The unequal spread of fishing efforts was also indicated by the 

 results of fish population estimates made on the streams following the 

 close of the 1953 fishing season (table 7). As might be expected, fewer 

 trout were found in the waters subjected to the heaviest angling loads. 



The population estimates were based on fishes collected with cresol 

 (phenol coefficient 30) . Applications of this compound were made in suffi- 

 cient strength to insure a maximum effect on the fishes within a test area. 

 The test areas ranged from 75 to 300 yards in length, depending on the si?e 

 of the stream and the amount of help available to insure a rapid pickup of 

 fish before the anesthetizing effects of the cresol were dissipated. Usually 

 a minnow seine was stretched across the stream at the downstream limit of a 

 measured area to prevent the escape of fish. All species were enumerated, 

 and game fishes were measured as well; estimates of the residual fish popu- 

 lations per acre, or per mile of water were formulated from the figures 

 obtained. These estimates must be considered as conservative; in spite of 

 our every precaution, some fish within the test areas were perhaps unaffected 

 by the cresol, and others, although affected, may have been missed during the 

 pickup. 



The lower section of the Little Pigeon River, extending from the con- 

 fluence of the Middle Prong and Porters Creek to the Park boundary, was 

 easily reached from the adjacent truck road and it was fished heavily 

 throughout its 3-mile length in the Park. As stated previously, returns 

 from this piece of water were fractional since the anglers did not have to 

 pass the creel checking station before leaving the Park. The records show 

 that there were 66 anglers, and 122 trout caught per mile, on this water 

 during the season (table 1). On October 27, 1953, a survey was made on 100 

 yards of stream at a point one-half mile upstream from the Park boundary 

 line. Numerous minnows of 5 species and one darter were captured, but no 

 bass or trout were taken or observed (table 7) . Another survey was made 

 on 100 yards of stream at a point 1.9 miles upstream from the boundary on 

 October 28. A total of II46 fish were netted, which included 5 species of 

 minnows and one muddler soecies. Again no trout or bass were taken. The 

 application of cresol in this instance remained in effective concentration 

 for 25 to 30 yards downstream past the check net. Pools and riffles in 

 the test areas were grade A in number and quantity. These results by no 

 means prove that trout are completely lacking in the lower Little Pigeon, 

 but they do show that stocked or wild rainbows and brook trout are scarce. 

 The failure to capture any fingerling trout denotes a scarcity of spawning 

 fish. This section of stream has been stocked annually with legal-size 

 rainbow trout, but the effects of these plantings are not apparent in the 

 population surveys. 



The Middle Q rong of the Little Pigeon offered 3 miles of fishing 

 water to hikers who approached the upstream waters by way of the adjacent 

 but restricted truck road. No stocking h_s been done in this prong in 

 recent years, but there were 156 anglers and u70 trout reported per mile 

 for the season; we estimate that these figures represent about 80 percent 

 of the actual totals for the Middle Prong = The heaviest fishing loads were 



15 



