silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
Disclaimer, this post is based on anecdotal “evidence” based on about 25 years of fishing this stream. It’s purely my observations of what has happened, though it is shared by several other people I know. As far as I’m aware, there was never a “before and after” scientific study on the effects of policies and physical alterations.
It’s also not a call to action, or even a suggestion that anything be done about it. Unfortunately, it’s too late for any corrective action on this stream. I’m only putting this out there so that hopefully someone stops to think about it. This stream is not unique in the state.
If you don't want to read my long meandering post, just skip to the elevator version at TL;DR
I’ve noticed a significant decline in native brook trout in a stream that I’ve fished most of my life. The stream can be broken down into 3 sections. The headwater section is very remote and most of it is only accessible by hiking a good distance through the woods along the stream. The middle section flows through agricultural land and has a hard road along most of it’s length. The lower section has the same characteristics as the middle section, but it’s temperatures get much warmer in the summer.
I’m sure some folks here might recognize this stream, and if you do, I’m really curious to hear your thoughts as well. I’ve encountered strangers who I’ve spoken to streamside who have offered up this same observation unprovoked in discussing the stream and how it’s changed. While I don’t have the scientific background or means to solidify any of this as actual data, I’m convinced that a series of human impacts have altered the native population in the stream.
In the 1990’s, the upper reaches of this stream were almost entirely brook trout. You would occasionally catch a holdover brown above where they were stocked, but it was certainly the exception rather than the norm. The middle section was always a popular stocked trout stream and still is today. On any given weekend and often during the week, you’ll see cars parked along the hard road through the middle section and see people fishing it pretty regularly all year round. The upper section was never as popular with the stocked trout fishermen due to it’s “walk in” access and smaller flow. While a dirt road parallels the stream for a good portion of the upper section, you normally have to park and walk through the woods 50 to 100 yards to get to the stream. I think that always limited the number of harvest anglers in the upper section.
The upper section itself can be broken down into 2 unique stretches. The lower portion of the upper section has the gravel road along most of it’s course. The upper portion has no road access except for a gamelands road that is only open in the fall/winter. The lower portion of the upper section was always mostly inhabited by brook trout. Admittedly, in the 90’s, the fish were somewhat spread thin through this area. Trout in general were not in class A abundance, but it was certainly more brook trout than brown trout.
The upper portion of the upper section was entirely brook trout, and it always had really good numbers of fish. I never caught anything other than brook trout in the upper portion of the upper section through the 90’s and 2000’s. This upper section had a fair number of good size brook trout as well. Nothing out of the ordinary, but 10 inch brookies were not unusual.
In 2005, the upper portion of the upper section was designated as Class A. If my recollection is correct, prior to 2005, there were a few small stream improvement projects along the upper section. Some may have even pre-dated the 2000’s, but thinking back that far is getting harder. Around the time it was designated as class A, there were a few more jack dams and bank improvement projects added in the upper section. This continued into recent times, and I know it was a “flagship” project for some folks.
The stream improvements did their job, and the upper section where they were installed, did in fact attract trout. I recall in the 2000’s fishing one summer and finding an amazing amount of fish “stuck” at one of the jack dams. The water was low and they couldn’t get over the dam. This was the type of dam where logs were laid across the stream and then planking covered in plastic was laid parallel to the stream flow with rock jetties on either side. This creates a nice waterfall pool when the flow is up, but an impassable barrier when the water is low. Regardless, the dams did in fact add habitat to the stream that worked in the trout’s favor.
Over the years, the number of brook trout in the upper section has continued to decline, while the number of brown trout has skyrocketed. Where you used to only catch a holdover brown trout or two, you now almost exclusively catch wild brown trout. I’ve also caught wild rainbow trout more recently and have noticed a lot more holdover rainbow trout throughout the upper section. Just last spring I caught several juvenile wild brown trout all the way in the very upper portion of the headwaters. The browns have taken over.
In addition to the browns taking hold throughout the system, the state continues to this day to stock 5lb + browns all the way up to the demarcation line where the Class A section starts. I’ve caught big stocked browns far up into the upper section recently along with some large wild browns. A local club also stocks rainbows throughout the upper section below the Class A line.
As with many freestone streams in the region, this stream gets fairly warm in the summer and the flows typically get very low. As is expected, all of the stocked trout that were stocked in the middle section find their way into the upper section by late June/early July. I fish this stream extremely regularly throughout the entire year except during the closed season before the trout season opener. It’s abundantly obvious when you’re on the stream as often as I am what the fish are doing.
In January, you’ll catch a mix of stocked and wild fish in slower pools throughout the middle section and upper section. In trout season, after it’s stocked, you catch stocked fish throughout the middle section and slightly into the upper section. By summer, it’s mostly chubs and suckers in the middle section with a few trout holding where there are feeders or spring seeps and the upper section is polluted with stocked trout. By fall and into winter, the fish are more spread out again.
The one common thing that has happened, is that all year long, the brookies are pushed into the very upper portion of the upper section. Below the class A line, it’s VERY rare these days to catch a brook trout, whereas in the 90’s, you could catch brookies from the transition between the middle section and the upper section. At about the transition between middle and upper, there is a sizeable feeder stream. This is at about the point where water becomes too warm below the feeder to support trout year round. Another troubling side effect of the impact on the stream is that the feeder is now inundated with brown trout as well.
This feeder was always a brookie only stream. It’s almost a miniature example of it’s destination stream (subject stream) in that it too has had a number of stream improvement projects added along it’s course. Studies have found large brown trout all the way into the very small upper sections of this feeder stream today. As the middle section warms and the flows drop, the leftover stocked fish find their way into these thermal refuge areas of the stream (feeders and mainstem) where they push the brookies out.
None of this is surprising, and I’m sure it’s no shock to anyone. To me, this is a very disturbing example of what stocking over native fish can do. I get very irritated when the response from the state is that “they aren’t stocking over native fish on this stream” because they don’t physically stock IN the Class A section. The native trout range realistically extends far downstream of where the Class A section starts. Essentially, it should be from the feeder stream upstream to the source.
We (anglers and the state) have set in motion the extirpation of brook trout in this stream. That may seem like a harsh statement, but I wholeheartedly believe it’s true. In 25+ years, the number of brook trout in this stream has declined so dramatically, that I suspect in another 25-50 years, there will be NO brook trout in this system, or they will be reduced to a very small population of tiny brook trout in the most extreme portions of the headwater sections. While global climate, and trends in groundwater temperatures will play a role in this, it’s really our fault that they’ll be gone.
Numerous studies have shown the impact stocking over wild/native fish has. There is no argument that they don’t ultimately displace the native fish. Whether it be via predation from large stocked/wild browns, outcompeting native fish for habitat and food, or reduction in resources (food+refuge habitat).
It takes some time for an invasive species to take hold in an ecosystem. I believe in this stream’s case, a few factors have accelerated the take-over. Reduction in anglers and increased catch and release practice has likely resulted in more brown trout surviving the spring stocking and fishing season. Those numbers likely increased the odds of natural reproduction in the upper section of the stream. The stream improvement projects likely weren’t designed with native brook trout in mind. There are differences in stream habitat preferences between brown and brook trout. In my opinion, the stream improvement projects improved brown trout habitat in the upper section of the stream. In addition to the habitat itself being favorable to brown trout, the dams limited, or in some years likely completely prohibited movement of trout from below the dams to upstream. This likely trapped brook trout in the downstream sections which then likely became unsuitable for survival.
At this point, the brown trout population has become so well established, and is inhabiting so much of the system, there would be no way to eliminate them. The only course would be to poison the entire stream and re-populate it with brook trout. Obviously, that will never happen. So, unfortunately, this stream will eventually be a complete loss of native brook trout habitat. All in the pursuit of license sales and easy fishing.
This frankly disgusts me. I personally don’t understand how the state can say they have a “resource first” approach to conservation, yet continue to have no concern for the long term effects of stocking in native brook trout streams. No matter how you look at this stream, the loss of brook trout will be almost completely at the hands of the state and local clubs.
The current approach to stream management is disturbing. This stream is one of those cases where the middle and lower sections of the stream are not suitable for trout survival during the summer. In all honesty, there should be no trout in the middle to lower sections except for seasonal movements of brook trout. Just because a downstream section of a stream can hold trout during the season opener, doesn’t mean it should be stocked. Those fish wont stay in the marginal water once it becomes unsuitable for survival.
If this stream were truly managed in a “resource first” approach, it would not be stocked at all. Local people would lose a stocked trout stream that should have never been a stocked trout stream to begin with. The majority of the stream for the majority of the year would hold nothing but creek chubs and suckers, but that’s simply what it should be. Why do we feel like we need to wreck nature because we want to have an easy trout harvest stream? Why do we think every stream that can hold trout for a few months so people can catch them needs to have trout stocked in it?
I’m sorry, but I completely disagree with the sentiment that trout stocking is fine as long as it’s in marginal water. That marginal water is almost certainly the downstream portion of a brook trout headwater refuge. Those stocked fish will invade the brook trout’s habitat and eventually take over. Evolution takes a long time. We haven’t been around long enough to know what the long term effects of stocking trout where they shouldn’t be will be. At the end of the day, we live in a state that should only have brook trout. I understand that humans want bigger fish to catch, but is that really worth displacing a species from their native home?
TL;DR: Stocking browns and stream improvement projects has resulted in browns taking over the brook trout habitat, and there are far fewer brook trout today than there were 25 years ago.
I'm not sure how the images will show up, but you can click the link to view them on flickr in higher resolution. I made the maps to hopefully give a visual to the stream from my post.
This is as the stream was (as I recall) in the 1990's.
1990s by phildlight, on Flickr
This is today;
current by phildlight, on Flickr
It’s also not a call to action, or even a suggestion that anything be done about it. Unfortunately, it’s too late for any corrective action on this stream. I’m only putting this out there so that hopefully someone stops to think about it. This stream is not unique in the state.
If you don't want to read my long meandering post, just skip to the elevator version at TL;DR
I’ve noticed a significant decline in native brook trout in a stream that I’ve fished most of my life. The stream can be broken down into 3 sections. The headwater section is very remote and most of it is only accessible by hiking a good distance through the woods along the stream. The middle section flows through agricultural land and has a hard road along most of it’s length. The lower section has the same characteristics as the middle section, but it’s temperatures get much warmer in the summer.
I’m sure some folks here might recognize this stream, and if you do, I’m really curious to hear your thoughts as well. I’ve encountered strangers who I’ve spoken to streamside who have offered up this same observation unprovoked in discussing the stream and how it’s changed. While I don’t have the scientific background or means to solidify any of this as actual data, I’m convinced that a series of human impacts have altered the native population in the stream.
In the 1990’s, the upper reaches of this stream were almost entirely brook trout. You would occasionally catch a holdover brown above where they were stocked, but it was certainly the exception rather than the norm. The middle section was always a popular stocked trout stream and still is today. On any given weekend and often during the week, you’ll see cars parked along the hard road through the middle section and see people fishing it pretty regularly all year round. The upper section was never as popular with the stocked trout fishermen due to it’s “walk in” access and smaller flow. While a dirt road parallels the stream for a good portion of the upper section, you normally have to park and walk through the woods 50 to 100 yards to get to the stream. I think that always limited the number of harvest anglers in the upper section.
The upper section itself can be broken down into 2 unique stretches. The lower portion of the upper section has the gravel road along most of it’s course. The upper portion has no road access except for a gamelands road that is only open in the fall/winter. The lower portion of the upper section was always mostly inhabited by brook trout. Admittedly, in the 90’s, the fish were somewhat spread thin through this area. Trout in general were not in class A abundance, but it was certainly more brook trout than brown trout.
The upper portion of the upper section was entirely brook trout, and it always had really good numbers of fish. I never caught anything other than brook trout in the upper portion of the upper section through the 90’s and 2000’s. This upper section had a fair number of good size brook trout as well. Nothing out of the ordinary, but 10 inch brookies were not unusual.
In 2005, the upper portion of the upper section was designated as Class A. If my recollection is correct, prior to 2005, there were a few small stream improvement projects along the upper section. Some may have even pre-dated the 2000’s, but thinking back that far is getting harder. Around the time it was designated as class A, there were a few more jack dams and bank improvement projects added in the upper section. This continued into recent times, and I know it was a “flagship” project for some folks.
The stream improvements did their job, and the upper section where they were installed, did in fact attract trout. I recall in the 2000’s fishing one summer and finding an amazing amount of fish “stuck” at one of the jack dams. The water was low and they couldn’t get over the dam. This was the type of dam where logs were laid across the stream and then planking covered in plastic was laid parallel to the stream flow with rock jetties on either side. This creates a nice waterfall pool when the flow is up, but an impassable barrier when the water is low. Regardless, the dams did in fact add habitat to the stream that worked in the trout’s favor.
Over the years, the number of brook trout in the upper section has continued to decline, while the number of brown trout has skyrocketed. Where you used to only catch a holdover brown trout or two, you now almost exclusively catch wild brown trout. I’ve also caught wild rainbow trout more recently and have noticed a lot more holdover rainbow trout throughout the upper section. Just last spring I caught several juvenile wild brown trout all the way in the very upper portion of the headwaters. The browns have taken over.
In addition to the browns taking hold throughout the system, the state continues to this day to stock 5lb + browns all the way up to the demarcation line where the Class A section starts. I’ve caught big stocked browns far up into the upper section recently along with some large wild browns. A local club also stocks rainbows throughout the upper section below the Class A line.
As with many freestone streams in the region, this stream gets fairly warm in the summer and the flows typically get very low. As is expected, all of the stocked trout that were stocked in the middle section find their way into the upper section by late June/early July. I fish this stream extremely regularly throughout the entire year except during the closed season before the trout season opener. It’s abundantly obvious when you’re on the stream as often as I am what the fish are doing.
In January, you’ll catch a mix of stocked and wild fish in slower pools throughout the middle section and upper section. In trout season, after it’s stocked, you catch stocked fish throughout the middle section and slightly into the upper section. By summer, it’s mostly chubs and suckers in the middle section with a few trout holding where there are feeders or spring seeps and the upper section is polluted with stocked trout. By fall and into winter, the fish are more spread out again.
The one common thing that has happened, is that all year long, the brookies are pushed into the very upper portion of the upper section. Below the class A line, it’s VERY rare these days to catch a brook trout, whereas in the 90’s, you could catch brookies from the transition between the middle section and the upper section. At about the transition between middle and upper, there is a sizeable feeder stream. This is at about the point where water becomes too warm below the feeder to support trout year round. Another troubling side effect of the impact on the stream is that the feeder is now inundated with brown trout as well.
This feeder was always a brookie only stream. It’s almost a miniature example of it’s destination stream (subject stream) in that it too has had a number of stream improvement projects added along it’s course. Studies have found large brown trout all the way into the very small upper sections of this feeder stream today. As the middle section warms and the flows drop, the leftover stocked fish find their way into these thermal refuge areas of the stream (feeders and mainstem) where they push the brookies out.
None of this is surprising, and I’m sure it’s no shock to anyone. To me, this is a very disturbing example of what stocking over native fish can do. I get very irritated when the response from the state is that “they aren’t stocking over native fish on this stream” because they don’t physically stock IN the Class A section. The native trout range realistically extends far downstream of where the Class A section starts. Essentially, it should be from the feeder stream upstream to the source.
We (anglers and the state) have set in motion the extirpation of brook trout in this stream. That may seem like a harsh statement, but I wholeheartedly believe it’s true. In 25+ years, the number of brook trout in this stream has declined so dramatically, that I suspect in another 25-50 years, there will be NO brook trout in this system, or they will be reduced to a very small population of tiny brook trout in the most extreme portions of the headwater sections. While global climate, and trends in groundwater temperatures will play a role in this, it’s really our fault that they’ll be gone.
Numerous studies have shown the impact stocking over wild/native fish has. There is no argument that they don’t ultimately displace the native fish. Whether it be via predation from large stocked/wild browns, outcompeting native fish for habitat and food, or reduction in resources (food+refuge habitat).
It takes some time for an invasive species to take hold in an ecosystem. I believe in this stream’s case, a few factors have accelerated the take-over. Reduction in anglers and increased catch and release practice has likely resulted in more brown trout surviving the spring stocking and fishing season. Those numbers likely increased the odds of natural reproduction in the upper section of the stream. The stream improvement projects likely weren’t designed with native brook trout in mind. There are differences in stream habitat preferences between brown and brook trout. In my opinion, the stream improvement projects improved brown trout habitat in the upper section of the stream. In addition to the habitat itself being favorable to brown trout, the dams limited, or in some years likely completely prohibited movement of trout from below the dams to upstream. This likely trapped brook trout in the downstream sections which then likely became unsuitable for survival.
At this point, the brown trout population has become so well established, and is inhabiting so much of the system, there would be no way to eliminate them. The only course would be to poison the entire stream and re-populate it with brook trout. Obviously, that will never happen. So, unfortunately, this stream will eventually be a complete loss of native brook trout habitat. All in the pursuit of license sales and easy fishing.
This frankly disgusts me. I personally don’t understand how the state can say they have a “resource first” approach to conservation, yet continue to have no concern for the long term effects of stocking in native brook trout streams. No matter how you look at this stream, the loss of brook trout will be almost completely at the hands of the state and local clubs.
The current approach to stream management is disturbing. This stream is one of those cases where the middle and lower sections of the stream are not suitable for trout survival during the summer. In all honesty, there should be no trout in the middle to lower sections except for seasonal movements of brook trout. Just because a downstream section of a stream can hold trout during the season opener, doesn’t mean it should be stocked. Those fish wont stay in the marginal water once it becomes unsuitable for survival.
If this stream were truly managed in a “resource first” approach, it would not be stocked at all. Local people would lose a stocked trout stream that should have never been a stocked trout stream to begin with. The majority of the stream for the majority of the year would hold nothing but creek chubs and suckers, but that’s simply what it should be. Why do we feel like we need to wreck nature because we want to have an easy trout harvest stream? Why do we think every stream that can hold trout for a few months so people can catch them needs to have trout stocked in it?
I’m sorry, but I completely disagree with the sentiment that trout stocking is fine as long as it’s in marginal water. That marginal water is almost certainly the downstream portion of a brook trout headwater refuge. Those stocked fish will invade the brook trout’s habitat and eventually take over. Evolution takes a long time. We haven’t been around long enough to know what the long term effects of stocking trout where they shouldn’t be will be. At the end of the day, we live in a state that should only have brook trout. I understand that humans want bigger fish to catch, but is that really worth displacing a species from their native home?
TL;DR: Stocking browns and stream improvement projects has resulted in browns taking over the brook trout habitat, and there are far fewer brook trout today than there were 25 years ago.
I'm not sure how the images will show up, but you can click the link to view them on flickr in higher resolution. I made the maps to hopefully give a visual to the stream from my post.
This is as the stream was (as I recall) in the 1990's.
1990s by phildlight, on FlickrThis is today;
current by phildlight, on Flickr
