Fingerling trout stocking schedule 2023

[Swattie87]

No, I believe it was evaluated by a former AFM roughly 15 yrs ago, but I never inquired about the results. I don’t know if it has been surveyed since then, but you could contact the Area 7 AFM for an update. In the 1970’s, however, I know that it was supporting some very nice size BT, some consuming frogs, but they (the BT) were somewhat thin.

The water feeding that reservoir is poorly buffered. The feeding streams either have no wild Trout, or very low density Brook Trout populations. Geology is that bright white sand quartzite stuff = bad news for Trout wherever I’ve found that.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The water feeding that reservoir is poorly buffered. The feeding streams either have no wild Trout, or very low density Brook Trout populations. Geology is that bright white sand quartzite stuff = bad news for Trout wherever I’ve found that.

LOL! hardly anyone can access lake for fishing because of no water craft and brushy banks, tributaries are just low density wild native brook trout that don’t have a high fishing value but could be a great place to preserve those fish, and they STILL pump it full of BT fingerlings!!!?

WOW PFBC WOW

 

[bigjohn358]

How long is a fingerling?

3-4 inches is the average size rainbow. I know a lot don't make it but there is always a good amount that do. I actually enjoy the fingerling stocking program. Even if most don't survive these are still fish that the hatcheries do not waste money on feeding so I'm sure its saving money in the long run.

 

[Swattie87]

3-4 inches is the average size rainbow. I know a lot don't make it but there is always a good amount that do. I actually enjoy the fingerling stocking program. Even if most don't survive these are still fish that the hatcheries do not waste money on feeding so I'm sure it’s saving money in the long run.

I have no problem with it, if done in the right strategic places for the right period of time, with the right strategic species. Most of the list posted here isn’t the right place or species, or both. And it’s going on far longer than is necessary to establish a wild naturally reproducing population, sufficient for a viable sport fishery - as Mike implied above is the purpose.

Types of places that would be right IMO: Yough, Lower Tully, Allegheny below Kinzua, Stonycreek River, Quemahoning Creek. I’m sure there are others, but most on the current list for the fingerling program don’t fit the bill IMO.

For reasons that I don’t fully understand, tailwaters in PA seem to struggle to produce downstream viable wild Trout populations. Lehigh and Upper D, being the obvious exceptions. IMO tailwaters are the most obvious places where this type of management is most appropriate.

The other would be streams in the current DHALO (or whatever it’s called now) program that stay fairly cool and can hold fish over, but don’t have much in the way of wild Trout reproduction for whatever reason. Quittapahilla Creek, Meadow Run, Pickering Creek, Middle Creek (Snyder County) would be examples.

 

[6xAdams(Jones)]

Any chance the brown and rainbow fingerlings are genetically modified to only produce male offspring, like they did with brook trout out west?

 

[bigjohn358]

Any chance the brown and rainbow fingerlings are genetically modified to only produce male offspring, like they did with brook trout out west?

I'm guessing with the rainbow they do not bother. Very few rainbows successfully spawn in PA. I'm unsure about any brown trout fingerlings since my area does not reveive any of these.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Upper Skuke watershed (all three branches) have already converted to mostly Browns. There’s some pockets of mostly Brookies wayyyyy up on them, but the most appetizing (and open to fishing) water is predominantly Browns.

Same thing is gonna happen to a similar AMD recovering watershed just to the west that is all (or mostly all) Brookies right now over the next 10-20 years. Calling it now.

Yes it will, it's only a matter of time with the constant stockings.
I cannot for the life of me understand why they don't do something to mitigate it either.

 

[silverfox]

I have no problem with it, if done in the right strategic places for the right period of time, with the right strategic species. Most of the list posted here isn’t the right place or species, or both. And it’s going on far longer than is necessary to establish a wild naturally reproducing population, sufficient for a viable sport fishery - as Mike implied above is the purpose.

Types of places that would be right IMO: Yough, Lower Tully, Allegheny below Kinzua, Stonycreek River, Quemahoning Creek. I’m sure there are others, but most on the current list for the fingerling program don’t fit the bill IMO.

For reasons that I don’t fully understand, tailwaters in PA seem to struggle to produce downstream viable wild Trout populations. Lehigh and Upper D, being the obvious exceptions. IMO tailwaters are the most obvious places where this type of management is most appropriate.

The other would be streams in the current DHALO (or whatever it’s called now) program that stay fairly cool and can hold fish over, but don’t have much in the way of wild Trout reproduction for whatever reason. Quittapahilla Creek, Meadow Run, Pickering Creek, Middle Creek (Snyder County) would be examples.

Is the idea of fingerling stocking to create self-sustaining populations, though? I thought fingerling stocking was simply "put-grow-take." i.e., these fingerlings are still the offspring of hatchery brood stock, right? It's not like they're genetically better suited for survival/reproduction. It's not like they're sourcing F1 wild stock and hatching them in hatcheries and then stocking the offspring to jumpstart a wild population.

It's probably more likely that fingerlings might create a self-sustaining population, but I didn't think that was the intent of the program.

 

[bigjohn358]

Is the idea of fingerling stocking to create self-sustaining populations, though? I thought fingerling stocking was simply "put-grow-take." i.e., these fingerlings are still the offspring of hatchery brood stock, right? It's not like they're genetically better suited for survival/reproduction. It's not like they're sourcing F1 wild stock and hatching them in hatcheries and then stocking the offspring to jumpstart a wild population.

It's probably more likely that fingerlings might create a self-sustaining population, but I didn't think that was the intent of the program.

The fingerlings in my opinion are "put-grow-take" in the fish commissions eyes. They have no intentions of these fingerlings ever making a naturally wild population of rainbows in Bald Eagle and Fishing Creeks. They just know that the waters they are stocking have no issues with the fish surviving year round. There are never water temp issues. I heard a while back about about making the brown trout automatically catch and release all year long on Fishing and Bald Eagle Creeks. I really hope this goes through!

 

[Fish Sticks]

Any chance the brown and rainbow fingerlings are genetically modified to only produce male offspring, like they did with brook trout out west?

No not yet in east super-males take a while to create but their working on it for the east there is alot of interest. Then these stockings in theory can be used to eliminate populations in the wrong places instead of starting them. There is some really promising data from out west in new mexico.

 

[Mike]

The primary purpose in the past was maintenance stocking of fingerlings in appropriate waters to provide a fishery, ie put, survive, grow, and take to the extent desired by anglers and allowed or even encouraged by the regs in place. If a good population of wild fish (of that species) later developed as a result of that stocking program or otherwise, then fingerling stocking ( of that particular species) most likely would have been discontinued or there would have been a good argument for doing so. My comment leaves room for discontinuing one species of fingerlings while continuing with another in a BT/RT example.

 

[caddisflyer]

I do not know how any fingerlings stocked in lower Tulpehocken fared. Most years it gets very warm. The fly shop used to stock some Rainbows that were in the 10" range and they were a lot of fun. They got big and full of energy in a short time with all the food there and loved taking dries. The Vibert box trout that were in Muddy Creek in York were also interesting but not sure if anyone is still doing it. They looked and behaved like wild trout. I would guess many of the fish people caught in Muddy and tribs , and called wild were those fish.

 

[afishinado]

The primary purpose in the past was maintenance stocking of fingerlings in appropriate waters to provide a fishery, ie put, survive, grow, and take to the extent desired by anglers and allowed or even encouraged by the regs in place. If a good population of wild fish (of that species) later developed as a result of that stocking program or otherwise, then fingerling stocking ( of that particular species) most likely would have been discontinued or there would have been a good argument for doing so. My comment leaves room for discontinuing one species of fingerlings while continuing with another in a BT/RT example.

^ Exactly which happened on the Little J, and the stream turned into an excellent wild brown trout fishery. Whether the stocked fingerlings seeded the population or a strain of brown trout stocked in years past was responsible is up for debate. In the last years of stocking fingerlings, very few adult trout stocked as fingerlings showed up in surveys. The adult brown trout captured were primarily wild trout, so fingerling stocking was halted by the PFBC.

Mike can elaborate, but fingerling stocking in the Tully was halted due to high temp conditions found from mid summer through early fall due to too small of a cool water pool at the dam.

If fingerlings can survive through the seasons, it is a way cheaper and efficient way to create and maintain a trout fishery. The Yough is an example of a trout fishery having the perfect conditions for fingerling stocking.

 

[troutbert]

^ Exactly which happened on the Little J, and the stream turned into an excellent wild brown trout fishery. Whether the stocked fingerlings seeded the population or a strain of brown trout stocked in years past was responsible is up for debate. In the last years of stocking fingerlings, very few adult trout stocked as fingerlings showed up in surveys. The adult brown trout captured were primarily wild trout, so fingerling stocking was halted by the PFBC.

Mike can elaborate, but fingerling stocking in the Tully was halted due to high temp conditions found from mid summer through early fall due to too small of a cool water pool at the dam.

If fingerlings can survive through the seasons, it is a way cheaper and efficient way to create and maintain a trout fishery. The Yough is an example of a trout fishery having the perfect conditions for fingerling stocking.

The Little Juniata River and its tributaries surely have had wild brown trout populations since the late 1800s. If all stocking of brown trout had ended in 1920, the population of brown trout in that watershed would probably be similar to what it is now, or maybe higher.

If stocking was ended on Spruce Creek, for example, its wild brown trout population would probably increase.

 

[silverfox]

Oh boy. The LJR fingerling thing. Is Dick "Crestwood" on here?

I'm still not convinced about this BT "subspecies" separation thing. I've caught BT with hints of the "digi-brown™" spot thing going on that look wild otherwise in streams with typical wild BT AND very obviously stocked "digi" BT that borderline look like tiger trout. i.e., sure looks like a mix between a sparsely spotted wild BT and a PFBC digi-brown™ product.

I'm supposed to believe that a BT will reproduce with ST in the wild, but somehow won't or haven't reproduce(d) with hatchery-born versions (with the correct # of chromosomes) of the same species. Right.

 

[Mike]

The Little Juniata River …If all stocking of brown trout had ended in 1920, the population of brown trout in that watershed would probably be similar to what it is now, or maybe higher.

I agree that the population would probably be the same at the present. With successful fingerling stockings the river’s BT population would be the same as it is today. I would speculate that at best it was “kick started” and provided a good fishery, widespread longitudinally, a few years to a decade or so earlier due to the fingerling stocking. I don’t know about a higher population though. When I last participated in a survey there I would have said that the population could use some harvest. Some were a bit thin.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Does any body have record oh the last time wild native brook trout were in the little J? Not above the barriers/water supply reservoirs on tribs where they still persist but in spruce or other actually still connected tributaries?

 

[troutbert]

I agree that the population would probably be the same at the present. With successful fingerling stockings the river’s BT population would be the same as it is today. I would speculate that at best it was “kick started” and provided a good fishery, widespread longitudinally, a few years to a decade or so earlier due to the fingerling stocking. I don’t know about a higher population though. When I last participated in a survey there I would have said that the population could use some harvest. Some were a bit thin.

I don't think there was a successful fingerling stocking in the Little Juniata River. Does the PFBC have evidence to show that this is what happened?

I think the brown trout were introduced in the late 1800s in that watershed and have been there ever since.

 

[silverfox]

I don't think there was a successful fingerling stocking in the Little Juniata River. Does the PFBC have evidence to show that this is what happened?

I think the brown trout were introduced in the late 1800s in that watershed and have been there ever since.

Let's see, the LJR was stocked w/ BT for who knows how long from the 1800's on. PFBC stocked fingerlings for how many years until somewhat recently? Private enterprises have been stocking Spruce for how long? There is still private, and co-op stocking of private & PFBC sourced BT in the LJR to this day. How long has the Frankstown Br been stocked?

Do you really think the first batch of fish straight from Germany stocked in the 1800's have maintained genetic purity through all that? I've watched stocked browns spawning in Spruce. Do you think they aren't successful? Or do their offspring just stay in the pool they hatched in and never mix with fish in the LJR?

I just don't get this. So what if you're right? They're brown trout in America, not some rare endangered native species. Who cares if they were stocked in 1886, 1881, 1892, 1903, 1923, 1945, 1968, or last week? What's the difference?

 

[Mike]

I don't think there was a successful fingerling stocking in the Little Juniata River. Does the PFBC have evidence to show that this is what happened?

I think the brown trout were introduced in the late 1800s in that watershed and have been there ever since.

See #17 above, 1st paragraph.