Fishing Creek Columbia county (upper stretches)

[Fish Sticks]

There's a tiny brook trout stream in Somerset county like that. Cub Run is all of about 3 feet wide in most places and gets stocked. The "fishable" water is only about 1/2 - 3/4 mile long, if that. The upper end is Class A brook trout. I would bet that they surveyed Cub Run in late summer when all the fish were jammed up in the very top end of the stream. The rest of the year they're distributed throughout the stream/watershed. So you've got a stream that is about 3 miles long (on paper), half of which is Class A, and the other half is stocked. This doesn't count toward the "stocking over Class A brook trout" though because technically they aren't stocking directly IN the Class A section.

They stock that tiny stream with brown trout. Now, there are wild brown trout there. Here's one I caught there a while back. Not exactly the trophy brown trout people are interested in catching. This fish isn't the direct descendent of some "straight-off-the-boat" german import stocked in Centre County 200 years ago that migrated to Somerset. It's the direct result of continually stocking a stream that supports brook trout. So we're just going to exchange small brook trout for small brown trout. Makes no sense.

View attachment 1641227694

There are three other streams in that immediate area that all get stocked and are all wild native brook trout streams. I'm sure the biomass isn't considered "significant" by PFBC measures, so essentially the brook trout there have been deemed "insignificant." Piney run is where I found a bunch of dead 4-5 inch wild brook trout several years ago from anglers targeting stocked trout mishandling sub-legal brook trout. These streams get hammered because they're stocked. If they weren't stocked, very few would fish them, and there wouldn't be the incidental mortality that there is today.

These streams all have chemistry issues. Either natural due to the geology in the area, or from industrial activity up there. They aren't great habitats generally. However, Cub's headwaters are Class A. Piney's headwaters are a WTS and frankly should be Class A but they wont re-survey up there because there are no historical stations established in that section. Clear Shade down where Cub and Piney dump in is pretty terrible for a lot of reasons, but, CSC is important for fish moving between the tributaries. Rather than leave that all alone as a brook trout system, they just stock it and are trying their damnedest to convert it to a brown trout fishery.

Yea I don’t know how PA fish and boat sends representatives to the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture meetings or wild trout symposiums in Montana and hear brown trout are the 3rd largest disturbance state wide and see presenters show the harmful effects of stocking invasive species and then come back here and do their damndest to sponsor this costly hatchery invasion. I have actually had 3 PAFB employees tell me either “where the waters cold enough brook trout don’t have a problem with brown trout” or “stopping stocking wouldn’t help any of these brook trout streams improve” it’s ludicrous its almost like they think the research isn’t publicly available online or the eastern brook trout joint ventures 2006 threats and status document is written in Mandarin or something. Do they not know many anglers now understand the EBTJV is the authority on native brook trout science and management??? Denying what the foremost authority on native brook trout says just isnt flying anymore. The EBTJV is making more educational material, videos, and posting more articles.

There are a lot of dedicated individual employees at PFBC who love wild native brook trout but with increasing public awareness of the dangers of stocked invasive species its getting harder and harder to sweep this under the rug.

 

[silverfox]

Since I opened this can of worms. It's worth noting that PFBC stopped stocking brook trout in these streams year before last. Now it's all brown trout and rainbow trout stocking. I guess they did that since they hypothesized that the stocked brook trout were negatively impacting juvenile brown trout numbers. How ironic.

 

[Fish Sticks]

H

Since I opened this can of worms. It's worth noting that PFBC stopped stocking brook trout in these streams year before last. Now it's all brown trout and rainbow trout stocking. I guess they did that since they hypothesized that the stocked brook trout were negatively impacting juvenile brown trout numbers. How ironic.

View attachment 1641227696

I feel generally sickened that the first ever acknowledgement of harm of hatchery fish on wild populations by the fish commission is in regards to wild invasive brown trout. I think its time to ask the question of why have they purposefully abandoned our state fish. Why do other states have wntire watersheds managed catch and release with no stocking for wild native brook trout and pa fish and boat essentially did that with spring and the Little J while kettle has been stocked into ruination???????? Why are protecting these wild invasive brown trout at watershed scale almost and we wont do anything for brook trout while other states do the opposite

 

[troutbert]

Why does such a native brook trout stream get hit by so many anglers if you can jump across it?? That seems really small

Because Little Bear Creek is stocked with hatchery trout. As Lycofisher said, it's in the Loyalsock drainage. And it's not the only stream in the Loyalsock drainage where they are stocking directly over native brook trout populations.

 

[Mike]

Why does such a native brook trout stream get hit by so many anglers if you can jump across it?? That seems really small

I surveyed Ltl Bear yrs ago during the original statewide Coldwater Inventory of all stocked trout waters. Obviously, I don’t recall its exact avg width in the stocked trout section, but to continue to be stocked it must have met the 4 m minimum avg width requirement. Since that’s an average, there can be some pretty narrow spots in places.

Prior to 1982 the minimum ave width requirement was even lower…10 ft. As I recall, some streams and certainly some portions of streams that were too narrow to meet the newer 4 m standard were removed from the stocking program back then, but some were then picked up by cooperative nurseries for continued stocking.

As an aside, it was during that survey that one of my crew-mates gave me a pinch of snuff to try. That was the first and last time for that. Couldn’t stand the stuff and it made me a little woozy.

 

[troutbert]

This fish isn't the direct descendent of some "straight-off-the-boat" german import stocked in Centre County 200 years ago that migrated to Somerset. It's the direct result of continually stocking a stream that supports brook trout. So we're just going to exchange small brook trout for small brown trout. Makes no sense.

Brown trout were very widely stocked in PA in the late 1800s. That trout is probably the descendant of a brown trout population that has been in that watershed since the 1920s or earlier.

 

[Swattie87]

just a bit of a update, talked to the local biologist for F@B Aaron Frey, 2018 studies done after years of stocking showed 11 kg/ hectare wild trout prominently brook trout, just imagine those numbers if it was not stocked. I will keep collecting info and data to see but this would be a great watershed in this section to manage as a wilderness trout stream as multiple tribs are listed, I know it does not meet the specs due to road access but it is a start.

I’m surprised to hear the survey data indicates it’s predominantly Brook Trout, and that it’s that low. Depends on specifically where the survey was I guess. The lower SGL stretch is more Browns than Brookies in my experience. It starts to transition to mostly Brookies about the confluence with Shingle Mill from my angling samplings. And there’s definitely Browns in the WB tribs. I caught a nice 13” Brown in one of the tribs last time up there.

EB and its tribs, which have poorer geology than the WB, is mostly (all?) Brookies from what I’ve encountered.

 

[Mike]

Brown trout were very widely stocked in PA in the late 1800s. That trout is probably the descendant of a brown trout population that has been in that watershed since the 1920s or earlier.

“Widely stocked” believe it or not may be an understatement if they were as “widely stocked” as Brook Trout. When reviewing those numbers and locations for a history of trout management in Pa I paid more attention to ST than BT numbers and locations because I was so shocked at how well it was coordinated with WCO’s, trains, and locals on horse back, etc and how they got into remote as well as what we now know as truly urban areas, such as Philly. If those ST stockings of not very domesticated fish took hold in many areas, it is possible that many ST populations across Pa have common ancestors.

 

[silverfox]

Brown trout were very widely stocked in PA in the late 1800s. That trout is probably the descendant of a brown trout population that has been in that watershed since the 1920s or earlier.

Which gives them as much value as something hatched out of a hatchery last week as far as I’m concerned. I don’t care if one of its ancestors was on the Wera itself. It’s the result of human meddling.

 

[silverfox]

H

I feel generally sickened that the first ever acknowledgement of harm of hatchery fish on wild populations by the fish commission is in regards to wild invasive brown trout. I think its time to ask the question of why have they purposefully abandoned our state fish. Why do other states have wntire watersheds managed catch and release with no stocking for wild native brook trout and pa fish and boat essentially did that with spring and the Little J while kettle has been stocked into ruination???????? Why are protecting these wild invasive brown trout at watershed scale almost and we wont do anything for brook trout while other states do the opposite

I think the general attitude is that brook trout are doing fine. I don’t know how many times I’ve read things like “despite numerous threats, brook trout are still widely distributed.” We sure like to protect BT though. I also thinks there’s a bit of “all trout are good trout” attitude going on. Single species is undesirable in PA, especially if the single species is brook trout.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I think the general attitude is that brook trout are doing fine. I don’t know how many times I’ve read things like “despite numerous threats, brook trout are still widely distributed.” We sure like to protect BT though. I also thinks there’s a bit of “all trout are good trout” attitude going on. Single species is undesirable in PA, especially if the single species is brook trout.

Oh yea special regulations for downstream water ways that encourage harvest of trophy brook trout based on size on penns creek and others. It just so happens we give near watershed level protection from stocking to brown trout in spring and the little J. If only brown trout got such protections in their native range. The Scottish royal college of fisheries managers and scientists probably presents PA fish and boats work on protecting and propagating brown trout at their fisheries conferences using the little J and spring as a model for what should be done in the browns native range. Slovenian fisheries managers trying to protect native browns from the effects genetic homogenization/fragmentation probably tout PA ‘s revolutionary practice of stocking above reservoirs/dams with with brown trout where brook trout live above them. The swedish who are losing some of their native brown trout to invasive brook trout probably look at PA as a case study seeing as brown trout is the third largest disturbance on our landscape as per EBTJV. They are jelous pa fish and boat has wiped out as many native brook trout here with invasive brown trout as they have while their native brown trout struggle against invasive brook trout.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Since I opened this can of worms. It's worth noting that PFBC stopped stocking brook trout in these streams year before last. Now it's all brown trout and rainbow trout stocking. I guess they did that since they hypothesized that the stocked brook trout were negatively impacting juvenile brown trout numbers. How ironic.

View attachment 1641227696

This post is just unbelievable yet it is totally true.
What are they thinking honestly?
What.
Are.
They.
Thinking?

How is that trout management plan for brook trout going? 🤦


I mean, "Brook Trout are native", after all.😀

 

[Mike]

“that the first ever acknowledgement of harm of hatchery fish on wild populations by the fish commission is in regards to wild invasive brown trout.”

No, it’s not. There was a specific instance when a club was cautioned that stocking too many trout in a CRFFO area was likely the cause for the paucity of forage fish in comparison to the more traditionally stocked statewide reg section upstream and was, therefore, contradictory to their goal of establishing more “wild”- like trout through the use of egg incubators. There was also natural reproduction of BT so the implication was the same for those fish; YOY would be subject to the same predation. The club took the message seriously and reduced the numbers stocked. Bear in mind, however, this occurred because of a stocking rate that was exceptionally high and it was a C&R area so harvest was not going to quickly reduce the stocked fish density. I would add that it was not the first time that clubs received recommendations (not requirements) to reduce their stocking rates in CRFFO areas, but it may have been the first time that the recommendation was accompanied by a concern about the forage base and trout fry/fingerlings.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

“that the first ever acknowledgement of harm of hatchery fish on wild populations by the fish commission is in regards to wild invasive brown trout.”

No, it’s not. There was a specific instance when a club was cautioned that stocking too many trout in a CRFFO area was likely the cause for the paucity of forage fish in comparison to the more traditionally stocked statewide reg section upstream and was, therefore, contradictory to their goal of establishing more “wild”- like trout through the use of egg incubators. There was also natural reproduction of BT so the implication was the same for those fish. YOY would be subject to the same predation. The club took the message seriously and reduced the numbers stocked.

I'm curious, which creek was this?

 

[Fish Sticks]

“that the first ever acknowledgement of harm of hatchery fish on wild populations by the fish commission is in regards to wild invasive brown trout.”

No, it’s not. There was a specific instance when a club was cautioned that stocking too many trout in a CRFFO area was likely the cause for the paucity of forage fish in comparison to the more traditionally stocked statewide reg section upstream and was, therefore, contradictory to their goal of establishing more “wild”- like trout through the use of egg incubators. There was also natural reproduction of BT so the implication was the same for those fish. YOY would be subject to the same predation. The club took the message seriously and reduced the numbers stocked.

Checked website, youtube videos, pdf’s, educational pamphlets. How could John Q public have missed that?

 

[Fish Sticks]

“that the first ever acknowledgement of harm of hatchery fish on wild populations by the fish commission is in regards to wild invasive brown trout.”

No, it’s not. There was a specific instance when a club was cautioned that stocking too many trout in a CRFFO area was likely the cause for the paucity of forage fish in comparison to the more traditionally stocked statewide reg section upstream and was, therefore, contradictory to their goal of establishing more “wild”- like trout through the use of egg incubators. There was also natural reproduction of BT so the implication was the same for those fish; YOY would be subject to the same predation. The club took the message seriously and reduced the numbers stocked. Bear in mind, however, this occurred because of a stocking rate that was exceptionally high. I would add that it was not the first time that clubs received recommendations to reduce their stocking rates in CRFFO areas, but it may have been the first time that the recommendation was accompanied by a concern about the forage base and trout fry/fingerlings.

I guess when it comes to messaging you have ti actually send a message. It can’t be in the declassified internal files of the northeast regional office buried under the papers that proves big foot exists. How many Pennsylvanians saw this message who fish. We talking 1, 2, 3 ,4 one hunderds of a percent??????

 

[Fish Sticks]

“that the first ever acknowledgement of harm of hatchery fish on wild populations by the fish commission is in regards to wild invasive brown trout.”

No, it’s not. There was a specific instance when a club was cautioned that stocking too many trout in a CRFFO area was likely the cause for the paucity of forage fish in comparison to the more traditionally stocked statewide reg section upstream and was, therefore, contradictory to their goal of establishing more “wild”- like trout through the use of egg incubators. There was also natural reproduction of BT so the implication was the same for those fish; YOY would be subject to the same predation. The club took the message seriously and reduced the numbers stocked. Bear in mind, however, this occurred because of a stocking rate that was exceptionally high. I would add that it was not the first time that clubs received recommendations to reduce their stocking rates in CRFFO areas, but it may have been the first time that the recommendation was accompanied by a concern about the forage base and trout fry/fingerlings.

Did it get more likes than the virtual tour of the palimino raceway???

 

[troutbert]

“that the first ever acknowledgement of harm of hatchery fish on wild populations by the fish commission is in regards to wild invasive brown trout.”

No, it’s not.

And not close either. That report was from 2000.

Operation Future's whole purpose was to reduce stocking over wild trout. The surveys for that began in 1970, and they began taking Class A streams off the stocking list in 1980. And they had plenty of info about it.

Brookie advocates, try to keep things accurate. If you make stuff up, you hurt our credibility.

 

[Fish Sticks]

And not close either. That report was from 2000.

Operation Future's whole purpose was to reduce stocking over wild trout. The surveys for that began in 1970, and they began taking Class A streams off the stocking list in 1980. And they had plenty of info about it.

Brookie advocates, try to keep things accurate. If you make stuff up, you hurt our credibility.

Operation future was in the past…..before I was born. I don’t think i’m going to give much credit for that. The point is you’d have to do more sleuthing than a forensic accountant to find any acknowledgment of any harms of the hatchery program. Will anyone go on the record here and claim if you pull aside the April 1st consumptive angler that they will have any idea that the browns and rainbows are invasive or that they hurt native brook trout????

Maybe its not the first time they acknowledge the harms of stocked fish But I want to see it somewhere people will actually see it. Tim Schaefer just got up on GD podium on native species day in Harrisburg this year of all days and tried to explain its the invasive species that are the problem, not the exotic ones or something along those lines.

 

[silverfox]

To clarify, that page I posted from the Cub Run survey was not published by PFBC. It was published by the Conemaugh Valley Conservancy.

https://conemaughvalleyconservancy.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Clear-Shade-Creek-Coldwater-Conservation-Plan-FINAL.pdf

Regardless of the author, I find it a bit appalling how things are represented in the document that was funded by tax dollars and fees. It's a CHP funded plan and while there is some talk about brook trout, it's very wishy washy on species and talks about brown trout as if they're of the same value or more than brook trout. That section on Cub Run is a perfect example.

In that tiny section, what they decided to highlight is that stocking brook trout might be suppressing wild brown trout. Not that the entire stream should be Class A brook trout and stocking ended. No, they spent a paragraph hypothesizing that stocked brook trout were hurting the brown trout population. In a Class A brook trout stream.