Brook Trout population before things were destroyed.

[sixfootfenwick]

The temporary good news, if you have any access to the areas that the water quality is being restored, some brook trout will use the mainstem even if some brown trout are. The competition for good areas and food is still limited.
You can possiblity find a larger brook trout for a number of years.

Unfortunately for the Catawissa, it sounds like access is a problem, unless things changed.

Fishing these types of streams will produce a very low TPH catch rate as the populations are low, but a chance for a larger specimens exist.

 

[Roofin' Trouter]

I cannot comment on other Class A and private club stockings.....well, wait, what about Homewaters? Don't they stock fish over a Class A population in either the Little J or Spruce?

How much of Spruce Creek is designated Class A? It may be less than a mile

What would/could they do to manage it for brookies? Alter habitat? They might need some permits before legally doing that. Obviously they aren't going to be stocking it with anything.

Hasn't WV raised and stocked "native" brookies in some brook trout restoration? MN started stocking a Driftless strain brook trout they developed over 20 years or so.
Would BT removals have more support from the public if they were followed with stockings of a PA specific ST? I don't pretend to have the the magic answer for Brook Trout restoration in PA. I just don't believe it's obvious that restorations won't involve stocking. Technically, aren't reintroductions a form of stocking?

 

[Beweav]

Unless this photo is a stock photo, brown trout are already there. This website is claiming there are already fish alive and well in the Cattie. View attachment 1641233832

Catawissa Creek Restoration Association

Soon to be a Class A Trout Stream

ccra.epcamr.org

The title on that photo says Troutcaught@tomhickenscatawissaconfluence. I am still doubting that there are many fish like that in the Catawissa but if a Tributary is producing browns like that then it wouldn’t be long before they move into the bigger water.
Let’s think best case. Say the land owners open some access. Could a Native Trout Conservation Area or something similarly named be assigned by the state government as an environmental issue instead of a primarily recreational issue? Mandated Catch and release of Brook trout and no stocking by anyone, including random clubs and fire companies(possible exception being a native reintroduction). Is Catch-and-Kill a possibility for any nonnative fish? How much would harvesting all the brown trout reduce their numbers?

 

[Beweav]

There are some simple measures to combat all of that. Some, even here, would refuse to take them.

I’d love to hear these.

 

[CRB]

The title on that photo says Troutcaught@tomhickenscatawissaconfluence. I am still doubting that there are many fish like that in the Catawissa but if a Tributary is producing browns like that then it wouldn’t be long before they move into the bigger water.
Let’s think best case. Say the land owners open some access. Could a Native Trout Conservation Area or something similarly named be assigned by the state government as an environmental issue instead of a primarily recreational issue? Mandated Catch and release of Brook trout and no stocking by anyone, including random clubs and fire companies(possible exception being a native reintroduction). Is Catch-and-Kill a possibility for any nonnative fish? How much would harvesting all the brown trout reduce their numbers?

Better limit access or that property owner will see more fishermen than a stocked stream section close or in Philadelphia.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I’d love to hear these.

Ok , without going into a long winded post and all specifics I'll just give a few thoughts. Keep in mind, I'm not advocating for or against these practices. I'm just stating what I believe would be effective if the end goal is to create a viable larger watershed for wild brook trout.

When a AMD stream is going to be reclaimed, and it's going to reclaimed specifically for brook trout, it's a race against time mostly. It's also a race against time to do the least amount damage to existing fish populations, while also being cost effective, effective in goal and efficient.


Let's consider some hypothetical example watersheds. These are just very general. There are other variables to consider but trying to keep it simple to convey a point.

Stream A- Mainstem is completely destroyed. Neither brown nor brook trout use the mainstem. Tributaries are a mix of either devoid of fish or have populations of wild brook trout. Limited or no stocking in watershed.

Stream B - Mainstem is completely destroyed. Neither brown nor brook trout use the mainstem. Tributaries are a mix of either: devoid of fish, have populations of wild brook trout a few tribs have wild brown trout. Limited or no stocking in watershed.

Stream C - Mainstem is completely destroyed. Neither brown nor brook trout use the mainstem. Tributaries are a mix of either devoid of fish or have populations of wild brown trout only. Limited or no stocking in watershed.

Stream D - Mainstem is destroyed upstream. Neither brown nor brook trout use the upper watershed. The mainstem downstream has better water quality and limited brown trout use the watershed. Tributaries are a mix of either devoid of fish or have populations of wild brook trout. Limited or no stocking in watershed.

Stream E - Mainstem is destroyed upstream. Neither brown nor brook trout use the upper watershed. The mainstem downstream has better water quality and limited brown trout use the watershed. Tributaries are a mix of either: devoid of fish, have populations of wild brook trout, a few tribs have wild brown trout. Limited or no stocking in watershed.

Stream F - Mainstem is destroyed upstream. Neither brown nor brook trout use the upper watershed. The mainstem downstream has better water quality and limited brown trout use the watershed. Tributaries are a mix of either devoid of fish or have populations of wild brown trout. Limited or no stocking in watershed.


Viability:

Stream A has a good probability of working. It also would be the easiest and would likely do it on itself without having to plant fish or eggs. There is also no reason to have to "kill" any of the fish populations. Before the water quality is repaired, plant a fish barrier near the mouth of the mainstem so no transient fish may come upstream and plant undesirable species. Absolutely no stocking. No permits granted. Any entity caught stocking heavy fines and sanctions imposed. After water quality is repaired monitor fish populations. Any token brown trout caught during sampling, remove. Regulations: C&R on all wild brook trout, mandatory kill all other trout species with no limit.
After many years regulations can be adjusted.

Stream B also has a good probability of working. It is the second easiest and could also likely do it without having to plant fish eggs. They few tributaries with brown trout would need to be killed off before the water quality is repaired. Doing so before does the least damage to existing fish populations, because they don't exist. Repeat the rest of Stream A example here.

Stream C is difficult and not worth the effort and would also destroy an already tremendous fishery in the tributaries. Fish eggs or stocked brook trout would also have to be used. It's just too much.

Stream D is possible, similar to stream A except the barrier moves upstream to mid watershed.

Stream E is possible, similar to stream B except barrier moves upstream to mid watershed.

Stream F not worth the time and effort.


The point is, all mitigation efforts should be put into place, BEFORE the watershed is restored. If not, the mileage becomes too much, the fishery loss very great, species loss greater etc...also it's a very limited scope of variables that make it even viable to attempt. some places exist and as we don't do them, time ticks by, eventually they too are lost.

I can think of a few AMD larger watersheds that were either like stream A, B, or D.

One was restored, grows nice brook trout but now brown trout are showing up . It's only a matter of time. They never stopped stocking that one in the mainstem and never placed barriers.

If they had done mitigation efforts first, I could have PMd you an example, rather than posted this long winded thing.

The culture of PA trout fishing is against it. So it won't happen and more time passes on....

 

[troutbert]

Take a look at this Laurel Run, Elk County, on a mapping website such as Acmemapper.

N 41.34676 W 78.80124

It runs through a State Gamelands, it's a forested watershed. It has a native brook trout population, and no brown trout, because of low fertility. The physical habitat is pretty good.

It's stocked with hatchery trout, by a club. (Or at least it was when I lasted fished it).

This isn't illegal stocking, they are allowed to do it. It's not rated Class A.

All it would take to improve the brook trout population here is to quit stocking it.

This is just one example. There are many more.

 

[Mike]

Ok , without going into a long winded post

?

 

[sixfootfenwick]

?

I tried not to 🤷😂
But I did say, without going into all specifics too. Which I didn't.
But that was as short as I could answer his question

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Take a look at this Laurel Run, Elk County, on a mapping website such as Acmemapper.

N 41.34676 W 78.80124

It runs through a State Gamelands, it's a forested watershed. It has a native brook trout population, and no brown trout, because of low fertility. The physical habitat is pretty good.

It's stocked with hatchery trout, by a club. (Or at least it was when I lasted fished it).

This isn't illegal stocking, they are allowed to do it. It's not rated Class A.

All it would take to improve the brook trout population here is to quit stocking it.

This is just one example. There are many more.

Yes.

But I'm not sure that deals with the presented question. The question deals with larger watersheds to produce larger brook trout.

Laurel Run has low fertility but Im taking a guess without looking that it's a small stream. If it was to produce an abundance of larger fish, it would only be a nursery water to it's larger watershed it drains into where the forage base, holding water and habitat are more conducive to producing larger brook trout closer to the historical perspective of early Pennsylvania.

Not stocking it may help up the size a little, it will boost their numbers but they won't reach a large size like the question presented.

Again I didn't look nor am I familiar with the watershed.

 

[Beweav]

I tried not to 🤷😂
But I did say, without going into all specifics too. Which I didn't.
But that was as short as I could answer his question

I appreciate the detailed response.
So I guess it makes me wonder why this isn’t considered from an ecological perspective. We have designated areas for all types of native fauna (and flora). If all PA had left were emaciated and stunted beavers, there would be a clear and bold move to remedy that situation. This seems like it’s only ever approached from an angling angle. Are fish just not in the public conscience enough to worry about?
A native watershed seems like exactly the type of thing that people could get behind. A section of water that’s protected and gives a glimpse into the past. It seems like a thriving native ecosystem that as much as possible replicates pre-colonial PA would serve as a great base line to judge the health of other watersheds. The contrast would raise awareness of the amount of change people/management have had on our resources and give the coming generation something to aim for in their wildlife management policies.
I guess that all is just too pure to really sway anyone with the authority to do it. There would have to be some type of monetary or recreational benefit for the masses to get behind it.
So like you said, things just continue as they are.

 

[troutbert]

I appreciate the detailed response.
So I guess it makes me wonder why this isn’t considered from an ecological perspective. We have designated areas for all types of native fauna (and flora). If all PA had left were emaciated and stunted beavers, there would be a clear and bold move to remedy that situation. This seems like it’s only ever approached from an angling angle. Are fish just not in the public conscience enough to worry about?
A native watershed seems like exactly the type of thing that people could get behind. A section of water that’s protected and gives a glimpse into the past. It seems like a thriving native ecosystem that as much as possible replicates pre-colonial PA would serve as a great base line to judge the health of other watersheds. The contrast would raise awareness of the amount of change people/management have had on our resources and give the coming generation something to aim for in their wildlife management policies.
I guess that all is just too pure to really sway anyone with the authority to do it. There would have to be some type of monetary or recreational benefit for the masses to get behind it.
So like you said, things just continue as they are.

In Shenandoah Park they manage the streams for native brook trout. They don't stock over the native brookies, and much of the stream mileage is under catch-and-release regs, and the rest is under low harvest regs. And it works.

 

[troutbert]

?

It's easier to write long than to write short.

 

[jifigz]

How many of Moshannon Creek's tribs are brown trout strongholds? Once Moshannon Creek starts to improve, it's gonna be amazing. That stretch down in the valley between the ATV trail thing on one side and the AFT hiking trail on the other side would be amazing.

 

[Swattie87]

How many of Moshannon Creek's tribs are brown trout strongholds? Once Moshannon Creek starts to improve, it's gonna be amazing. That stretch down in the valley between the ATV trail thing on one side and the AFT hiking trail on the other side would be amazing.

You mean Black Mo? Or Red Mo, which is actually Moshannon Creek. A good portion of Red Mo is dead as can be. One of the heaviest polluted streams in the state. Pull up a sat map and look at its mouth and what it does to the WB for miles and miles downstream. And it looks like that for miles and miles upstream too.

Black Mo is mostly stockies from my experience, and the only wild fish I’ve caught in that have been small wild Browns. Not to say there aren’t Brookies there, but I think the majority of the wild fish are Browns. And there’s not a ton of them in there. The top release spillway style dam in the park probably isn’t helping the Brookie cause there.

Red Mo has both species in its tribs. (The healthy ones anyway.) Some more Brookies, some more Browns, but either way there’s more Brookies over there than Black Mo. If it gets cleaned up the Browns are gonna love it, but I don’t think it has the same potential as some of the other watersheds named above to become a big Brookie stronghold. Because of the Browns.

 

[5footfenwick]

My question is which model was your 6ft now 5ft Fenwick?
605?

It is a 726 . So if I’m not mistaken 72inches and 6 weight. I believe a 605 would be a 5 foot 5 weight. At least in the yellow glass fly rods.

Thanks all for the replies. A lot of interesting ideas being thrown around!

 

[jifigz]

You mean Black Mo? Or Red Mo, which is actually Moshannon Creek. A good portion of Red Mo is dead as can be. One of the heaviest polluted streams in the state. Pull up a sat map and look at its mouth and what it does to the WB for miles and miles downstream. And it looks like that for miles and miles upstream too.

Black Mo is mostly stockies from my experience, and the only wild fish I’ve caught in that have been small wild Browns. Not to say there aren’t Brookies there, but I think the majority of the wild fish are Browns. And there’s not a ton of them in there. The top release spillway style dam in the park probably isn’t helping the Brookie cause there.

Red Mo has both species in its tribs. (The healthy ones anyway.) Some more Brookies, some more Browns, but either way there’s more Brookies over there than Black Mo. If it gets cleaned up the Browns are gonna love it, but I don’t think it has the same potential as some of the other watersheds named above to become a big Brookie stronghold. Because of the Browns.

I'm talking about Red Mo (Moshannon Creek.) I've backpacked the AFT numerous times and I'm always amazed at the beauty of the trail running along Moshannon Creek.

I know Moshannon is super dead. That's why it could be a candidate. Kill the tribs with brownies and try to make it a dominant brookie stream. No doubt browns would eventually show up, though. But above the pollution, Moshannon is filled with Brookes, right? The headwaters.

At certain times of the year it can find a bunch of Brookes in Black Mo. If the lake/dam wasn't there that stream would have some potential. The lake warms it too much. That's why I never understood the DHALO area just below the dam.

 

[sandflyx]

I don't think there are many streams where a 12" brookie is more common than a 3" one - that implies some sort of weird occurrence where all the YOY have died off, as a population curve would tend to be clustered between 1-2 year old fish and tail off from there.

But, I think it is correct to say that there are streams in PA where 12" brookies are not uncommon. Many streams may have the curve fall off at 8-9" fish, but some have the habitat or some other combination of factors that allow fish to grow to 12" or larger. I agree with Chaz that some of those streams are in SE PA, but I've caught 12" or larger brookies in all areas of the state, except the NE and SW, both regions where I've never really fished a stream that has brookies in it.

While the angling literature mentions the migration of brook trout in pre-logging days, I'm somewhat skeptical of the claims of large quantities of large trout moving out of the bigger loctic systems. Under Behnke's classification of brook trout, our fish fall under the category of " a smaller generalist form that evolved in the small lakes, ponds, rivers, and streams throughout most of the original native range. This generalist form rarely attains sizes larger than 12 in (30 cm) or lives for more than three years." This does not preclude larger brookies from existing or being caught, but puts the tail end of the curve closer to 12" than 18".

I have no doubt that brook trout moved in and out of larger systems but some of the reading I've done suggests that streams like Kettle, Pine and the Loyalsock have always been the realm of the black bass in summer, even before logging. Anglers tend to tell stories (particularly those interested in selling copies of newspapers their articles are published in), so I'm still searching for late 18th or early 19th century scientific literature that documents (more than an anecdotal recollection) scores of 18" brook trout in PA.

pine was a brookie stream before logging. the Susquehannock natives spear them all year. pine at one time ran around 10-15 feet wide with hemlocks and pines covering it. native Americans called it dark waters always like twilight under the canopy. big meadows were one of a few places where there were no trees. my plce sits on a huge incampment for the Susquehannock .

 

[troutbert]

pine was a brookie stream before logging. the Susquehannock natives spear them all year. pine at one time ran around 10-15 feet wide with hemlocks and pines covering it. native Americans called it dark waters always like twilight under the canopy. big meadows were one of a few places where there were no trees. my plce sits on a huge incampment for the Susquehannock .

What is the source for this? Particularly the part about PIne being about 10-15 feet wide in the old days?

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Maybe above Galeton.