Blind Faith: Pennsylvania's Migrating Wild Brown Trout

  • Thread starter salvelinusfontinalis
  • Start date
salvelinusfontinalis

salvelinusfontinalis

Active member
Joined
Sep 9, 2006
Messages
7,284
Recently was inspired by a board member here whom I spoke with about a subject. I have been trying to have this conversation for awhile. Half the time no one will talk, other times there is no one to talk to but mostly I just don’t know how to ask. So many questions on such a large topic. This member blew me away with how much he knew on this subject but also his passion. I could hardly talk. In the end he inspired me to write a poem and I felt like it was a very beautiful one. Upon its completion, it became evident my life is going to change drastically again and before I get wrapped up in life I needed to get this out. Today when I should have been fishing or packing up the reminisce of all I know, I just went to hold an old wounded friend as she held me. I sat along the various banks of the Letort today and didn’t fish a single cast. Instead I sat there with my pen so mightier than my sword and just started to write...To you in the only way I know how, before its too late and its gone because I feel like its so important. I want a serious discussion on this. Here is my opinion and I want to see where you sit, what you are willing to do and most importantly do you even believe?

48614406553_b8ac48c781_b.jpg


Blind Faith: Pennsylvania’s Migrating Wild Brown Trout

“I am not solicitous to examine particularly everything here, which indeed could not be done in fifty years, because my desire is to make all possible discoveries, and return to your Highnesses, if it please our Lord some time in April of 1723. I shall bring one of a brightly colored delicious fish so numerous you can walk on their backs!”
-some yinzer in 1653 writing to England.


Believe?
Got me, that was just me playing with Christopher Columbus, no one wants credit for that.
Ok, Okay, how about this....

48756388042_84f3131671_b.jpg


““Once there were brook trout in the streams in the mountains. You could see them standing in the amber current where the white edges of their fins wimpled softly in the flow. They smelled of moss in your hand. Polished and muscular and torsional. On their backs were vermiculate patterns that were maps of the world in its becoming. Maps and mazes. Of a thing which could not be put back. Not be made right again. In the deep glens where they lived all things were older than man and they hummed of mystery.”
-Cormac McCarthy


Believe that?
I don’t. The words are nice and I like the reflection and beauty but there is no hope.
Doesn’t he believe?
Let’s try......

48756212741_33cc02eeb7_b.jpg


“During interglacial periods, water levels fell. Brook trout populations were cut off from one another and lived in isolation for thousands of years. During these periods of isolation each population evolved traits unique in the particular environment it inhabited. Some lived in large rivers, streams or lakes where food was plentiful. Here they grew rapidly, lived long lives and reached sizes better measured in pounds than inches. Others adapted to limestone streams which, although not usually large, were incredibly fertile. Here too, brook trout grew large. But most brookies lived in little freestone streams and brooks where food was scarce. In such meager environments, they had to mature quickly and spawn early, for life was tenuous and brief. They were small and slender, but brilliantly colored, as if to make up for their diminutive size. As the glaciers ebbed and flowed populations of brook trout were alternately separated and then reunited. When reunited, they interbred and shared the genes evolved during years of isolation. This alternate separating, then mixing of the various populations endowed brook trout with an extremely diverse gene pool that allowed them to readily adapt to a wide variety of conditions. They could live in large and small, freestone and limestone streams ... lakes and ponds ... even tiny headwaters and trickle tributaries. No stream was too big or too small, as long as the water was cold and clear. This then was the icy crucible that molded Salvelinus fontinalis, the only salmonid native to the cold-water streams of Pennsylvania and our state fish. Their survival as a species is absolutely dependent upon this diversity and their ability to adapt to a wide range of environments. Until shortly after the turn of the 20th century, brook trout angling in the streams of northcentral Pennsylvania was nothing short of fantastic. There were no brown trout. They were not introduced into our waters until The 1880’s. In big freestone streams like Kettle Creek, Sinnemahoning and Loyalsock brook trout averaged between 9 and 10 inches, 12 to 14 inch fish were not uncommon and, incredibly, some reached lengths in excess of 20 inches and weights approaching four pounds. These were the so-called river trout ... deep-bodied, silvery and less distinctly marked than brook trout of the smaller tributaries and headwaters. River trout did not spend the whole year in the larger waters, however. Even in the "good-old-days" these streams reached temperatures above the lethal level for trout during the summer months. But the versatile brookie had evolved a strategy to deal with this situation: They
moved upstream into cool headwaters and tributaries for the summer months. After spawning in the fall they moved back downstream and wintered in large pools of the main stem where they were safe from anchor ice and the other perils of winter. Brookies that lived year-round in the smaller upstream waters were called hemlock trout and were brilliantly colored, big-headed and slender ... the same as those familiar to most Pennsylvania anglers of today. They seldom exceeded 10 inches in length. Brook trout of the limestone streams were even larger than those of the freestone streams. In these richer waters it is said they averaged about 2 pounds. This is the way it was in Pennsylvania until shortly after the turn of the century. Brook trout made their last stand in the Kettle Creek watershed, according to Charles Wetzel, who wrote of his angling experiences there from 1918 to 1920. He told of how immense schools of brook trout gathered at the mouths of Beaverdam Run, Trout Run and Hammersley Fork as the summer sun warmed the main stem waters of Kettle Creek. Wetzel related how with the first high water of June they moved up into these tributaries in such numbers that they darkened the bottoms of the large downstream holes, before moving upstream and dispersing; and how all the anglers envied experts like Rube Kelly who would catch several brookies of 20 inches or so every year. Similar accounts of angling in the East Fork of Sinnemahoning and in Loyalsock Creek during the same period were told by Max Greely, a former district forest warden from the Wharton area, and Charles Lose, a noted conservationist of early 20th century Pennsylvania.”
-Ken Undercover “The Real Natives”


Sounds like he might believe.
Do you yet?
Come on man. They exist. What do you need a picture?

48653862806_4a66c50c84_b.jpg


Oh what’s migrating brook trout got to do with migrating brown trout?
IMO just about everything.
It does too happen! Oh really???!!!

48755894908_b437fa7467_b.jpg


There now do you believe me?
SMH, where is your blind faith?
Ok...you asked for it but maybe by the time I’m done rambling I might convince you.

48756412382_fe454ffea7_b.jpg


Pennsylvania boasts over 86,000 miles of rivers, streams, creeks, tickles and drainage ditches all across the Commonwealth. This is a United States second only to Alaska for flowing waters. To really put that in perspective, you could almost travel around the world 4 times before you would run out of Pennsylvania flowing waters. The Susquehanna River watershed which drains over half of the state, is measurable to 37.5 times the entire size of the Florida Everglades alone. Within the great vastness of our aquatic ecosystems lay minute universes compassing a wide array of life forms driven on an endless sea of time and evolution. 5000 miles of stocked trout waters, 125 stocked trout lakes and 16,000 miles and counting of wild trout nursery waters are accompanied by a plethora of complex geologies, ecosystems, fisheries management regulations and in the middle of it all lay one of the most genetically diverse and adaptable species on the entire planet.

Brown Trout.

48756191081_d659d7702f_b.jpg


I can blather on about genes, genetic diversity, complexity and everything but to the point from PFBC website “Trout and Salmons”:

“Brown Trout are closely related to Atlantic Salmon (Salmo salar). The genus name “Salmo” is the Latin name for the Atlantic Salmon. The species name “trutta” is the Latin name for “trout.”
So closely related that the fish Commission has had trouble distinguishing between either. Recently in a post on Brown Trout Genetics Mike Kauffman retired PA fisheries biologist said:
“Short and to the point...Salmonids are genetically very plastic and one result is that there can be a lot of overlap in meristic characters between species. We once sent a carcass of a large Salmonid from the Delaware River, caught around New Hope, to an Ichthylogical expert, who then passed it onto another expert lab after the first lab had a shot at identification. The result? Just as in my case, nobody else could conclusively determine whether it was an Atlantic salmon or a Brown Trout using meristics. There was too much overlap in key characteristics.”
Some brown trout move like salmon. There is so much genetic overlap, its what they were born to do. It can and is influenced by a great many things. So many varibles with such an encoded creature that it’s anyone’s guess sometimes.
“The Brown Trout lives in cold or cool streams, rivers, lakes and impoundments. It is more tolerant of siltation and higher water temperatures than Brook Trout. A Brown Trout’s optimum water temperature range is 50 to 60 degrees, although it can tolerate water temperatures in the low 70s. Like Brook Trout, they are also somewhat tolerant of acidity. Brown Trout may be found in all of the state’s watersheds, from limestone spring creeks, infertile headwaters and swampy outflows to suitable habitat in the larger rivers and reservoir tailwaters. Some Brown Trout can “hold over” after they are stocked. They can last a year or more in a stream, because they are adaptable to stream changes and are not that easy to catch.”

Basically this fish can be found anywhere in almost any watershed in PA by the description and in places Brook Trout cannot tolerate.

48756193751_dd2a4a55e1_b.jpg


So within that great vastness of aquatic ecosystems where minute universes lay, encompassing a wide array of life forms driven on an endless sea of time and evolution in PA, do you believe Brown Trout have adapted to do what they do?

48755893633_80988d54ff_b.jpg


Kind of a simple question don’t ya think?
But...

48756416027_639778df96_b.jpg


Do you believe Brown Trout Could migrate from the headwaters of Pine down stream to the North Branch, to The Susquehanna to the Bay and back?

Kinda hard to but why not?

Better yet rather than ask that, why would it? Habitat not enough to support the fish? Expansion of the species? Food available? All of the above?

When they move do Brown Trout return to the same headwaters in PA? Different ones? Crapshoot? Do just a percentage return? How about when they migrate to larger waters do they return to the same spot there or different?

While those questions matter, right now all that matters is if you believe.

48654010012_c31916b779_b.jpg


Letort to Connie, Connie to Susquehanna, Susquehanna to Bay, Bay to Susquehanna, Susquehanna to Connie, and Connie to the Letort?

Believe?

48755902453_7f6a8c96b4_b.jpg


There are those of us out there hunting these “movers” To date I believe I have found a bunch of different populations or all the same one. I don’t know. The vastness of this is so great that the scope could be so large as to not be able to see it all. I do know this, through out the course of my fishing career I have witnessed large brown trout show up one day and disappear the next. I could never explain it.

48654010287_e71c6ebdff_b.jpg


Is it possible the majority of your stocks of PA wild brown trout come from these fish? At least the ones of greatest genetic diversity and strength?

If we are to support this fish in an attempt to increase stocks and better understand them could this be a wholesome agenda for our native fish the brook trout?

48755883698_ac935d73cc_b.jpg


Recently Maryland did a study on there migrating brook trout in the Savage River watershed. Some of their findings are intriguing.

https://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/USR_Brook_Trout_Summary_2017.pdf

https://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/Telemetry_Study.pdf

The reason these studies are important is because it can start answering some important questions. For example: If a brown trout doesn’t move but stays in the main warmwater river how does it survive? Likely spring upwellings for one and protecting those are very important.

48614646391_ccb6f353bb_b.jpg


The problem is those of us that believe have no idea where to begin. It’s a very vast and expensive endeavor for one, two you need to convince the state its worthwhile both socially and economically worthwhile and three you need to convince the anglers and have anglers police themselves.

We haven’t even begun.
What will it take?

1. Anglers on board

A. Brook trout guys I’m looking at you. Yeah I’m there too,
and I believe brown trout have been bad for
brookies but did you read the PFBC’s description of brown
trout above? They are just better adapt. Couple that with
urbanization and pollution and it is unlikely you will ever
see PA brook trout fishing be even remotely what it was.
But what if I told you I have identified at least 2 and maybe
three migrating brook trout populations? Each has its own
treat including one being migrating brown trout. I believe I
have ways to separate these two populations though and
beyond that instance better understanding these populations
could maybe enhance them to where 16-20” PA freestone
brook trout would be possible again. In the populations of
migratory PA brook trout Ive fished, the size range is
between 12-16" with more possible. There are factors that
are similar between watersheds and the biggest 2 key
factors is limited competition and a vast available ecosystem.

B. Awareness and Friendship. You are not going to catch your
flies with vinegar. Its time as fisherman if we wish to
accomplish these goals to start being forthcoming and less
judgemental. Fly-fisherman alone are never going to
accomplish this. You may need the help of colleges, bike
trail guys, hunters etc..... So many people use our
resources as to not take advantage of the extra happily
given help would be a major loss.
http://keystoneflyguides.com/wild-trout-south-east-pennsylvania/

2. PFBC on Board

A. The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission over sea all of
the states waterways. They have helpful resources and
monies to conduct studies and habitat enhancement. They
also have the ability to help manage regulations.

B. Convince the PFBC of the great economic impacts the fish
could bring. Out of state licenses to the boost to local
economies.
More than 1.6 million Pennsylvania
anglers spending $503 million

The American Sportfishing Association and consultant
Southwick Associates, in a 2017 update of Economic
Contributions of Recreational Fishing, estimate there are
1,671,435 anglers in the state. Pennsylvania Fish and Boat
Commission license sales place the number at 1,433,257 for
2016, but there are anglers not required to buy licenses and
others who simply do not buy licenses.Those anglers spend
an estimate $503 million while fishing in Pennsylvania,
producing an overall economic output of $853.3 million and
supporting 9,586 jobs in the state, according to the
ASA/Southwick report.
And you can expect that number to grow.

3. Get the Fish on Board

A. The PA tailwater Initiative needs reopened. There are a few
watersheds that migrating brown trout would benefit greatly.

B. Increase your viable stocks by cessation of stocking nursery
trout waters.

C. Increase returns of migratory brown trout by protecting
pinch points such as falls or dams. Where ever the fish are
at a stacking and most vulnerable state should be no fishing.

Also expand the river mouths out on small feeders that
provide summer refuge. This could be done by expanding
the mouths out into the main river providing a longer
highway of cold water for the fish to get into. Look at the
mouth of the Letort and how it disappears slowly each year.
This could have habitat to protect the fish and should be
considered a pinch point and no fishing.

D. No kill brown trout areas. Large areas. Example. Headwaters
of the Letort downstream to mouth From there to the dam
upstream to the mouth at the Susquehanna.

E. Different seasons, limits, or slot limits in other areas. NO
BLANKET REGULATIONS!

https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Fisheries/TroutPlan/Documents/trout_congregate.pdf

Ouch lots of work!

This is a lot and hard to accomplish things to do but I believe its possible too. It would be odd to see wild brown trout be managed for there enhancement for the first time in the history of the state but in the process back the brookie? This is a possible huge opportunity to turn back the clock and create a new fishery.

What will it take from bureaucratic bull to the regular Joe angler?

“Today at camp as the crackling fire weaved its smoke interconnected between the tree branches and my nostrils, I could see the hoards of large brook trout begin migrating upriver. “
- Some guy writing in Andy’s cabin journal during the 2035 NCPA summit.

Can you believe it?
Do I have to walk on water too?

48756213531_5bd206840b_b.jpg


How long will it take? I dont know but I do know there is light at the end of that tunnel and we need to take those first steps together or not at all.

Just have some faith.
 
Wow. Nice photos and writing. This is written in the spirit of a Romantic. I want to believe.
 
If the streams are managed in such a way that they are healthy, and fisheries management is geared towards benefiting wild trout populations, then wild trout populations will thrive.

Including both the "resident" trout and the "runners."

And including both brown trout and brook trout.

The higher the wild trout populations are in the small and medium-sized streams, the more trout there will be that run back and forth between these streams and the big water further down.





 
Fair enough.

But which way do you mean? Do you believe trout management is adequate so it is what it is or do you mean if we didnt blanket reg things it would get better?
 
There is a segment of every population that is just hardwired to venture out. It's what keeps the genetic pool mixed up. This is why you see mayflies on your windows but the closest stream is miles away.

I had a boss once that also worked as a fish commission officer. I asked him once about stocking fish and he said jokingly, "The first thing we teach them is how to swim."
 
Great post, very thought provoking. I think you can kind of look to the native range of brown trout in Europe and see that they have large runs of fish that spend a lot of time in the ocean, and it makes sense that the instinct to migrate such long distances is very real. The thing is that PA has only had slightly over a hundred years for populations to start heading that direction, versus many thousands of years for the native European populations. I personally believe that nearly every stream in PA has at least a couple brown trout tucked away or passing through at certain times of year, if only briefly - unless there's a physical barrier or water quality problems (acid). I've seen them turn up in weird places, and these are just your run of the mill 6-12 inchers that I've noticed miles away from where they "should be" and sometimes in waterways that are "too warm" for trout. Well, in winter, nowhere is too warm.

As for brook trout, it will be a tough sell to get stocked fish out of the warmwater streams that should be a winter/early spring refuge for the migrants. I'd like to see it happen, but I'm in that small fraction of all anglers that are both fly anglers and native trout diehards. They are going to be harder to reestablish if there is much awareness and angling pressure at all because they just never learn how to be elusive the way large browns do. And that's tough because as you mentioned, you need a lot of people involved to make any serious progress. The Savage River study is very interesting indeed and there are a couple other systems in MD where that happens but on a smaller scale but this information is tightly guarded. Despite all that we humans have thrown at brook trout, they still have the instincts to run for cold water.

Some data points that I can't get out of my head when it comes to brown trout:
Conowingo fish lift counts pdf - here's 2017. 13 brown trout counted, but also 19 rainbow trout, so are the browns coming through just rogue stocked fish like the rainbows? And does a dozen fish in a river that size really show an effort to become sea run in the Susquehanna system? Maybe things are limited to river run, which is cool enough in its own right.

Some more extensive fish lift data:MD DNR conowingo report This shows a pretty obvious decline in brown trout at conowingo. But that doesn't mean migration can't happen in the entire rest of the river above Conowingo.

A probably wild brown from the Susquehanna Flats Was this a fish from a source population in PA or MD? Who knows but MD has expanding brown trout populations in Susquehanna tributaries downstream of Conowingo Dam. Despite the snakeheads and the flatheads, they are there. There are a few tiny, direct tributaries to the river down there with wild browns that have only recently been discovered. How did they get there?? A few years ago, there was a large, wild-looking brown caught below Octoraro Lake, and although Octoraro has some wild brown tributaries in MD that originated from stocking decades ago, I can't help but wonder about that specific fish. It was 19" I believe.
 
Great post and if i had the time right now i would respond more and i will later.

I will say though that it is my belief that certain fish do this at times(go to the bay) i do believe they are using our warmwater streams and rivers as a highway. I think the main driving force is to spread genetics. However temperature and food also play rolls.
 
Fish live in water and can move whenever and wherever flows allow them to; there's not a whole lot of faith or believing needed. They move. Land animals migrate too - that's why there was a bear in Lancaster the other week, even though they've largely been extirpated from the county for a century or two. That doesn't mean if we started protecting dumpsters in Lancaster County that we'd suddenly have an appearance of grizzlies. I personally would welcome the return of some alpha predators - wolves, panthers, etc. But I don't think they're coming back. :)

I read your post a couple times, but I am struggling to understand exactly what you are advocating for ("we don't know where to begin" - what are you advocating beginning?). Acknowledgement that fish move? No one will argue that. Study brown trout movement so that by doing so, something will happen? Conservation of all wild salmonid species is a good thing, but practicing C&R and protecting populations that are in vulnerable areas isn't going to magically bring about large brook or brown trout in the commonwealth. There are a few systems that may grow larger brookies on a consistent basis, at least for a few tens of years, but as the variables change, so do the populations of fish. Understanding what the positive variables are to fish thriving would be great, but the PFBC can't keep afloat as is, let alone fund esoteric research that a few wild trout anglers might be interested in.

I too have pored over the fish count data from the lower Susky dams. There's not a lot there to support the idea of anything but a handful of brown trout moving from the Bay because the total number of browns moving through is low overall; I think it's highly unlikely that your scenario of a fish making it from the Bay to upper Pine is happening. Returns on true anadromous species, like shad, have been abysmal; dams simply block the movement of fish, despite all the millions dumped into fish ladders, lifts, tubes, or whatever else we humans decide to employ to try to restore balance to a natural world where we've unbalanced things. The PFBC has been trying to restore shad since their very inception as an agency/commission and they've failed miserably at it. Take Conowingo, Holtwood, Safe Harbor, York Haven, Dock Street and Shamokin out of the mix - then you might have some fish make the journey.

I can think of three streams that flow into the Susky that I've tangled with fish that I'm certain spent some time there. One was a stream I fished in April many years ago and I had a big 18-20" brown charge to my feet in what was water that was at that time of year influenced by fluctuations in pool level. The second has an abnormally number of large fish, with some but not much natural reproduction, with a story from a local of big fish running up through the shallow riffles in August. The third was a stream I fished this past spring on opening day. I caught a not-large-by-brown-standards fish, may be 14-15", but it screamed river or larger body of water, because it was bright silver, unlike any other wild brown I caught that day. I'm certain we've both fished all three streams, and I'm certain there are other Susky tribs I've fished that have Susky influenced fish, but the three cited above have fish that screamed river to me.

Just a note that the "large" USR brookies mentioned in the Maryland studies are those bigger than....8". I don't view that as a large brookie.

Some studies that document distances that salmo trutta moves - 33.4 km and 7.65 km (not unsurprisingly, during the spawn):

https://www.michigan.gov/documents/dnr/1907rr_539773_7.pdf

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/85b7/e60008b2031a58bcc11303b5369a38ce8472.pdf

Pet peeve - PA does not have the second highest length of flowing water, behind Alaska. Often cited as a fact (TU, PFBC, seemingly everyone else), and I would love to know why it continues to be propagated. PA does have the highest density of stream miles/per square land mile.

Look at Appendix A for the data:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/append2000.zip
 
Well Sal color me no surprised you always tend to come at me the way you do.

No i dont believe brown trout are using the bay, yet. At least no in any great number. I think they are using the Susquehanna to spread genes and move for that purpose.
That said i do believe someday they could.

Im not sure what dumpsters and bear have to do with brown trout. I will say however protecting the migratibg brown trouts habitat and needs then studying the momovement could benifit us greatly in understanding the few migratory brook trout populations i know of. Its was clear to other readers. Im not sure how you missed that. There are many more large migratory brown in PA than brook trout. We can study both but will get much more data and points from the browns which can aid in understanding the brookies. Replicate what you find on other waters and you may have a really large growing population of River trout. Seems less magical than it sounds.

The studies on migratory brook trout that i mentioned, i never mentioned "large". You might have added that word. The study uses that word because if you took note, thats about the time of growth that certain ones move. Thats a pretty important data point.

As far as magically appearing large brookies, they are already here. I can prove that and im sure a few of the other anglers ive been talking to that have found them would agree. Trust me its true. Maybe now you understand just what im asking you to have blind faith in.
Im not going to take you there.

The we are asking you but dont know where to begin part. Is some of us hunting these fish are talking. Behind the curtain people are talking and considering attempting to advocate for these fish hard but its a large endeavour.

Yes funding these studies are expensive, we have many thoughts on this, id explain further but i think someone else should explain the science.

Some of us just wonder where the rest of you stand, i think you gave me your answer.

As far as the rest i think i addressed it in the past, pet peeve or not its just not worth discussing on this topic, i find this one more important.
 
salmonoid wrote:

Pet peeve - PA does not have the second highest length of flowing water, behind Alaska. Often cited as a fact (TU, PFBC, seemingly everyone else), and I would love to know why it continues to be propagated. PA does have the highest density of stream miles/per square land mile.

Look at Appendix A for the data:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/append2000.zip

Interesting!
We have indeed long heard this and I've never thought to question it.

Since it's a bit off topic for this thread why not, Salmonoid, start a fresh thread (if you care to) on this topic. If this belief (second only to Alaska in miles) is indeed a myth, it's time to demolish it.
 
Dave_W wrote:
salmonoid wrote:

Pet peeve - PA does not have the second highest length of flowing water, behind Alaska. Often cited as a fact (TU, PFBC, seemingly everyone else), and I would love to know why it continues to be propagated. PA does have the highest density of stream miles/per square land mile.

Look at Appendix A for the data:

https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2015-09/append2000.zip

Interesting!
We have indeed long heard this and I've never thought to question it.

Since it's a bit off topic for this thread why not, Salmonoid, start a fresh thread (if you care to) on this topic. If this belief (second only to Alaska in miles) is indeed a myth, it's time to demolish it.

PA leads in stream density not stream miles >

The state with the highest stream density is Pennsylvania – with 83,260 stream miles (representing 2.3% of the country's total stream miles) and an area of 45,310 square miles (a smaller than average sized state). Its stream density is 1.8. The state with the most stream miles is Alaska (at 10% of the nation's total), followed by 16 other states with more stream miles than Pennsylvania.

Ling to source: http://klabergroup.com/insights/?Considering-Water-A-state-by-state-analysis-of-our-relationship-with-waterways-2
 
Well i can say is sorry for the mis fact.
Whatever it is you fly guys want to talk about i guess.

I was really hoping for both your insights.
I can see Eric was right.
 
Salvelinusfontinalis:Thanks for acknowledging my writings about historical brook trout movements. I have been measuring, recording and tabulating all the brookies I have caught since 1996. Those data are languishing on my computer and I hope to someday write it up. I have caught a few wild brookies up to 11 inches but nothing bigger from mountain freestones and a couple of 12 to 13 inchers in Fishing Creek (Lamar) a limestone stream dominated by browns. It is heavily fished, especially in the spring. I have seen a couple of much larger brookies there, but never succeeded in catching them, although I tried. Brookies are not always easy!!! Those you show in your photos are obviously larger than any I have ever caught.
 
Ken,

In all honesty i should have said this long ago. That little piece you wrote i have read 1000's of times. About 2 times a week since i found it. Often i will read it before bed then imagine different waterways in the state like you describe.
To witness it happen in a little corner of PA today is truly something unique and special.
Anyways thank you and i dont plan to ever stop reading, "The Real Natives."
 
What improvements do you want to see that are not already being addressed? Fish passage improvements are being pursued at an unprecedented rate in the form of improving passage at road stream crossings, and small mill and lowhead dam removals. The PFBC is attempting to list new streams to the Class A list and stop stocking those sections, but they face fierce local opposition as has been discussed in other recent threads. Are you pursuing wide spread catch and release regs, a big telemetry study on fish passage, cessation of stocking trout, or am I entirely confused with your intent?
 
Lyco,

Thats the hard part IMO.
Everything expressed above was my opinion.

Simpily put id like to see the mouths of migratory passage creeks be considered a pinch point like a dam lift. I think thats reasonable.

Id like to take that a step further and see places like the mouth of the Letort expanded into the Connie to provide a longer road of fish passage and cold water. Again this should not be fished. That road right now is half the size i remember it. It keeps melting away!

A tall order would to be to stop stocking in migatory fish waters.
While this is important i think it can be the last bridge crossed.

Yes i would like to see studies done on fish movement. Certainly expensive but again there are ways around this.

Certainly habitat restoration for these fish.

I personally think a neat experiment would be to make all of the Letort plus from the dam just upstream on the Connie to the mouth a no kill brown trout zone for 7 years or more would be interesting. This movement is occuring all over the state but its prolific there and its no secret. Be intetesti g to see the results.
Return numbers would be simple to get as they jump the falls near or in May.

The thing is all of us talking about it have different opinions. Which is why im asking you guys whatcha think and do you even have the faith to believe it could happen.
 
I'm still trying to figure out what the "it" is that we are supposed to have faith in... Yes there are migratory trout now, as far as seeing all stocking removed from any migratory water there is a tremendous amount of education that would need to happen statewide and especially to legislature. Improving passage at the mouth of many tributaries is difficult due to how much bedload exists in many streams. In my experience blockages at these locations are typically temporary until the next storm moves the substrate around and most now, but fish typically move in response to flow conditions.
 
It:

The increasing of migratory brown trout stocks so that to provide a worthwhile angling condition in PA. While studing their movements and that of Migratory brook trout in an attempt to inrease migratory brook trout populations.

Thats my it

Why are other states studying this and we hardly even discuss it?
As a trout fisherman this is a huge oppurtunity.
 
I believe in "It".
 
I want someone to seriously think about this. Think about what a trout that moves in PA might encounter or require.

Obviously creek mouths are important which is why i think thats one area to focus. They should be considered pinch points.
Also why are we ok with that announcement by the PFBC?
I know that dealt with Penns, but dont you think migratory trout stack up too?

Are you ok with a pod of 25 or more getting hammered in 77 degree water with no choice?

Why not slot limits in PA?

Why are we ok with our best wild breeders getting pulled out while stacked up?

Can we enchance the creek mouths to get better return yields?

Is there anyone here that can just think about these fish and share some ideas that might help them increase there stocks?

can we double them, triple, more?


Can we at least start talking a little? I dont want locations given, i just want theories and biology talk.

Anyone?

 
Back
Top