Maybe not though.
Not specific to this project, where I wish them continued success, but in general therein lies a major problem with such removals. A continuous need to return may lead to fading interests over time. Long term projects also run the risk of competing with changing priorities. Additionally, angler ideals may not be in alignment with fisheries management actions. It only takes one dedicated bucket biologist to foul up the works.
Whoa. That would be my personal best brookie easy. What is that...14"?
That's EXACTLY what I was thinking looking at those pics. Those are some serious native brook trout! What an awesome little stream.
Id say it's that or close to it.
I'd say your 14" guess is pretty darn close. In 40+ years of fishing for natives, my PB is 13.5". That brookie would become my new PB, but I don't see that happening in what's left of my life. 😊
Not. Gonna. Happen.
A check in the win column for front plate paradise!
Mike, or anyone who may know, isn't it a stated objective in the wild trout plan to do continuous surveys on the same watersheds to understand population fluctuations? Genuinely, I'm not sure if I'm remembering that correctly.
Truer words were never spoken about the sorry state of fisheries management in PA. No matter which side you fall on, this holds true. Some "angler ideals" seem to get traction with PFBC, while others don't. Science doesn't seem to matter. I wish they would just ignore the social pressures of some cohorts of anglers who scream for stocking invasives over natives, and do what's best for our fisheries.
Agreed.
It was deemed impractical when it was examined more closely. The areas where BT were heaviest would be hard access and transport the fish for relocation. The number of small tributaries where BT could hide were a big problem too. There was a suggestion to give them to the raccoons ("bank release") instead. That was undesirable to deliberately kill wild fish- which would be against regulations and need special PFBC approval. It would also require multiple years of removal which would extend beyond the short period of time the reservoir was drained and once the reservoir was filled it would return as a "sanctuary" for BT. PFBC wasn't too enthusiastic either. My opinion. It was a good idea to consider it, but like many projects discussed at meetings or on the internet ( 😉 ), once you look into it seriously it became a less viable project. The decision to consider it was based on a small window of when the reservoir was drained versus particular features of the stream to suggest it would be sucessful or practical.
Thanks for the update! What is the design that allows it to be bottom release? What is the size and depth of the reservoir and could this technique be used on other smaller reservoirs throughout Pa. I would think that smaller reservoirs would be drained of cold water quickly unless it was a very restricted release that would just keep downstream areas viable for trout without "wasting" the cold water.
Most of what you ask is beyond my knowledge base. But I imagine it could be done on other reservoirs. The BG reservoir needed to be replaced and during design they made it CWR due to some suggestions/lobbying to the Altoona water authority. It would be very unlikely they or any entity would replace a sound dam just to accommodate bottom release. So, if you guys know of an impending dam replacement on your favorite stream, lobby for it.
