Wonder why the feeshin’ ain’t what it wuz…

[lycoflyfisher]

The most important conservation practice in farming is riparian buffers.

And abandoning widespread use of tile drains that discharge directly to streams.

 

[Chaz]

Too much untreated waste is the cause of most of our water quality issues. People dump all types of waste down their drains that goes untreated, because it either is unregulated or not on the the radar of agencies that monitor water quality. And people don’t want government agencies to test for stuff, ignorance!

 

[nymphingmaniac]

Correct…not Valley because of the three long established sampling sites in Valley’s stocked (formerly stocked) section, one was already Class A when stocking was terminated and the other two were well on the way to Class A when stocking was terminated. I think they were already B’s if I recall correctly, but nevertheless they were headed to Class A. In fact, a review of the data from the 1976 or 1977 period suggests that it was the stocked brown trout reproduction that allowed the stream to bounce back after all but a few trout (a literal handful at the combined sampling sites) were gone from the stocked section at that time. Had stocking been the problem, the paucity of any trout would have continued as long as stocking continued. I also don’t doubt that as conditions in Valley improved any excess production of wild BT in Ltl Valley would have contributed to Valley’s population recovery as well.

Mike and WT2,
IYO, why does ceasing stocking increase BT numbers.The answer might be stream specific. Is it less competition for food? Although more wild BT would result in the same. Or is it that being removed from the stocking list reduces harvest and fishing pressure.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

Too much untreated waste is the cause of most of our water quality issues. People dump all types of waste down their drains that goes untreated, because it either is unregulated or not on the the radar of agencies that monitor water quality. And people don’t want government agencies to test for stuff, ignorance!

Even water treatment plants are improving. Both Altoona and Tyrone plants took measures to reduce phosphate discharge, for example. It has improved water quality of the J. This may lead to less caddis and more mayflies and stoneflies. While the UAJA (State college area treatment network) contributes to some thermal pollution, they cut down on discharges. The number of stoneflies on the Bald Eagle below milesburg has increased greatly over the last 5 years. Brown drakes (not GDs!) are rebounding too.

 

[Mike]

Mike and WT2,
IYO, why does ceasing stocking increase BT numbers.The answer might be stream specific. Is it less competition for food? Although more wild BT would result in the same. Or is it that being removed from the stocking list reduces harvest and fishing pressure.

Stocking termination doesn’t always do so for BT just as it doesn’t always do so for ST. Nevertheless, when and where it does occur, it is probably in large part because of reduced harvest or no harvest after stocking termination. A number of competition studies have been challenged.

Using a Pa example that would challenge the common thinking among anglers here, I can cite the Codorus Ck example in which stocking continued but the stream was shifted to DHALO, which is essentially treated as C&R by anglers. The stream went from very intensive harvest to what was essentially no or little harvest. Despite stocking at the highest Pa rate the wild BT population in two or three years went from a middling to low Class C or perhaps high Class D to more than double the minimum biomass for a Class A stream. The point being that this BT pop that had been marginal for years and had few adult size wild fish responded tremendously in the face of intensive stocking at a rate of 150 trout per acre twice each spring to what was essentially harvest termination brought on by the DHALO regs.

As I have mentioned here in the past on a few occasions, in the Pa freestone ST streams from which enough data were available at the time of the analyses, cessation of stocking resulted in an increase in legal trout abundance in most. The average increase was 42 seven inch and longer ST per mile.

The results from stocking termination BT streams were quite mixed. Of the 40 test streams sampled, 20 experienced increases, 16 showed decreases, and 4 had no changes in legal BT abundance.

Conclusion: results of stocking termination over wild BT populations is a crap shoot. There is a 50/50 chance that legal size BT numbers will empirically increase. For both species the frequency of stocking within a given spring and the amount of angling pressure, which can vary including with stocking frequency and rates, were likely some of the driving forces as could have been variable year class strengths within the wild populations.

It’s important to note that these data were recorded during a time period when trout harvest was with little doubt greater than it is today, which means that wild trout populations might not respond to stocking termination today as sharply as some did in the past. Also many stocking rates and/or frequencies are lower today than in the past, which likely reduces angling trips on a number of affected streams. Likewise, trout anglers as measured by trout stamp sales have greatly declined in number since the analysis was conducted, suggesting reduced angling pressure.

 

[wildtrout2]

Mike and WT2,
IYO, why does ceasing stocking increase BT numbers.The answer might be stream specific. Is it less competition for food? Although more wild BT would result in the same. Or is it that being removed from the stocking list reduces harvest and fishing pressure.

I'm sure the answer would be stream specific. The one I'm referring to has almost zero fishing pressure, which makes harvest at or near zero. Only a handful of people even know there's trout in this creek at all, let alone wild trout, since they stopped the stocking a long time ago.

 

[troutbert]

As I have mentioned here in the past on a few occasions, in the Pa freestone ST streams from which enough data were available at the time of the analyses, cessation of stocking resulted in an increase in legal trout abundance in most. The average increase was 42 seven inch and longer ST per mile.

That's a very significant result, getting such a large increase in adult brook trout, simply by ending stocking. Was that ever published? Is it widely known in the fisheries field? Was it discussed a lot within PA?

I'm not surprised that ending stocking improved the number of adult brook trout. That corresponds to what you see when fishing. But I am happily surprised that the increases were that much.

 

[wildtrout2]

That's a very significant result, getting such a large increase in adult brook trout, simply by ending stocking. Was that ever published? Is it widely known in the fisheries field? Was it discussed a lot within PA?

I'm thinking it's widely known, just ignored in certain cases. 🙁

 

[JG63]

Hasn't the wild brown trout population increased in Yellow Breeches Creek between the old days (1970s & 1980s) up to more modern times?

Yes - and some of that increase is due to landowners posting their respective stretches of stream - it helps to keep people off the redds and allows stream bred fish to adapt naturally to their surroundings as opposed to stocking adults/fingerlings