Exceptionally well written piece on wild vs. stocked trout

[wildtrout2]

Those look like holdovers that have been in that stream for some time. They'll get color over time. I was referring to freshly stocked trout.

 

[testynesty]

Maybe Mike can help answer this, but in my opinion it was a good article. I would rather know more about how to encourage the state to stop stocking overtop of a naturally producing wild population of fish and put them into another stream where there isn't "wild fish". Weather the fish he had the pics of are definitely wild or not is another matter in my book, they were damn nice fish! Is there ways that we as anglers could help re-designate stream regulations, rather than argue over the "stocked/wild" non-sense???

 

[LetortAngler]

A well written article that surely reflects not all, but the majority of seasoned fly anglers throughout the state. Imo, these types of articles bring to light the sense of conservation for those who are unaware of PAs wild trout (and there are more than a few) since our streams and river systems are becoming cleaner and less polluted, which frankly is evident by the continued wild and native streams being added to The List.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

(and there are more than a few) since our streams and river systems are becoming cleaner and less polluted, which frankly is evident by the continued wild and native streams being added to The L

Am I the only one that sees a massive irony? It is true that we are becoming less polluted in waters across the state yet the Susquehanna that drains a good percentage of those waters is failing due to pollution.

 

[tomitrout]

Am I the only one that sees a massive irony? It is true that we are becoming less polluted in waters across the state yet the Susquehanna that drains a good percentage of those waters is failing due to pollution.

Possibly, since most all 'trout water' that's been on the rebound is well removed from the big river. Our nice cold & clean trout streams end up running through a lot of low land and pick up an awful lot of pollutants along the way once downstream from the trout zone. Lower Letort for example, years ago they redirected Carlisle sewer discharge out of the Letort. Which is great for the Letort, but now it's going into the Conodiguinet instead, and it still ends up in the Susky....trout stream improved, but no net gain for the Susquehanna. Same deal with Trindle Spring and I'm sure a whole slew of other streams.

 

[Dave_W]

I didn't read the article so can't comment on the details. . .but like you, I'd like to see an abatement of stocking over wild (S/W). Certainly, we've talked the topic to death around here.

However, I gently point out to new trout anglers who have discovered the joy of pursuing WT. . . that you're overlooking some superb WT fishing by focusing only on Class A or unstocked streams. Many of these are small waters. There are a lot of WT around here in central PA in mid to larger waterways that are currently stocked. Should the PFBC stop the S/W on these streams? Sure, we'd like to see that. However, with the large number of traditional anglers that have fished these sections for generations, the likelihood that stocking will cease is virtually nil anytime soon. Nevertheless, in spite of the S/W, there seems to be more wild fish in many of these sections every year. In particular, when hatches come off, it really becomes stunning just how many wild trout are actually in some of these ATW sections.

Since opening day, I've focused mainly on ATWs and am catching a lot of wild trout. To be sure, this is just the anecdotal experience of myself and some other anglers I know. . .but it's valid to me.

If you're making a long drive to Spring or Penns or some other famous WT stream, don't overlook some of those lesser known stocked ATWs, you might find some excellent WT fishing, especially after the first month of trout season when many traditional anglers quit.

 

[pcray1231]

salmonoid, your fish in post 11 looks undeniably wild, to me, anyway. Has every indicator of wild, none of stocked.

Wouldn’t the coloring and spot pattern have something to do with the origin of the fish? There are many sub species that have slightly different build and color / spot patterns.

Absolutely. That's why I kind of put the disclaimer in "if it's a PA fish". Most of PA's wild stocks are a mix between loch leven browns (tend to have fewer but larger black spots and very little red, seen commonly as dominate in the Letort, Penns, etc.) and german browns (tend to have red spots, but more and smaller black spots as well, dominate in most places).

Those just happen to be the strains stocked back in the 1910's-1930's when the majority of our wild brown trout populations were seeded.

On the other hand, PA's current hatchery strain of brown generally resembles a german brown (lots of smaller black spots), but without the red. And their genetic influence, I think, does produce a fair number of wild fish with similar characteristics. So for the spot thing, you can sometimes eliminate the possibility of a fish being stocked based on it. But rarely can you eliminate the possibility of a fish being wild.

Im no good at telling the difference between wild vs stocked.

Does red on the adipose fin indicate a wild fish most of the time?

Most of the time, yes. All of the time, no.

There are a bunch of indicators that work most of the time and not all of the time. Short of scale samples and microscopes, I'm not sure I know a way to be 100% sure. But generally, if a bunch of 90% accurate indicators all point the same way, and it makes logical sense based on the location, then you can pretty much be really, really close to sure. Other situations are tougher, where maybe a fish has a few indicators pointing each way and is in a location where either wild or stocked fish are feasible.

Indicators for brown trout:

RED spots = most likely wild. Orange spots = most likely stocked. No spots = can't use this indicator.

red on adipose fin - if present, most likely wild. If not, most likely stocked.

Blue/black eye spot. Just behind the eye there's a reflective dark area. If present - most likely wild. See salmonoids trout in post #11. If not present - could be wild or stocked in my experience. I'm told this imprints based on diet at a VERY young age.

Fins: If clear or nearly clear, and perfect edges - most likely wild. If opague or nearly so, or "muddy" looking, with rough edges or rounded edges, most likely stocked. The caveat is that truly large, old wild browns often get fins that more resemble stockies.

Body shape: Gotta take into consideration the stream here. Stockies grow fast in a hatchery setting. Fish that grow fast generally are kind of football shaped, with fat bodies and small heads. But wild fish can grow fast in rich settings too. On the other hand, a small body with a big head represents an older fish that grew slowly. And that's far more common in wild fish. Though a holdover that's fed poorly can skinny up with time.

Anal area - stockies tend to have extended anus's. Gross.

Location: This one's obvious. Are wild trout present? Is it stocked? Obviously, wild trout occasionally show up in places they're not supposed to be, maybe they come out of a trib or whatever. And stocked fish do too. They travel out of stocked zones, up tribs and the like. Or some random dude with a bucket moves a few. But like the rest of these indicators, it works most of the time.

 

[Cold]

Just because it seems to be going unmentioned, it's also worth noting, imho, the irony of holding wild browns on a pedestal when they're descendants of stocked fish in the first place. Naturally, there's a difference between catching a mushy, pale stocker and a vibrant, healthy wild brown, but for the more extreme end of the spectrum that is anti-stocking on all but the most marginal streams, would it not be just as valid to condone catch & kill for all non-brook trout in the state?

Forget "wild", if it's not native, give it the bonk.

Personally, I've got no problem with stocked fish. They're all that's available to a lot of people within any reasonable distance of home, and that's fine. In other cases, a wild population wouldn't be able to support the harvest that the mid-April crown inflicts without some reinforcements...and the tradeoff in competition for food is balanced out bymore of the wild fish surviving the angling pressure (and those stockies that do make it being promoted to holdover status in the process).

I wouldn't say our PA trout situation is perfect by any means, I just think that, as a group large enough to apply political pressure, there are far more pressing concerns to PA angling than stocked vs. wild fish.

 

[duckfoot]

tomitrout wrote:

Am I the only one that sees a massive irony? It is true that we are becoming less polluted in waters across the state yet the Susquehanna that drains a good percentage of those waters is failing due to pollution.

Possibly, since most all 'trout water' that's been on the rebound is well removed from the big river. Our nice cold & clean trout streams end up running through a lot of low land and pick up an awful lot of pollutants along the way once downstream from the trout zone.

Hydrogeology 101.

 

[Nymph-wristed]

testynesty wrote:
Maybe Mike can help answer this, but in my opinion it was a good article. I would rather know more about how to encourage the state to stop stocking overtop of a naturally producing wild population of fish and put them into another stream where there isn't "wild fish". Weather the fish he had the pics of are definitely wild or not is another matter in my book, they were damn nice fish! Is there ways that we as anglers could help re-designate stream regulations, rather than argue over the "stocked/wild" non-sense???

+1 from a seasoned fly fisher...

 

[Nymph-wristed]

Cold wrote:
Just because it seems to be going unmentioned, it's also worth noting, imho, the irony of holding wild browns on a pedestal when they're descendants of stocked fish in the first place. Naturally, there's a difference between catching a mushy, pale stocker and a vibrant, healthy wild brown, but for the more extreme end of the spectrum that is anti-stocking on all but the most marginal streams, would it not be just as valid to condone catch & kill for all non-brook trout in the state?

Forget "wild", if it's not native, give it the bonk.

Personally, I've got no problem with stocked fish. They're all that's available to a lot of people within any reasonable distance of home, and that's fine. In other cases, a wild population wouldn't be able to support the harvest that the mid-April crown inflicts without some reinforcements...and the tradeoff in competition for food is balanced out bymore of the wild fish surviving the angling pressure (and those stockies that do make it being promoted to holdover status in the process).

I wouldn't say our PA trout situation is perfect by any means, I just think that, as a group large enough to apply political pressure, there are far more pressing concerns to PA angling than stocked vs. wild fish.

+ 1 from a SEPA guy who is a seasoned fly fisher and still doesn't hate stocked fish. Not a fan of stocking over wild, but stocked trout have a place still, especially if you live in a county with marginal waters and you buy a trout stamp.

 

[bigslackwater]

Stocked trout still put a little tug on the line...While it might only be for a short while before they surrender, it's still something! I dont mind fishing stocked trout in the same way that I don't mind buying a case of Miller Light cans to offset the cost of my case of Troeggs.

 

[McSneek]

bigslackwater wrote:
Stocked trout still put a little tug on the line...While it might only be for a short while before they surrender, it's still something! I dont mind fishing stocked trout in the same way that I don't mind buying a case of Miller Light cans to offset the cost of my case of Troeggs.

This is a pretty good analogy. You can find PBR and Fat Tire in my fridge. Each serves a purpose. I will never apologize for fishing for stocked trout on local streams like the Tully and Muddy Creek, especially when there are bugs coming off and the fish are eating them.

The blog article is rather preachy although I don't disagree with it. What I don't like is the stereotype that people who fish for stocked trout only do so from the comfort of an old lawn chair with a coffee can full of red wigglers at their feet. I will fish for stocked trout but if I pulled up to stream "X" today and someone said, "Hey, they just stocked it this morning." I would go somewhere else. No desire to catch them fresh off the truck.

 

[Cold]

The blog article is rather preachy although I don't disagree with it. What I don't like is the stereotype that people who fish for stocked trout only do so from the comfort of an old lawn chair with a coffee can full of red wigglers at their feet.

While the generalization may be inaccurate, I don't even have a problem with that.

Who cares if you catch stocked trout seated or standing? In the water or from the bank? Spinning or fly?

Doesn't matter one bit to me. So long as you're law-abiding and reasonably ethical, knock yourself out. If it makes you happy to sit in a lawn chair slurping down warm Natty and drowning a worm, I'm glad there's some stocked fish in the water to give you the opportunity to do that.

Since the beer analogy's already been invoked, I'd have to say by beer standards, I'm far more the purist/snob. I'll drink Yuengling when I'm out at a bar that doesn't have craft beer, but it's never in my own fridge...usually 2 varieties: a solid IPA and the occasional stout. While I'm not too uppity to turn down a beer offered as a sign of friendship, as long as I'm not going to offend anyone, I'd just as soon have water or ginger ale as opposed to most Bud/Miller/Coors.

But again, if it makes someone else happy to drink beer I wouldn't touch, go for it! I'm happy for ya.

 

[bigjohn58]

He pretty much holds the same exact views as I do...I wish more felt that way and would give respect to the wild fish!

 

[Char_Master]

That was a great read! Although personally, I have a bit different of a hierarchy for Trout and Char in PA:

-Wild Natives (Brook Trout)
-Fingerling Stocked Natives in historic range (Brook Trout, Lake Trout)
-Adult Stocked Natives in historic range (Brook Trout, Lake Trout)
-Wild Non-Natives (Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout)
-Fingerling Stocked Non-Natives in trout supporting waters (Brown Trout, Rainbow Trout)
-Adult Stocked Non-Natives in trout supporting waters (Brown Trout and Rainbow Trout)
-Holdover Adult Non-Natives in non-trout supporting waters (Brown Trout and Rainbow Trout)
-Put & Take (last < 1 season) Non-Natives (Brown Trout and Rainbow Trout)

 

[Cold]

Wouldn't the presence of holdover fish indicate that the waters can, in fact and by definition, support the fish?

 

[pcray1231]

Suggest, yes, prove, no.

If it's a temperature tweener, it may stay cold enough in some years to have fish holdover through a summer. But not in others, hence, no wild population will establish if it gets wiped out every couple of years when we get a warm, dry summer.

A more common situation is a stream that has everything a fish needs, but not everything an egg needs. i.e. lacks spawning gravel. These are often the places fingerling stockings make sense.

 

[phiendWMD]

Cold wrote:
Forget "wild", if it's not native, give it the bonk.

For the sake of argument, how do you tell a wild brookie from a native brookie? Some water I fish surely has both.

 

[Cold]

For the sake of argument, how do you tell a wild brookie from a native brookie? Some water I fish surely has both.

Let me preface a response by stating for the record that this is *not* the position I hold, just that it's carrying the tone of the piece to a more logical conclusion than the author has chosen to take it.

That being said, my argument would be that it's impossible to tell, but at the point where you can't tell, it's more or less a moot point anyway, since the whole point would be to reestablish native brook trout in all waterways capable of supporting a population (which would be a sort of "self-leveling" determination, as the streams which could support brook trout in deed would prove it by doing so in fact).

If wild, naturally reproducing populations of brookie descendants of stockies took hold in an area and began to interbreed with the natives, the pedigree would be irrelevant so long as the wild fish were anatomically indistinct from the natives.

So, simply put, the measure that would make the most sense, by the plea to conservation that the author seems to be making, would be to immediately stop stocking any and all browns and rainbows and institute a mandatory (or at least encouraged) catch & kill on those species.

Meanwhile, use stocking fund savings to improve habitat (temperature being the primary concern if we're going all-brookie), and to stock brookie fingerlings in waters where browns and rainbows are being depleted, thus helping to avoid a situation where the remaining "foreigners" thrived due to less consumption/greater availability of the same amount of biomass.

Personally, that's no better an idea than what's suggested by the author, and I definitely still feel that stocking, and rainbow and brown trout still have their place.