Big native brookies?

[afishinado]

Chaz and all other native brook trout afishinados on the board - have you read this report from the PFBC.? Few or no brook trout found 9” or more in “Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Program” streams (no harvest year-round). According to the report, the average wild brook trout stream statewide contains only 4 9”+ inch trout / mile of stream. I have always believed that the lack of bigger fish has always been because of harvest. Maybe not. What do you think? Infertile water? Genetics? Floods? Natural predators?….

http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/images/fisheries/afm/2006/5x10_19brook.htm

 

[Wulff-Man]

If you are having doubts about harvest being the reason because they are not finding big ones in the “Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Program” streams, this is not a reason to doubt. This program has only been in place for about a year, so you wouldn't expect to suddenly be finding large brookies due to non-harvest in one year.

The "average" brook trout stream is probably too small / infertile to have many large fish. The size of brookies in larger streams may be limited by harvest. Just my $.02.

 

[JackM]

As noted below*, the Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Program has been available as a management tool since 2004. The streams highlighted in the PFBC article were designated into the program effective January 2005: http://www.pabulletin.com/secure/data/vol34/34-47/2081.html

*§ 65.13. Wild brook trout enhancement.
(a) The Executive Director, with the approval of the Commission, may designate waters as ‘‘Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Regulations’’ waters. The designation shall be effective upon publication of a notice of designation in the Pennsylvania Bulletin.

(b) It is unlawful to fish in designated ‘‘Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Regulations’’ waters except in compliance with the following requirements:

(1) Brook trout may not be killed or had in possession.

(2) There is no closed season for brook trout.

(3) There are no tackle restrictions.

(4) Other trout species shall be subject to Statewide regulations (including seasons, sizes and creel limits).

(5) A current trout/salmon permit is required.

Authority

The provisions of this § 65.13 issued under the Fish and Boat Code, 30 Pa.C.S. § 2102.

Source

The provisions of this § 65.13 adopted August 15, 2003, effective January 1, 2004, 33 Pa.B. 2760; amended November 23, 2005, effective January 1, 2006, 35 Pa.B. 6434. Immediately preceding text appears at serial pages (308604) to (308605).

 

[Maurice]

It will be interesting to see how the numbers change over the next 4 years through 2010. I wouldn't expect to see many 9" fish out of any of these streams. Although I don't know them personally, their previous, pre-regulation surveys show NONE 9" except for Jeans Run in 1991) Man, something dreadful must have happened to that stream in the 1990's.

If harvest and cropping of 9" fish was a factor on these streams there would have been at least "Some" 9" plus fish found prior to the regulations. This tells me the habitat and fertility simply will not support this size fish in these sections surveyed. Either that or they are moving downstream to bigger water to hold over during the summer.

Regarding Jean's Run and its tail spin since the 1990's. This demonstrates what the purpose of data should be used for. If the biologists can establish what conditions changed over the years to give the subsequent slide in trout populations they can make recomendations to watershed groups on what actions to take to improve the streams carrying capacity. Otherwise it is a waste of money to accumulate the data.


Maurice

 

[Chaz]

I've fished a couple of streams in those reports and I was dumbfounded, read between the lines.
As to why we don't find more big brook trout all you have to do is look at harvest on most streams. I have changed my tactics though and found big brookies in some that I had previously fished.
I do think however that the majority of the streams in the program will not produce big brookies as a function of habitat nad floods. Speaking of floods I walked along a stream I fished in Oct 2004 and saw and caught a large number of brookies just 2 weeks ago, I saw 1 trout. I believe that the rest were ground up during the floods since then.

 

[Maurice]

Chaz wrote:
I've fished a couple of streams in those reports and I was dumbfounded, read between the lines.

Why were you dumbfounded?? I am trying to read between your lines and cannot figure out what that means.

As to why we don't find more big brook trout all you have to do is look at harvest on most streams. I have changed my tactics though and found big brookies in some that I had previously fished.

Chaz, theoretically harvest has stopped on these streams.]

I do think however that the majority of the streams in the program will not produce big brookies as a function of habitat nad floods. Speaking of floods I walked along a stream I fished in Oct 2004 and saw and caught a large number of brookies just 2 weeks ago, I saw 1 trout. I believe that the rest were ground up during the floods since then.

I agree with the habitat part but not the floods unless the flood contributes to habitat loss. Floods in and of themslves are not devistating to trout pops. Fish find places to hide until the flows return to normal.

Please explain your first comment.

Maurice

 

[Wmass]

It could be that the genetics of fish in this area only allow them to get so big, 8 inches or smaller may be the largest they are going to get.

There is a stream that I fish back where my parents live that is loaded with brookies, but in five years of fishing this stream I have only caught 1 fish over 9". I also have fished in Shenandoa national park and even on those pristine mountain streams the native brookies tend to run small.

I don't pretend to be a fish biologist but this is just my two cents.

 

[Padraic]

Wmass wrote:
It could be that the genetics of fish in this area only allow them to get so big, 8 inches or smaller may be the largest they are going to get.

There is a stream that I fish back where my parents live that is loaded with brookies, but in five years of fishing this stream I have only caught 1 fish over 9". I also have fished in Shenandoa national park and even on those pristine mountain streams the native brookies tend to run small.

I don't pretend to be a fish biologist but this is just my two cents.

I'm no expert either, and the only stream I am familiar with in the Brook Trout Program is Sherman's Creek. Which is a fine, big stream downstream that is quite fertile. But in the project area, the only thing the brookies have to eat is gravel. I don't think the trout are going to get very large on that diet. The big water below has stocked trout until it warms and is decent smallmouth water.

This is the tragedy of PA's streams. The fertile "middle" stretches that could support large brookies are stocked. Whether you favor the stocking program or not, I would hope that we can agree that it is tragic for the wild fish. It is the reason that I can see, why Brook Trout across the state are "stunted". It's because they get the infertile headwaters sections. The larger downstream sections are more fertile, but they are either too warm for trout or too often stocked. And so, the only large trout most of us see are stocked fish. Despite the fact that only a wild fish is likely to live long enough(in the stream) to grow to really impressive size. And whether other streams in the Brook Trout Enhancement program are different and have the fertility to grow large fish, I wouldn't know.

 

[Wmass]

I read in some magazine or something that there are HUGE native brookies in Maine. Apparently the fish are a distinct breading population and grow giant. The pics in the magazine definitely showed the largest brookies I have ever seen.

 

[flyfishermanj]

Ya, I've seen those articles too. Though I believe those brookies live in lakes most of the year, if not all year.
As for Pa's native brookies, most of these projects are not going to produce many, if any large(12+ inches) brook trout. Not enough of the combo of things needed, depth,cover and mainly food! Where these conditions are met, you most likely already have wild browns or it gets a ton of stockers. Just my two cents>
Jason

 

[troutbert]

These streams had the C&R regs put on them beginning with the 2005 season.

As the report notes, there was a huge flood in NEPA this summer. There was also quite a large flood in Sept. 2004. The really big floods kill a lot of trout.

 

[ryanh]

When we were in the smokies the brook were neither plentiful nor large. (i don't think I caught a brook on the whole trip). The locals and the books suggest that the fish are stunted due to food, and basically will starve to death.

Usually in the books the next paragraph will say that the smokies are one of the most diverse regions in the country with the highest density of flora and fuana. Now having said that contrast those realities with PA. It is not all that different. I think the lake factor is what is stunting our trout. Northern (Main) destinations have tons of natural lakes which serve as a cafateria for these brookies tio grow large and fat.

 

[schrec]

No news here. Since I can remember -- and I'm a middle-aged cuck -- brookies in the small mountain creeks, headwaters, etc. have rarely gotten over 9 inches. It's always been that way. As a kid fishing small streams around Cook Forest, a 7-inch fish was a lunker. IMO, it's simply a matter of bio-mass/fish ratios. Most of these small cricks are pretty sterile and unfortunately with AMD and /or acid rain, they seem to be getting worst. Plus with natural fluctuations in streamflows year to year reproduction can really take a hit from one year to teh next. Those little fish have a tough life.

 

[Chaz]

I know a half dozen streams where the brookies grow up to about 15 inches, don't ask me where though. None of these streams is in the program and if you ask me they should be. These populations need to be protected. I know 2 of these where the brookies grow to 20 inches. They fight like no other fish I've caught on a fly. they don't jump but they sure like to bore a hole in the stream bottom.

 

[sandfly]

get the boots out its gettin deep now...like to see a pic of a pa 20" brookie and the prove where it was caught...and not be a stocked fish....

 

[troutbert]

Those very big brookies in the lakes and rivers of northern Canada really have nothing to do with PA stream brookie fisheries. It's a totally different situation.

So lets bring it back to PA brookie streams.

On a lot of PA brookie streams, it's hard to find many fish over 6 inches. So your catch is typically 4, 5, 6 inch fish.

Then there are streams where you catch loads of 8 inchers, with a few 9 inchers and a 10-incher or two, in a days fishing.

The difference in the brookie fishing experience is tremendous.

So that's the hope in improving brook fisheries in PA freestone streams. To go from streams with few fish over 6 inches to streams that have more 7, 8, 9, 10 inchers, and the occasional larger one. I don't think that's a far-fetched hope at all. The freestone streams in PA are certainly capable of supporting lots of 8 and 9 inch brook trout.

 

[Chaz]

When a stream is rated Class A and hasn't been stocked it is very likely to grow bigger trout when it doesn't get fished hard. If people believe there couldn't be trout in a stream that is polluted they aren't likely to fish it either.
here's a wild PA Brookie caught in SE PA, I can't say where, but the stream where it was caught has average size brookies that are 9 to 13 inches long. This isn't the biggest trout in the stream where it was caught either. From the butt of the rod to the hook keeper is 10 inches, so how big do you think this fish is.


http://pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/chazmac2001/detail?.dir=cca4&.dnm=d7e7.jpg&.src=ph

 

[Chaz]

And I don't know how PFBC can just blow floods off and say that they don't think floods impacted those streams in the surveys, it just unfounded speculation because the person writing the report doesn't know. If you were to ask me I'd say yes the floods definately had a big impact on trout streams, some of the streams are so torn up I don't know if any trout survived. I was looking a Long Run and Phoenix Run in Tioga County last spring, I didn't fish them though, too little time, but both had pretty good populations of wild trout in them, but to see them now I don't know how they could have even 1 wild trout in them.
The trout survive though somehow and make new trout, because after the 96 flood Long Run and Phoenix Run looked pretty much the way they looked this spring and the trout population restored itself.
As for Maine all the populations of the biggest brook trout are gone, 12 pound brook trout don't exist in Maine anymore, but there are some 5 pounders.

 

[afishinado]

While I believe Chaz about 20” brookies, I have never seen or caught one approaching that size in PA. I used to fish a stream in northern Pocono area that is totally private and was not fished by anyone. The stream is not even listed with the PFBC as a stream containing wild trout. In a typical day fishing for a few hours it was not unusual to catch 20-30 brook trout. Many were in the 8- 9 inch range with a few 10-12 inches. The largest brookie I ever caught there was probably 13inches +or- (I don’t carry a ruler). The best thing about it, besides the bigger fish, was that there were areas that were wide open for easy casting. My friend’s family sold the property a few years ago and I lost access to it.

I’ve fished many of the water close to this private stream and the size of the fish caught no where approaches the private water. The point is that I believe brook trout can grow to larger sizes in decent water if they were better protected.

 

[flyman]

I think it is infertile waters and time. I fish Shaeffer run, it is a small freestone stream, that by evidence, is ravaged by floods. Those Brook trout are tough, they survive on virtually no food, and competition with chubs. Maybe with time they can out produce and out compete. It has been only two years(?)on the program, that can't change 100 years of damage.