Challenge to all Trout Camps

[JeffP]

Absolutely more than a few dozen.
I'll name one I'm 100 percent certain of.
Elders Run Lancaster County.

Like Pat I've fished nearly a thousand different streams in PA, but I believe there are still allopatric streams.

Evidence of one brown in a stream also isn't evidence it is resident to that stream itself or even a small population reproducing in that stream.

Could be transit for a number of reasons, such as summer temps, either way there are still "brook trout only" streams.

Did see what I thought was a stocker in lower Elders at the Bridge on Middle Creek Trail. That was 30 years ago. I have never caught a brown there. I haven't fished it much but have hiked it. Haven't seen the trout in it that used to be there.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Did see what I thought was a stocker in lower Elders at the Bridge on Middle Creek Trail. That was 30 years ago. I have never caught a brown there. I haven't fished it much but have hiked it. Haven't seen the trout in it that used to be there.

They are there.
Some years are better than others

 

[pcray1231]

No kidding, in every stream mentioned here, browns are rare. There's an awful lot of brookie streams you could fish 30 times and never catch a brown, then on the 31st time... Or a buddy catches one. There is a token brown trout population virtually everywhere.

That is not to say allopatric doesn't exist. There are circumstances where it happens. Namely, barriers, whether they be natural, man-made, chemical, or whatever. Brown trout exist in every major waterway in PA, and they travel, so without a barrier, the tribs of those waterways, and the tribs of the tribs, get the occasional brown trout. And aside from travellers, they seem to be able to have low level reproducing populations underneath vibrant brook trout populations. In cases where the physical habitat changes to favor browns, a brown trout population is already present in most cases. The exceptions are just that, exceptions, and the most typical reason is that the stream is completely isolated by a barrier.

The point of all of this. In the case of Elders. I don't think it matters whether Middle Creek, at the mouth of Elders, has large wild browns stacked like cordwood, or just the occasional passer by. Elders almost certainly already has browns in it. And there are 1000 other primarily brook trout streams in PA that have the same situation. If Elders, for instance, experienced say, siltation, which degrades the viability of brook trout more than brown trout, then the population of browns will increase. It does not lack population seeders, and the argument that you shouldn't help the browns downstream because it would create population seeders doesn't hold merit, because they are already there. Binary, they are or they aren't. And if they aren't, then they aren't because there's a barrier preventing it, in which case the population of browns below the barrier doesn't matter either.

I am a brook trout fan. I love them. I want to protect them. And if you say, hey, Elders needs to be protected from browns. Lets erect a barrier to prevent entry. Lets shock Elders to get any small population that exists out of there. I could be convinced. But I do not believe that an effort to help the browns in Middle, for instance, will have any effect whatsoever on Elders. Because brookies aren't currently holding on in Elders due to a lack of browns in Middle. Middle already has browns, in enough numbers to seed Elders if Elders were open to being seeded.

As for the barrier idea. It gets tricky. Is it better to have a barrier, and shock out the browns above, to prevent entry by brown trout? Or not to have a barrier in order to protect brook trout access to middle creek at certain times of the year? Brook trout are already winning in elders, maybe they'd be better served by having access to Middle? I don't know the answer to that. But I'm interested in it. And yeah, I'd side with whatever I think is best for the brookies in Elders. But if someone was trying to improve the situation for browns in Middle, I'm on their side too.

 

[sarce]

Fenwick, I have fished every stream in Chester that's on the natural repro list and has public access, and found browns in every single one. I lived in Coatesville for like a decade.

The ones I'm thinking of are private and were not on the list until recently. Except for one which was listed in the 80's or 90's. Feel free to send me a PM. They're all located south of rt 30 if that helps.

 

[wildtrout2]

But the neighboring stream, Jeans, yeah, and way up high, above plenty of falls too, so it wouldn't surprise me if Glen Onoko had them above the falls too. Also wouldn't surprise me if it didn't.

In your previous post when you said "way up in there too", I didn't realize you were referring to above the falls on Jeans. I don't see how that's even possible (no tribs), unless they were brought there? The three browns that I've caught were well downstream, closer to the mouth, which makes sense.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

So I'm curious what does this new debate mean?


If a stream has 1000's of brook trout but a "small token population" of brown trout should we be thinking:

If there are no true allopatric watersheds, should we punt on the notion it's a brook trout stream?

Or should we be thinking:

Should we not try to keep their advantage in those watersheds?

Should we not even go as far as removal or harvest of the other species to keep their advantage?

Should we not make sure it stays that way?

I'm not following where this debate is going.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

No kidding, in every stream mentioned here, browns are rare. There's an awful lot of brookie streams you could fish 30 times and never catch a brown, then on the 31st time... Or a buddy catches one. There is a token brown trout population virtually everywhere.

That is not to say allopatric doesn't exist. There are circumstances where it happens. Namely, barriers, whether they be natural, man-made, chemical, or whatever. Brown trout exist in every major waterway in PA, and they travel, so without a barrier, the tribs of those waterways, and the tribs of the tribs, get the occasional brown trout. And aside from travellers, they seem to be able to have low level reproducing populations underneath vibrant brook trout populations. In cases where the physical habitat changes to favor browns, a brown trout population is already present in most cases. The exceptions are just that, exceptions, and the most typical reason is that the stream is completely isolated by a barrier.

The point of all of this. In the case of Elders. I don't think it matters whether Middle Creek, at the mouth of Elders, has large wild browns stacked like cordwood, or just the occasional passer by. Elders almost certainly already has browns in it. And there are 1000 other primarily brook trout streams in PA that have the same situation. If Elders, for instance, experienced say, siltation, which degrades the viability of brook trout more than brown trout, then the population of browns will increase. It does not lack population seeders, and the argument that you shouldn't help the browns downstream because it would create population seeders doesn't hold merit, because they are already there. Binary, they are or they aren't. And if they aren't, then they aren't because there's a barrier preventing it, in which case the population of browns below the barrier doesn't matter either.

I am a brook trout fan. I love them. I want to protect them. And if you say, hey, Elders needs to be protected from browns. Lets erect a barrier to prevent entry. Lets shock Elders to get any small population that exists out of there. I could be convinced. But I do not believe that an effort to help the browns in Middle, for instance, will have any effect whatsoever on Elders. Because brookies aren't currently holding on in Elders due to a lack of browns in Middle. Middle already has browns, in enough numbers to seed Elders if Elders were open to being seeded.

It does not certainly have browns in it.
That is an assumption you are making based on what you believe to be true.😂

We could always just make the population well below expand into large moving trout and make sure it happens

 

[pcray1231]

In your previous post when you said "way up in there too", I didn't realize you were referring to above the falls on ____. I don't see how that's even possible, unless they were brought there? The three browns that I've caught were well downstream, closer to the mouth, which makes sense.

It wasn't above the main falls, but there are smaller falls below. Big bend hole, rock cliff, kinda separates lower from upper in my mind because it's where you hit if you come in from the top to fish the upper end, you know it. It was the run immediately below that hole, in sight of. First brown I've ever caught in that stream and I've fished it some, ran into you once! But I knew you had caught them before so I wasn't fully surprised, just surprised how high it was.

This was a 100ish fish day after 2+ inches of rain in August. Guy with me had a similar day. It was the only brown encountered, so 1 in 200ish on this day and probably closer to 1 in 1000 in my lifetime there. But I do not think he was a temporary resident that came up from the stream below, they're reproducing in there.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I disagree Pat.
One thing I've learned in business is to think ahead.

You yourself acknowledge trout populations are expanding and will continue to do so as things get cleaned up. Most of that expansion is brown trout.

Power plants release the majority of sulfur dioxide and much of the nitrogen oxides when they burn fossil fuels, such as coal, to produce electricity. In addition, the exhaust from cars, trucks, and buses releases nitrogen oxides and sulfur dioxide into the air. These pollutants cause acid rain.

Acid rain has been a buffer to protect brook trout, as an example. pH.

As the environmental push and shift from fossil fuels continue, we will lose brook trout streams.

Bank on it.
Especially if we proliferate moving brown trout without planning ahead.

Not all propagation is successful.

A few small trout trying to spawn may fail, or produce a crop that is very small and make a token population. I bunch of giant breeders can make a crop that tips the scale in a watershed.

It's a ticking time bomb to our state fish.

 

[wildtrout2]

It wasn't above the main falls, but there are smaller falls below. Big bend hole, rock cliff, kinda separates lower from upper in my mind because it's where you hit if you come in from the top to fish the upper end, you know it. It was the run immediately below that hole, in sight of. First brown I've ever caught in Jeans, and I've fished it some, ran into you once! But I knew you had caught them before so I wasn't fully surprised, just surprised how high it was.

Gotcha. You mean this cliff?

 

[pcray1231]

Gotcha. You mean this cliff?

Yes I do. Browny came from maybe 30 yards below the bottom of that hole.

 

[Mike]

Agree, but I don’t know of any physical barriers except the obvious ones where there are water supply reservoirs in the Mill Ck basin and the W Br basin, plus a private drive culvert near the mouth of a trib to the Schuylkill. I wasn’t including those streams in my thoughts when I said there are some allopatric populations. In some cases there may be some “chemical barriers” associated with acid precip and mining.

 

[Mike]

And don't forget the dufusses that will put browns back into streams where they've been removed because they like them better than brookies keeping in mind it WILL happen just like snakeheads...

Yep, and intentionally release carp, white perch, alewife, snakeheads, flatheads, and gizzard shad in lakes where none is prescribed. Keeping BT out of a fully reclaimed ST stream (BT removed) in Pa would be a pipe dream.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Yep, and release carp, white perch, alewife, snakeheads, and gizzard shad in lakes. Keeping BT out of a fully reclaimed ST stream (BT removed) in Pa would be a pipe dream.

I'm starting to think the same thing.

When I see comments from "conservationist", no less, talking about banking brook trout because they get annoyed with advocacy for them, I think it's a lost cause myself.

I understand the passion of people in the native camp can be annoying. I find the lack of passion in others equally annoying.
I never thought to myself though, I'm going to go bank all the BT I catch.

It's insanity. This division, lack of enthusiasm and down right distain of our state fish.

I truly at this moment, have no idea what to think about the PA fly fishing community and it's
ethics regarding our char.
If the support here is abysmal, they have no one.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I remember the diversion well on Devil's Race Course got tampered with when it was working and wild trout were expanding years ago. Talk was happening of working towards the removal of stocking on Stony. Then the we need stocked fish camp messed with the well.

I seem to remember this being told to me by more than a reliable source.

So how you guys intend to protect these giant browns?

My goodness I can't type today 🙄

 

[pcray1231]

SixfootFenwick:

My answers:

If a stream has 1000's of brook trout but a "small token population" of brown trout should we be thinking:

If there are no true allopatric watersheds, should we punt on the notion it's a brook trout stream?

No, we shouldn't. It's brook trout stream. Brook trout are doing well. The reason they are doing well in most cases is not lack of a brown trout source, though. It's that some characteristic of the stream favors an established brook trout population being dominant over a small brown trout population. We should abandon the thought that excluding browns is WHY they are doing well. Are the browns a threat? Yep. If something happens to these streams that favor browns, the browns are already sitting there poised to take over. We should see to it that the characteristics that favor brookies, stay. And yeah, I'm more than open to the debate about putting up a barrier and removing browns to remove that threat, if it's deemed feasible. But I see no reason to limit brown trout populations downstream, when a brown trout source is swimming at the bottom of our stream. The fear of brown trout population planters is somewhat misplaced, in that it already exists. Nothing has to invade, they're already there. And where they aren't already there, it's due to a barrier, so a better population below the barrier really has no effect.

Or should we be thinking:

Should we not try to keep their advantage in those watersheds?

Yes, of course.

Should we not even go as far as removal or harvest of the other species to keep their advantage?

Yes, in some circumstances. In general it's not going to work in larger, better connected waterways, and it'd be a fools errand to try. But in existing brook trout streams that are or could be isolated, with a high probability of successfully removing browns above the barrier and keeping them out, I'm certainly open to that. There is the question of whether it'd be good or bad for the existing brookie population, and that answer may depend on the individual circumstance. If the existing, already dominant brookie population is benefitting from access to the stream below, despite the brown trout, then that has to be weighed.

 

[JeffP]

No kidding, in every stream mentioned here, browns are rare. There's an awful lot of brookie streams you could fish 30 times and never catch a brown, then on the 31st time... Or a buddy catches one. There is a token brown trout population virtually everywhere.

That is not to say allopatric doesn't exist. There are circumstances where it happens. Namely, barriers, whether they be natural, man-made, chemical, or whatever. Brown trout exist in every major waterway in PA, and they travel, so without a barrier, the tribs of those waterways, and the tribs of the tribs, get the occasional brown trout. And aside from travellers, they seem to be able to have low level reproducing populations underneath vibrant brook trout populations. In cases where the physical habitat changes to favor browns, a brown trout population is already present in most cases. The exceptions are just that, exceptions, and the most typical reason is that the stream is completely isolated by a barrier.

The point of all of this. In the case of Elders. I don't think it matters whether Middle Creek, at the mouth of Elders, has large wild browns stacked like cordwood, or just the occasional passer by. Elders almost certainly already has browns in it. And there are 1000 other primarily brook trout streams in PA that have the same situation. If Elders, for instance, experienced say, siltation, which degrades the viability of brook trout more than brown trout, then the population of browns will increase. It does not lack population seeders, and the argument that you shouldn't help the browns downstream because it would create population seeders doesn't hold merit, because they are already there. Binary, they are or they aren't. And if they aren't, then they aren't because there's a barrier preventing it, in which case the population of browns below the barrier doesn't matter either.

I am a brook trout fan. I love them. I want to protect them. And if you say, hey, Elders needs to be protected from browns. Lets erect a barrier to prevent entry. Lets shock Elders to get any small population that exists out of there. I could be convinced. But I do not believe that an effort to help the browns in Middle, for instance, will have any effect whatsoever on Elders. Because brookies aren't currently holding on in Elders due to a lack of browns in Middle. Middle already has browns, in enough numbers to seed Elders if Elders were open to being seeded.

As for the barrier idea. It gets tricky. Is it better to have a barrier, and shock out the browns above, to prevent entry by brown trout? Or not to have a barrier in order to protect brook trout access to middle creek at certain times of the year? Brook trout are already winning in elders, maybe they'd be better served by having access to Middle? I don't know the answer to that. But I'm interested in it. And yeah, I'd side with whatever I think is best for the brookies in Elders. But if someone was trying to improve the situation for browns in Middle, I'm on their side too.

I honestly don't thing there are any wild browns (in Middle Creek) up that way. Having said that, I haven't really fished it much but between water temps and the geese crap and the look of the water, I would be surprised if there is anything more that the occasional stocker spawn. I think downstream the water quality is better due to all the limestone springs. Elders is so short, but I don't think the timbering upstream has helped much. I agree with you on helping browns on MC. There is a pretty good drop, but I'm sure fish have moved up. It's a shame the dam impacts upper Middle. That water from Elders up is just some beautiful, boulder-filled water.

 

[riverwhy]

I caught a brown out of Elders over 30 years ago. I think it was in the early season. It was a stocker and was just above the bridge on the lower trail which is only a very short distance from Middle. My guess is someone caught it below in Middle Creek (they used stock the bejesus out of it right at the confluence) and put it in the bridge pool and it moved up slightly. There was never even a pool there during normal flows. I was fishing after a rain event, so I guess it's possible it moved up. I remember there was always a root from a large pool that would create somewhat of a barrier right at the mouth.

 

[Oregon_OwlII]

I have wondered myself if the staff may feel as we do on stocking reform but has a professional defeatism or fear of reprisal take. Hold after what happened to John Arway over stocking? Do they fear they will be passed up for a better job if they keep raising the issue? These are the questions i often ask my self.

I think most staff at PFBC view the hatchery program as a jobs program. To be inside that organization and start pushing for mass reductions in stocking is to stab many of your fellow employees in the back, so it takes a certain amount of courage to attempt the conversation. It takes tremendous leadership at the top to make a much more comprehensive case that the PFBC needs to move away from stocking to habitat improvement on a prescribed but massive scale over X period of time. No jobs will be lost, but they will be converted to habitat improvement specialists. The angling public can expect that there will be as many or more fish in the state's streams as habitat improves. The implementation will be surgical (Slightly impaired waters at the top of the list, medium impaired waters next, and major impaired waters last. Continued stocking can occur in the last two categories until habitat improves significantly. They can even add some 'recreational stocking' to the list in ponds and lakes to appease the frightened. There would need to be a public campaign to sell all this. It would really be an extension of Operation Future, to obtain a condition where "every kid on a bicycle can go to his nearest stream and fish for wild native trout." Don't hold your breath expecting this to happen in the next 50 years, but leadership requires communicating vision. The PFBC is a long way from embracing and leading that vision.

 

[krayfish2]

They don't have to produce any less stockies. Just put them in different waters or at least ones without a good wild population. There's miles of marginal water that will hold trout into June. Also lots of ponds/lakes that may provide even longer season.