Creating your own trout stream

[foxfire]

Great read!! Grew up in BP and learned to fly fish at Mingo! Current main residence is Jefferson. Obviously aware of Peter's but wasn't aware of it's cold water/hold-over capabilities. The south hills best kept secret!!

 

[greenghost]

Cool stuff. Actually, a very optimistic post on the future of trout fishing. I wonder how many more overlooked streams out there can hold fish and produce a self-sustaining population of trout--browns, rainbows or brookies? Maybe many streams a currently borderline. Perhaps all it would take is enhancing habitat, riparian zones, stream devices to improve flow and cover?

One question. What are the legalities of stocking, enhancing, and basically creating a new fishery? Are there restrictions? Or is it simply a matter of owning the property and simply doing what you feel is necessary?

 

[lycoflyfisher]

I would recommend stocking wild fish from an adjacent watershed prior to attempting to stock trout in hopes of establishing a wild population. In Pa, if the water is clean and temps are cool enough there are typically trout somewhere in the stream. If there aren't trout, its often due to lacking water quality, or a physical or chemical barrier that prevents wild fish from accessing the cold water.

 

[DanL]

Great read and one of the most interesting projects I've read in a while! Congrats on your success.

On a side note, I live about 15 minutes from Peters Creek for the last 5 or 6 years or so, and still have never fished it. I need to quit being lazy and try it out once water levels get back up.

 

[ryansheehan]

Awesome! Any chance you could post a few pictures?

 

[Dave_W]

Agree - this is fascinating.

I'll second Ryan's request for some pics (if this is okay with you).

Please keep us informed of this project going forward. We would enjoy hearing about your future observations and what's happening.

 

[laszlo]

I want a wild brown trout stream on my property too

 

[skybay]

Such a great post

 

[ebair25]

Awesome project, always been a goal in life to manage a stream.

On a side note, you might have some interest in getting in contact with WVU.

It's been over 10 years since I went through their fisheries program but there were always some GA's working on diverse projects. Yes, the state manages to the truck chasers but there was plenty of behind the scenes happenings.

Never followed up to see what happened to the project, but there was work on a genetic strain of temperature resistant rainbows. Each age class of fish was being exposed to a simulated temperature shock. From what I can remember up into the high 70's, those that survived went back into the reproduction pool.

 

[mickey]

It is interesting that so many think that this is a great thing. I often see the concern for the spreading snakehead (invasive species) but planting another invasive (brown trout) is seen as good. Just food for thought.

 

[moon1284]

Brown trout aren't considered invasive species in PA or pretty much anywhere else in North America.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/invasive.html

 

[salmonoid]

moon1284 wrote:
Brown trout aren't considered invasive species in PA or pretty much anywhere else in North America.

https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/facts/invasive.html

I'm not sure how you came to the conclusion from that video that brown trout aren't considered invasive species in PA or NA.

"Invasive species are capable of causing extinctions of native plants and animals, reducing biodiversity, competing with native organisms for limited resources, and altering habitats. This can result in huge economic impacts and fundamental disruptions of coastal and Great Lakes ecosystems."

From the perspective of a brook trout, they are definitely invasive species. Maybe from the human angler perspective, they are a desired, naturalized citizen, but for PA coldwater ecosystems, they are definitely a disruption and would most definitely be considered an invasive.

 

[moon1284]

I didnt watch the video. Brown trout are not an invasive species in North America throughout the vast majority of their range. They are an introduced species. I'll stand corrected if someone can cite sources from any state or federal agency that declare brown trout an invasive species.

The term invasive species is thrown around way too much. There is a difference between an invasive species and an introduced species.

I'm not an ST expert by any stretch but destruction of habitat has hurt brook trout much more than the introduction of brown trout.

 

[jifigz]

Brown trout are 100% invasive. It is only your more favorable opinion of BT's over Snakeheads that makes your opinion of them better, I assume.

 

[Swattie87]

Brook Trout are actually really good at reclaiming previously lost habitats, and quite honestly they’re well suited to it, if given the chance. Lots of headwater Brook Trout streams were destroyed by deforestation and/or coal mining over the last 200 years. Brook Trout have reclaimed many of the headwater habitats, and in many of the situations where they haven’t, the reason is no longer water quality/temperature issues…It’s that there’s Brown Trout there. Where they are both present (with the exception of very acidic, borderline life sustaining water) Brown Trout will outcompete Brook Trout. They grow faster, and attain predatory size much quicker and more often than Brook Trout, in an equitable environment.

You have to look no further than AMD recovery streams. Without exception, they are repopulated by Brook Trout first. Brook Trout survived somehow, somewhere in the watershed, and Brook Trout have a better low PH tolerance than Brown Trout, and there’s a narrow window where Brook Trout can survive and reproduce where Brown Trout can’t. The Brook Trout start moving about the watershed as water quality allows and begin to repopulate it. There are many "dead" streams that actually have one fish species present in them that people don't know about...Brook Trout. Part of the PFBC's current initiative is to identify these streams. Sometimes there are NO aquatic insects in these streams, but there's Brook Trout...I assume they survive solely on terrestrials and each other. :-o Once the watershed recovers to a stable PH that can sustain Brown Trout…Poof, they start showing up and over time displace the Brookies. 20 or 30 years later you have a mostly Brown Trout fishery with a few Brookies relegated to the far upstream (most acidic) headwaters and/or near mine discharges.

If Brown Trout were never introduced into PA, you’d see more Brook Trout in places where there are Brown Trout now. Bottom line. Brown Trout are 100% invasive. That being said, like most of us, I too like them, and like to catch them. They’re here to stay and there’s no way we can remove them at this point. Might as well enjoy them where they are established AND protect/prevent them from getting into places and watersheds where they are not.

Edit: I understand the distinction between introduced and invasive...But it's based on societal perception of the species. If people like them, they're introduced. If people don't, they're invasive. From a biological perspective though, if they're not native, they're invasive. Period.

The Brown Trout vs. Snakehead analogy is an accurate one. Smallmouth Bass vs. Flathead Catfish (in the Susky drainage where neither was native) is another. Societal perception can change over time too. If Snakeheads and Flatheads win over the hearts and minds of the angling public (and they've already started to), they can become seen as introduced, and not invasive. Just keep in mind, that their strategy for winning over the hearts and minds of anglers is to displace other species, and become the only game in town...Ironically, the same strategy of the beloved Brown Trout...

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Great rundown Swattie. Brown Trout are without a doubt here to stay, however, I would encourage anyone who is looking to do something similar to the OP to consider the introducing brook trout first. One big point of consideration is that fewer hatcheries are raising brook trout and hatchery brook trout genetics are not very conducive to establishing wild populations. furthermore, there could be issues with relocating brook trout from a wild stream several counties away, ie gill lice or other parasites/ diseases. It may be worth your time to reach out to your PFBC Area Fisheries Manager and perhaps they will have insight on how to best accomplish your management goals.

 

[afishinado]

Swattie87 wrote:
Brook Trout are actually really good at reclaiming previously lost habitats, and quite honestly they’re well suited to it, if given the chance. Lots of headwater Brook Trout streams were destroyed by deforestation and/or coal mining over the last 200 years. Brook Trout have reclaimed many of the headwater habitats, and in many of the situations where they haven’t, the reason is no longer water quality/temperature issues…It’s that there’s Brown Trout there. Where they are both present (with the exception of very acidic, borderline life sustaining water) Brown Trout will outcompete Brook Trout. They grow faster, and attain predatory size much quicker and more often than Brook Trout, in an equitable environment.

You have to look no further than AMD recovery streams. Without exception, they are repopulated by Brook Trout first. Brook Trout survived somehow, somewhere in the watershed, and Brook Trout have a better low PH tolerance than Brown Trout, and there’s a narrow window where Brook Trout can survive and reproduce where Brown Trout can’t. The Brook Trout start moving about the watershed as water quality allows and begin to repopulate it. There are many "dead" streams that actually have one fish species present in them that people don't know about...Brook Trout. Part of the PFBC's current initiative is to identify these streams. Sometimes there are NO aquatic insects in these streams, but there's Brook Trout...I assume they survive solely on terrestrials and each other. :-o Once the watershed recovers to a stable PH that can sustain Brown Trout…Poof, they start showing up and over time displace the Brookies. 20 or 30 years later you have a mostly Brown Trout fishery with a few Brookies relegated to the far upstream (most acidic) headwaters and/or near mine discharges.

If Brown Trout were never introduced into PA, you’d see more Brook Trout in places where there are Brown Trout now. Bottom line. Brown Trout are 100% invasive. That being said, like most of us, I too like them, and like to catch them. They’re here to stay and there’s no way we can remove them at this point. Might as well enjoy them where they are established AND protect/prevent them from getting into places and watersheds where they are not.

Edit: I understand the distinction between introduced and invasive...But it's based on societal perception of the species. If people like them, they're introduced. If people don't, they're invasive. From a biological perspective though, if they're not native, they're invasive. Period.

The Brown Trout vs. Snakehead analogy is an accurate one. Smallmouth Bass vs. Flathead Catfish (in the Susky drainage where neither was native) is another. Societal perception can change over time too. If Snakeheads and Flatheads win over the hearts and minds of the angling public (and they've already started to), they can become seen as introduced, and not invasive. Just keep in mind, that their strategy for winning over the hearts and minds of anglers is to displace other species, and become the only game in town...Ironically, the same strategy of the beloved Brown Trout...

^ Interesting perspective on invasive species.

I agree with most of it.

But this statement ("From a biological perspective though, if they're not native, they're invasive. Period.") is not exactly true.

There are native species, introduced non-native species in which their introduction has no negative impact on the ecosystem, and invasive species which are a non-native introduced species and do have a negative impact on the ecosystem.

By the definition above, brown trout are an invasive species in PA because they pretty much displaced many of the PA streams habited by native brook trout.

But smallmouth bass, which are native to the Allegheny river system in PA but were absent in the Susquehanna drainage are not an invasive species. Their introduction from one PA river system to a neighboring one did not harm the ecosystem.

The jury is still out on snakeheads. They very well may take up a small niche in our lakes and rivers and not have a negative effect on species currently present...or not! No one really knows at this point (besides Fred that is).

But those that argue since brown trout are invasive we should embrace the spread of snakeheads in PA are wrong. Two wrongs never make a right.

 

[salmonoid]

moon1284 wrote:
I didnt watch the video. Brown trout are not an invasive species in North America throughout the vast majority of their range. They are an introduced species. I'll stand corrected if someone can cite sources from any state or federal agency that declare brown trout an invasive species.

The term invasive species is thrown around way too much. There is a difference between an invasive species and an introduced species.

I'm not an ST expert by any stretch but destruction of habitat has hurt brook trout much more than the introduction of brown trout.

When an introduced species eats the native species, it's invasive. I posted half the transcript from the video link you posted, from a federal agency. The very definition of invasive puts the brown trout under that umbrella. But please do provide your explanation for why there is a difference between an invasive species and an introduced species.

No argument from me that habitat loss hasn't helped ST in PA, but that does not negate the fact that there has been loss caused by pressure from non-native salmonids.

It's not too hard to find agencies that view browns as invasive, here and around the world.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/news/local/arizona-environment/2019/10/14/heres-how-national-park-service-plans-cut-invasive-brown-trout/3948851002/

Not specific to browns, but demonstrating the effects that the introduction of non-native trout to any environment where they were not..

https://www.fs.fed.us/research/invasive-species/fish-aquatic/nonnative-trout.php

Different side of the pond:

https://www.nies.go.jp/biodiversity/invasive/DB/detail/50180e.html

International view:

http://www.iucngisd.org/gisd/species.php?sc=78

Affects of "introduced" AKA invasive browns on ST:

https://www.usgs.gov/news/usgs-study-reveals-interactive-effects-climate-change-invasive-species-native-fish

 

[Swattie87]

afishinado wrote:

But smallmouth bass, which are native to the Allegheny river system in PA but were absent in the Susquehanna drainage are not an invasive species. Their introduction from one PA river system to a neighboring one did not harm the ecosystem.

I know we're largely on the same page here, and focusing on some rather fine details, but I'm not sure I understand the distinction with SMB in the Susky. How does one define "did not harm the ecosystem," I guess?

Did SMB have ZERO impact on the native Susky watershed species that would have occupied a similar niche in the ecosystem? Fallfish and Redbreast Sunfish would be the two obvious ones that would come to my mind first, but there may be others. I know both are still present in the Susky system, but were they not "harmed" by the presence of SMB? Tough to quantify probably, but I stuggle to think they weren't, given that SMB are superior predators to both of them and have numerous advantages in size, mouth size, etc.

Don't get me wrong, the SMB is a superior sport fish to both, and I'm not looking for reasons to disagree, but their presence from a biological perspective has to have an impact, I would think. And I would interpret ANY impact to a native species by a non-native species, even if it didn't go to the extreme of the native species being extirpated, as "harm to the ecosystem."

 

[afishinado]

Swattie87 wrote:

afishinado wrote:

But smallmouth bass, which are native to the Allegheny river system in PA but were absent in the Susquehanna drainage are not an invasive species. Their introduction from one PA river system to a neighboring one did not harm the ecosystem.

I know we're largely on the same page here, and focusing on some rather fine details, but I'm not sure I understand the distinction with SMB in the Susky. How does one define "did not harm the ecosystem," I guess?

Did SMB have ZERO impact on the native Susky watershed species that would have occupied a similar niche in the ecosystem? Fallfish and Redbreast Sunfish would be the two obvious ones that would come to my mind first, but there may be others. I know both are still present in the Susky system, but were they not "harmed" by the presence of SMB? Tough to quantify probably, but I stuggle to think they weren't, given that SMB are superior predators to both of them and have numerous advantages in size, mouth size, etc.

Don't get me wrong, the SMB is a superior sport fish to both, and I'm not looking for reasons to disagree, but their presence from a biological perspective has to have an impact, I would think. And I would interpret ANY impact to a native species by a non-native species, even if it didn't go to the extreme of the native species being extirpated, as "harm to the ecosystem."

From what I've read, fishery biologists do not consider SMB an invasive species in the Susquehanna River.

You can agree or disagree, I guess.

I really don't know what data is used by them to make that determination.