feedback from keystone lake biologist

Author
phishfearme
Avid Angler
  • Total Posts : 232
  • Reward points: 0
  • Joined: 2008/07/22 15:58:39
  • Location: Monroeville
  • Status: offline
2013/08/19 18:23:49 (permalink)

feedback from keystone lake biologist

on many previous threads, there's been chatter about how the fishing on keystone lake (NOT keystone state park) has deteriorated over the years - especially for panfish and walleye.  I sent an email to the regional biologist asking if a "panfish conservation" designation would be possible and if it would help.  I post my email here and the response of Allen Woomer (who approved my posting of this).  I think he would appreciate feedback from guys who fish there - weather you agree with what is discussed or not - his email address is embedded in the thread:
 
my initial email:
allen - I have fished keystone power dam for about 40 years and have watched it turn into the dead sea over the last 10 years or so - the walleye, crappie, perch and even bluegills have seemed to disappear. 


 


I don't know what the cause is (some speculate it's the amish keeping EVERYTHING that's legal to keep, maybe it's the huge level fluctuations and I've even heard that the "big bass" designation that occurred some time ago has caused it) but it's my opinion that placing a "panfish enhancement" designation to the lake may do wonders to return the panfish which form the base of the food chain and should result in better game fish also.


 


what do you think and what can be done.   


thanks in advance,
 
Allen's response:
Thank you for taking the time to send me your concerns and ideas about the fishery in Keystone Lake or Keystone Power Dam.  Our last lake survey of Keystone Lake was conducted in 2008 and at the time I was encouraged by the fishery in a couple key areas.  First, the crappies looked really nice and there was a good number of them at that time.  Second, there seemed to be a fair number of walleye and even a few younger ones.  The walleye fishery had been down prior to that time but I had hopes of continued improvement because we are stocking quite a few fingerlings in the lake trying to build up the population.  In 2008 bluegill were in good numbers but not many were over 7 inches.  However, I do not recall the bluegill fishery ever being really good at Keystone Lake in terms of larger size bluegill.  I am attaching a web report on the 2008 Keystone Lake survey so you can look at what was caught at that time.

 

The smallmouth and largemouth bass were doing really well back in 2008 and this can only be a positive not a negative for panfish since predators like bass help to keep the total number of panfish down allowing them to grow faster and attain the larger sizes desired by fishermen.

 

Regarding the placement of additional regulations on panfish at Keystone Lake, the primary purpose of the regulation is to allow fast growing panfish like crappie to reach the larger sizes angler like.  The panfish regulation for black and white crappie consists of a 9 inch minimum size limit and a 20 per day creel limit for those two species.  I am not sure that would have a major affect on the quality of the panfish populations because harvest of panfish by anglers is not excessive based on our 2008 survey data.  Crappie are the primary panfish in this lake, and our survey information shows they can grow past 10 inches in good numbers.  They did not show any sign of cropping to smaller sizes, which would be apparent if harvest was severe enough to impact the population.  While Keystone Lake does receives a good amount of fishing pressure, it is 950 acres and the fishery can take quite a bit of fishing harvest before it is negatively affected. 

 

As you mentioned, the reservoir has other factors such as the drawdowns that can occur when water withdrawals for the power plant exceed inflow during dry summers.  This can have an effect on the fishery that is not related to angler harvest.  Year class strength of crappie can vary up and down through the years causing fluctuations in population abundance and this too is not caused by harvest.

 

Generally our lake surveys are repeated every 7 years and it has been five years since our last survey at Keystone Lake.  So we should be getting back there in the next couple years to take another look at the fishery.  If we see signs of overharvest negatively impacting the quality of the panfish we can consider trying panfish regulations but at this time I do not see enough evidence to recommend that management change.


 

Thanks again for contacting us on your concerns for Keystone Lake.

 

Sincerely,

Allen Woomer

Area Fisheries Manager

Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission

172 Fish Hatchery Lane

Tionesta, PA 16353

(814) 755-3890

awoomer@pa.gov
 

my follow-up:
allen - thanks for your rapid response and I think using actual physical evidence is much more valid that anecdotal (even though it may be very dated) - however, let me provide some factual/anecdotal evidence that caused me to write to you:

 

1 - we used to catch LOTS of walleye in that lake - it was common for two of us to catch 40-50 in a day - maybe only 5-10 of these would be legal (15 inches or more).  this was in the 80's and 90's

2 - I've not caught a single walleye in the last 15 years using similar techniques and spots.  and, all of the walleye I've heard that were caught were large - >20inches and were typically caught at night over the deeper areas.  I think the 2008 data bear this out.

so, something has really changed.

 

3 - we used to catch many large crappie in the lake - it was common to catch 12-14 inchers in about a dozen or so spots that I knew, now catching even a small one is a challenge.  the 2008 data seem to challenge this - the next sample will be very interesting.

4 - we used to catch many yellow perch up to 14 inches mainly in some of the deeper areas near the drop-offs.  getting even a small one now is a minor miracle.  the 2008 data agree with this - I doubt seriously if it's gotten better since 2008.

5 - for bluegills, you are correct that this lake never produced large ones but we could EASILY get enough 8-9 inchers for a dinner - but now only small gills exist and these seem to be around the immediate shoreline areas - not out in deeper weedlines.  the 2008 data are clear that gills over 9 incher are rare.

6 - bass seem to be doing ok - maybe at the expense of other species?? (by the way, my friend caught a 21.5 inch smallmouth one day off the sunken island - an incredible fish - even for lake erie)

 

again, something has really changed - level fluctuations have always been a fact of life for that lake and the 1991 "big bass" designation may have something to do with the changes noted above (and, I would bet that many/lots of the walleye fry/fingerlings become bass food) and i'm sure you are aware of the large number of amish fisherman in that lake - especially over the last 5 years - essentially everyday (and I hope you also notice all the horse crap in the parking areas).  I and others have seen them return to the dock with baskets full of small panfish - when I asked what they do with them, all I've heard was "eat them" - not sure how you can eat small fish like that but they apparently do.  this is the main genesis of my request for your opinion on "panfish enhancement" status - I don't want to deny anyone a source of food but possibly posting a 9 inch limit on crappie AND PERCH may help return this lake to where it was and still provide a valid food source(???)

 

not sure what to do about walleye - maybe stocking larger fish??

 
thanks for your consideration,



#1

4 Replies Related Threads

    smbass88
    New Angler
    • Total Posts : 10
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2009/10/19 13:43:21
    • Status: offline
    Re:feedback from keystone lake biologist 2013/08/19 21:07:06 (permalink)
    I also belive part of the problem might be too many muskies in the lake, but it is probably mostly an issue of over harvesting.  I have a hard time believing a lake that size could support people keeping 6 15" plus bass every weekend if everyone fishing kept a limit (which obviously doesnt happen), and as many as 50 panfish.  The big bass rule to me is counter productive, as the only fish you can keep are the spawners. I also dont notice as many blue gills in the lake as in years past.  Thanks for bringing some attention to the issue.
    #2
    seabass86
    New Angler
    • Total Posts : 18
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2012/06/11 07:42:31
    • Status: offline
    Re:feedback from keystone lake biologist 2013/08/25 17:32:18 (permalink)
    First time I've ever heard anyone from southwest PA say "too many muskies" in a fishing spot. I fish the lake as it's the second closest to me. It seems to be a crap shoot ever single time "pun intended". I mark plenty of fish but if a spot produces for me it seems to be a dead zone next time out. It's a great looking lake and has endless potential but I haven't had much luck
    #3
    slabdaddy
    Pro Angler
    • Total Posts : 1780
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2011/12/27 11:30:05
    • Location: New Bethlehem, PA
    • Status: offline
    Re:feedback from keystone lake biologist 2013/08/25 18:33:56 (permalink)
    The state record bluegill came from that lake, didn't it?

    “If you're in trouble, or hurt or in need - go to the poor people. They're the only ones that'll help - the only ones.”
    John Steinbeck, The Grapes of Wrath
    #4
    phishfearme
    Avid Angler
    • Total Posts : 232
    • Reward points: 0
    • Joined: 2008/07/22 15:58:39
    • Location: Monroeville
    • Status: offline
    Re:feedback from keystone lake biologist 2013/08/27 21:16:39 (permalink)
    yah, according to the fish commission web site a 2lb 9 ounce bluegill was caught from keystone in 1983.  incredible fish.  I doubt seriously if that could be topped from keystone today.
    #5
    Jump to: