Hammer creek conservation thread

[Fish Sticks]

Correct, what we are talking about is a spring fed spawning channel if we can make that project work up there as far as from a geotechnical/sediment transport perspective. The plan is to use the habitat evaluation programs HSI or habitat sustainability index to get habitat features (including right size and ratio of gravels for brook trout spawning) in the project. The spawning/nursery channel was designed to be a shallow area of thermal refuge/spawning habitat that might have a favorable effect in that one area on brown trout predation on age zero brook trout which is a very well documented concentration. That was thinking behind it. You generally want close by foraging habitat near your thermal refuge because Dr. Nathaniel hit showed brook trout travel shorter distances from thermal refuge to feed when brown trout present so we wanted the spawning channel to come out into and food rich riffle or glide rather than a deep plunge pool or ambush situation from a predation standpoint. If fishermen are interested in seeing final projects I can post pictures for the thread.

Your concerns are very valid Swattie, prevention is always better than mitigation. Removal is hard but not impossible, it has been done successfully before but you are right there are no doubt challenges. I share your wish to see brook trout preserved where browns have not infiltrated yet as well. The only concern I think that researchers would have about that is that the areas where that is the cases are very few and limited to above a few small impassible barriers in most cases. Most class A brook trout streams still have a small number of infiltrating browns when shocked it seems.

The reason this is a problem is at conservation genetics according to the STAC Chesapeake brook trout conservation genetics conference I recently attended, they mentioned that populations in these small isolated areas where browns cannot go are susceptible(likely already experiencing) inbreeding depression. This makes brook trout much smaller, less fertile, and less fit to survive and they eventually are extremely high risk to blink out. So the way it was explained to me is trying to only conserve brook trout in those situations is like putting all your money in one risky stock analogy wise.
Mark kirk ect Al. At Allegheny university found streams where barriers between brown trout stocking locations and brook trout were 12 times more likely to sustain brook trout. And he was trying to evaluate this trade off between isolation with these barrier situations and the ease off between invasion by brown trout. It’s my understanding that you want multiple streams above a barrier for like a little meta population to prevent inbreeding depression as much as possible. The only problem is the areas with a nice large network of tributaries that could increase population diversity mostly already have brown trout in them in my experience.

This is why at the STAC conference there was an entire presentation on super males (XYY fish) for removal. The thought is combination of removal above a barrier with multiple tributaries upstream containing different populations and also using genetic rescue to make larger, more fertile, more survivable brook trout aka reverse any inbreeding depression, above a barrier seems like a good way to mitigate isolation while reaping benefits of preventing future invasion.

I wouldn’t trust lay people like myself if I was in your guys situation either, I don’t blame you for being skeptical. It’s a very unnerving subject because we can all agree clean water and habitat are important but this is much diverse in how people feel. I will attach the link to the slide show from the STAC conference which was meeting between many brook trout genetics/ecology experts. It will help illustrate some of the concepts you may not hear from the commission in addition to the research I have posted in the snakeheads forum.

Look under presentations on this link and you can see experts like Dr.s Dave Kayzak, Shannon white, and Eric hallerman and many many more talking about YY super males, genetic rescue ect and giving management recommendations to PA fish and boat and others who were in attendance.

Understanding Genetics for Successful Conservation and Restoration of Resilient Chesapeake Bay Brook Trout Populations

This page is used by Events Made Easy. Don't change it, don't use it in your menu's, don't delete it. Just make sure the EME setting called 'Events page' points to this page. EME uses this page to render any and all events, locations, bookings, maps, ... anything. If you do want to delete this

www.chesapeake.org

 

[Fish Sticks]

Correct, what we are talking about is a spring fed spawning channel if we can make that project work up there as far as from a geotechnical/sediment transport perspective. The plan is to use the habitat evaluation programs HSI or habitat sustainability index to get habitat features (including right size and ratio of gravels for brook trout spawning) in the project. The spawning/nursery channel was designed to be a shallow area of thermal refuge/spawning habitat that might have a favorable effect in that one area on brown trout predation on age zero brook trout which is a very well documented concentration. That was thinking behind it. You generally want close by foraging habitat near your thermal refuge because Dr. Nathaniel hit showed brook trout travel shorter distances from thermal refuge to feed when brown trout present so we wanted the spawning channel to come out into and food rich riffle or glide rather than a deep plunge pool or ambush situation from a predation standpoint. If fishermen are interested in seeing final projects I can post pictures for the thread.

Your concerns are very valid Swattie, prevention is always better than mitigation. Removal is hard but not impossible, it has been done successfully before but you are right there are no doubt challenges. I share your wish to see brook trout preserved where browns have not infiltrated yet as well. The only concern I think that researchers would have about that is that the areas where that is the cases are very few and limited to above a few small impassible barriers in most cases. Most class A brook trout streams still have a small number of infiltrating browns when shocked it seems.

The reason this is a problem is at conservation genetics according to the STAC Chesapeake brook trout conservation genetics conference I recently attended, they mentioned that populations in these small isolated areas where browns cannot go are susceptible(likely already experiencing) inbreeding depression. This makes brook trout much smaller, less fertile, and less fit to survive and they eventually are extremely high risk to blink out. So the way it was explained to me is trying to only conserve brook trout in those situations is like putting all your money in one risky stock analogy wise.
Mark kirk ect Al. At Allegheny university found streams where barriers between brown trout stocking locations and brook trout were 12 times more likely to sustain brook trout. And he was trying to evaluate this trade off between isolation with these barrier situations and the ease off between invasion by brown trout. It’s my understanding that you want multiple streams above a barrier for like a little meta population to prevent inbreeding depression as much as possible. The only problem is the areas with a nice large network of tributaries that could increase population diversity mostly already have brown trout in them in my experience.

This is why at the STAC conference there was an entire presentation on super males (XYY fish) for removal. The thought is combination of removal above a barrier with multiple tributaries upstream containing different populations and also using genetic rescue to make larger, more fertile, more survivable brook trout aka reverse any inbreeding depression, above a barrier seems like a good way to mitigate isolation while reaping benefits of preventing future invasion.

I wouldn’t trust lay people like myself if I was in your guys situation either, I don’t blame you for being skeptical. It’s a very unnerving subject because we can all agree clean water and habitat are important but this is much diverse in how people feel. I will attach the link to the slide show from the STAC conference which was meeting between many brook trout genetics/ecology experts. It will help illustrate some of the concepts you may not hear from the commission in addition to the research I have posted in the snakeheads forum.

Look under presentations on this link and you can see experts like Dr.s Dave Kayzak, Shannon white, and Eric hallerman and many many more talking about YY super males, genetic rescue ect and giving management recommendations to PA fish and boat and others who were in attendance.

Understanding Genetics for Successful Conservation and Restoration of Resilient Chesapeake Bay Brook Trout Populations

This page is used by Events Made Easy. Don't change it, don't use it in your menu's, don't delete it. Just make sure the EME setting called 'Events page' points to this page. EME uses this page to render any and all events, locations, bookings, maps, ... anything. If you do want to delete this

www.chesapeake.org

If you click on the YY supermale slide presentation at the bottom, you can see that they are using this technique already with Trojan YY brook trout to eradicate brook trout in cutthroat streams out west. There are still questions to answer but these are things we can figure out and there are already research papers I have read modeling a removal that give some rough answers/starting places for these remaining questions. We will very likely see this technique used in Pa in coming years to decade if they are presenting it to managers at this conference and doing it out west. That’s the only reason I would say removal is not known to be impossible because the data we have thus far with modeling shows complete extirpation in 2-4 years if fitness of Trojan makes approaching 80% wild pops.

 

[pcray1231]

One thing on the YY supermales. I don't think it would work. Still would like to see it tried. Would be happy to be wrong.

I just think the wild brown trout population genetically is older and more established. The stockies aren't sustaining it. Not saying that a stockie doesn't breed now and again. But I am saying that if you look at the (successful) brown trout redds in hammer, I am betting 95%+ of them are 2 wild fish breeding. You can throw in XYY stocked browns, and that'll still be the case. A stocked brown breeding will happen, but it will be the exception rather than the rule and will not have much of an overall effect on the gender distribution of the population. It'd an educated guess. Like I said, I'd like to be proved wrong.

Generally our invasive wild fish in PA are coming from early 1900's stockings before the hatchery strains were as specialized for hatchery life as they are today. No, I am not saying a stockie never successfully breeds, of course it happens now and then. I'm just saying they aren't the base sustainment of very many stabilized populations. It's genetic. Today's hatchery strains have poor fitness for stream life.

 

[silverfox]

I wanted to comment in the other thread but don't want to add to the fire in a stream report.

One thing I'd question is this notion that stocked fish don't prey on YOY. Studies have shown that after stocking, and for some period of time, the stocked trout eat pretty much anything they can put in their mouth. They're in a new environment and the friendly guy in the blue shirt with the pellet-spraying truck has disappeared. The raceway is bigger, and the clock they developed to know when the bounty of pellets rain from the sky is disrupted. So they eat rocks, twigs, cigarette butts, pine needles, bugs, bird crap, or anything else that floats by. I find it extremely hard to believe they draw the line at 3/4" long trout fry.

Now is that predation significant? I have no idea. I bet in some cases it can be, and in others not so much. Probably depends on angling pressure, # of fish stocked, the density of trout fry, water levels, and all manner of things. To suggest that it doesn't happen at all makes no sense.

As in most cases, the issue with stocking is angling pressure and incidental mortality. Finding a bunch of dead sub-legal wild brook trout in a stocked stream is what caused me to go on this crusade I'm on.

I don't know about this notion that the majority of our wild brown trout come from early 1900's stocking. Where I live for example, a huge impoundment was constructed in 1973. I highly doubt there were any wild browns this far up river prior to that that migrated from the Susquehanna. It's roughly 110 miles of warm/hot water between here and the Susquehanna. That would be the only corridor they could use to get this far. No way that's what happened.

How about Kettle Creek/Cross Fork/Hammersely? Did those populations exist prior to the construction of Alvin Bush in 1961? I doubt it. I'd like to see what percentage of the wild brown trout population in this state theoretically came from late 1800s/early 1900s stocking vs more modern stocking. I know of one population that had to have been started in the 90s. There's no other way to explain its presence. So let's not kid ourselves about what these fish really are.

I've also seen a fair bit of this current hatchery strain trait (squiggly line-like spots) in clearly wild fish. So there's absolutely still hatchery introgression going on with wild/hatchery fish. That introduces new genes to the population where otherwise there's no way to get new genes into the mix. Now, do those genes benefit the wild population or harm it? It aids in genetic diversity but risks outbreeding depression because the wild population is so different than the current stocked strain.

Again though, I think angling pressure is the big issue. This time of year I see all the posts on social media of big yellow trout, stocked brown trout, wild brown trout, finless rainbows, and 5 inch brook trout all out of the same "hole". These marginal wild brook trout populations likely can't handle very much of any level of angling mortality, let alone the onslaught we unleash on them every spring. Anglers don't know the difference between a wild brook trout and a stocked brown trout. When MD instituted their regs they sent out a survey beforehand asking anglers to identify trout species based on photos. There was a surprising number of respondents that couldn't tell the difference between rainbow trout and brook trout or wild brown trout and brook trout. I think we take the lack of fish ID knowledge by casual spring anglers for granted.

As for removal, or supermales, it has to be coupled with manual removal. So you electro-fish/remove while changing out stocking allocations to all XYY males. Above an impoundment, I don't see why that wouldn't work. It would require the support of anglers and the state to do it though, and unfortunately, I just don't see that happening anytime soon.

Heck, angling regs to favor the harvest of one species over another would be a free first step. It likely wouldn't have a huge impact, but then again it might. I think that's why I personally push for making steps with angling regs and stocking. Both are free. Both might be powerful education tools to tell anglers what's really important. We need more education about the benefits of wild fish vs stocked. The agency needs to lead that charge and then NGO's can help spread the message.

For that though, you'd need a paradigm shift. Especially in this state. No other state in the East is as non-native or stocked trout friendly as PA.

 

[pcray1231]

How about Kettle Creek/Cross Fork/Hammersely? Did those populations exist prior to the construction of Alvin Bush in 1961? I doubt it.

Yes, they did. I have old PA angler magazines from the 30's and 40's at my cabin which discuss the growing % of stream bred brown trout caught in the Kettle and Pine drainages then. Anglers then didn't like them as they were harder to catch. They were seen as a problem.

As for your local waterway, no idea, I don't know which waterway it is.

I've read a lot about the early hatchery days in PA and around the country. They used to bring in eggs from Europe, hatch them, and stock them as fingerlings via train car. They'd give some to the locals who would backpack them up into their favorite little headwater trickles where train cars couldn't reach. They really struggled to grow adult fish, as the early generations would run from the friendly guy throwing feed, ram themselves into the walls, and outright kill each other in the hatcheries. So they distributed them soon after hatching so they didn't have to. Survival rates when they tried to rear them to adults were in the low single digits % wise. PA wasn't alone in it's struggles. In the upper midwest. Iowa, Wisconsin, etc. was where the breakthrough happened using west coast rainbows from 2 or 3 specific watersheds which were shown to be more docile, rearable fish, where survival rates to adulthood were in the teens in a hatchery setting. Then starting with those, selective breeding, take the fastest growing/most docile fish, and breed them, repeat. Steady improvement with each generation and in only 10-20 years they had a highly survivable hatchery strain, and then they dispensed their new hatchery strain around the country, where many states were successful with them. And that's where PA got it's rainbows too, I think via Kentucky or WV or something, but they got them from those midwest hatcheries. Then hatcheries did the same thing with brown trout and brook trout. Start with the most docile population you can find and selective breed, and when you get something successful, sell eggs to other states trying to do the same.

Even in more recent times, in an effort to seed wild populations in recovered streams in the upper midwest, they found that placing stocked eggs or fingerlings in streams just wasn't working. They'd get a generation or two of streambed fish but they were petering out. The hatchery strains were genetically unfit for stream life. So they attempted to rear wild eggs from neighboring streams to adulthood in a hatchery and that too largely failed. The wild stock were genetically unfit for hatchery life. Think this through!!! The implications of it! They found some success by placing cover (boulders, etc) in raceways, reducing raceway density, auto feeders so nobody had to be seen, etc. But still survival rates were very low compared to modern hatchery strains. But they forged on because they didn't need numbers, the idea was just to get enough to seed a wild population, not enough for sport fishing from trucks. The skittishness of wild fish, and lack thereof from stocked fish, is not a learned behavior. It's genetic. If you take an egg of a wild fish, and one of a stocked fish, and try to raise them side by side. You will NOT end up with very similar fish. The behaviors of those two fish are going to be very different, as will their chances of survival in a hatchery, growth rate, skittishness to humans, willingness to pellet feed, aggressiveness towards other fish, etc.

I am not claiming the modern hatchery strains have never seeded ANY streams in PA, nor that they never successfully breed with wild stock. Of course it happens. But by and large, the base of our brown trout populations were seeded in those very early days with train car fingerling stockings. Small wild brown trout populations exist almost everywhere today. Years and years of chasing brookies have taught me that almost 100% of those streams have at least a few! You can catch 1000 brookies before your first brown, but they're nearly always there. There aren't very many places in PA that lack feedstock for brown trout populations. There's a couple, usually with a natural barrier, but not many. And people move them too. Heck, in my stupid youth, if we caught a small (wild) trout, I'd put them in the minnow bucket and stock them elsewhere to let him grow up closer to home hoping to catch it again someday. I didn't know any better, I was a dumb country kid! In many cases where brookies dominate, they do so because something in the habitat favors brook trout and keeps brownies at bay, not because there aren't brown trout to seed the population.

At my cabin, there's a swamp. No stream. But its a freestone spring on top of a mountain. It comes to the surface, makes the swamp, and goes back underground and re-emerges a half mile down the road as the extreme headwaters of a small brookie stream. We dug a hole to make a deep spot and lined it with stone and put some tin roofing over top to shade it, that's where my dad keeps his seined minnows for the season, which are far superior to bait shop minnows. We have found trout in that. Both brookies and browns. These are UNDERGROUND trout, that's how they got there, and all whited out too. They're everywhere man.

But yeah, I agree the biggest detriment to wild trout populations, where stocked fish coincide, is angler pressure. Predation happens. Competition happens. Interbreeding happens. But the biggest detriment, that actually affects the wild population, is people trying to catch the stockies and whether through keeping fish or accidental mortality, kill plenty of wild ones. It is EXTREMELY common that on streams with both stocked and wild trout, you don't find many wild ones near the stocking points, but find a spot where the stream cuts away from the road for a few miles, in the middle there is where you find em. Why? Because you're away from stocking points. And since they don't stock there, less people fish there.

 

[silverfox]

Further down the rabbit hole.

There are numerous environmental and biological factors impacting native brook trout. Thermal pollution, ag runoff/pollution, AMD pollution, legacy sediment, chemical pollution, sporadic rain events/low base flows/poor aquifer recharge, increasing average ambient temperatures, AOP barriers, loss of riparian shade (wooly adelgid, bad land management practices etc.), lack of large woody debris, trophic issues causes by all of the former, nonnative species, and angling.

To me, studies on competition etc. aside, it comes down to feasibility and removing compounding variables where it's "easy" or effectively free to do so.

Mitigation of all those environmental impacts is costly. Addressing the environmental issues without dealing with the biotic ones is a partial solution at best. In the face of studies showing that ignoring the biotic issues renders environmental restoration moot, it's even more alarming that we have no appetite for biological controls.

So it's more about what impacts can we control easily and even with no financial impact at all? Stocking and nonnative fish control through angling regulations are both essentially free. They should be easy too.

It's frustrating that we can't even think about doing things like MD or NJ have done with regard to regulations and stocking at a state level. We can't even seem to get past removing stocking on a single stream without causing an angry mob. I'll mention Big Spring again. The state admits that rainbows should be removed, but won't do anything about it. That's one stinking stream in this giant state with more flowing water than any other state in the contiguous united states and we can't seem preferentially manage that stream for brook trout. Spare me the "habitat tailored for brook trout approach". I'm not buying that at all. Especially not with fall spawning rainbows. I've seen them excavating communal brook trout redds a few weeks after the brookies spawned. In the exact area where this preferential habitat was installed. It doesn't bear out in the numbers either. The population fluctuations were no different post-treatment than pre-treatment. So if it had any impact at all it was extremely minimal.

Pcray, this stream I'm talking about w/ the wild brown population flows into a heavily polluted larger stream. I mean toxic water that kills anything in it. That water has been polluted since the mid 1900's so there's no way anything migrated up it. The state and local clubs have been stocking browns there for a long time though and now there are wild browns. There is absolutely zero chance those fish migrated from Bellefonte.

Speaking of them being everywhere. I agree. I caught this fish on Saturday at approximately 1,700 feet in elevation and roughly 4.6 miles from the class a brown trout stream that this brookie stream dumps into. Supposedly, brown trout don't like extreme gradient change or low pH. This fish didn't get that memo. That's one of the points here. For a brookie fanatic like me, I can't seem to get away from brown trout or stocked trout. There are very few truly allopatric brook trout populations left in this state. Even a lot of the ones on the EBTJV inventory that are classified as allopatric aren't. The stream where I caught this brown is listed as allopatric.

 

[Swattie87]

I think that wild Brown Trout removal in areas where they are only marginally established (the Class A Brookie stream that has a token few Browns if you shock it, for example), is a more viable approach that can help maintain the upper hand for Brookies. And I’d support that. I agree that many predominantly “Brook Trout streams” in PA do have at least some token low presence of wild Browns in them. Outside of barrier situations or extremely low PH scenarios.

Heck, I’d support a regulation that for streams designated as Class A Brook Trout, any other salmonoid species caught must be killed, regardless of size. But in mixed wild Trout, or predominantly wild Brown Trout streams (Hammer) attempting removal of the Browns isn’t gonna help the Brookies. Too late for that. All you’re gonna do is harm the fishing for wild Browns, which I don’t support.

Silverfox - Interesting point about seeing signs of “modern” stocked Trout genetics in wild fish. I see it too. Usually in larger streams that have many miles of stocked water in their drainages. Think LJR or Frankstown Branch for example. I’ve also seen a disproportionate number of them in one specific remote wilderness stream, though its lowest mile or so flows through a relatively more accessible area and is PFBC stocked.

 

[Swattie87]

I’ll add one more thought. Stream recovery from acid rain deposition or AMD is a terrific thing. As these streams recover, typically the first Trout species to repopulate them is wild Brook Trout, due to their lower PH tolerance. As things continue to improve, and the average PH continues to rise, wild Brown Trout begin to show up, and eventually take over. The upper Schuylkill River drainage is a prime example of this. In these recovery scenarios, we need to work to keep Browns from being stocked into areas that can access them.

The upper Skuke was seeded with fingerling wild Browns for years. As opposed to letting Brookies that naturally survived somewhere in the watershed to naturally expand and repopulate. This same process is playing out in a neighboring watershed right now. And there’s the beginnings of discussions about stocking it (presumably with at least some Browns) now that the water quality can support the stockers. This needs to not happen. The Brookies that survived will figure it out, and repopulate on their own.

 

[JeffP]

A friend of mine owns a bit of land on the Hammer upstream from the turnpike. We would fish his land. One fellow teacher had a couple 30 fish Brookie days there. The owner fished worms and would wait until the worm was fully digested. I can't believe how many hooks he would go through on those mornings. I would think the stocked area around the pumping station takes a huge toll on brookies. Also probably 6-7 years ago I was still catching brookies in the county park area. I believe that is stocked by a sportsman's club and not the state. I haven't caught a brookie there in a # of years.

 

[pcray1231]

Agree with most of that.

I'd also point out that I don't see addressing environmental impacts without the biotic ones as moot. If you address environmental issues and it becomes a brown trout stream, you still improved matters. That's still a win. Wild trout is better than no wild trout, regardless of species.

But, where it makes sense and success is actually feasible, yes, I support favoring brookies.

I do agree that in many streams where brookies dominate, I think in many cases it is PH that holds off the brownies. Not other habitat factors like gradient. There are some super high gradient brown trout streams out there. I've fished the Alps, and the gradient made a PA boy blush. lol. They're browns. As acid rain improves, and with AMD remediation. We have to be aware that we are both making new brook trout habitat, and making old brook trout habitat into brown trout habitat. It is happening and will continue to do so. I'd like to hold brookies where we can, but I don't go as far as saying fixing the acid problems is moot because it benefits browns.

 

[silverfox]

I think that wild Brown Trout removal in areas where they are only marginally established (the Class A Brookie stream that has a token few Browns if you shock it, for example), is a more viable approach that can help maintain the upper hand for Brookies. And I’d support that. I agree that many predominantly “Brook Trout streams” in PA do have at least some token low presence of wild Browns in them. Outside of barrier situations or extremely low PH scenarios.

Heck, I’d support a regulation that for streams designated as Class A Brook Trout, any other salmonoid species caught must be killed, regardless of size. But in mixed wild Trout, or predominantly wild Brown Trout streams (Hammer) attempting removal of the Browns isn’t gonna help the Brookies. Too late for that. All you’re gonna do is harm the fishing for wild Browns, which I don’t support.

Silverfox - Interesting point about seeing signs of “modern” stocked Trout genetics in wild fish. I see it too. Usually in larger streams that have many miles of stocked water in their drainages. Think LJR or Frankstown Branch for example. I’ve also seen a disproportionate number of them in one specific remote wilderness stream, though its lowest mile or so flows through a relatively more accessible area and is PFBC stocked.

I live in Bedford, so you're bringing up some examples where I've seen that too. In fact, the description of the last one is where I've seen it the most too if it's the stream I'm thinking of.

I think Hammer is an interesting question. I totally get what you're saying there, but at the same time, if people are doing a big restoration effort, could biological restoration be part of the solution? After all, what is "restoration" if it doesn't include the fish assemblage?

This is where I'd like to see TU put their money where their mouth is. Chris did a whole piece on "Native and wild" where he said, "native fish are paramount, wild fish come second, and stocked fish don’t belong where they impede the others.". I'd expand that to say, "native fish are paramount, wild fish come second, and stocked [and wild nonnative fish] don’t belong where they impede the others.".

If you've got all these people in there doing work with backhoes and electro-fishing surveys and extensive designs for stream channel reconfiguration, why do the trout species take a back seat to habitat if the entire project exists above an impoundment?

More importantly though, as I said, we can't seem to even fathom something like this in this state because it's so counter to our "trout culture".

 

[pcray1231]

I'd expand that to say, "native fish are paramount, wild fish come second, and stocked [and wild nonnative fish] don’t belong where they impede the others.".

I'd only attack the "wild nonnative fish where they impede others" if I found success to be likely.

I do favor brookies. But, I think the question is when do you accept reality that it's a brown trout stream? And I won't say brown trout streams have no value.

Not sure on Hammer. As Swattie said, I think the ship may have sailed. But there is a barrier. If you could eradicate them above the barrier, I'd be in favor. I'm not sure how likely you are to be successful. I don't think the XYY thing will work. You could alter regs. Go through and shock it and manually remove browns. It would help brookies. But as fishsticks said it's "mowing the lawn". I'm not sure how likely you are to actually rid it of wild browns. And as soon as you stop mowing the lawn browns will take it back over.

So torn on whether to go full brookie mode there. Nonetheless, I FULLY support efforts to restore the hammer, address sedimentation and thermal and pollution issues, etc. Regardless of whether it helps the brookies or the browns most.

 

[Mike]

pcray is correct regarding the distribution of trout fry all over the state starting in the circ 1880’s as what was frequently called a “restoration” effort and the difficulty in rearing wild trout in hatcheries. It is logical that these strains were much more wild than those of today. The train would stop and a local or perhaps a conservation officer, if one existed in the large region, would meet the train with a horse or horse drawn wagon, load up on milk cans of trout fry, and go off into the “mountains” to unload the fish. This went on for quite a long time. If you saw the lists of streams and numbers stocked it would likely take you aback. I put “mountains” in quotes because even streams like the Wissahickon or Pennypack (can’t remember which one) in Philly and some streams in Delaware Co were stocked with ST. I particularly paid attention to ST when I read the reports, but BT were transported about as well. One can only conclude after reading the reports that almost any stream with a name could have received these fry, particularly ST, and it was more likely than not that it did. Frankly, it made me wonder what really were the origins of many of the wild ST in Pa today and I expressed that in my presentation on the history of trout mgmt. in Pa. at the statewide trout symposium in about 2018 or 2019.

 

[Mike]

Before the upper Schuylkill ever received one fingerling trout stocking, brook, brown, or rainbow, there was a thriving population of wild brown trout in the lower West Branch of the Schuylkill with some brooks mixed in and just brooks above it plus large adult browns in the Game Lands stretch between Schuylkill Haven and Landingville. It is logical that those populations would have expanded with improvements in water quality over time and from an individual who spin fished the West Branch and Schuylkill (not me) annually and with frequency, logging large numbers of trout, he observed that when the sewage situation improved through the removal of one plant (and rerouting of its wastewater inflow to another basin), the browns expanded up the West Branch. I would say that was probably coincidental, although it gave me pause.

As for removing BT from Hammer, that would be quite the challenge since there are tribs to consider as well. Furthermore, there is a tradition of other than state stocking in the creek. I don’t know if any of the private stocking still occurs.

 

[silverfox]

Frankly, it made me wonder what really were the origins of many of the wild ST in Pa today and I expressed that in my presentation on the history of trout mgmt. in Pa. at the statewide trout symposium in about 2018 or 2019.

Thankfully that picture is getting clearer. https://db.ecosheds.org/ Proceed past the safety warning. It's a USFWS/USGS map. That's a limited dataset based on an accompanying paper. There's a much more complete version of this that I've seen but don't have access to/isn't public. Turn on the hatcheries legend so you can compare the structure of sampled fish to the hatchery's genetic fingerprint.

I'm not big on phenotypic variation as an indicator of speciation (or "strain"), but I've fished for ST specifically all over the mid-Atlantic enough to see that there are some common visual traits among fish from different areas that there likely is some hatchery influence in some places (we know that's the case). I think in tiny drainages in different major watersheds you see a lot more common traits that seem to be associated w/ a larger geographic range. i.e., our fish down here look a lot like the Potomac headwaters fish (because they are), and then just a little north you'll see those same fish but also "another" fish that doesn't match mixed in with them. Slight things like spot patterning especially near the caudal fin or the vermiculation intensity etc. It's hard to express in words, but in person you start to get a feel for it. That all could just be adaptation or isolation playing out in appearance and have no bearing on hatchery influence, but it could also be hatchery influence. Possibly from over 100 years ago when, as you said, we carried milk jugs of ST all over the place.

I'm also not a fan of genetic purity being a driving factor. I don't think it's fair that we split hairs on the genetic purity of our native fish while simultaneously allowing pretty much anything to go with introduced nonnatives. If we're going to limit any kind of ST restoration to heritage strains then we better be applying that same measure to the nonnative fish. Where does that lead? What % of loch leven genetic material needs to be present for them to matter?

It's a double standard to say, "a wild brown trout is a wild brown trout", but only "heritage genetics in brook trout matter".

Now, if we could establish heritage genetics as they do in upstate NY, would the state follow NY's lead and rotenone reclaim the waters to reestablish heritage strain brook trout? Btw, even WV has a restoration hatchery and is restoring heritage strain brook trout. Add that to ME and their artic charr, heritage brook trout ponds etc.

On the issue of hatchery introgression and outward appearance;

This is from the same stream as the following pic. (fish A)

(Fish B) from the same day.

"Fish A" looks like the same fish I find in tiny little streams that likely never had hatchery fish or fish from other areas introduced. Fish A also looks a lot like some obscure, not public, streams in western MD in the Potomac headwaters. Fish B is the "look" that I think is probably either from some kind of hatchery introduction or has some hatchery traits in it.

Again, I'm not a fan of phenotypic variation as an indicator of genetic origin. I think sequencing is the only way to tell that story. I'm just bringing it up to agree that there's likely some introgression in ST across the state dating back to the 1900's. So it's safe to say the same is true of BT. Especially since BT are nonnative and there's no native genetic stock present to mix with. I.e., they're all from hatchery origin. Obviously. Likely to varying degrees from place and time.

 

[sarce]

Here are some brookies from the Piedmont region I'm always talking about. About half of these are Balt Co MD and half Chester Co PA. The light colored bellies and big vermiculations are common in this region. As a teenager I thought all brookies looked like these until I went to PSU and caught some in the mountains. I would be very interested to know if these populations have lighter colors due to hatchery lineage in the distant past or if it was a natural adaptation to the relatively silty environment (silty as far as brookie streams go). I feel like Hammer fish look similar.

If the appearance is due to some unique genetics and not just the natural environment it gives more urgency IMO to protecting piedmont fish in places where they still remain, such as Hammer. FWIW 3 of the fish pictured below came from a stream that no longer holds any trout.

 

[pcray1231]

The belly color is largely time of year and sex. I've caught plenty of very orange ones in those regions. Overall coloration really has a lot to do with diet and habitat as well. It's not highly genetic.

Spot patterns though. Yeah. Your fish show wider spaced vermiculations and a LOT of red spots (as in a high number, not speaking to the "redness" of them), which I've found is common in that region. I "think" that's more genetic... I see differences between mainly the delaware, susquehanna, and Allegheny drainage fish regarding these features. But struggle to see any differences between close streams within the drainages.

 

[sarce]

I've caught several in that region with only one or two red spots. I've always been a bit leery of attributing it to genetics but have always been intrigued by the possibility and what the implications are if it were ever proven to be something genetic.

 

[silverfox]

Here are some brookies from the Piedmont region I'm always talking about. About half of these are Balt Co MD and half Chester Co PA. The light colored bellies and big vermiculations are common in this region. As a teenager I thought all brookies looked like these until I went to PSU and caught some in the mountains. I would be very interested to know if these populations have lighter colors due to hatchery lineage in the distant past or if it was a natural adaptation to the relatively silty environment (silty as far as brookie streams go). I feel like Hammer fish look similar.

If the appearance is due to some unique genetics and not just the natural environment it gives more urgency IMO to protecting piedmont fish in places where they still remain, such as Hammer. FWIW 3 of the fish pictured below came from a stream that no longer holds any trout.

I have thoughts about this but it's pure speculation. I'd love to know more about the origin of the state's fish. There are some traits that are very common to a specific strain up north. Mostly the strong light spot contrast. That feature tends to be "muddier" in some remote drainages w/ what I speculate are "heritage" fish. Same w/ the strong vermiculation like I mentioned earlier.

Case in point. Hatchery brook trout from Big Spring (Huntsdale source stock).

Note the similarity in spot pattern/vermiculation contrast.

Speaking of interesting/unique brook trout, this is from a really unique place. A lot of these fish look like this in this small headwater population. Some fish have no vermiculation at all. Just light spots the whole way across their backs.

 

[silverfox]

By the way, again, I'm very leary of reading too much into appearance. As mentioned, there are so many variables. Diet, stream substrate, mutations that proliferate throughout the population with no connection to origin, time of year, sex, stress, etc. etc. etc. etc.