Challenge to all Trout Camps

[pcray1231]

Fishsticks, Jeans aint stocked. And there are dozens of hard barriers between it and the nearest place thats been stocked in about 50 years.

If I had to guess, that brown population is likely pushing 100 years old.

I think thats more common than not. I dont think the PFBC browns are very good at breeding, and their likelihood of starting lasting populations is low. I'm sure they produce a batch now and then but that line will typically die out, unless they can interbreed with existing wild poulations.

 

[Fish Sticks]

There is a concept called “biotic resistance” meaning not the stream itself but instead the organisms can deter invasion. Environmental resistance is when the stream, climate, or surrounding areas deter invasion(example floods when introduced non native species would spawn when there would not be floods where native). I have always suspected if what you just mentioned(trouble finding a mate) is part of that biotic resistance or part of why some streams with micro population of browns like the savage never experience species shift or extirpation. Or i did not know if it was direct competition or not regardless of spawning, i don’t think scientists do either. You guys talking about the skew of high brook trout to brown trout ratio on jeans made me think of two interesting publications I have read on this topic suggesting just such a density dependent biotic resistance. Its this principle of biotic resistance that makes me very curious and optimistic for some streams if the brown trout stocking simply stopped with no removal at all .

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/357133118_High_densities_of_conspecifics_buffer_native_fish_from_negative_interactions_with_an_ecologically_similar_invasive

https://www.montana.edu/mcmahon/Paradox%20book%20chapter.pdf

“Less traditional options for management of Brown Trout are promising and wor- thy of further study (Budy and Gaeta 2017). First, biotic resistance (Elton 1958), expressed as high density of native Cutthroat Trout, is the mechanism limiting ex- pansion and establishment of Brown Trout into upper headwaters of western U.S. streams. Although Brown Trout are unaffected by high density of native Cutthroat Trout, Cutthroat Trout performance increases with increasing density of conspecific species. Therefore, if Cutthroat Trout density is high enough, Brown Trout may not be able to expand, which is promising for native fish management, The potential for biotic resistance suggests that shifting the balance of predominance back to native fish may be sufficient, rather than trying to eradicate Brown Trout. Second, nonna- tive Brown Trout have difficulty passing American beaver Castor canadensis dams that do not impede native Cutthroat Trout (Lokteff et al. 2013). This presents a poten- tially promising management option for passive stream restoration across the western United States (e.g., Pollock et al. 2015), as beaver dam densities increase in the future. Third, natural large-scale wildfire can be used to reset native trout stream ecosystems (Chapter 18). After a fire that may kill many of the Brown Trout present, any surviving Brown Trout can be removed and streams restocked with native trout. In such cases, fire can help with public support because public agencies are not directly responsible for removing Brown Trout, but they provide the means to reestablish fishing opportu- nities with native trout in a postfire environment. In the western United States, more than 80% of anglers do not prefer Brown Trout to other trout as long as they can fish in a mountain stream to catch trout (Budy and Gaeta 2017). This general angler at- titude enables Brown Trout removal in conjunction with native trout conservation (Saunders et al. 2014).”

Fishsticks, Jeans aint stocked. And there are dozens of hard barriers between it and the nearest place thats been stocked in about 50 years.

If I had to guess, that brown population is likely pushing 100 years old.

I think thats more common than not.

Oh I Know its not stocked I was talking about just the general concept of biotic resistance(possibly at work in jeans and why that tiny population has been unsuccessful in taking over if it is that old) application in other streams if ever taken off the list.

You guys just reminded me of the concept by talking about the skew towards brook trout in Jeans.

 

[pcray1231]

I think the large majority of "brook trout" streams in this state have long existing low level populations of brown trout, including many of the ones the science papers call allopatric.

(I did not say ALL)

And the reason browns don't take them over is that the stream characteristics are more suited to brook trout. If you removed the brookies, added browns, they might take off. But then if you let in brookies on top of an existing brown population, brook trout would take over.

Which species is dominant depends on the stream.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I think the large majority of "brook trout" streams in this state have long existing low level populations of brown trout, including many of the ones the science papers call allopatric.

(I did not say ALL)

And the reason browns don't take them over is that the stream characteristics are more suited to brook trout. If you removed the brookies, added browns, they might take off. But then if you let in brookies on top of an existing brown population, brook trout would take over.

Which species is dominant depends on the stream.

I spoke with Dr. Kurt Fausch last month about this topic. And that name probably doesn’t mean anything to anyone on here but if Fausch and Dr. Yochiro Kanno don’t know what causes a species to invade and dominate no one on PA fly fish does either lol

This is still a research gap with studies like Phaedra Budys c and p’d above as supportive of one mechanism partially contributing but no one has this figured out.

 

[pcray1231]

I come from a long line of outdoorsmen and know what I've seen and heard. I will fish a stream for years, never catch a brown. Then I catch one. In a place they couldn't have gotten to. Fearing a takeover. I will tell a friend, or a relative, to find out that 50 years ago someone I know caught a brown there too. In some cases they were brown trout streams after logging or something of thevsort and flipped to brookies as the forest grew.

At one point I had a large list of streams where I'd never caught a brown and I suspected might be brown trout free. The majority of those have been disproven by myself or someone I know.

I've seen only a few streams named as allopatric by the PFBC or in science papers. They keep it pretty close to the vest, and dont normally name them. But in the cases where I have seen stream names called allopatric, I know from first hand knowledge they are NOT allopatric. And that makes you kinda think its likely many of those streams they are studying and forming theories on are not actually allopatric, you know?

I'm not dumb. I am not a biologist, but have a bachelors in physics, master of science in Materials Science, minor in statistics. I know how to read a scientific paper. And also know that an awful lot of papers are written, and theories formed, based on bad data. Myself, Swattie, WT2, etc have spent as much or more time studying small trout streams in PA than most professors, and far more than the graduate students who write many of those papers, and must publish to keep the $$$ coming. I love reading papers and take a lit from them, I'm not claiming the researchers are dumb or dishonest. But I read every paper with a healthy dose of skepticism, ask if it makes sense compared to what I already know, abd I have been trained to do that.

The invasion happened 100 years ago. Aside from a few isolated streams that nobody backpacked fry up way back then, browns are already present just about everywhere. Some streams flipped to browns then. Some were more suited to brookies and they remained dominant. Streams change in time, so some will flip as time moves on. What factors make 1 species more suited? We know some of them. Gradient, size, elevation, pH and alkalinity, water temp. But streams still fool us sometimes, yeah.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I come from a long line of outdoorsmen and know what I've seen and heard. I will fish a stream for years, never catch a brown. Then I catch one. In a place they couldn't have gotten to. Fearing a takeover. I will tell a friend, or a relative, to find out that 50 years ago someone I know caught a brown there too. In some cases they were brown trout streams after logging or something of thevsort and flipped to brookies as the forest grew.

At one point I had a large list of streams where I'd never caught a brookie and I suspected might be brown trout free. The majority of those have been disproven by myself or someone I know.

I've seen only a few streams named as allopatric by the PFBC or in science papers. They keep it pretty close to the vest, and dont normally name them. But in the cases where I have seen stream names called allopatric, I know from first hand knowledge they are NOT allopatric. And that makes you kinda think its likely many of those streams they are studying and forming theories on are not actually allopatric, you know?

I'm not dumb. I am not a biologist, but have a bachelors in physics, master of science in Materials Science, minor in statistics. I know how to read a scientific paper. And also know that an awful lot of papers are written, and theories formed, based on bad data. Myself, Swattie, WT2, etc have spent as much or more time studying small trout streams in PA than most professors.

Not implying anyone here is not intelligent just saying no one here is really professionally qualified to evaluate these studies or make their own independent assessment. Thats why I talk to the authors or the authors peers to get context before I do science communication with whats published in most cases, i am not qualified to evaluate these things wither. I have nothing original to share its all people smarter than me i am just a vehicle for their findings to hopefully reach more of the public. I don’t create any of it and its not my idea.

 

[Mike]

FWIW the two Tigers I’ve personally caught did not come from predominantly Brookie streams, with a small token Brown population. I have the survey data on both. One was almost exactly 50/50 by biomass, which does suggest more Brookies by numbers, when accounting for the typical size differences between the species in a small freestone environment. The second is roughly 90/10 Browns by biomass. At least when they were last surveyed, understanding that these figures fluctuate. But I would consider the first a mixed stream, and the second a Brown Trout stream, if asked to describe them.

Though, I don’t disagree with your point Pat. Most of the Tigers I know caught by friends do come from Brook Trout dominant streams, and my experience seems a bit of an outlier.

I wouldn’t say it’s an outlier. Those 4 sampling sites where my crews found tigers in 42 yrs of sampling were as follows within the representative sampling sites: very predominantly or entirely brown, essentially entirely brook (1 BT fing on occasion), entirely brook, and entirely brown ( upstream trib supposedly had a small ST population).

 

[Swattie87]

The more I think about this, the places, based on my angling experiences, where I think allopatric populations are possible (or most likely to be possible) have BOTH chemical and physical barriers.

That is to say that Browns (if ever present at some point in history) were removed via the events that have formed the chemical barrier - AMD or acid rain deposition coupled with poor buffering geology, or were never present at all. And Brookies survived the conditions creating the chemical barrier via their higher tolerance for acidity.

AND the presence of a physical barrier now keeps Browns from populating (or re-populating) above the physical barrier, as the chemical barrier conditions have abated or lessened in many cases to a
point where Browns could survive now.

One of these two conditions creates the possibility, but BOTH being present makes it much more likely IMO. If your goal is true allopatric populations = 0 Browns with no access for Browns to get in, this is where I’d focus efforts on ensuring Browns don’t get into these places via stocking, bucket biologists, etc.

 

[Mike]

Fishsticks, Jeans aint stocked. And there are dozens of hard barriers between it and the nearest place thats been stocked in about 50 years.

If I had to guess, that brown population is likely pushing 100 years old.

I think thats more common than not. I dont think the PFBC browns are very good at breeding, and their likelihood of starting lasting populations is low. I'm sure they produce a batch now and then but that line will typically die out, unless they can interbreed with existing wild poulations.

What is the basis for the opinion which starts with the second sentence in your last paragraph?

 

[pcray1231]

What is the basis for the opinion which starts with the second sentence in your last paragraph?

Reading records of the challenges in the early hatchery scene, which were mostly in the upper midwest, and the struggles they had in getting them to feed, not kill themselves by running into the raceway walls, and tolerate crowded conditions. Single digit survival rates. And it wasn't learned behavior, it was genetic, as they could hatch fry from eggs and have the same issues. It wasnt until collaboration of multiple states, mixing and matching the most successful strains, and many generations of selective breeding that success was reached.

Reading articles and books in this fair state about before we had hatcheries (PA was late to the scene), how shipments of eggs were recieved from Europe, hatched, and transported by train cars, with people with backpacks waiting at the stations for fry and schlepping them up to the headwaters of their favorite streams. Similar to what they do, in, for example Switzerland and Austria today. Which I know from personal experience. Of PA articles from the 1920's-1940's lamenting the takeover of our streams by brown trout in that time frame, including many mountain streams.

And back to those midwestern states, in more modern times, well after successful hatchery strains were developed, how those states attempted and failed to seed streams with hatchery stock. And found more success by transporting eggs from neighboring wild stock.

It's a guess. Admittedly. But a relatively educated one. No doubt at all that yes, modern hatchery trout reproduce. The degree to which they contribute long term to the genetic makeup of wild stock is unknown. I dont claim its zero. But I think its probably low, with an exception or 2 here and there.

 

[silverfox]

In a presentation about some streams in VA and WV, the topic of tiger trout came up. The VA manager said that in all their surveys, they've never found a single tiger trout in a few fairly mixed populations. The WV manager said they found a few in WV, and it seemed that they were more likely to occur in fairly evenly mixed populations.

I know of a few truly allopatric brook trout populations. On one, stocking ended about 20 years ago in both the stream and the receiving stream it flows into (the entire area, actually). It's fairly infertile and does trend more on the inert side in terms of geology, but it also has several limestone outcroppings, and one of the tributaries goes subterranean for a good stretch before emerging again and feeding the stream that used to be stocked. It's not that dissimilar from other streams in the area that have been and continue to be stocked and support wild brown trout. The pH, CA, dGH, average temperatures, gradient, etc. etc. etc. are all well within the preferred range for brown trout. It even has a spur that serviced a now-defunct grist mill and is somewhat convenient to a few significant transportation routes. I don't know whether anything in that system ever had a population of brown trout, but I seriously doubt it. Regardless, they aren't there now.

The others are all above large municipal water supply impoundments. The peculiar thing with impoundments is that they're relatively "new" compared to the practice of trout stocking. How is it that we supposedly reached every headwater trickle in the state with horses, backpacks, and train cars in our mission to spread a species, but streams with barriers built in the 1950s-1980s don't have them above the impoundments (in some cases)? You'd think a species originating from areas where their life history involves potamodry in systems with stillwater and tributaries that feed them would thrive in those systems. Assuming they were present above the impoundment prior to it being built.

 

[pcray1231]

How is it that we supposedly reached every headwater trickle in the state with horses, backpacks, and train cars in our mission to spread a species, but streams with barriers built in the 1950s-1980s don't have them above the impoundments (in some cases)?

That's just it, I'm sure we didn't hit every one. There was no real accounting of where we did hit.

At this train stop maybe you had a fairly thorough group of guys who truly hit every trickle in their attempts, and at this next train stop the receiving people were less ambitious and did fewer streams or didn't go as high. As Swattie said, in a lot of cases maybe you did have browns, and they died out completely, and now the barrier prevents re-entry. A whole lot has happened on a lot of these streams in 100 years. And there were grist mills, jack dams and the like back then too. Jack dams were the stated reason why the schleppers targeted the upper ends, they feared if they didn't the fish wouldn't get up there, and there were jack dams everywhere. So just because the current barrier wasn't erected until 1950 something doesn't mean no barrier existed.

It's a mish mash. I'm not claiming zero streams are truly allopatric. But I'm saying it's less than most think, including many of the researchers who are conducting studies on streams assumed to be allopatric and some of them actually aren't. Shocking a stream section isn't even a reliable way to tell, you have to shock long portions, the browns can be less than 1% of the fish...

While I believe this to be true, it also gives me a little comfort. There are brown trout streams that have flipped back to brookies. There are hundreds or even thousands of streams that already have browns, and yet brook trout remain dominant for various reasons. Yes, brown trout have taken over many of our waterways, especially our limestoners and larger, valley waterways, and confined brookies to the headwaters in many systems. Yes, that's bad. But at the same time, brookies aren't just hanging by a thread in many of the strongholds, about to lose for good if a brown ever wonders in. They are superior in those places.

 

[silverfox]

That's just it, I'm sure we didn't hit every one. There was no real accounting of where we did hit.

At this train stop maybe you had a fairly thorough group of guys who truly hit every trickle in their attempts, and at this next train stop the receiving people were less ambitious. As Swattie said, in a lot of cases maybe you did have browns, and they died out completely, and now the barrier prevents re-entry. A whole lot has happened on a lot of these streams in 100 years. And there were grist mills, jack dams and the like back then too. Jack dams were the stated reason why the schleppers targeted the upper ends, they feared if they didn't the fish wouldn't get up there. So just because the current barrier wasn't erected until 1950 something doesn't mean no barrier existed.

It's a mish mash. I'm not claiming zero streams are truly allopatric. But I'm saying it's less than most think, including many of the researchers who are conducting studies on streams assumed to be allopatric and some of them actually aren't. Shocking a stream section isn't even a reliable way to tell, you have to shock long portions, the browns can be less than 1% of the fish...

I agree. Overall it's a good point that with the diverse aquatic resources in this state, there are no blanket rules.

I also agree about what's perceived to be allopatric and what's not. Especially where algorithms determined the probability that the subwatershed is allopatric.

So that means that the baselines used to establish our brook trout inventory are likely overinflated, and the situation may be worse than most admit. It also means that goals to increase allopatric populations are lower than they should be. What's concerning about that is that we're already said to have lost more than any other state in our region. Which reinforces that we should be doing more than the other states. Which is what this is all about.

 

[pcray1231]

So that means that the baselines used to establish our brook trout inventory are likely overinflated

If a stream is 99% brookies and 1% browns, it's a brook trout stream. It shouldn't be excluded from the inventory. And it isn't lost. The inventory sees these as "degraded", but I don't think that's the case at all. I can't hold a straight face and say that the rare brown trout in such places is in any way holding down the brook trout population. Jeans was mentioned here, it's just a stand in for 2000 other brook trout streams. Does anyone really think the brookie population is unhealthy there? They're big, healthy well fed fish, and on a bad day you can catch 40, on a good day you can net 100, all age classes, and every single little pool has a bunch of them. There's virtually nil siltation, the entire stream is scree, half the flow is underground, and there's solid holding water in both droughts and floods, and it's mostly on protected public land. So 1 in 500 fish or so is a brown. It remains brookies despite that, brookies are WINNING! That's gold Jerry. Gold!

There's value in protecting the brook trout holdout, that's on the precipice of flipping to browns. The ones in high danger, that "want" to become brown trout streams, and where any little hiccup will end in that outcome. Absolutely. And that may involve removal in some instances, erecting barriers, etc. But our long term outlook is probably NOT good in those places. You gotta try.

On the other ones. And this is the MAJORITY. Where brown trout already exist but the stream remains dominated by brookies anyway. Streams that "want" to be brook trout streams. IMO, these streams are just as, if not more valuable. They're resilient. The presence of browns has been there for 50-100 years and yet the brookies continue to thrive. For the long term outlook of brook trout, these are your gold. The conservation focus has to be a little different. Instead of focusing on barring entry to brown trout, removing any brown trout that are present. We should instead pay attention to what makes them brook trout habitat, and keep it that way. Siltation, pH, gradient, temperature, forest type, groundwater (which is naturally limited in many, but still far better than yards or parking lots). In the case of pH and alkalinity, even what is normally viewed as improvement could be detrimental, we need to be mindful of that. As far as threats. Land use and urbanization. Drilling (mostly due to the surface disturbance of building pads, I think). Logging practices. Hemlock Woolly Adelgid.

That's why I didn't like the 4th down and punt analogy. On removal of browns, barring entry, making them 100% allopatric. Yes, on most of them, punt. But does that mean to give up on the stream? Absolutely not. Those are your most important ones. The money in the bank. Protect the streams!!! And you'll find lots of help from the "brown trout people." Aside from the fact that they want to see brookies continue to thrive too, those are also the waterways that feed the brown trout streams.

 

[wildtrout2]

Other than the tiger I got on Jeans (May 2009), which I finally understand, I'm still trying to figure out what happened to the overall size of the natives in Jeans since I first started fishing it in 2009? Especially, considering that harvest was never thought to be an issue on Jeans. In both 2009 and 2010, I caught some surprisingly big natives.

On one particular day in 2009 I caught a 10.5", 11", and 12.5" brookie on Jeans. I only caught 12 trout that day. On another day the following year (2010), I caught a 9", 10", two 11", and my biggest to date native at 13.5". I also only caught 12 trout on that day. But, it was still my very best day native fishing, ever.

I've fished jeans 43 times since then (per my records) and I can say with certainty that those size fish are just not there like they were. Sure, I'll get the occasional 10" or 11" brookie, but nothing like what it was. Not even close. Any ideas on why the overall size has diminished on Jeans?

 

[pcray1231]

I haven't noticed the (average) size diminish there. You've fished it more than me, I probably have on the order of 10 lifetime trips. I catch a few dinks, a very healthy number in the 7-10 range, and a couple of 10-12 inch types. And they are well fed and fat.

Generally speaking, in the absence of harvest, average size and abundance are an inverse relationship in most species of fish (and game for that matter). If you get a population spike, the average size goes down. If you get a kill event, it's followed a year or two later by larger than typical size. Jeans is pretty drought resistant, but I could see floods killing a portion of the fish. And it can also be things like the flow rate at breeding time, a temperature spike or cold snap at the exact wrong time, etc.

 

[Mike]

I haven't noticed the (average) size diminish there. You've fished it more than me, I probably have on the order of 10 lifetime trips. I catch a few dinks, a very healthy number in the 7-10 range, and a couple of 10-12 inch types. And they are well fed and fat.

Generally speaking, in the absence of harvest, average size and abundance are an inverse relationship in most species of fish (and game for that matter). If you get a population spike, the average size goes down. If you get a kill event, it's followed a year or two later by larger than typical size. Jeans is pretty drought resistant, but I could see floods killing a portion of the fish. And it can also be things like the flow rate at breeding time, a temperature spike or cold snap at the exact wrong time, etc.

Correct regarding the inverse relationship between density and growth in trout. As I have mentioned at other times, Wisconsin’s entire wild trout stream database was examined for the ST and BT density vs avg length relationship. For both species using each stream’s population as an independent unit in the calculation, as density increased avg length decreased.

One can even extend that relationship to some other fish species, Susquehanna Smallmouth for example. Look how fast the SMB grew following the substantial YOY mortalities from disease in 2005 and for a time thereafter. By 2008 or 2009 the remaining SMB were a year ahead in their adult growth rates, achieving 15 inches in 3.5 yrs rather than 4.5 yrs.

 

[Stenonema]

Correct regarding the inverse relationship between density and growth in trout. As I have mentioned at other times, Wisconsin’s entire wild trout stream database was examined for the ST and BT density vs avg length relationship. For both species using each stream’s population as an independent unit in the calculation, as density increased avg length decreased.

One can even extend that relationship to some other fish species, Susquehanna Smallmouth for example. Look how fast the SMB grew following the substantial YOY mortalities from disease in 2005 and for a time thereafter. By 2008 or 2009 the remaining SMB were a year ahead in their adult growth rates, achieving 15 inches in 3.5 yrs rather than 4.5 yrs.

I like to define stocking as a sudden un-natural population density increase that often surpasses the natural carrying capacity of the stream.
I think it is widely accepted that the result of a higher population results in a smaller average size. The consensus appears to be that the result of competition for resources is causation for smaller average sizes. I question this. The brown trout is not a victim of change in my mind it is the master of change. In the case of population density surpassing the natural carrying capacity I believe the fish change and make the beneficial adaptation for survival of the species by maturing at a smaller size and younger age as a result. In my mind if they were not fluid in their ability to do these and were dependent on the natural selection process to come to a more balanced mass they would become extinct.
At the least I believe this could be an important study.

 

[CRB]

Other than the tiger I got on Jeans (May 2009), which I finally understand, I'm still trying to figure out what happened to the overall size of the natives in Jeans since I first started fishing it in 2009? Especially, considering that harvest was never thought to be an issue on Jeans. In both 2009 and 2010, I caught some surprisingly big natives.

On one particular day in 2009 I caught a 10.5", 11", and 12.5" brookie on Jeans. I only caught 12 trout that day. On another day the following year (2010), I caught a 9", 10", two 11", and my biggest to date native at 13.5". I also only caught 12 trout on that day. But, it was still my very best day native fishing, ever.

I've fished jeans 43 times since then (per my records) and I can say with certainty that those size fish are just not there like they were. Sure, I'll get the occasional 10" or 11" brookie, but nothing like what it was. Not even close. Any ideas on why the overall size has diminished on Jeans?

Jeans Run, located in Carbon County supports a widely fluctuating native brook trout population. In 2006, the wild brook trout population fell from the state’s upper third of freestone brook trout streams category (36 – 45 trout seven inches or longer per mile) with an estimated abundance of 11 brook trout per mile greater than or equal to seven inches in length. This stream is subject to adverse conditions due to acidification during the spring runoff period.

Jeans Run – Carbon County Limits: 2.5 miles of stream within SGL 141 Nearest Town and Receiving Water: Nesquehoning Borough and Nesquehoning Creek​
Survey Year​	Total Number Caught​	Size Range (inches)​	Estimated Number of Trout 7 inches or longer per mile​	Estimated Number of Trout 9 inches or greater per mile​
2006​	144​	2-7​	11​	0​
2004​	192​	2-7​	43​	0​
1993​	127​	2-7​	5​	0​
1992​	136​	2-10​	47​	42​

 

[silverfox]

What ecological role does forcing a system into a population dominated by fewer, larger individuals play? Does the feeding preference difference between larger and smaller (or different species) salmonids have an impact on baitfish populations and then subsequent year class size distribution?

If you have a few years of low-density biomass dominated by larger individuals, could their impact on the baitfish (and juvenile trout) population play a role in why subsequent year classes remain smaller? Do the same environmental conditions that negatively impact salmonids also negatively impact baitfish populations? Could the combination of classes dominated by larger individuals coupled with environmental conditions (floods, acid precipitation, droughts etc.) and the resulting impact on the baitfish community play a role in changes in average trout size?

I think it's obvious why anglers want more bigger fish, but is that what's best for the fish? The ecosystem? Is bigger always better?