Comparing Trout Densities

It seems to us that the number of trout per mile is a statistic that
lacks a lot for informative value. When we look at fish survey
numbers and various species of trout are given in trout per mile, it
seems that would be like comparing the number of people in Alaska and
Tulsa. I might be able to say one is greater or they are equal, but
there isn't much embedded information.

Some of the surveys we see give numbers per acre and that seems
better. An even better number it seems would be a ratio let's say of
fish per mile divided by stream flow in cfs. This ratio would not
really be a number you could stretch your mind around, but it could be
used for comparison purposes.

Finally, we know that all this is just stuff to think about when we
aren't fishing as much and probably doesn't matter much anyway. I
doubt I'll ever choose one stretch of water over another based on such
analysis...but maybe it'll have some influence.

www.family-outdoors.com

family-outdoors wrote:
It seems to us that the number of trout per mile is a statistic that
lacks a lot for informative value.

Kind of like taxes per person? :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

On Dec 23, 2:56*pm, family-outdoors wrote:
It seems to us that the number of trout per mile is a statistic that
lacks a lot for informative value. *When we look at fish survey
numbers and various species of trout are given in trout per mile, it
seems that would be like comparing the number of people in Alaska and
Tulsa. I might be able to say one is greater or they are equal, but
there isn't much embedded information.

Some of the surveys we see give numbers per acre and that seems
better. *An even better number it seems would be a ratio let's say of
fish per mile divided by stream flow in cfs. *This ratio would not
really be a number you could stretch your mind around, but it could be
used for comparison purposes.

Finally, we know that all this is just stuff to think about when we
aren't fishing as much and probably doesn't matter much anyway. *I
doubt I'll ever choose one stretch of water over another based on such
analysis...but maybe it'll have some influence.

www.family-outdoors.com

Unless there is a constant, controlled flow, the CFS figure would be
meaningless, as it is a variable.

george9219 said: "Unless there is a constant, controlled flow, the CFS
figure would be meaningless, as it is a variable."

Unless the number of trout per mile is a constant and controlled
number then would that be meaningless as well? It's pretty easy to get
avg cfs data for at least one section of a stream (say for a year).
But that still doesn't prove the ratio means much. The trout per mile
ARE highly variable and as stated, so is the cfs for a stream as we
all know ( and as george9219 pointed out)...Spring vs. late summer vs/
winter...

I guess I am still thinking these number of fish per mile numbers we
see are kinda silly if someone is trying to use them as a basis for
choosing one stream over another to fish.

I guess I'll let that be my final 2 cents worth

www.family-outdoors.com