Brook trout movement

[silverfox]

salmonoid wrote:
Some thoughts on the subject matter:

1) What was the affect of having no creel limit before 1924, on the culling of wild fish? Or starting with a creel limit of 5 times the current creel limit (25 fish) in 1924? If the belief today is that wild trout are being slaughtered by the opening day hordes, what happened when there was no limit?

People used to literally net fish from rivers for food by the thousands (documented on big spring). That lead to near extirpation from a lot of waterways and was the reason for the creation of the Fish & Boat Commission. People can't self regulate. We tried that. It doesn't work.

salmonoid wrote:
2) Does anyone know what quantity of fish were stocked in the late 18th and early 19th century? The stocking method was different - anyone could request eggs be shipped to them and fingerlings were also stocked. I'm curious how these numbers compare to current day stockings. And if those numbers are much lower than today's stocking, then the culling of wild fish was much higher in the past than it is today, because the majority of fish being harvested were wild. I have some old fish commission reports which include totals to individuals/streams - I may see if there is an easy way to tally up everything for a respective year.

I'm sure that information is available, but to address what I think you're getting at, I'd like to point out that the human population was FAR less at that time and there were less roads/access to wild trout streams. Now you've got access to almost everything and far more people fishing.

salmonoid wrote:
3) What kind of angling pressure did some drainages actually receive? For instance, the Kettle Creek drainage above the Alvin Bush dam is all rated EV, so the water quality is there to grow fish. What was the angling pressure like 100 years ago compared to today? Surely it was more difficult to get there then than it is now. Did it see more, less or the same pressure as today? And how did/does that variable actually affect fish density and size?

I'm sure angling pressure was lower 100 years ago. I'm sure some places got zero pressure. I'm also sure they didn't survey the streams 100 years ago to determine fish size and density either, so I'm not sure how valuable that information is.

salmonoid wrote:
4) Is there any verifiable evidence of 20" brookies that does NOT come from angling literature/lore? Anglers are notorious liars and big fish make for good stories and myths and legends. Is anyone aware of large brook trout that are in the collections of universities or colleges in PA? Or that show up in catalogs of field expeditions to collect PA flora and fauna? Or fish bones that were excavated from Native American campsites? Or any verifiable source for that matter?

I don't know where the 20" number comes from other than I think that was around the size mentioned in some literature. I'm not sure the point here is to try to grow 20" wild fish though. The limitation in MD is the temperature on the mainstem. That habitat is far better than the tribs, but it gets too warm in the summer. Even with that, the lack of competition, harvest and availability of a wide range of habitats results in 15" fish. The mainstem is the key though. It's not so much harvest regs that are generating bigger fish. It's the availability of that winter habitat in the mainstem.

salmonoid wrote:
5) I think it's optimistic at best to believe that anglers can keep brown trout at bay. I don't think you can remove them from a stream once they begin reproducing in a stream or drainage. You need a natural or man-made barrier to prevent them from moving upstream, and a way to ensure that us peeps don't stock them (either via the state or co-op nursery, or the rogue angler transporting a fish or two for their springhouse at the cabin) above the barrier.

Where there's a will there's a way. I agree though. I don't think you can eliminate a species through harvest. If anything it might have the opposite effect. I read an interesting concept of using "supermales" to remove browns. Basically, stock males that are only capable of producing males. Eventually the population collapses because there are too many males in the stream. That + harvest could definitely eliminate browns from a watershed.

Out west they've used several tactics to remove invasive species (ironically usually brook trout) so it can be done.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

As far as historic PA brook trout size:
From the angling lore of PFBC species overview:
https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/PennsylvaniaFishes/GalleryPennsylvaniaFishes/Pages/TroutsandSalmons.aspx

At maturity, wild Brook Trout may be from five inches to 18 inches long, according to the availability of food in the home stream.

Or the availability to move into a stream with enough food ;-)

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

https://www.fishandboat.com/Transact/AnglerBoater/LegacyIssues/1930s/Documents/12december1933.pdf

Go ahead and read what fish tapped out at in the brook trout classification. Plenty of evidence out there.
Brook trout with more food and more water can, will and do grow larger than thought today in PA.
Page 6

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

If i had to wage a semi educated guess, i would say both the 19" and 17" beautiful examples of natives (as the PFBC called it) caught in Dingmans were likely river run Delaware River Fish.

The large amounts of 14 inchers in the northern tier were likely Pine Creek transient fish in the tribs. Or some other larger northern drainage.
Probably all of them.

 

[KenU]

When I was in my late teens, I hung out a lot at “The Clearfield Sporting Goods” store. This would have been in the late 40s to early 50s.The proprietor was Paul Gross. The store ran a contest every year for the biggest brook, brown and rainbow trout. A 17- or 18-inch brookie regularly won the prize for that category. I always pumped Paul about whether these big brookies were wild or stocked fish. He always told me they were absolutely gorgeous and looked to be wild fish. He would never disclose where they were coming from.

It was important, to me, even then, whether trout caught were wild or stocked. Just like we see on this board from a lot of you folks: Wild Matters!

 

[afishinado]

Big Spring has near ideal temps most of the year, plenty of food and is under C&R regs.

A few Big Spring brook trout have reached 15-18" according to the PFBC shocking survey here.

 

[troutbert]

There are numerous streams with year around brook trout populations in the Loyalsock drainage that are stocked with hatchery trout.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

troutbert wrote:
There are numerous streams with year around brook trout populations in the Loyalsock drainage that are stocked with hatchery trout.

Little Bear, Hoagland Branch, Mill Creek, Elk Creek, King Creek to name a few. I am sure in the right places Little Loyalsock may hold brook trout year round, but I have not fished that stream much.

Little Bear has to have one of the highest angler densities in the early season and around stocking days. It is a zoo on what really is a beautiful mountain stream. The natives do survive, and grow relatively large upstream of the stocked trout festivities.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

To the thoughts on Big Spring. Yes and i have caught many 12" and up wild brook trout from there.
Strictly speaking iam discussing Freestone watersheds and systems.

We are content on doing just enough to confine them to headwater streams. If we could get them tobthe next level in the system, you will get more big fish in return.

Big Spring however is NOT the only limestone spring with brook trout. There are 4 others at least. All 4 can produce a nice fish.
Why?

No brown trout.
Anytime we can favor brookies over browns and stocked fish we should.

The Tioga River is one example. Stocked, some wild browns, mitigation on AmD taking place. Brookies dominate. Dont stock, harvest on browns, givem the edge.

Is that not back the brookie?

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Pa angler use survey says we are 15 percent of trout fisherman. If we all got loud at once, one stream at a time, a difference could be had.

Just saying.....

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Ken and lyco.
Thank you for your thoughts.

Love the history there.
Hope you all clicked the dec 1933 pennsylvania angler i posted.
Dig throughem if you dont. Cool stuff!

 

[maxima12]

Very nice article from Lyco. I had the pleasure of meeting this young man. Very smart fellow. With this in mind, I hope all you follow Lyco. I am sure he will lead the way! May I add also, I thought he was brilliant in his ideas! God bless Lycoflyfisher.

 

[KenU]

Thanks folks for the comments. There are some interesting thoughts in there. It’s neat to hear there are other crazy folks like me in the world of fly fishing. Keep it up.

 

[bearfisherman]

This has been a fantastic read as I just went through all the posts. I know it would never happen with the brown population that is established now, but love to think about what the Clarion drainage looked like with only brookies back in the day.

 

[greenghost]

Very cool stuff! Good post. When it's all said and done, I suspect that the movement of our native brook trout is far more extensive throughout the state than we realize. Why? Over the years, I've caught small brookies in Laurel Hill Creek (many times), in Penns, Clarion River, Yough River, and Meadow Run. They all have a tendency to warm up, especially in hot summers.

 

[troutbert]

"Little Bear, Hoagland Branch, Mill Creek, Elk Creek, King Creek to name a few. I am sure in the right places Little Loyalsock may hold brook trout year round, but I have not fished that stream much."

On Little Bear, Hoagland Branch, Mill Creek, Elk Creek, King Creek, hatchery trout are definitely being stocked over native brook trout.

Ending stocking of those streams would increase brook trout populations in the Loyalsock drainage.

 

[Dave_W]

troutbert wrote:
On Little Bear, Hoagland Branch, Mill Creek, Elk Creek, King Creek, hatchery trout are definitely being stocked over native brook trout.

Ending stocking of those streams would increase brook trout populations in the Loyalsock drainage.

Agree with this angle and I support Troutbert's continued mention of it. Even getting this done on a limited basis is not low hanging fruit (as we all know) but would be the incremental effort that I think is more realistic than aspirational talk about setting aside entire watersheds.

But anyway, back to talking about watersheds...

I read recently about the removal of dams on the Penobscot River in ME. This has resulted in the recovered movement of a variety of fishes, mainly Atlantic salmon (the primary goal) but also white perch, sturgeon... and brook trout. I don't know how they count or survey these fishes, but they have numbers. In some places, underwater web cams can be used to monitor fish activity - think of Bahia Honda bridge pilings in the Keys. I wonder if some sort of camera system could be placed in various lower river systems like the Loyalsock(?).
Volunteers could monitor different fishes seen during different seasons etc. Would something like this be possible?

Of course, plain old electrofishing surveys done during the colder months, rather than the preferred warmer months, might also produce some interesting results on trout residency/movement in bigger waters.

 

[Baron]

When they inspected the Pilings where I78 crosses the Delaware Divers claimed to have seen Sturgeon. Wouldn't it be cool if they along with Shad would re-populate the Lehigh?

 

[silverfox]

Sorry, backtracking a bit here, but on the point about the state (or clubs) stocking over small stream populations of wild brook trout;

A point I've seen made a lot in the past, usually to try to deter brook trout conservation, is that they don't get "big". I personally don't understand this line of thinking. Imagine if Colorado decided, because the greenback cutthroat is generally small, that it would be better off displacing them with more popular "big" species like browns.

Since when does average fish size have anything to do with conservation? Do we really use fish size to justify extirpation of native species? Is that really something that is considered by biologists on whether or not to stock over populations of wild brook trout?

I'm just trying to understand what possible rationale could be behind why some small streams with naturally reproducing brook trout get stocked over. Maybe if we could understand that, it would help to make an argument against it? Not that I think the reasons aren't clear, but there is obviously some disconnect between what seems like common sense, and what the state thinks makes sense.

I'd also like to point out that I know of a few small Class A and B brown trout streams where the browns don't get any bigger than brook trout. Curious why those populations are spared from the stock truck.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

troutbert wrote:

On Little Bear, Hoagland Branch, Mill Creek, Elk Creek, King Creek, hatchery trout are definitely being stocked over native brook trout.

Ending stocking of those streams would increase brook trout populations in the Loyalsock drainage.

Overall I would agree if you can keep the harvest hungry crowds away and win over the social aspect of the issue. If you have never been on Little Bear or Hoagland Branch early in the season you would be shocked at the number of anglers that fish there. Obviously this year the truck chasers were at a disadvantage, but I have seen twenty vehicles following the trucks on little bear and more anglers lined up to fish as soon as the trout hit the water. Twice I was in the area of hoagland branch this spring and there were 15+ vehicles in the lower sections. Without stocking, if the local mentality was still to keep trout, the legal sized Brook trout would be decimated.

Again I am more aligned with not stocking these streams, but without having a wco camped out there, how else do you protect the natives? It all comes back around to educating the public on wild trout, and the old adage that you can lead a horse to water but not make it drink.