Brook Trout Restoration in PA

[wcosner2]

As someone who grew up near cold water fisheries that historically had brook trout but no longer do, I always wondered why nobody was ever trying to stock fingerling brook trout or transplant wild brook trout to try to bring them back. It seems like something that other states do but is pretty rare in PA for some reason. The only effort I know of is the one on Aquetong Creek. I am sure there are a few others, but is there a reason that the state isn't focused on reintroducing brook trout? It seems like it would pay dividends, get the public involved, and be a great story. Plus, even if a quarter to a half of the efforts actually pan out, I think it would still be a success.

I know most conservation efforts are focused on the wild trout strongholds that already exist but why not go on the offensive and try to establish some new populations?

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear wcosner2,

Without trying to dismiss your idea I can think of four things off the top of head that make that difficult.

1) Overall water quality and temperature on a year-round basis.

2) Land use and planned land use in the watershed. This contributes a great deal to the water quality. Flash floods on developed areas or on land undergoing development push lots of warm, silty, muddy water into streams. It often happens in the late Fall and early Spring when spawning and fry survival are critical. We all know fish can swim, but if the eggs get washed away, or big flood occurs just when the fish are hatching that can cause problems.

3) Cost Who will fund this? There are thousands of miles of streams in PA that flow across mine damaged lands that provide copious amounts of cold water but cannot be rehabilitated to being able to support most aquatic life without huge outlays of cash.

4) Public access This is the last but not least concern. On public lands like State Forests or Parks by all means there should be a green light to at least try. But private lands are a whole other matter and one that sportsmen in PA who are not willing to pay for in some ways are getting shut out.

Like I said my point here is not to dismiss your idea, just to point out potential obstacles.

Hopefully more people chime in here!

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[troutbert]

What stream stretches do you think this would be successful on? I can't think of any.

If stream conditions are good, there are already wild trout there, either brown trout, brook trout, or both.

I don't think there are many miles of streams with good conditions but no wild trout, just waiting for someone to introduce wild strain trout there.

 

[wcosner2]

What stream stretches do you think this would be successful on? I can't think of any.

If stream conditions are good, there are already wild trout there, either brown trout, brook trout, or both.

I don't think there are many miles of streams with good conditions but no wild trout, just waiting for someone to introduce wild strain trout there.

I am not necessarily saying there are perfect watersheds out there and the only thing they are missing is brook trout. I think there are definitely plenty of first-order or second-order streams out there that, although small, once held trout and do not any longer because of logging, dams, or runoff. Some of these streams are now in better shape than they were 100 years ago or even 25 years ago and some of them wild trout can't repopulate because of physical barriers or because there simply isn't a wild trout population in the watershed. I am particularly thinking of streams in south-central PA and south-eastern PA. Given the sheer volume of stream miles in PA, I am positive that there are plenty of streams that brook trout could be reintroduced into.

I would also be happy to see brook trout reintroduced to streams with wild browns in them. I am guessing the success rate would be relatively low but I think in some streams, brook trout could compete. It would also be a great experiment to see where brook trout make it and where they don't and inform us on what is needed for brook trout moving forward.

 

[mgmunson]

100%

At the bare minimum the state needs to put in place a conservation plan to protect the state fish. They allude to it, but in practice they are directly harming the ST population as a whole. In the Southwest region alone, there are several watersheds that could be greatly enhanced by responsible management (ie. no stocking, no harvest). Three that come to mind are Linn Run and it's tributaries, the Fall Run/Blue Hole/ Gary Run/ Cole run watershed, and Back creek/neals run/trout run. The ST populations would increase with simply stopping stocking. BUT... these watersheds stay cold, or at least connect to cold spring creeks. A brook trout fingerling program and strict management could create some incredible fisheries in the Laurel Highlands.

 

[Old Town]

When the hatchery shut down on Bigsprings there were meetings on what we fishermen wanted to do with the fishery. The commission ask questions such as do you want us to transport wild brook trout from another local stream. The replies were all over the board.
The biggest problem I see with wild brook trout water is brown trout taking over the area and running the brookies out.

 

[MissingPotter]

I believe that one problem with transplanting wild brookies from one watershed to another is their genetic makeup. I think that they develop different genetic make ups that are are predicated to their particular watershed.

 

[troutbert]

At the bare minimum the state needs to put in place a conservation plan to protect the state fish. They allude to it, but in practice they are directly harming the ST population as a whole. In the Southwest region alone, there are several watersheds that could be greatly enhanced by responsible management (ie. no stocking, no harvest). Three that come to mind are Linn Run and it's tributaries, the Fall Run/Blue Hole/ Gary Run/ Cole run watershed, and Back creek/neals run/trout run. The ST populations would increase with simply stopping stocking. BUT... these watersheds stay cold, or at least connect to cold spring creeks. A brook trout fingerling program and strict management could create some incredible fisheries in the Laurel Highlands.

Ending stocking those brookie streams would help the brookie populations.

There is no need to stock brook trout though because they are already there.

 

[sandflyx]

here in the north central area they are doing that and doing something about mine drainage. already brought a few streams back. tioga river upper water shed is getting work done.

 

[Oregon_OwlII]

I believe that one problem with transplanting wild brookies from one watershed to another is their genetic makeup. I think that they develop different genetic make ups that are are predicated to their particular watershed.

Quite a while ago our TU chapter was informed by the Area Biologist that it was not permitted to transfer brookies from one watershed to another, but the watershed was defined as the large river to which the streams eventually flowed. (transfer meaning transfer and stock) E.g. brookies from the Susquehanna watershed could not be transported to a stream in the Delaware watershed.

 

[pcray1231]

For the most part, a lack of a seed population is not an issue in the state. I'm sure there's a handful of examples where it is. But by and large most watersheds have brookies in various feeders and when the habitat is there, so are the brookies. As such aside from a few examples transplanting isn't gonna do a lot in the long run.

The biggest issues facing brookies are development (as forested streams get developed the streams get silty and warmer), and acid remediation. I think work is being done on those issues. The other big issue is brown trout, which have a token presence just about everywhere and when habitat allows tend to take over brookie populations. The only solution there is removal of browns. And thats a very, very taboo subject. I'd support an isolated example project, say above a dam or something, just to get the fishing public aware that brookies can be good sized in bigger, interconnected waters where they can migrate in and out of feeders without competition. Kettle above Ole Bull has been mentioned and seems a good candidate. But overall, in highly connected streams, I think its impossible to get rid of all the browns without ruining the fishery, so ongoing maintenance would be needed to keep browns at bay, and I think you are more likely to harm a popular brown trout fishery than to create a popular brookie fishery, which isn't gonna go over well.

 

[troutbert]

For the most part, a lack of a seed population is not an issue in the state. I'm sure there's a handful of examples where it is. But by and large most watersheds have brookies in various feeders and when the habitat is there, so are the brookies. As such aside from a few examples transplanting isn't gonna do a lot in the long run.

The biggest issues facing brookies are development (as forested streams get developed the streams get silty and warmer), and acid remediation. I think work is being done on those issues. The other big issue is brown trout, which have a token presence just about everywhere and when habitat allows tend to take over brookie populations. The only solution there is removal of browns. And thats a very, very taboo subject. I'd support an isolated example project, say above a dam or something, just to get the fishing public aware that brookies can be good sized in bigger, interconnected waters where they can migrate in and out of feeders without competition. Kettle above Ole Bull has been mentioned and seems a good candidate. But overall, in highly connected streams, I think its impossible to get rid of all the browns without ruining the fishery, so ongoing maintenance would be needed to keep browns at bay, and I think you are more likely to harm a popular brown trout fishery than to create a popular brookie fishery, which isn't gonna go over well.

A very important issue not mentioned here is the widespread stocking of hatchery trout directly on top of native brook trout populations. This is done by the PFBC, and by the coop hatcheries. Ending this would be very beneficial for the brook trout populations.

 

[jifigz]

A very important issue not mentioned here is the widespread stocking of hatchery trout directly on top of native brook trout populations. This is done by the PFBC, and by the coop hatcheries. Ending this would be very beneficial for the brook trout populations.

This is the easiest and most simple solution. There are a lot of streams where brookies thrive where we dump bows on em.

 

[blitzinstripes]

This is the easiest and most simple solution. There are a lot of streams where brookies thrive where we dump bows on em.

I frequent a few of these streams myself and I don't really see a problem with the rainbows as they typically are put and take in short succession, and they rarely even hold over. Even more rarely are they able to reproduce to an extent that actually presents any significant competition with the brookies. Its probably much more sensible to stock rainbows than browns in such waters. I don't want to see brown trout become demonized in the name of an extremist view on native/ non native species conservation as the extremist view on the subject is largely horse spit, imo. Don't get me started on my soap box. Brown trout have been here for over 200 years now and I and many others folks happen to love them quite dearly. I believe there is room for all of these species with adequate management plans in place.

 

[jifigz]

I frequent a few of these streams myself and I don't really see a problem with the rainbows as they typically are put and take in short succession, and they rarely even hold over. Even more rarely are they able to reproduce to an extent that actually presents any significant competition with the brookies. Its probably much more sensible to stock rainbows than browns in such waters. I don't want to see brown trout become demonized in the name of an extremist view on native/ non native species conservation as the extremist view on the subject is largely horse spit, imo. Don't get me started on my soap box. Brown trout have been here for over 200 years now and I and many others folks happen to love them quite dearly. I believe there is room for all of these species with adequate management plans in place.

I love brown trout, too. But..... plenty of brookies streams I have fished hold rainbows for months or years after stocking.. I'm not anti-stocking. I just said that would be a great first step for brookies to not stock over them.

If rainbows have zero survival/hold over rates in your brookie streams, that's great. But many of the stocked brookie streams I've fished, those fish last. To assume they don't affect brookies is silly.

Now, that said, I gladly have fun catching those bows. I usually even release em back.

 

[troutbert]

I frequent a few of these streams myself and I don't really see a problem with the rainbows as they typically are put and take in short succession, and they rarely even hold over. Even more rarely are they able to reproduce to an extent that actually presents any significant competition with the brookies. Its probably much more sensible to stock rainbows than browns in such waters. I don't want to see brown trout become demonized in the name of an extremist view on native/ non native species conservation as the extremist view on the subject is largely horse spit, imo. Don't get me started on my soap box. Brown trout have been here for over 200 years now and I and many others folks happen to love them quite dearly. I believe there is room for all of these species with adequate management plans in place.

The species stocked doesn't make much difference. The damage is caused by stocking hatchery trout over native brook trout populations.

Are there people who haven't noticed the difference between the brook trout fishing in stocked vs not stocked sections of stream? The difference is like night and day.

8 inch brook trout are pretty common in unstocked sections. They are not common in stocked sections. ies."

 

[Fly-Swatter]

Here are a few of my opinions on stocking over native brookie populations:

• It's a bit like taking a busload (or 4) of oversized hooligans and dumping them into a gentile suburban or rural neighborhood. They will bully their way to the better lies and eat much of the biomass that could be helping the brookies thrive (see post #16).
• Boots on the ground (and in the water): Stocking is, without dispute, a magnet for anglers. It particularly attracts those anglers who are looking to fill their limit. In my experience, those folks are "less gentle" in how they trod on riparian vegetation and through streams. This is, without a doubt, most impactful in smaller streams that can be easily crossed multiple times an hour.
• The idea of trout, or any resource, being an entitlement that the government provides is, at best, confusing and enabling. At worse, it reinforced the idea that we are not directly responsible for our actions. I could go on...

Stocking of marginal or warm waters is the lesser of the evils from at least a few angles.

 

[joebamboo]

Here we go again!!!!

 

[Mike]

The species stocked doesn't make much difference. The damage is caused by stocking hatchery trout over native brook trout populations

I wouldn’t necessarily fully agree with that comment. It depends at least in part on the time of spring and frequency of stocking that you’re speaking about, the vulnerability of the stocked species to capture (and harvest), the residency rate of the species stocked, the rapidity of the stocked fish harvest, and the behavior of the wild fish. In most cases under intensive harvest pressure of a particularly vulnerable stocked species when water is cold (ST or RT) most of the stocked trout are gone in 10 days or less. I would not say that this is true in streams with relatively low or low pressure (for example, some northcentral Pa stream sections where no or very few anglers were present on opening day at 8 AM).

Given the early opening day in comparison to the past, water temps are colder and the reoccupation or the reappearance of many of the adult ST and BT within many stocked sections has not yet likely occurred. I refer you to the PFBC 10-day intensive preseason stocking and inseason stocking creel surveys, the PFBC stocked trout residency study in which residency of BT and ST after 5-20 days (generally after 5 days) at large on small to medium size streams was on average in the 50-58% range, and the PFBC study of unstocked Class A BT and ST streams in which biomass of age 1 and older wild trout was less than Class A during the concurrent preseason stocking period and well above Class A in summer, primarily due to seasonal shifts in adult trout densities. Noteworthy is that this Class A biomass shift study occurred during the old statewide opening day time period, prior to the regional opening day program, so it was even later in the early spring period that lower biomasses of wild trout were identified as being present in spring than in summer.

If for behavioral reasons substantial numbers of adult wild trout within stocked sections are also not present or not available in a given section of stocked trout water during the now earlier, colder water, opening weeks, they’re not going to be harvested. Likewise, if the vast majority of the stocked RT and ST are harvested very quickly in a preseason only stocking program or possibly even one where the single inseason stocking of those species occurs very early in the inseason period while water is cold and pressure is high, the impact on the wild trout population is going to be less for the aforementioned reasons, except for substantial stocked trout residency losses.

None of this is to say that I no longer support cessation of stocking over Class B and select Class C wild ST populations; I do. Furthermore, I would support reducing the stocking frequency to preseason only on more waters, as this was common in the 1970’s, and this would take some pressure off of some wild trout during a period of higher vulnerability due to gradually rising spring water temps and free up some stocked trout for more intensively fished waters.

 

[mgmunson]

Here we go again!!!!

gaslight much? We are in the Conservation forum... I understand the frustration when these discussions bleed out into every thread even mentioning bows or browns, but I think this is exactly where the discussion belongs. 🤷‍♂️

I would support reducing the stocking frequency to preseason only on more waters, as this was common in the 1970’s, and this would take some pressure off of some wild trout during a period of higher vulnerability due to gradually rising spring water temps and free up some stocked trout for more intensively fished waters.

So Mike, what is the best avenue for the concerned public to advocate for this approach?