Blind Faith: Pennsylvania's Migrating Wild Brown Trout

  • Thread starter salvelinusfontinalis
  • Start date
An errant catch here or there doesn't make for a large scale migratory population
Click to expand...

That statement made me chuckle.

Is it errant if iam targeting them? Is it here or there if its happening all over the state and pods of 20 fish are more are going up multiple watersheds and creeks.




First problem is you cant enchance what you dont believe in or even know exists.

Just remember if this was so sporadic, how are anglers going out there and timing these fish based on time of year and location and having success?


Better yet whats errant? The angler who fishes non trout streams for migrating browns but catches them? Or the fish for migrating?

Sounds like to me both of them are doing what they should be doing and intended to do.


 
In the end, here is where im bowing out of this conversation now, yes it should be studied. We all argree on this, then how is it on this board in particular people say things like "the few rouge fish", "amazing incedental catch" or "errant catch here or there".
Funny is we all admit they migrate.
Still we hear these comments and still people like NightStalker all can produce giant browns on the regular.

Think about it.
They are out there and in targetable numbers, i know that to be a fact.
Shame most of you just kinda ignore them. Its funny though. People will travel 3 hours to penns or kettle or where ever and fish at night for big browns.

Yet 5 minutes away is a Susquehanna run brown in a warmwater stream that can just about eat the fish they are going to catch :lol:
 
salmonoid wrote:


Very unlikely for a number of reasons. First, the water isn't that deep in most places. Conowingo pool is full of sediment and no one knows what to do about it; the other pools are filling up too. Second, even in the deep spots (say below the Pinnacle, where soundings show 100 feet or more depth), the difference in temperature from top to bottom isn't going to be that great. And The Deeps are an overall small feature, meaning the warm water is going to mix pretty easily with any deeper, cooler water.

I don't know where the fish come from, or how they survive year round, and there's not a lot of hard evidence to even quantify what number of fish we're talking about. An errant catch here or there doesn't make for a large scale migratory population, but I believe the only group that might actually have interest in studying this phenomena is academia; there are a number of Ph.D level studies that could come out of that, and that's the group I'd be beating the bush with to see if anyone has interest in studying this. What license sales increase will the PFBC see from this, if they were to invest study dollars? Minimal, if any, and that's the reality of how they are operating. If there's no return on investment, they're going to defer to others (note, for instance, where a large number of the unassessed water initiatives are being taken - colleges...).
Click to expand...


I think saying that the PFBC using the unassessed waters initiative is to defer study opportunities to others is a rather poor comparison. I had the opportunity to participate in the said program while in college. The real story is that energy extraction/ infrastructure projects where impacting streams faster than the agency could survey them. It was impossible to protect resources that they did not have scientific data on. It would have taken Pfbc staff 20+ years to do the number of surveys that the partners have completed without hiring a significant number of new staffers. We all know that under past leadership new hires was not an option. The college cooperators were trained by the PFBC and have been vital in documenting and thus increasing protection for thousands of wild trout streams.


If someone wants a study on migratory brown trout you would be better of spending time to try and interest Penn State fisheries professors as they are likely the only institution in the state with potential resources to be able to take on a large telemetry study. Some big questions to face would be what will the outcome of the study be, greater awareness of migratory trout populations, regulatory changes, new fishing regulations, increase in fishing license sales?
 
I disagree that they are genetically different from those that stay localized. A wild steelhead from a PNW is genetically identical to a wild rainbow trout from the same water (at least that's what ive read many times).
Click to expand...

I agree there's overlap, and they haven't identified the specific "steelhead" gene that makes them anadromous.

But, that's fundamentally not true. The offspring of 2 resident fish is more likely to stay resident. The offspring of 2 steelhead are more likely to stay steelhead. So there is genetic influence. Also, they can test a fish and tell you whether it came from the upper river (dominated by residents) or lower (dominated by ocean run) watershed. I think it's clear that the genetics that lead to anadromous behavior are complicated and still being worked out, and there seems to be several environmental factors as well that comingles with genetics to determine if a fish will stay or go. Scientists are still working all this out. But there IS a genetic component.

On top of that, the PNW is a huge area, with at least 6 recognized subspecies of rainbow trout and at least dozens of genetically distinct strains among those.

Erie is a good example. For instance, back when they stocked salmon instead of steelhead, several of the tribs were stocked with adult rainbow trout for the opener. Still are. And yes, a small % of those fish found their way to the lake and returned. But a relatively small %, when they did they had different habits in the lake, some didn't return, the few that did went to random waters, and they didn't come back as big.

Then they decided to focus on steelhead and brought in steelhead strains and stocked them as smolts. The fishery absolutely took off. PA's steelhead strain is a cross between Skamania and Washington steelhead, which are themselves hatchery strains of anadromous fish bread to be spring and fall runners. So genetics not only determine if they run, but when. Why do you think we don't use our regular hatchery strain of rainbows for our steelhead fishery?
 
I see your point and in all honesty you and most others here are smarter than me, however...

I disagree with your statements that steelhead are genetically different than resident rainbow trout and that two steelhead are most likely to produce a steelhead offspring than a resident offspring and vice versa. The reason behind this is scientists arent able to discern one from another genetically. If you can't prove the genetics are different to begin with how could you prove anything else.

Also I agree that different strains of rt are genetically different i.e. chambers creek vs kalmoops. However my whole point is a chambers creek rt may or may not become andranamous. And I would argue this is based on environmental factors, not genetic ones.

It's pretty simple why rt in pa erie tribs all become steelhead, because if they stay in the creeks they are initially stocked they will have 100% mortality rate. The environment is no good. If they move to lake erie they can thrive then eventually return to the trib they were stocked and unsuccessfully attempt to spawn.

 
moon1284 wrote:

I disagree with your statements that steelhead are genetically different than resident rainbow trout and that two steelhead are most likely to produce a steelhead offspring than a resident offspring and vice versa. The reason behind this is scientists arent able to discern one from another genetically. If you can't prove the genetics are different to begin with how could you prove anything else.

Also I agree that different strains of rt are genetically different i.e. chambers creek vs kalmoops. However my whole point is a chambers creek rt may or may not become andranamous. And I would argue this is based on environmental factors, not genetic ones.
Click to expand...

The way I understand it, in populations of rainbows in which some fish become steelhead, there is no difference genetically between resident fish and anadromous fish. That does not mean that populations which produce steelhead are not different genetically when compared to populations that do not produce them.

In other words, based on genetics, we cannot tell which fish in a particular population will become steelhead, but we can tell which populations of fish can potentially produce them. Thus, if you want to have steelhead you need to stock a strain that has a high anadromous tendency.

It's pretty simple why rt in pa erie tribs all become steelhead, because if they stay in the creeks they are initially stocked they will have 100% mortality rate. The environment is no good. If they move to lake erie they can thrive then eventually return to the trib they were stocked and unsuccessfully attempt to spawn.
Click to expand...

Yes, but how do they "know" there is better habitat downstream in Lake Erie? That is where the steelhead genetics come into play. Additionally, remember that the fish are stocked at smolt size, the point at which they are ready to migrate. In the wild, the fish would need to live in their home river/stream the entire time it takes to grow from newly hatched fry to smolt size, this requires year round survival in the Erie tribs.

Also, if it hasn't been dome already, I think it would be interesting to study how many stocked smolts make it to the lake initially, let alone return as adults.
 
It's pretty simple why rt in pa erie tribs all become steelhead, because if they stay in the creeks they are initially stocked they will have 100% mortality rate. The environment is no good. If they move to lake erie they can thrive then eventually return to the trib they were stocked and unsuccessfully attempt to spawn.
Click to expand...

And in all other waterways in PA, a few may run downstream, but the vast majority just die where they are in streams that get too warm. The fish don't know Lake Erie is downstream. In fact, typically in response to warm water a lot of fish go upstream, since cooler water tends to be up.

Several tribs were stocked with garden variety rainbows before the steelhead fishery existed. They didn't run as much. When they wanted to focus on a steelhead fishery, PA didn't use their rainbow strain, they brought in a strain much more likely to become steelhead.

And, if you agree that in, say, Skamania and Washington strain steelhead, that it's genetics that determines WHEN they run (fall vs. spring). Well, that would argue genetics have a role in the instinct to run.

Again, you are right, that currently, we can test 2 wild rainbows from the same water and not be able to tell which one will run and which will stay. Can we tell the difference? Yeah, because no 2 individuals are the same genetically unless they are identical twins. But we don't know what genes cause it. And it's possible that even a single clutch of eggs will produce some steelhead and some residents. Environmental triggers may be responsible there.

But at the same time, there are strains of rainbows that produce a much higher % of steelhead and strains that produce virtually none. Put "smolts" of both side by side in Elk Creek, PA, and you'll find that 1 will have a lot of fish go out to the lake and return, and the other will not.
 
Here is how "strains" develop:

In any brood of fry, there is a wide variety of genetic characteristics among the specimens. Those that manage to survive in the local environment probably begin, after many generations, to produce a greater percentage of adaptable fry. In the early periods of development of a "strain," natural selection is the only culling effect. Eventually, though, the concentration of adaptable specimens in any particular brood may become more common, and so on.

A steelhead brood, captured as fry and stocked into Pine Creek, for instance, would have a lot less adaptable (to Pine) specimens in their initial broods if they reproduced. However, so long as a sustaining population can at least survive, the culture of stocked "steelhead" fry will eventually begin to produce more "Pine Creek Adaptable" fry.

Meanwhile, they will all be rainbow trout.
 
This is why the stocking of trout, though it may interfere in many ways with the previous wild population, is not to be feared because of the introduction of "hatchery genes" to the gene pool. If those mushy stockers can lay their milt down and produce viable offspring, those adaptable offspring can only enhance the population of young of year trout.
 
JackM wrote:
This is why the stocking of trout, though it may interfere in many ways with the previous wild population, is not to be feared because of the introduction of "hatchery genes" to the gene pool. If those mushy stockers can lay their milt down and produce viable offspring, those adaptable offspring can only enhance the population of young of year trout.
Click to expand...

I disagree that being able to reproduce means that the population is being enhanced. There are a variety of attributes, independent or reproductive capabilities, that would negatively affect a trout population. Poor adaptation to prevalent forage, short lifespan, poor growth rate, less likely to migrate seasonally, etc. Etc.

If stocked fish reproduction is not to be feared, I believe it has more to do with modern hatchery strains being such poor spawners in the first place. Yes, in an environment without a wild trout population or a very poor population, any spawning may be good spawning, but I don't think hatchery strains are desirable and when they do spawn succesfuly, natural selection is beginning almost immediately to weed out the undesirable traits. This is acceptable if you are starting a population from scratch, but a potential set back for established populations.
 
OP, you are correct on your thinking. Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise lol!

Again, I have spent over 20 years almost exclusively chasing big browns in the FALL. Nowhere near the Susky, although I know people getting some monsters down there, nightstalker included.

As I’ve posted many times, I consistently get very large Browns from 3-4 different watersheds. One in particular is a place that when most people see me go in, they likely laugh at me. But, it has yielded multiple HUGE Browns over the years. Small water, runs into a bigger river, thought “much to warm” to hold trout. Lol. Where are they in the spring/summer, I don’t know for sure. Come fall, there is some there, every year, like clockwork. Some years they aren’t all that big, 20 inch stuff. Other years there is some true hogs. 2 right at 30” since 2010. I posted a few of them in here several years ago for those that want to hunt the post.

And that’s 1 place. I fish 2 sometimes 3 other where the same phenomenon occurs. Some years it’s good, some not as good. But the bottom line is these fish are coming from somewhere else, period. But I haven’t figured anyway to get them consistently at other times.

It takes time. Fish all you can, it’s the only way to truly learn. Every fishery is a little different. Don’t let anyone rain in your parade, they’re out there.
 
Good stuff guys.

Brown71,

Dont worry no one is raining on my parade. In the past so many years focusing on them ive landed 15 or 20 of them. As you say not all are super big. I usually find a pod of 1 or 2 beasts and a few in the 16-20 inch range.
All are fat and well kept specimens.

Im just wondering why others are having trouble joining the parade:lol:

Hearing your situation without knowing location i can think of a few reasons why your return is sporadically good or poor.

Keep the faith man and if you get a beast this fall come back here and post it.
 
Thanks man, the chase sure is fun! My work allows me to fish 3-6 times a week in a fall, even if for a few hours only. Favorite time of year by far.

Keep on them, there is some awesome fish in this state.
 
Is there a problem with hatchery fish all coming from a handful of breeder fish?
Wouldn't that lead to a shrinking of the gene pool? and, if those fish start to reproduce with wild strains?
 
I FOUND THIS;

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1023355114612

ITS BEYOND MY PAY GRADE AND TIME AVAILABILITY BUT MAYBE WILL SHED SOME LIGHT.

 
Recentstudies in PA have shown that brookies migrate from big water to cooler places in the spring, then after spawning back to bigger waters in the fall and winter. other studies show that the existence of heritage trains of brookies exist all over he Commonwealth, these kinds of populations need to be protected, whatever it takes to keep the genetics good enough to weather climate change.
Brown trout have no place in the streams where these heritage strains exist, brown don't only impact the brook trout, but the entire food chain.
 
It is well known that segments of wild trout populations in Pa use stream and river corridors when water temps permit. That they eventually show up at the mouth of a cooling trib, in a riverside or streamside spring or spring seep, in a mid-channel spring upwelling, or else die is not a surprise. Additionally, some wild trout populations, like that of Penns, include migrants that move upstream out of warming water temps, then back downstream in fall to ascend a trib that enters the stretch that was warm (for spawning purposes), then back down the trib into Penns, and upstream again, all within a year. That study goes back to the late 1970’s.

Large trout in high numbers used (1980’s) to enter Valley Creek every May or June from the Schuylkill River. The numbers dwarfed those mentioned here. This seemed to stop or else the numbers no longer became noteworthy relatively soon after Valley Creek stocking stopped, but some fish may have originated from any number of stocked and wild trout streams that entered the Schuylkill.

It is also apparent that the number of stocked trout that end up in major rivers probably depends upon how many are stocked in the tribs and perhaps on the species stocked. This was easily seen at Fairmount Fishway in the Phila portion of the Schuylkill in the early 1980’s when stocked trout in substantial numbers would exit Wissahickon Creek upstream, head a few miles downstream and over Fairmount Dam into tidal-water, and then either be seen while during electrofishing operations at the base of the dam or ascending the fishway. Waves of stocked trout below the dam corresponded with stocking dates a few days earlier. Slightly similarly, in the early 1980’s a tagged stocked trout placed in Larry’s Creek moved down the Wast Br Susq R to the main Susky and then down to York Co where it was caught in a local trib, all within the same spring season.

A wild Brown fingerling was also seen in Fairmount fishway In the early 1980’s. I would think that the number of wild trout entering a river would also be somewhat dependent upon annual variations of abundance in its tribs and on the number of wild trout tribs, but not solely dependent upon that, as differential sub-population behavioral attributes likely are a factor as well, as seen in a recent brook trout study.

As a group, large trout entering tribs from major rivers when the rivers become warm are not under any great threat from harvest, even when the phenomenon is fairly well known by the general angling public. One such water is in a major Pa metro area and yet it produces big fish year after year for local anglers. Outside of stocked trout sections and stocked trout lakes, all angler use and harvest studies of trout in Pa of which I am aware have shown low harvest rates. Even in a river known for attractive larger fish, the upper Delaware, harvest rates based on last year’s creel survey are exceptionally low.
 
.... just a minor input to this thread - but I can remember 50 - 60 years ago that stocked trout seemed to spread from their point of stocking more quickly than they do today. I’ve thought recently that their wild traits are being removed more and more from successive breeding. I have no way of knowing if that is true though. But for me here in sepa, I often prefer fly fishing for wild creek panfish rather than for stocked trout.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top