this is not the case in short.

They say based on creel surveys, the majority of anglers don't harvest wild trout. I don't doubt that, even if everyone told the truth. The fact is, some streams can handle more harvest than others. I say the population is cropped in most of the wild trout streams in NWPA near easy access. If I'm wrong, please explain why the numbers of legal size fish increase as you go away from the access, and it doesn't matter if you go upstream or down. Explain why along the bank at the first pool there are forked sticks in the ground. Do people who practice C&R use forked sticks to prop up their fishing pole??? It may not destroy the stream, but it does screw it up for awhile.

(pause while i take a deep breath)

I am not one of these people who think we should have no harvest laws on all wild streams. i throw them back by choice. I don't even think we need to lower the creel limit for the time being. However, i do feel that the PF&BC posting lists of all Class A streams and nearly all wild streams for easy access is a mistake. why not put a neon sign at each stream. Come fish me!!! The reason we are seeing more people fishing those streams on opening day (even though license sales continue to drop) is because they are advertising them. In my younger days, we stayed away from those streams for the first few weeks so as not to draw attention to them. Let the 1 to 2 week trout anglers catch stocked trout. That is what they are for. Instead, the fish commission is trying to push people to those streams. We used to deliberately park far away from a stream so as not to draw attention. Park way up on a hill, and people don't think much about it. Park at a bridge, and "hmmm, there must be trout in there!!!"

You guys ar slowly convincing me not to buy a PA license again this year.

Posted on: 2007/4/4 16:00
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: Wild Trout Stream Survey

Joined:
2006/9/14 10:34
From Southeast PA
Posts: 521
Offline
Just so you know, I was being cynical in my earlier post. First, from what Mike has said several times, the PFBC IS hanging their hats on this study. Second, I have several times expressed doubt at the validity of the study, for all the reasons others have stated, and because it would seem that just a few harvesters could nearly clean out many wild streams of legal trout, but they may not be surveyed just because of probabilities, not to mention what has been said about them perhaps avoiding the census taker.

Posted on: 2007/4/4 16:30
_________________
"It ain't the meat, it's the motion"


Re: Wild Trout Stream Survey
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22113
Offline
I will just leave my observations as they stand, but I have a suggestion for everyone who knows why the PFBC studies are flawed and thinks a well-crafted study would support their contentions-- put your money where your mouth is (actually, use the government's money) but use your time and design a study that you think will support your convictions. Then pursue a grant to conduct the study and subject your data and conclusions to peer review. Otherwise, to the PFBC and skeptics like me, your anecdotal evidence is a bunch of hot air.

Did you ever wonder whether your inability to catch legal-sized trout near easy access might have something to do with the amount of pressure the area receives, but not necessarily a result of supposed harvest and cropping? We all know how "educated" trout can become after being caught and released. They may be there just as you find them away from the bridges, but you may be having a harder time catching them because of the pressure.

There's an idea for your study:

"Are trout near bridges really smaller than the one's further away or do I just have a harder time catching the bigger ones?"

Then we can move on to the issue of whether kiss-and-tell posts on a message board result in additional angler pressure.

Posted on: 2007/4/4 16:33
_________________
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: Wild Trout Stream Survey

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 18108
Offline
Quote:

JackM wrote:
I will just leave my observations as they stand, but I have a suggestion for everyone who knows why the PFBC studies are flawed and thinks a well-crafted study would support their contentions-- put your money where your mouth is (actually, use the government's money) but use your time and design a study that you think will support your convictions. Then pursue a grant to conduct the study and subject your data and conclusions to peer review. Otherwise, to the PFBC and skeptics like me, your anecdotal evidence is a bunch of hot air.


Here's one. you might not consider it scientific. I certainly don't. It relys on common sense. we both know that there is no "scientific" study that will be fool proof, or satisfy everyone. Many are a waste of time. Common sense on the other hand can be quite useful. this one is so obvious, the PF&BC will never consider it. It won't cost a dime more than what is already spent on "scientific" studies. in fact it will save a boat load of money, so they can inforce a boating laws. It will also help reduce the production of greenhouse gasses that are causing global warming!!!

Park the freaking white trucks and if you still need to stock trout, stock them in ponds, preferable on the hatchery property to make inforcement easier. If you must stock them elsewhere, stock them in lakes. ... And leave the freakin wild trout alone. try this for about 5 years. Then do your stream surveys. don't do them o just class a either. see what ahppens of the less worthy streams. Compare it to the boatload of existing stream survey info.

Quote:
Did you ever wonder whether your inability to catch legal-sized trout near easy access might have something to do with the amount of pressure the area receives, but not necessarily a result of supposed harvest and cropping? We all know how "educated" trout can become after being caught and released. They may be there just as you find them away from the bridges, but you may be having a harder time catching them because of the pressure.


That depends on what you mean by consider. OK, lets say i am considering it. The streams I am talking about don't get that kind of pressure. I'm talking days or even weeks between angler visits. Also, I don't catch more trout as I move further away from the access, i just catch bigger ones, fishing the same types of holding areas. Wild Brook trout are so easy to catch, it isn't hard to crop a population. I've done it. If you were talking about a fertile, heavy traffic stream, then your statement would get much more consideration. I suspect those are the streams that were "scientifically" studied.

Quote:
There's an idea for your study:

"Are trout near bridges really smaller than the one's further away or do I just have a harder time catching the bigger ones?"

Then we can move on to the issue of whether kiss-and-tell posts on a message board result in additional angler pressure.


That actually wouldn't be hard, but i doubt you will ever see the PF&BC do a study like that. Find a stream that has just a bridge crossing. Sample near the bridge. Now walk at least a mile from the bridge in both directions and take samples. Eureka!!!! I've already done this!!!! However, i have to do it by legal means (with a fishing rod). It would be illegal if i did that using electro fishing. The fish commission doesn't want to do that. Why? My guess is it's because it is too much like work, or is it because it might prove common sense is sually right.

Jack, do you honestly believe that a population in a Class C stream cannot be cropped. Sure they eventually recover. They probably even recover by the Fall which was supported by the study ... I'm not arguing that.

Let me ask you something. did the study actually say that populations are not cropped in the early season? I don't think it did. however, I think it said bigger fish are caught in the fall. I have no problem with that.

There is a catch 22 here. The only way to prove that harvest has no effect on streams like I am talking about is to close a stream to fishing. However, signs attract attention. you can't enforce it 24/7. Can you???

Posted on: 2007/4/4 17:49
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: Wild Trout Stream Survey

Joined:
2006/11/2 8:50
Posts: 6022
Offline
Quote:

JackM wrote:
I'm not above believing the PFBC studies and conclusions are biased, but it always strikes me as a little peculiar that people will insist that their own unscientific limited observations are somehow more accurate than a study conducted by the PFBC. I think what is at work here is that people have certain "convictions" and get a little upset when studies refute them. I'm just making an observation, so don't get all twisted out of shape. Chaz' observations, his conjecture about how many anglers the cars represented and his assumption about how many fish were caught and kept is proof enough that one must be careful about this type of personal anecdotal "evidence."


So, are you going to check it out opening day? Is anyone on this board? Anyone interested in this subject could learn a great deal about it by visiting several unstocked wild trout streams on opening day.

Posted on: 2007/4/4 18:39



« 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





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