How many hatcheries in PA

[Fish Sticks]

I have an answer to the original question (sort of). One note is that for the private hatcheries, this is based on the licensee, not actual total private hatcheries.

i.e., Laurel Hill Trout Farm is registered as their business address in Rockwood, but they have 5 hatchery locations. I don't know how many of these private hatcheries are like that, but it likely means the total number of those hatcheries is higher than the map/count shows.

Edit> A few more caveats; This doesn't include places that stock private ponds and charge for fishing (pay lakes) where the proprietor isn't a propagator. Some of the private entities may be raising baitfish, warm water species, food fish indoors, or research facilities.

View attachment 1641224806

Wow that’s an underestimation?!?! Lol all those ground water upwellings with either concrete race ways poured in, springs damned up into spring ponds that warm up, ground water upwelling’s that could be spawning/thermal refuge for brook trout now full ofhatchery escapees or nitrogen/phosphorus. Makes me wonder with spring pond dam removals and raceway removals/reclamation projects for these spring sources what could be possible for brook trout in some of these streams.

 

[silverfox]

The prioritization efforts definitely suffer from a lack of data. I've seen some noticeable improvements in recent years and GIS is a game changer for prioritization.

There are several different massive challenges to tackle just to protect current brook trout populations in PA and it is disheartening that collectively we make little progress on addressing any of them. Most of the challenges have already been pointed out, and I guess my point is don't forget about development. The solution to that one is less clear to me. People need places to live. If our stormwater regs were sufficient at protecting the environment, we wouldn't lose a brook trout population every time a neighborhood gets built in its watershed, so I suppose start there for those SE PA populations. The land use changes have an effect on groundwater too.

What good is looking at projected water temps 100 years from now if a neighborhood is going to be built and wipe out a population 5 years from now?

Which challenge needs the most immediate attention varies tremendously based the exact location and details of the watershed.

I'm in complete agreement about the studies not adequately accounting for refugia...but given the limited funding they get, how could they know those details?

I saw several studies saying global warming will wipe out all wild trout (not just brook trout) from the Catoctin Mountain region of MD by 2100. Well, I organized a study of 5 brook trout watersheds there and we found 6 locations inhabited by abundant brook trout where the water temp never exceeded 68F - during the second-hottest summer on record. So in order for those studies to be true, the water temps would need to increase by about 10 degrees or more to reach a level that would make the streams uninhabitable to trout on the basis of summer water temps. Other threats are going to arise long before that happens. One of those sites is still stocked over, btw, MD isn't perfect, but they definitely make PA look bad.

Found the map tool we were trying to find: https://chesapeake.usgs.gov/fishforecast/

 

[Fish Sticks]

Found the map tool we were trying to find: https://chesapeake.usgs.gov/fishforecast/

Dang I don’t like mid 20’s, will probably be important to ensure that spatially thermal refuge in close proximity to high quality foraging areas and high quality protective habitat features on a fine scale for those brook trout. Also once the removal on big hunting creek is complete those brookies won’t get kicked out of thermal refuge and can spend more time leaving thermal refuge going farther to forage for brief periods based on Nathaniel Hitts 2017 study.

“Our results indicate that removal of introduced brown trout may facilitate native brook trout expansion and population viability in downstream reaches depending in part on the spatial configuration of groundwater upwelling zones.”

 

[Mike]

Dang I don’t like mid 20’s, will probably be important to ensure that spatially thermal refuge in close proximity to high quality foraging areas and high quality protective habitat features on a fine scale for those brook trout. Also once the removal on big hunting creek is complete those brookies won’t get kicked out of thermal refuge and can spend more time leaving thermal refuge going farther to forage for brief periods based on Nathaniel Hitts 2017 study.

“Our results indicate that removal of introduced brown trout may facilitate native brook trout expansion and population viability in downstream reaches depending in part on the spatial configuration of groundwater upwelling zones.”

Actually, based on that study and the quote above, they “may” do that, which also means that they may not. This is the language of science.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Actually, based on that study and the quote above, they “may” do that, which also means that they may not. This is the language of science.

Yes there are no absolutes in science. There are watersheds browns actually cannot seem to infiltrate at all even oddly enough. It’s never one just factor but we also never want to completely ignore one factor in our management. As John hoxmier and Doug dieterman point out in their driftless region review article in brook/brown trout habitat, any effort just aimed at water quality/habitat that ignored other factors in the five factor comment framework model such as biotic interactions has a low likelyhood of succeeding.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Actually, based on that study and the quote above, they “may” do that, which also means that they may not. This is the language of science.

We have assumed that habitat and water quality always will fix the problem as a panacea and never considered the “may not” scenario thus far in Pa as far as our management of biotic interactions it seems.

 

[silverfox]

Actually, based on that study and the quote above, they “may” do that, which also means that they may not. This is the language of science.

Always looking for the "out"... If there's even the slightest chance that we can maintain the status quo, do so at all costs? Right? Why even try?

It's so much easier to throw caution to the wind. The easy way. The least disruptive to the most.

I think that this is wrong. The unique power bestowed on each individual human being to do good and even change the course of history is quite often underestimated.

All of the greed and shortsightedness of the exploiters... will not prevail if just one individual rises-up and says, "why should we put up with this?". I insist that if one is stubborn enough... he can and will prevail over those misanthropes who were obviously born out of wedlock.

The trail will be long and full of frustrations. Good and ill must be accepted together. We have to reconcile ourselves to the mysterious rhythm of our destinies. Rest! Cries the chief sawyer, and we pause for breath.

Edited to add the complete quote.

 

[sarce]

I insist that if Fish Sticks is stubborn enough... he can and will prevail over those misanthropes who were obviously born out of wedlock.

Fixed 😉

 

[moon1284]

Dang I don’t like mid 20’s, will probably be important to ensure that spatially thermal refuge in close proximity to high quality foraging areas and high quality protective habitat features on a fine scale for those brook trout. Also once the removal on big hunting creek is complete those brookies won’t get kicked out of thermal refuge and can spend more time leaving thermal refuge going farther to forage for brief periods based on Nathaniel Hitts 2017 study.

“Our results indicate that removal of introduced brown trout may facilitate native brook trout expansion and population viability in downstream reaches depending in part on the spatial configuration of groundwater upwelling

Dang I don’t like mid 20’s, will probably be important to ensure that spatially thermal refuge in close proximity to high quality foraging areas and high quality protective habitat features on a fine scale for those brook trout. Also once the removal on big hunting creek is complete those brookies won’t get kicked out of thermal refuge and can spend more time leaving thermal refuge going farther to forage for brief periods based on Nathaniel Hitts 2017 study.

“Our results indicate that removal of introduced brown trout may facilitate native brook trout expansion and population viability in downstream reaches depending in part on the spatial configuration of groundwater upwelling zones.”

What are you trying to say? I hope someone is paying you to post.

 

[moon1284]

Always looking for the "out"... If there's even the slightest chance that we can maintain the status quo, do so at all costs? Right? Why even try?

It's so much easier to throw caution to the wind. The easy way. The least disruptive to the most.

I think that this is wrong. The unique power bestowed on each individual human being to do good and even change the course of history is quite often underestimated.

All of the greed and shortsightedness of the exploiters... will not prevail if just one individual rises-up and says, "why should we put up with this?". I insist that if one is stubborn enough... he can and will prevail over those misanthropes who were obviously born out of wedlock.

The trail will be long and full of frustrations. Good and ill must be accepted together. We have to reconcile ourselves to the mysterious rhythm of our destinies. Rest! Cries the chief sawyer, and we pause for breath.

Edited to add the complete quote.

Do you get paid by the word, sentence, or paragraph?

 

[troutbert]

No one’s really talking about how brown trout are declining in Montana since 2000’s...

Is that being accompanied by an increase in native trout?

Or is there just an overall decline in trout populations in MT?

 

[Fish Sticks]

Do you get paid by the word, sentence, or paragraph?

Moon! Moon! Moon! Moon!

chong lee blood sooet - Google Search

www.google.com

 

[Fish Sticks]

Is that being accompanied by an increase in native trout?

Or is there just an overall decline in trout populations in MT?

No I don’t think native trout are increasing, just illustrates that just because a state agency picks wild brown trout doesn’t mean they get to keep them in the long run since these things play out over much longer than I’ve been alive. And in the process of favoring invasive species they also damage their native trout and food web. Perfect example, the Great Lakes. Invasive alewives came in NY had brilliant idea of trying to transplant pacific salmonids( trying to wash one invasive away with the other). They did amazing for decades and then they over grazed on the alewives in the process and crashed it and the pacific salmon will unlikely be able to switch over to round goby and will likely crash with the alweives leaving NY fishing tourism at a huge financial loss in the near future if that happens. These trophic casacades are common with invasive species and sometimes they destabilize the food web so bad that they themselves can no longer survive.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Is that being accompanied by an increase in native trout?

Or is there just an overall decline in trout populations in MT?

“The fact that brown trout populations are in decline in several Montana watersheds further complicates an already complicated situation. If it were just one river system, it might be easier to pinpoint the cause. But because brown trout are in decline in so many rivers, covering a large geographical area, finding the cause could be all the more difficult. As an interesting side note, this problem, whatever it is, does not appear to be affecting other salmonoid fishes like rainbow, cutthroat and Dolly Varden trout.”

Brown Trout decline in some southwest Montana rivers - The River Reporter

The other day when I met Galen for an evening of fishing, he handed me a book containing a note that outlined a serious decline in brown trout populations within some Montana rivers. This is what …

riverreporter.com

I think it all comes back to the assumption that just because they ca survive a few degrees warmer tha some of these other species everyone forgets they didn’t evolve there and discounts the entire rest of the toolbelt evolution has given native trout species wether that is the case or not in the large decline of brown trout in Montana.

 

[silverfox]

Do you get paid by the word, sentence, or paragraph?

It was a quote. Not one you'll find via Google by the way. It was written by someone Mike surely knows and I thought he'd get a kick out of it.

 

[troutbert]

Using PA examples, if brown trout populations decreased in the Letort, Spring Creek, Little Juniata River, Bald Eagle Creek, that wouldn't cause an increase in native brook trout in those streams. Because they hold no brook trout. And what would cause a decrease would be declines in physical habitat, water quality and quantity. Not because brown trout aren't capable of maintaining self-sustaining populations in these landscapes. The same is surely true in Montana. The declines there are probably due to drought and man-made disturbances.

Carp, starlings, English sparrows have not been stocked for a long time, over a century, yet they still maintain large populations. If brown trout stocking had totally ended in 1940, there would still be large numbers of brown trout here in PA. Their populations are maintained by reproduction, not by stocking.

Non-native plants such as multi-flora rose, shrub honeysuckles, autumn olive and barberry are no longer "stocked" but they are they are spreading all over the place. The understory of Spring Creek and many other valley limestone streams is MOSTLY non-native shrubs.

 

[silverfox]

Here's another example of a stream where we're continuing to add BT to a ST patch where we should be protecting it. Blacklog is Class C and is Allopatric ST. How many years of stocking BT does it take to create a self-sustaining population of BT?

The point on this one is that kg/ha has no bearing on habitat integrity or conservation priority. Without cessation of stocking, what would the presumed outcome be, if say, a nonprofit organization decided to devote time and money to addressing habitat issues?

 

[silverfox]

Using PA examples, if brown trout populations decreased in the Letort, Spring Creek, Little Juniata River, Bald Eagle Creek, that wouldn't cause an increase in native brook trout in those streams. Because they hold no brook trout. And what would cause a decrease would be declines in physical habitat, water quality and quantity. Not because brown trout aren't capable of maintaining self-sustaining populations in these landscapes. The same is surely true in Montana. The declines there are probably due to drought and man-made disturbances.

Carp, starlings, English sparrows have not been stocked for a long time, over a century, yet they still maintain large populations. If brown trout stocking had totally ended in 1940, there would still be large numbers of brown trout here in PA. Their populations are maintained by reproduction, not by stocking.

Non-native plants such as multi-flora rose, shrub honeysuckles, autumn olive and barberry are no longer "stocked" but they are they are spreading all over the place. The understory of Spring Creek and many other valley limestone streams is MOSTLY non-native shrubs.

The biologists in MT are stumped at the sudden collapse of BT populations in SE MT. I don't think it's fair to say that their collapse is due to environmental factors or to rule out inbreeding depression as a potential factor. If they don't know, we certainly don't.

It's the same with PA. BT are far more complex organisms than shrubbery or even sparrows. I think they're far more susceptible to founder events and invasion bottlenecks than say multi-flora rose.

We don't know what genetic issues are lurking in the BT population. Again, they came from limited source stock. I doubt that the initial shipment of 80,000 eggs came from a big pool of adults, and we know they came from a hatchery in Germany too, so the parental stock could have been inbred to begin with. To compound that, as geneticists have found somewhat recently, mixing genes from populations that have been separated by vast amounts of time or space results in outbreeding depression. So when we mix in genes from Scotland, more recently along with genes from Germany that have been isolated for a relatively long period of time (139 yr) all bets are off as to what happens next. I'm not sure I'd assume the populations are stable or that genetics will play no role in their future. One absolute is that they are nowhere near as genetically diverse as in their native range.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Using PA examples, if brown trout populations decreased in the Letort, Spring Creek, Little Juniata River, Bald Eagle Creek, that wouldn't cause an increase in native brook trout in those streams. Because they hold no brook trout. And what would cause a decrease would be declines in physical habitat, water quality and quantity. Not because brown trout aren't capable of maintaining self-sustaining populations in these landscapes. The same is surely true in Montana. The declines there are probably due to drought and man-made disturbances.

Carp, starlings, English sparrows have not been stocked for a long time, over a century, yet they still maintain large populations. If brown trout stocking had totally ended in 1940, there would still be large numbers of brown trout here in PA. Their populations are maintained by reproduction, not by stocking.

Non-native plants such as multi-flora rose, shrub honeysuckles, autumn olive and barberry are no longer "stocked" but they are they are spreading all over the place. The understory of Spring Creek and many other valley limestone streams is MOSTLY non-native shrubs.

Yea I don’t think the biologists know their stumped. But if the decline in brown trout were due to drought that could be something that cutthroat and bull trout probably experienced more frequently for example as they evolved in that area than brown trout did despite climate change increasing frequency/severity so could be related to brown trout not having local genetic adaptation if in fact that was why they were declining . But again they don’t know why and brown trout seem to be the only species demonstrating this collapse of age classes structure.

 

[Mike]

BT more complex than sparrows? Suggest reviewing the phylogenetic tree. Additionally, there is a lot of genetic plasticity recognized among and within the Salmonids, at least with respect to meristic characteristics.