Hammer creek conservation thread

[silverfox]

So I've never misquoted and my personal attacks were pretty tame. I disagree temp is the issue in ME because a lot of these waters have good ST and LLS populations. Granted LLS have a higher temperature tolerance than BT, but the ST are still there.

Agree RT are a problem in the south. There's not support for wild RT in PA because with the exception of Big Spring, Falling Spring and probably a couple others I don't know about wild RT in PA (and most of NY) are generally the size of ST and will never provide a good recreational fishery. Big Spring provides such a unique RT fishery there's really no way it will ever get messed with.

I used to see very big presumably wild BT in Big Spring when I first started fishing it (07 or so). I can't remember the last time I saw one.

To get any traction towards removal of RT in Big Spring, there would need to be a good population of ST over say 15-inches. I'm not saying that wouldn't happen if RT were eradicated, but I think fighting for removal of RT from Big Spring is more or less a waste of time. There are better battles to fight.

W/ temps in ME, I meant the other way. i.e., it's too cold for too long.

Agreed on wild RT not gaining widespread support because in freestoners they're generally fairly small. I will say, it's ironic to me that Big Spring is viewed as a "unique RT fishery" when it should be a "unique ST fishery" which is where it got its fame in the first place. Rather than develop that and have one of the few places south of MA with large spring dwelling ST, we cling to the RT as if its something special. It's fake is what it is. A painful reminder of how badly we screwed it up.

Broadly, to someone like me, what I see is a complete lack of focus or prioritization on ST specifically anywhere. Big Spring presents a unique opportunity because it's one of the only spring streams with a large impoundment intact down where the water chemistry is screwed and trout don't really survive or thrive. Also given its history and fame as a world-class ST fishery, you'd think there might be a little support for the idea of focusing on rebuilding that rather than clinging to a west coast species that doesn't belong there. I mean, we have lake Erie if big rainbows are your thing. Or falling spring a few miles away if you just have to catch a stream-born RT.

"good population of ST over say 15-inches"... I hate it when people use fish size as some arbitrary criteria that has to be met for anything to be worthwhile. It's weird. It's also probably one of the main reasons BT have such widespread support.

It would be one thing if we had some big watershed in the state that was actually managed for brook trout and nothing else. Then sure, who cares about Big Spring. It's wrecked and barely hanging on anyway. Which is what makes it even more depressing. We can't get one single practically destroyed stream to be managed solely for brook trout.

 

[silverfox]

Just to clarify with ME, I have absolutely no idea. I'm not sure anyone does. It could be strain or trophic issues, or environmental issues or any number of things. Same with whatever is going on w/ BT in SE MT.

I do find it funny when people start worrying about what's going on with species in places they don't belong. Especially when we start wasting vast amounts of money to figure out what's wrong with some introduced species while we've got native species (S. salar) that are on the brink of extirpation. Priorities I guess.

 

[pcray1231]

My point is that there's no chance every population in this state originated from a shipment of eggs from Germany in the late 1880s. Further that while the current generation of hatchery brown trout might not be fit for survival in the wild, that wasn't always the case.

In the streams that were stocked in the late 1800's/early 1900's I'm sure those fish spread. I'm sure even where we transported them by railcars etc. they spread within those watersheds. There is an awful lot of separation though and from the early limited amount of fish, it's just not feasible that there was some monumental effort undertaken to spread brown trout to every corner of the state.

I personally believe there are a lot of populations that were started more recently. Even in my lifetime, on some streams that I never saw wild browns on, now they're there. One I grew up fishing and still fish today some 30 years later. There were no railcars to that stream back then and there certainly wasn't a wild population until fairly recently.

Edit> One of the reasons on that particular stream that there were no wild browns anywhere near it was it used to be pretty polluted and didn't really support much life.

To be clear. We're not talking 1 shipment. We're talking 50 years of many shipments. From wild stock. Stocked as freshly hatched fry. In yearly numbers that make today's PFBC efforts look like child's play, the numbers would make you blush. In small containers handed out to every local Dick and Harry to put in his favorite stream that goes by his farm. In an age where rail cars went up every little channel to support the logging boom. Park the rail car, hand out 100 containers with 1000 fry each to anyone who shows. Take em where you want em boys. Move onto next stop. Repeat. See ya again next year. For 50 years!!!!

I'm not claiming there is zero influence from modern stockies. Nor that zero streams have been "seeded" more recently. But small populations of browns exist almost everywhere. And fish do travel. If by some chance this stream doesn't have any browns right now, a neighboring stream does, and fish travel on their own. Modern stocked genetics aren't very suited to stream life and even though, YES, a stocked fish may breed with a wild fish now and then, the offspring are a little less suited and that line tends to die out within a few generations. I'm sure some hold on. But overall we're talking about existing populations, that may have some influence genetically from more recent PFBC fish.

Rainbows are probably a decent example. PFBC didn't start with rainbows until later. Brookies were native and had been fry stocked on top of it, browns were fry stocked by the millions before we had hatchery rainbows. Yes, rainbows did take. We have wild rainbow streams. But the numbers and extent pale in comparison with browns. Note that all through the apps, north and south, wild rainbows are MUCH more common and successful than they are here. Because we didn't start on rainbows until a hatchery strain was already well developed. Once that process gets to a point where they have developed a genetic strain suitable for hatcheries, those lines of fish are less successful in the wild, and they had to do it in the face of typically already established ST and BT populations. Rainbows, where there was an opening to take hold, did, and after 10-20 generations evolution does it's thing and makes them more wild capable. But browns started with better DNA and had half a century head start here. That's why brown trout are so much better established in the big picture.

But sure, you can point out wild RT streams that are clearly more recent. I'm sure there are some more recent brown trout streams too. But we're talking about the minority, not the "base".

 

[silverfox]

To be clear. We're not talking 1 shipment. We're talking 50 years of many shipments. From wild stock. Stocked as freshly hatched fry. In yearly numbers that make today's PFBC efforts look like child's play, the numbers would make you blush. In small containers handed out to every local Dick and Harry to put in his favorite stream that goes by his farm. In an age where rail cars went up every little channel to support the logging boom. Park the rail car, hand out 100 containers with 1000 fry each to anyone who shows. Take em where you want em boys. Move onto next stop. Repeat. See ya again next year. For 50 years!!!!

I'm not claiming there is zero influence from modern stockies. Nor that zero streams have been "seeded" more recently. But small populations of browns exist almost everywhere. And fish do travel. If by some chance this stream doesn't have any browns right now, a neighboring stream does, and fish travel on their own. Modern stocked genetics aren't very suited to stream life and even though, YES, a stocked fish may breed with a wild fish now and then, the offspring are a little less suited and that line tends to die out within a few generations. I'm sure some hold on. But overall we're talking about existing populations, that may have some influence genetically from more recent PFBC fish.

Rainbows are probably a decent example. PFBC didn't start with rainbows until later. Brookies were native and had been fry stocked on top of it, browns were fry stocked by the millions before we had hatchery rainbows. Yes, rainbows did take. We have wild rainbow streams. But the numbers and extent pale in comparison with browns and brookies. Because we didn't start on rainbows until a hatchery strain was well developed, they just didn't take as well. Compared to some other areas of the Apps where they started on rainbows earlier and thus were able to establish more effectively (which is bad or good, depending on your point of view). Yes, like rainbows, I believe there are some streams that were seeded more recently, and some established populations have some modern stocked brown trout DNA added to the mix. But it's the minority of streams rather than the majority. The "base" population is from the 1880's to 1920's or so.

I've never read that we used "wild stock". Were the wild fish shipped from Germany? I thought we imported "eggs"? Of which we'd have no idea how many parental stock were used to acquire said eggs?

Again, I get that there's a lot of natural expansion. None of this makes me think any more or less about them. Frankly, I don't really care if they were beamed here by an alien spaceship.

I've always wondered why people don't admire and worship carp the same way. Very similar trajectory but with little to no support. Weird.

 

[silverfox]

One other point on the BT expansion thing. I've wondered, seriously, why aren't they so widespread in other areas nearby? MD, OH, VA, WV? Even parts of SW NY? Did our trains stop at the Mason Dixon line? Was PA just that much more hell-bent on spreading them?

 

[pcray1231]

I have no idea how many parental stock. We did not raise adult fish and take eggs from them for many years. We tried but were unable to raise them to adulthood. We took eggs from Europe for many years and stocked them soon after birthing them. Easier to transport eggs than fish.

Silver, the states still managed their own resources. PA was "very advanced" for that age in that they made efforts at "restoration" before other states. Yes, the trains stopped at the borders. You could say we were more hell bent on spreading them, yep. What took hold as invasive stocked species in various states was in large part governed by what that particular state did FIRST. We were among the first states to stock anything, and we started with brookies and browns, whereas many other states started with rainbows.

All of the states, each with their chosen species, everyone struggled to raise adult trout and were stocking fry while trying to raise some to adulthood. The fish wouldn't take feed, they'd run from the feeder guy. They'd kill each other. Ram the walls of the raceway. Be so stressed out in a concrete environment in crowded conditions they'd end up dying. Everyone was selective breeding and with multiple generations of fish, getting survival rates from like less than 1% up to a few %, and seeing that as progress! At some point instead of bringing in eggs they'd start breeding the handful of fish they were actually able to raise.

I believe it was Wisconsin that had the breakthrough. Using a specific river strain from Oregon, I believe, of rainbow trout, had survival rates FAR exceeding anything anyone else had going. And a few generations of selective breeding made it even better. They then sold that strain to other states. And we recieved them from some of those other states and took to rearing adult rainbow trout. We were late to the rainbow game and didn't get in until a viable hatchery strain had already been developed. So we stocked wild brown strains as fry for many many years in obscene numbers, and never stocked a rainbow strain until after it had already been well domesticated and browns had become well established. Hence the proliferation of browns and the scarcity of rainbow streams in this state.

Again, not saying modern hatchery strains don't reproduce at all. We do have wild rainbow trout in this state that are from more modern plantings. We likely have wild browns and brookies from more modern plantings as well. But they are the exception that proves the rule I guess you could say. When you look and say our primary invasive trout is browns. And in North Carolina it's rainbows. It stems from practices over a century ago.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Streamside on hammer with stocked trout over the fire?

I like drinking beers so we see eye to eye on something!

In all honesty it looks like a very nice project that was well though out. I am the camp of fix the big problem first, then the little ones. To me, the big problem there is being addressed with the habitat work.

I think the non native fish are a very minor problem (yes I used that term instead of invasive on purpose). But the way to prove that is to fix the habitat first. Once that's done and if the ST population takes a nose dive, I'd think the next step is ending stocking there. From there if ST doesnt improve you could go to some of the more radical approaches including the supermale approach (which I don't think will work), and finally poison.

Quite frankly, I don't think anything will get rid of BTs there. To me, in simple terms, the creek is better BT water than ST water and BT will find their way back in and dominate. And I think that is true with 95% of larger water in PA that held ST (at least part of the year) 100+ years ago.

BT don't automatically out compete ST or other native species. There are other factors in play. I don't know what they are but I can point to Maine as an example. BT were stocked throughout ME around the same time they were in PA. There are very few wild BT in ME. The middle Kennebec was a tremendous BT fishery as little as 15 years ago. It absolutely sucks now.

It's the same thing with RT. There are next to no wild RT in PA. I don't know why either. There are several populations in NY, and plenty in other states in the NE.

I you could try to address things in that order but the big cost in that scenario would be the conservation genetics of those brook trout that are left or worse yet if you have to do a reintroduction and you have no left over regional-local adaptation. The biggest sole driver of genetic diversity according to David kayzaks slides in that STAC link a while back is random genetic mutation and gene flow from one population to another is an additional source. Those two factors increase your genetic diversity which allows brook trout to adapt to climate change and other stressors at a higher rate, naturally this is because there is a large selection of genes for natural selection to select from to Mae a fitter individual. So the other thing on his slide was that a process called genetic drift(gene loss through death or lack of reproduction) is the opposite, it decreases genetic diversity and adaptive potential to climate change and stressors.

Now knowing the above concepts, he points out in small populations random mutation cannot keep up with gene loss from individuals dying off(genetic drift). So if you did the step wise approach you mentioned you would be leaving your self with a population that would be much much much much harder to restore because of genetic “damage” we can call it (a bunch of genetically not diverse, unadaptable, small, infertile brook trout).

Many populations in PA already likely have this inbreeding depression that I am simplifying by calling “genetic damage”. You can fix by genetic rescue but Dr. Kayzak said it’s easier to prevent than cure much like all things in life. Now this does bring up an interesting point though that some populations out there that are small, infertile, not fit to survive and inbred, may not be hostage to water quality and habitat as much as we believe them to be. Everyone knows about fix the stream but next to no one in the angling public knows about “fix the fish” aka genetic rescue. It showed amazing results in North Carolina. So when someone tells you these brookies all have skinny bellies and big heads so the stream they live in is just so infertile, it might be infertile. However, that might not be what’s preventing those fish from being fertile or big, it could be “genetic damage” or I’m breeding depression and genetic rescue may be able to correct that to a significant extent(within one year based on NC results).

Now when someone dips a thermometer in the stream and declares “75 degrees to warm for brook trout”. Again a lot of us go to the “fix the stream mentality”. That’s not incorrect, we do need to fix these streams that’s a huge factor. However, there are likely a lot of cases out there where that 75 deg stream has pockets of water in the mid 60’s or even high 50’s where ground water enters. And thanks to Dr. Nathaniel Hitts 2017 study we know brook trout can survive in warmer water and rise those thermal refuge more effectively when invasive trout are not present. So although the “fix the stream” mentality is not wrong, it may not be attacking the limiting reason brook trout cannot survive in the stream the way It is now. And even improving the health of the water and the physical stream itself can have the opposite effect and allow browns to take over like in setting AMD remediation or building better habitat like in the pine creek case study. Habitat was improved water was very cold and the following happened: “Within eight years post-restoration, numbers of brook trout per mile decreased by 70% (3,800 to 1,200), while numbers of brown trout per mile increased by 3,150% (175 to 5,600). A continuation of this trend may lead to the loss of the brook trout fishery.”

https://www.kiaptuwish.org/wp-conte...tion-Manuscript_Wild-Trout-Symposium_0917.pdf

So fixing the habitat first can sometimes be the last straw for a brook trout population. There are a number of observations of this anecdotally by fisheries scientists but also this phenomenon is supported in the literature observationally by Faust, deiterman and others. This is an active area of research right now and this phenomenon of habitat work hurting brook trout without brown trout control will likely become apt well known in the next year or so. Will post the publication in conservation forum as soon as it drops.

 

[silverfox]

I you could try to address things in that order but the big cost in that scenario would be the conservation genetics of those brook trout that are left or worse yet if you have to do a reintroduction and you have no left over regional-local adaptation. The biggest sole driver of genetic diversity according to David kayzaks slides in that STAC link a while back is random genetic mutation and gene flow from one population to another is an additional source. Those two factors increase your genetic diversity which allows brook trout to adapt to climate change and other stressors at a higher rate, naturally this is because there is a large selection of genes for natural selection to select from to Mae a fitter individual. So the other thing on his slide was that a process called genetic drift(gene loss through death or lack of reproduction) is the opposite, it decreases genetic diversity and adaptive potential to climate change and stressors.

Now knowing the above concepts, he points out in small populations random mutation cannot keep up with gene loss from individuals dying off(genetic drift). So if you did the step wise approach you mentioned you would be leaving your self with a population that would be much much much much harder to restore because of genetic “damage” we can call it (a bunch of genetically not diverse, unadaptable, small, infertile brook trout).

Many populations in PA already likely have this inbreeding depression that I am simplifying by calling “genetic damage”. You can fix by genetic rescue but Dr. Kayzak said it’s easier to prevent than cure much like all things in life. Now this does bring up an interesting point though that some populations out there that are small, infertile, not fit to survive and inbred, may not be hostage to water quality and habitat as much as we believe them to be. Everyone knows about fix the stream but next to no one in the angling public knows about “fix the fish” aka genetic rescue. It showed amazing results in North Carolina. So when someone tells you these brookies all have skinny bellies and big heads so the stream they live in is just so infertile, it might be infertile. However, that might not be what’s preventing those fish from being fertile or big, it could be “genetic damage” or I’m breeding depression and genetic rescue may be able to correct that to a significant extent(within one year based on NC results).

Now when someone dips a thermometer in the stream and declares “75 degrees to warm for brook trout”. Again a lot of us go to the “fix the stream mentality”. That’s not incorrect, we do need to fix these streams that’s a huge factor. However, there are likely a lot of cases out there where that 75 deg stream has pockets of water in the mid 60’s or even high 50’s where ground water enters. And thanks to Dr. Nathaniel Hitts 2017 study we know brook trout can survive in warmer water and rise those thermal refuge more effectively when invasive trout are not present. So although the “fix the stream” mentality is not wrong, it may not be attacking the limiting reason brook trout cannot survive in the stream the way It is now. And even improving the health of the water and the physical stream itself can have the opposite effect and allow browns to take over like in setting AMD remediation or building better habitat like in the pine creek case study. Habitat was improved water was very cold and the following happened: “Within eight years post-restoration, numbers of brook trout per mile decreased by 70% (3,800 to 1,200), while numbers of brown trout per mile increased by 3,150% (175 to 5,600). A continuation of this trend may lead to the loss of the brook trout fishery.”

https://www.kiaptuwish.org/wp-conte...tion-Manuscript_Wild-Trout-Symposium_0917.pdf

So fixing the habitat first can sometimes be the last straw for a brook trout population. There are a number of observations of this anecdotally by fisheries scientists but also this phenomenon is supported in the literature observationally by Faust, deiterman and others. This is an active area of research right now and this phenomenon of habitat work hurting brook trout without brown trout control will likely become apt well known in the next year or so. Will post the publication in conservation forum as soon as it drops.

All of that aside, I guess for me, it's odd to see opposition to species management in one stream (any stream) where it might mean the removal of BT when we've got a state full of them. How many BT is enough?

So why not remove that variable from the equation first, then you can see the response of the ST population to everything else you do. Rather than the other way around. Better yet, what is the reason to argue in favor of doing everything else first and reserving that one thing until the end? Is it the hope that the last piece of the puzzle never gets put in place and we can hang on to yet another BT population? Is it just complete opposition to the idea of "losing" a single inch of BT water?

I'm just trying to understand the psychology here. I fully support brook trout removal out west to help cutthroat. Or trap netting lake trout in Yellowstone lake, or any other endeavor to protect a population of a species that is in decline is native, and/or at risk of extirpation whereas the species being removed is plentiful and/or nonnative. So it's not about species preference for me personally, just protecting something that is declining.

Speaking of which, I was emailed a paper this morning from SW PA where they compared population estimates from surveys on the Laurel ridge from 1984 to 4 years of more recent sampling (2011, 2014-2016). They documented a 60% decline in ST populations out of 20 headwater streams on the laurel ridge since 1984.

Of interest, there is they didn't seem to be able to identify exactly why. There was some speculation about sculpins or at least the population balance getting thrown out of whack to where sculpin predation on brook trout eggs "may" have played a role. Nonnative fish, canopy cover, or environmental impacts (pH, buffering/acid deposition etc.) didn't seem to have changed at all, or in some cases (buffering/acid deposition) actually improved.

Two things that stood out to me were a lack of consideration of what might have changed down in the valley as far as connectivity is concerned (nonnative fish/AOP barriers) and more importantly temperature (ambient/stream) in the valley streams. The latter in conjunction w/ the other issues might be a good place to look. I'd bet it's more likely just a combination of a whole host of factors.

Regardless of why it happened there, the point is it's a documented decline. A pretty significant one at that. They mentioned in the paper a lack of good historical data and a modern lack of data gathering. In other words, we just don't have a baseline of where things were, let alone where they're going.

So whether it's Hammer creek or Big Spring or East Licking Creek or any other random place in this state. It would be nice to see something significant done to bolster brook trout specifically. Given the extreme fluctuations in environmental conditions in 1st order mountain streams, it might be interesting to see what would happen in a groundwater-influenced stream in a valley like Hammer or Big Spring where we at least eliminate the competition variable.

 

[troutbert]

There are many stream sections in PA that have been stocked with brown trout, but there are no brown trout there, only brook trout.

Also, there are many places in PA where the headwaters and small tribs have no brown trout, only brook trout, but brown trout are present further downstream.

The reason for this is well known. It occurs where the headwaters are infertile, with low pH, i.e. the water is acidic. If the water is too acidic, there will be no fish at all. This situation is sometimes found in the far headwaters. Then there is a range where the water is slightly less acidic, where brook trout can live, but brown trout cannot.

I know of a few streams that are 50 feet wide, even 70 feet, and the water temps hit 80F in the summer, and there are brook trout, but no brown trout.

The reason is not because of physical barriers, and not because the brown trout never had access to that water. The reason is that the water is too acidic for brown trout, but OK for brook trout.

This is common in some areas in PA. I've never been to Maine, but it seems likely that the same situation exists in parts of that state.

 

[moon1284]

W/ temps in ME, I meant the other way. i.e., it's too cold for too long.

Agreed on wild RT not gaining widespread support because in freestoners they're generally fairly small. I will say, it's ironic to me that Big Spring is viewed as a "unique RT fishery" when it should be a "unique ST fishery" which is where it got its fame in the first place. Rather than develop that and have one of the few places south of MA with large spring dwelling ST, we cling to the RT as if its something special. It's fake is what it is. A painful reminder of how badly we screwed it up.

Broadly, to someone like me, what I see is a complete lack of focus or prioritization on ST specifically anywhere. Big Spring presents a unique opportunity because it's one of the only spring streams with a large impoundment intact down where the water chemistry is screwed and trout don't really survive or thrive. Also given its history and fame as a world-class ST fishery, you'd think there might be a little support for the idea of focusing on rebuilding that rather than clinging to a west coast species that doesn't belong there. I mean, we have lake Erie if big rainbows are your thing. Or falling spring a few miles away if you just have to catch a stream-born RT.

"good population of ST over say 15-inches"... I hate it when people use fish size as some arbitrary criteria that has to be met for anything to be worthwhile. It's weird. It's also probably one of the main reasons BT have such widespread support.

It would be one thing if we had some big watershed in the state that was actually managed for brook trout and nothing else. Then sure, who cares about Big Spring. It's wrecked and barely hanging on anyway. Which is what makes it even more depressing. We can't get one single practically destroyed stream to be managed solely for brook trout.

I dont necessarily disagree with what your saying re big Spring. I just think it's a hard sell to ruin that RT fishery for an ST fishery that in my opinion isn't a sure thing.

 

[moon1284]

I you could try to address things in that order but the big cost in that scenario would be the conservation genetics of those brook trout that are left or worse yet if you have to do a reintroduction and you have no left over regional-local adaptation. The biggest sole driver of genetic diversity according to David kayzaks slides in that STAC link a while back is random genetic mutation and gene flow from one population to another is an additional source. Those two factors increase your genetic diversity which allows brook trout to adapt to climate change and other stressors at a higher rate, naturally this is because there is a large selection of genes for natural selection to select from to Mae a fitter individual. So the other thing on his slide was that a process called genetic drift(gene loss through death or lack of reproduction) is the opposite, it decreases genetic diversity and adaptive potential to climate change and stressors.

Now knowing the above concepts, he points out in small populations random mutation cannot keep up with gene loss from individuals dying off(genetic drift). So if you did the step wise approach you mentioned you would be leaving your self with a population that would be much much much much harder to restore because of genetic “damage” we can call it (a bunch of genetically not diverse, unadaptable, small, infertile brook trout).

Many populations in PA already likely have this inbreeding depression that I am simplifying by calling “genetic damage”. You can fix by genetic rescue but Dr. Kayzak said it’s easier to prevent than cure much like all things in life. Now this does bring up an interesting point though that some populations out there that are small, infertile, not fit to survive and inbred, may not be hostage to water quality and habitat as much as we believe them to be. Everyone knows about fix the stream but next to no one in the angling public knows about “fix the fish” aka genetic rescue. It showed amazing results in North Carolina. So when someone tells you these brookies all have skinny bellies and big heads so the stream they live in is just so infertile, it might be infertile. However, that might not be what’s preventing those fish from being fertile or big, it could be “genetic damage” or I’m breeding depression and genetic rescue may be able to correct that to a significant extent(within one year based on NC results).

Now when someone dips a thermometer in the stream and declares “75 degrees to warm for brook trout”. Again a lot of us go to the “fix the stream mentality”. That’s not incorrect, we do need to fix these streams that’s a huge factor. However, there are likely a lot of cases out there where that 75 deg stream has pockets of water in the mid 60’s or even high 50’s where ground water enters. And thanks to Dr. Nathaniel Hitts 2017 study we know brook trout can survive in warmer water and rise those thermal refuge more effectively when invasive trout are not present. So although the “fix the stream” mentality is not wrong, it may not be attacking the limiting reason brook trout cannot survive in the stream the way It is now. And even improving the health of the water and the physical stream itself can have the opposite effect and allow browns to take over like in setting AMD remediation or building better habitat like in the pine creek case study. Habitat was improved water was very cold and the following happened: “Within eight years post-restoration, numbers of brook trout per mile decreased by 70% (3,800 to 1,200), while numbers of brown trout per mile increased by 3,150% (175 to 5,600). A continuation of this trend may lead to the loss of the brook trout fishery.”

https://www.kiaptuwish.org/wp-conte...tion-Manuscript_Wild-Trout-Symposium_0917.pdf

So fixing the habitat first can sometimes be the last straw for a brook trout population. There are a number of observations of this anecdotally by fisheries scientists but also this phenomenon is supported in the literature observationally by Faust, deiterman and others. This is an active area of research right now and this phenomenon of habitat work hurting brook trout without brown trout control will likely become apt well known in the next year or so. Will post the publication in conservation forum as soon as it drops.

I disagree with you on this, and to revert back to my old self, and the studies or modeling (im acknowledging you didnt bring up modeling) aren't going to change my mind.

Trout can find spring seeps for sure, and live in streams that reach higher temperatures. So you have a bunch of stressed trout in a spring seep for prolonged periods of time. The next step to protect them is to close fishing during the summer. I'm all for closing during the spawn, but not the summer - especially if there is a way to maintain cooler temperatures. That's not good for fly fishing and quite frankly that's my concern.

Better habitat = better fly fishing. I like the sequence I layed out and I'll stick with it until someone can convince me otherwise.

 

[silverfox]

There are many stream sections in PA that have been stocked with brown trout, but there are no brown trout there, only brook trout.

Also, there are many places in PA where the headwaters and small tribs have no brown trout, only brook trout, but brown trout are present further downstream.

The reason for this is well known. It occurs where the headwaters are infertile, with low pH, i.e. the water is acidic. If the water is too acidic, there will be no fish at all. This situation is sometimes found in the far headwaters. Then there is a range where the water is slightly less acidic, where brook trout can live, but brown trout cannot.

I know of a few streams that are 50 feet wide, even 70 feet, and the water temps hit 80F in the summer, and there are brook trout, but no brown trout.

The reason is not because of physical barriers, and not because the brown trout never had access to that water. The reason is that the water is too acidic for brown trout, but OK for brook trout.

This is common in some areas in PA. I've never been to Maine, but it seems likely that the same situation exists in parts of that state.

One thing I've learned over the years is our individual locations play a role in what we perceive. To someone living in downtown Pittsburgh, proximity to "wild trout" in general is not great. To someone living in Potter Co., it might seem like there are brook trout a stone's throw in any direction. To someone living in central PA, change that Potter Co. experience to brown trout.

I admittedly don't live in the best part of the state for brook trout. When it comes to brook trout, I'm better off driving to MD than staying near home. One thing that likely shapes my opinion is that while I don't really have much in the way of brook trout, I've got plenty of brown trout and mixed populations. So to me, from my perspective, it appears like we have much more brown trout than brook trout or at least a lot of mixed pops. The hard part is seeing all the "wild trout" habitat and even some places that are "supposed to be" brook trout that aren't.

Just to try to put numbers to this, I looked at the reality within a 66 mile radius from my house and extracted the vectors to get counts to see what it is in reality.

• There are 82 allopatric brook trout patches according to EBTJV.
• Of those 82, 12 lie within SGL's, and 12 lie within SF's.
• Of the remaining 24 out of 82 that are on public lands, 4 are actually "allopatric".
• 1 other one has stocked rainbows but would be pure brook trout otherwise.
• 1 other should be allopatric but a club has been stocking where they're not supposed to be (in a class a brook trout stream).

I'm defining "allopatric" strictly here. The stream I posted the other day where I caught a wayward wild brown trout on top of the mountain (in low pH) for example, doesn't count as "allopatric" to me. Yes, it was 100:1 brook trout to brown trout, but that's not a single species system. That's just fly fishing. I'd bet there are more browns in there than the one.

So of the public lands that I've fished, I've found brown trout in all of them but 4. For a lot of the other patches, I'd bet money that there are wild browns in them (or stocked trout) based on their connection to wild brown trout water or stocking. Some of those that are on private property I've fished and they have browns in them.

So in a 13,680 square mile area with 1,600 stream sections listed as "natural reproduction", 4 are accessible to the public for angling and are actually pure brook trout.

There are 100 class a brook trout streams in that area. Of those, 23 are within public lands. A lot of those lie within patches that aren't listed as allopatric by EBTJV. In fishing them, they're clearly not allopatric. Not strictly. They might meet PFBC kg/ha requirements to be listed as "brook trout", but they're certainly not single species.

It's worth noting that a lot of those Class A's aren't really Class A. Using the stream I posted about the other day again, in the headwaters, there is a TINY stream that is listed as Class A. This stream is 3,000 feet in length and you can step across it from its confluence with a "natural reproduction" stream (that is stocked btw). There were YOY in it but no way is it Class A. Not right now. I'd bet money that was sampled in September when all the fish from the other stream were in there to spawn and for thermal refuge. It has sizable springs feeding it so it's probably the best thermal refuge in the watershed. Realistically, the larger stream probably should be Class A, but then, of course, we'd have to stop stocking it.

Just trying to point out why this seems frustrating or lopsided to me.

 

[moon1284]

One thing I've learned over the years is our individual locations play a role in what we perceive. To someone living in downtown Pittsburgh, proximity to "wild trout" in general is not great. To someone living in Potter Co., it might seem like there are brook trout a stone's throw in any direction. To someone living in central PA, change that Potter Co. experience to brown trout.

I admittedly don't live in the best part of the state for brook trout. When it comes to brook trout, I'm better off driving to MD than staying near home. One thing that likely shapes my opinion is that while I don't really have much in the way of brook trout, I've got plenty of brown trout and mixed populations. So to me, from my perspective, it appears like we have much more brown trout than brook trout or at least a lot of mixed pops. The hard part is seeing all the "wild trout" habitat and even some places that are "supposed to be" brook trout that aren't.

Just to try to put numbers to this, I looked at the reality within a 66 mile radius from my house and extracted the vectors to get counts to see what it is in reality.

• There are 82 allopatric brook trout patches according to EBTJV.
• Of those 82, 12 lie within SGL's, and 12 lie within SF's.
• Of the remaining 24 out of 82 that are on public lands, 4 are actually "allopatric".
• 1 other one has stocked rainbows but would be pure brook trout otherwise.
• 1 other should be allopatric but a club has been stocking where they're not supposed to be (in a class a brook trout stream).

I'm defining "allopatric" strictly here. The stream I posted the other day where I caught a wayward wild brown trout on top of the mountain (in low pH) for example, doesn't count as "allopatric" to me. Yes, it was 100:1 brook trout to brown trout, but that's not a single species system. That's just fly fishing. I'd bet there are more browns in there than the one.

So of the public lands that I've fished, I've found brown trout in all of them but 4. For a lot of the other patches, I'd bet money that there are wild browns in them (or stocked trout) based on their connection to wild brown trout water or stocking. Some of those that are on private property I've fished and they have browns in them.

So in a 13,680 square mile area with 1,600 stream sections listed as "natural reproduction", 4 are accessible to the public for angling and are actually pure brook trout.

There are 100 class a brook trout streams in that area. Of those, 23 are within public lands. A lot of those lie within patches that aren't listed as allopatric by EBTJV. In fishing them, they're clearly not allopatric. Not strictly. They might meet PFBC kg/ha requirements to be listed as "brook trout", but they're certainly not single species.

It's worth noting that a lot of those Class A's aren't really Class A. Using the stream I posted about the other day again, in the headwaters, there is a TINY stream that is listed as Class A. This stream is 3,000 feet in length and you can step across it from its confluence with a "natural reproduction" stream (that is stocked btw). There were YOY in it but no way is it Class A. Not right now. I'd bet money that was sampled in September when all the fish from the other stream were in there to spawn and for thermal refuge. It has sizable springs feeding it so it's probably the best thermal refuge in the watershed. Realistically, the larger stream probably should be Class A, but then, of course, we'd have to stop stocking it.

Just trying to point out why this seems frustrating or lopsided to me.

Just looking for clarification, EBTJV says there are 24 allopathic ST patches in public land and PA, and based on your observation only 4 are truly allopatric? Not questioning your observations, I just want to be clear.

I kept up with EBTJV for a while maybe 12-15 years ago. The maps only had a few states back then. I tried to use it to find places to catch ST and it worked sometimes. What was wierd is it had some streams very close to lake Ontario where it said there were ST. These were secondary and tertiary tributaries to lake Ontario and, a watershed I have a lot of familiarity with. I went to a couple of these streams and I'd bet my life there haven't been ST in them in 100 years. I'm talking streams within 2-3 miles of Lake Ontario that are stagnant and probably get to 80 in the summer. I saw LMB in one and sunfish in most.

I have no idea if they are still listed, but that made me question the accuracy of EBTJVs lists. Those streams were 100 percent a mistake.

Edit- I guess I'm glad I didn't bet my life. Apparently there are ST in Irondequoit creek pretty close to LO. I'd imagine I was at the wrong trib to Irondequoit.

 

[silverfox]

Just looking for clarification, EBTJV says there are 24 allopathic ST patches in public land and PA, and based on your observation only 4 are truly allopatric? Not questioning your observations, I just want to be clear.

I kept up with EBTJV for a while maybe 12-15 years ago. The maps only had a few states back then. I tried to use it to find places to catch ST and it worked sometimes. What was wierd is it had some streams very close to lake Ontario where it said there were ST. These were secondary and tertiary tributaries to lake Ontario and, a watershed I have a lot of familiarity with. I went to a couple of these streams and I'd bet my life there haven't been ST in them in 100 years. I'm talking streams within 2-3 miles of Lake Ontario that are stagnant and probably get to 80 in the summer. I saw LMB in one and sunfish in most.

I have no idea if they are still listed, but that made me question the accuracy of EBTJVs lists. Those streams were 100 percent a mistake.

Edit- I guess I'm glad I didn't bet my life. Apparently there are ST in Irondequoit creek pretty close to LO. I'd imagine I was at the wrong trib to Irondequoit.

82 patches within a 66 mile radius of my home. There are 10,466 patches in PA.

Yeah, I agree. In my wanderings checking these out or based on prior knowledge of some of the patches they have listed as allopatric, they're not. One really bizarre one near me that I noticed right away as odd, is what I can only describe as mostly ephemeral ditches with a mainstem that is probably 3 feet wide and flows through cow pastures with no riparian buffer at all. Down close to its confluence with a larger stream, it's just an algae-filled ditch that probably gets well over 80 in the summer. I've thought about seeing if the landowners would let me poke around with a fly rod but I'm kind of concerned they'll call the men with the white coats on me for even thinking there's fish in it.

Some of the more obvious ones are patches that have a stocked stream flowing right through the middle of it that are actively stocked today with brown trout and there are clearly wild browns in it. I don't know how that's an "allopatric" brook trout patch.

There are some that are correct, or probably correct that are on private land w/ no connection to stocked water or wild BT water. I just use it as a "guide" for what should be allopatric since the PFBC biomass layers don't really contain any species information aside from Class A, which isn't really an indication of allopatric/sympatric populations. The EBTJV patches do help with the vectors that are simply "natural reproduction" as it's a clue that the species comp might be allopatric.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Something to keep in mind without jumping off the deepend here. EBTJV models are MODELS. Every state involved has data formated in different ways and varying sample methodology. We still have lots of unassessed streams, although most of the obvious unassessed streams to hold wild trout have been surveyed in the past 10 years. We still have plenty of other streams that haven't been surveyed for 20 to 30 years. These models are far from perfect and only as good as the data available to feed them.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I disagree with you on this, and to revert back to my old self, and the studies or modeling (im acknowledging you didnt bring up modeling) aren't going to change my mind.

Trout can find spring seeps for sure, and live in streams that reach higher temperatures. So you have a bunch of stressed trout in a spring seep for prolonged periods of time. The next step to protect them is to close fishing during the summer. I'm all for closing during the spawn, but not the summer - especially if there is a way to maintain cooler temperatures. That's not good for fly fishing and quite frankly that's my concern.

Better habitat = better fly fishing. I like the sequence I layed out and I'll stick with it until someone can convince me otherwise.

You bring up a very good point that there is a big difference between flyfishing and conservation. I appreciate your honesty that your main concern is the fly fishing. I love to fly fish but personally I prioritize the conservation of native species in decline over the sport I love.

I think that imagining a scenario where a version of me did prioritize fly fishing over conservation, I would still be ok with PAFB picking one small sub watershed above a barrier out of the 86,000 stream miles to manage for brook trout. Just one place to break from the norm of stocking over them, managing for invasive species over them, protecting those invasive fish with special regs downstream of them and having no C and R for brook trout. Even if I was in the awkward camp of people who for some reason feel brown trout invading outside their native range via historic human stockings now causing the decline of native fish species around the world still deserve to be protected like they are the last white rhino outside their native range despite occupying an estimated vast majority of suitable areas for them on planet earth, I would still probably understand one small area in Pennsylvania actually truly managed for the native brook trout that evolved there with all the other creatures in the food web.

Many sources of information suggest that brown trout have been introduced and/or established in most areas of the world capable of supporting them (McIntosh et al. 2011). We have literally helped stock them almost every where in the world they could survive because of our favoritism For them over healthy ecosystems. So while I don’t hate them at all as a species, quite the opposite really in their native range, worrying about loosing one avg 4-8” brown trout population in one PA stream is like worrying if Jeff Bezos got short changed at the register buying a snickers bar.

Even better fly fishing is very subjective. Choosing to restore for native brook trout would not cause a stream to “close” in the summer. The fact that the water is 75 on the thermometer dip and any trout species are huddled on springs would make it not right to fish. That’s just the stream not the fish in it. That’s why we all fish for smallies, limestoners or trout streams in the mid 60’s in the summer(I hope).

Even despite my personal valuation of conservation higher than my fishing experience because I don’t feel like my sport gives me the right to destabilize an ecosystem, there are examples where choosing common sense brook trout management wound up in a pretty dam good fishery. Sadly in Pa we just don’t know what it looks like because no one’s actually addressed stocking over them in anything larger than a stream or a section of one and we ignore wild invasive species. In the upper savage river in MD and some watersheds in WV it’s not uncommon to catch wild brookies in the teens. This guy came out of upper savage south of all of us in a freestoner just like the ones we all think can’t grow big brook trout, just no browns in the one this guy came out of that’s all.

We have more spring water than they do down there by far and we are in a northern latitude where it has colder air temps on avg. The biggest difference and most notable thing about those streams compared to our best brook trout subwatersheds in Pa is that connectivity is prioritized and wild invasive populations are absent. Their not getting stocked to death either. We have huge forested watersheds. Some as good as you can get from habitat Stand point in the north central part of the state and if habitat and water quality are the only significant factors in play why are they full of brown trout and small stunted brook trout?

The savage is only like 100 miles of connected freestone stream. Upper Kettle watershed is I think around 200 of great water quality/habitat and 10” is a trophy up there. That’s what the upper savage averages in some areas of it. Can’t ignore the big difference of ungodly amount of stocked and invasive species and the difference in results. We chose not to have a decent population larger native brook trout in this state by not using that blue print for success already established in neighboring states to the south of us and many people are fearful enough of losing invasive trout in only one small sub watershed to try convince us all not to allow just one waterway in the entire state of Pennsylvania to reach its full potential. Google savage river brook trout and look at the images of those donkeys and tell me you don’t want that from a fishing and conservation standpoint.

 

[silverfox]

Something to keep in mind without jumping off the deepend here. EBTJV models are MODELS. Every state involved has data formated in different ways and varying sample methodology. We still have lots of unassessed streams, although most of the obvious unassessed streams to hold wild trout have been surveyed in the past 10 years. We still have plenty of other streams that haven't been surveyed for 20 to 30 years. These models are far from perfect and only as good as the data available to feed them.

Absolutely. A lot of their data is "predicted". As I said, I use it as a "guide". I think the point there is that the overall numbers are probably exaggerated as far as our "inventory" of wild ST. i.e., the situation in PA is probably worse than was summarized.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Some parts of the state have seen an expansion of wild trout and st populations. Mike documented this in his area in many cases. I fully acknowledge populations seemingly have been reduced elsewhere in the state, but personally do not subscribe to the sky is falling mindset.

 

[silverfox]

Some parts of the state have seen an expansion of wild trout and st populations. Mike documented this in his area in many cases. I fully acknowledge populations seemingly have been reduced elsewhere in the state, but personally do not subscribe to the sky is falling mindset.

I'm sure it varies from area to area. It's not so much "the sky is falling" as it is that brook trout are listed as a Species of Greatest Conservation Need in PA and I'd personally like to see more done for the species specifically.

I think that has to go beyond habitat and connectivity. I don't say that because I don't like BT and it's not even solely tied to studies that indicate the issue. It's literally prescribed by the PNHP of which PFBC is a partner/signatory or whatever that official arrangement is.

Specifically:

In general, I'm not asking for anything that isn't already prescribed by state/federal agencies or already being done outside of PA.

Frankly, I was excited when the current TMP came out because there was a clear focus on ST. I sent in lengthy comments in support and critical of a few components.

However, what I've seen since it was adopted is, refinement of stocking limits, further protections for BT outside those limits, more C&R regs (slot limit) designed specifically for BT (even essentially excluding or even arguably detrimental to ST), discussions about ceasing stocking on Class A BT streams, removal of BT streams from stocking, and in general, very little actually even mentioned about ST. To be fair, the stocking authorization does benefit ST, though that's obviously not the only species to benefit from the permit. You could argue that the [ban on] harvest of wild trout outside of STW limits might benefit ST, but those areas aren't really ST waters. In a lot of cases, the winter habitat IS the STW area.

So I think my alarmism isn't necessarily that I think the sky is falling, it's that I'm not seeing progress here even where we've supposedly said we will, and watching other states throughout the range do more.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

I am in no way downplaying the conservation need of brook trout. For all those that wanted c&r on wild trout streams, you basically got it from Labor Day to opening day.