Loss of brook trout

[silverfox]

troutbert wrote:
I agree that the area managed as unstocked wild trout water should be extended way downstream. As far down as the lower state park boundary. And the PFBC had proposed ending stocking in that section in the past. Around 2003 I believe. But as with many other Class Bs that were proposed for ending stocking, it got beat back by political pressure.

Ending stocking in that section would benefit both the native brookies and the wild browns.

But ending stocking, even of the whole stream, would not get rid of the wild brown trout. They have a self reproducing population. They are not dependent on continued stocking.

But, I have seen cases where ending stocking over mixed populations has resulted in more, and larger, brook trout in the streams. It can definitely help.

I meant that "their offspring" make it far upstream in the sense that the wild browns and their offspring have made it that far upstream. In that the stocking of browns downstream has resulted in their offspring throughout the entire stream.

I agree that there's nothing that can be done to reduce the browns now. The damage is done. As for stocking, if they stopped stocking down at the hard road by the ballfield, I don't think the spring fishermen would be impacted that greatly. Usually, aside from the first day and maybe the following Saturday or 2, the bulk of the April folks don't go up into the woods that far anyway. There are a few holes lower down that do get some pressure, but the majority of the fishermen early season are from the ballfield downstream.

I don't know whether limiting the extent of stocking up into the state forest would do anything at this point though. They'll end up in there regardless of how far down they're stocked.

None of that would help the sizeable feeder stream either. If you search for that feeder's name + survey, you'll find some interesting survey results for that stream. Including one year they found an incredible amount of fingerling rainbows up in the feeder. They mention that it's unknown whether they were natural or stocked, and the following year they weren't there. If you've ever fished that feeder, you'll know that it really has no business having browns in it. Of course the browns don't care. All those browns have certainly displaced native brook trout though.

 

[sarce]

I agree with Larkmark's comment about the stream improvements. Creating deeper pools in the upper portion made it more favorable for larger browns to reside there and took away shallow habitat that probably supported a lot of YOY brook trout. Do not know the stream, just a theory.

 

[Swattie87]

One thought on the little Bows...Though I have not caught one in the case stream or its trib, I have on several occasions run into transient populations of small, presumably wild Rainbows, in other similar situations...Forested freestoners that are predominately wild Brown Trout streams, but are stocked with Rainbows (among other the species too).

Some years conditions are favorable for holding over those stocked fish, and a few Rainbows figure out the spawning deal and for a year or two after you end up with some small wild Rainbows mixed in. Fortunately, for the most part in PA (though there are a few notable exceptions) they don’t seem to take hold and are gone a year or two later. A few later, often after a cool, wet Summer, they show up again in small numbers.

 

[salmonoid]

I'll throw this out as a possible cause; the stream in question has a pretty serious siltation issue in the headwaters and it extends down into the SGL. A couple of years ago, I caught the stream after an inch or two of snow fell and the water was off-color up in the SGL. I chalked it up to snow melt and runoff, until I worked my way even further up into the headwaters a few days later, and found even more silt there, with the snow long gone. Last year, after a pretty significant rain event, the water had pretty much cleared in the middle stretch, but it was still murky up into the Class B and A stretches. And the upper portion again was choked with sediment. Take away the brookies spawning habitat in the headwaters, and the browns that spawn maybe lower downstream will make forays upstream and eventually displace the brookies that remain...

FWIW, above the hard road and the SGL is the worst sedimentation, so it's clear that the source is above that. There's some great habitat in that stretch but the fishing is meh, and I think the silt is a major contributing factor.

 

[LigonierA1]

SilverFox et al,
I know the stream fairly well and would agree 100% that the brookies have been in decline for quite some time as the browns have taken over. My personal "heyday" up in the class A was early season, covering the water lead to many brookies to hand, some of decent size....and if there were a hatch....great BQ with a few .QG thrown in....a few nice browns would show up. It really is not like that anymore.

Last year I was able to sit and watch several fingerling wild browns in a shallow pool. Glad to see a stream supporting natural reproduction....though it furthered my belief that the natives are descending as the Europeans are ascending. And I too have landed very brightly colored bows pretty far up into the gamelands.

My question would be....why now? How long has the state and the sportsmans club been stocking that below Class A water? I guess it's a question that has been asked and answered in a few different ways earlier in the thread.

It remains one of my favorite trout stream in Pa. It will always be so. Memories. But it is not the same.

 

[silverfox]

Since I mentioned earlier that there were studies about browns pushing out brookies, I started looking for an article I remember reading. This isn't it, but it does have some interesting information in it.

https://www.outdoornews.com/2014/01/02/study-wild-brook-trout-do-suffer-from-stocking/

For example;

Of the 1,200 stream sections the commission now stocks, only nine of them have brook trout-only wild populations, and in seven of those, the agency stocks brook trout only.

There is so much wrong with this attitude. First, of course there are only 9 with brook trout-only populations. If we hadn't stocked browns there for a century there would be more. Second, the idea that stocking brook trout only solves the problem. The stocked fish can introduce disease, still outcompete wild fish for food/habitat and cause greater angler pressure on the wild fish where there is likely greater mortality on sub-legal fish due to failed release attempts.

Then;

So we are definitely going to continue to stock streams that have just a handful of wild fish in them to continue to provide opportunities for fishermen.

So basically; "There aren't that many wild/native trout that will be displaced, so it will be ok". This attitude is kind of what has lead to the current makeup of our streams. Rather than attempt to address the reason (natural or otherwise) of why the wild fish population is low, we just throw a bunch of stockers in there cuz it's already a lost cause? Unreal.

We stock the lower classes of wild trout streams because they do not offer enough opportunities to anglers,

This is "Resource First" management? No, this is pandering to what you think the majority of license holders want.

"In higher elevations and headwaters streams, brook trout tend to have strongholds there and brown trout don’t infiltrate,” he said.

“That could be because of the acidic water chemistry of the headwaters and water temperatures are also a big factor. Some headwaters, in general, are colder than brown trout prefer."

Here is the problem with managing thousands of miles of streams based on assumptions. Firstly, the subject stream in this post blatantly proves this isn't true (brown trout do in fact infiltrate headwaters). Second, to assume that every stream in the state has the same chemistry/temperature profile and therefore the statement applies to all streams. The second part of that quote just comes across like; "we really have no idea why, but we'll continue stocking lower sections anyway rather than err on the side of caution".

“To me the USGS report confirms that we’ve been doing the right thing because we only have those two stream sections that are wild brook trout only that we have been stocking,” Miko said.

“We are always trying to balance providing opportunities for anglers with a resource that we are charged to protect, and we are very careful.

“I think we do a pretty good job of that – we stock 3.2 million adult fish.”

And the piece de resistance that literally makes my blood boil. Actually, the USGS report confirms you've wrecked thousands of miles of brook trout streams by stocking brown trout for a century, but spin it however helps you sleep at night. I wouldn't call indiscriminate stocking by the state, absolutely no control over clubs stocking practices and pandering to April warriors "being very careful".

What on earth is the last line? "We stock 3.2 million adult fish"? The article is about how stocking adult fish over brook trout eliminates brook trout and your closing statement is; "We stock a few metric tons of fish per year"?

I appreciate that the PFBC is probably staffed by a bunch of well meaning folks. You don't go to college and go through all the civil service stuff to work in a field with relatively low wages because you want to be evil. I get that. I also get that the political pressures on the PFBC probably result in the actions taken, but that's no excuse. I'm personally tired of hearing the excuse; "well, it's politics". I think more people in the management of the PFBC need to grow a spine and remember why they entered the field they're in.

/End rant.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

I would keep an eye on future stocking plans as they are on the verge/ beginning of some big changes. In response to gill lice, the pfbc is working to decrease the amount of stocked brook trout that are released in the state.it was reported that the Trout in the Classroom program will transition to working with rainbows and that many coop hatcheries will now be provided rainbow or brown trout fingerlings instead of brook trout.

 

[maxima12]

As i sit back and "wonder". Did i do the "right thing", were my intentions correct or somehow curved to the left or right. Curved by momentum, science or "false phrophets". "i wonder". "Did i do enough, or did i do nothing". Seems i have always placed myself, "first", my idea, disrupted in my own mind, of right and wrong! I have tried to do good in "my own sense". But, was it good enough! In my mind, children, women, clean water, evolution, "take the stand" seemed right! Now, I thought I had something! In review, I see little has happened! The same thing has occurred, Reversal! I have seen reverse for the last 25 years.

Is this reverse, "what you truly want", or is it too big to fight! Take a step back, relieve the burden in your mind. Impulse is "bad". Shed the cloak of disbelief. "CLEAN WATER", and all will come, period! All are fighting the end result, we need fighters at the front lines.

I would think the brook trout decline has come from: Acid, encroachment, unsound fishing practice and lack of consideration for "MOTHER NATURE'. You are all scared! Gill lice in Brook Trout, I am sure it has been around for 1000 years! Only now we realize the "dilemma". Disturbed in my mind but dedicated to improve the future! DO AWAY you say, "do away with one will make it very easy to do away with all". It is always easy to quit but to go on will, establish a future "for all good".

Your wisdom will govern the future "as we know it, to be". I see the future as "bright". And on this point, "I wonder no more".

Maxima12

 

[troutbert]

The question, as always, is "What should be done?"

The answer is that the xxx Creek regulars should send letters to the PFBC in Harrisburg, and your Fish Commissioners, asking that the stocking be ended on the section below the current Class A section.

That is a Class B wild trout section. Ending stocking in that section would benefit the wild trout population.

 

[silverfox]

troutbert wrote:
The question, as always, is "What should be done?"

The answer is that the xxx Creek regulars should send letters to the PFBC in Harrisburg, and your Fish Commissioners, asking that the stocking be ended on the section below the current Class A section.

That is a Class B wild trout section. Ending stocking in that section would benefit the wild trout population.

While cessation of stocking or moving the boundary further downstream "might" help, as I mentioned, the damage is already done. The browns are there to stay. Aside from Rotenoneing the whole stream and starting over with native trout, nothing is really going to "fix" the problem.

Some states have taken that approach to fixing the problem. I suspect at some point in the future PA will have to do it too. Likely only once it becomes really dire for brook trout in the state.

 

[Troutbum1994]

I have noticed degraded habitat and water quality on the local native stream that I learned on as a boy. The fish population has suffered accordingly.

The only way to change this is to educate the public. These write-ups need to be a letter to the editor of the local paper rather than hidden away on PAFF where only the individuals who already care can see it!

 

[maxima12]

Troutbert, on this non stocking, i will say, "your wrong". Don't stock here, don't stock there! Never will there be enough Trout. Never will fishing exist in Pa. Not enough fish! This is the reason many have stopped fishing. Non stocking is for your mind, not mine! I do, however, believe, fingerling stocking, can work.

If i was involved the hatchery fish would be managed by volunteers and all others would be in the field. CO-OPS elimated. Managed success!

Stop stocking is the last thing in my mind! Deliverence of employees into the field with duties assigned is my goal! The new path is clear. When it does not work, why keep trying, a new structure needs to be implemented! If it fails, try another, to keep trying the one that fails all the time, is foolish!

Maxima12

 

[silverfox]

maxima12 wrote:
Troutbert, on this non stocking, i will say, "your wrong". Don't stock here, don't stock there! Never will there be enough Trout. Never will fishing exist in Pa. Not enough fish! This is the reason many have stopped fishing. Non stocking is for your mind, not mine! I do, however, believe, fingerling stocking, can work.

If i was involved the hatchery fish would be managed by volunteers and all others would be in the field. CO-OPS elimated. Managed success!

Stop stocking is the last thing in my mind! Deliverence of employees into the field with duties assigned is my goal! The new path is clear. When it does not work, why keep trying, a new structure needs to be implemented! If it fails, try another, to keep trying the one that fails all the time, is foolish!

Maxima12

It depends on which side of the fence you sit. Keep in mind, the mission of the PAFBC is not to increase the number of fish in the streams (necessarily). Anglers want more fish, but that may not necessarily be best for the "RESOURCE".

As a refresher, the mission is; "to protect, conserve, and enhance the Commonwealth's aquatic resources and provide fishing and boating opportunities."

Note that it's; "and provide fishing and boating opportunities" second and not the other way around.

This is a point of contention for me, because in my mind, nowhere in "protect, conserve and enhance" does stocking hatchery raised trout have a place.

 

[Swattie87]

Was in the area, and I fished the case stream today...The “upper” (Class A) section. It fished well. The catch ratio was 5.33 Browns to 1 Brookie. That’s actually the highest ratio of Brookies I’ve caught on it. Though this was the lowest and clearest I’ve fished it of the 3 times I have...Low and clear tends to favor catching more Brookies and less Browns, relatively speaking versus up and off color.

The Brookies didn’t start to show up until above the roadless stretch.

I saw 5 pairs of Browns spawning, and one pair of Brookies, FWIW.

 

[troutbert]

maxima12 wrote:
Troutbert, on this non stocking, i will say, "your wrong". Don't stock here, don't stock there! Never will there be enough Trout. Never will fishing exist in Pa. Not enough fish! This is the reason many have stopped fishing. Non stocking is for your mind, not mine! I do, however, believe, fingerling stocking, can work.

If i was involved the hatchery fish would be managed by volunteers and all others would be in the field. CO-OPS elimated. Managed success!

Stop stocking is the last thing in my mind! Deliverence of employees into the field with duties assigned is my goal! The new path is clear. When it does not work, why keep trying, a new structure needs to be implemented! If it fails, try another, to keep trying the one that fails all the time, is foolish!

Maxima12

Suppose someone proposed reducing the number of trout stocked in Pine, Loyalsock, Lycoming, Muncy, Kettle, First Fork, Driftwood Branch, etc., in order to stock those trout in much smaller streams with good populations of native brook and wild brown trout

Would you agree with that proposal?

Does that seem like a better use of the hatchery trout?

 

[DaveS]

i read this thread with some interest since I too know the stream.
i'll also offer this speculation; The decline of heavy industry in general and Steel production in particular may have resulted in LESS acidic water and therefore the browns are not limited the way they can be in some streams.
I've heard some streams West of this one have higher pH now.
Again this is speculation. I have no water quality records to go on.

Just a passing thought I wanted to share.

 

[maxima12]

Troutbert, i think you are twisting my post to fit your desires. All those streams listed have had reduced numbers of trout over the years. Guess what? Reduced period.
I always had a formula in my mind, {reduced stocking + reduced limits = reduced licenses}. So, x + y = 0!

Back to the brook trout subject. Correct, numbers are in decline! Limitations are needed to restore populations. Hammersley Forks seems to be a popular destination. Let's look at this formula!

Hammersley Forks x 20 fishermen = less brook trout. Fact is, you can not save them by fishing for them, however a set of limitations gives them a chance!

Maxima12

 

[D-nymph]

Another one here who knows this stream & I totally agree with silverfox's observations. LigonierA1 took me to this stream for the first time probably 15 years ago. Since then I've made 1 to 2 trips a year in late April or early May and the number of brookies have declined. Another person I know made the same remarks to me after they took a solo trip there this spring. I mostly only ever fish here in the upper roadless reaches. I'll still go on occasion because it's a real nice little valley.

 

[troutbert]

maxima12 wrote:
Troutbert, i think you are twisting my post to fit your desires.

I wasn't twisting anything.

The PFBC trout hatcheries have a capacity to produce a given number of trout per year.

The question is just where those trout will be distributed.

If stocking was ended on good wild trout streams, there were would be more trout available to stock on big water not on the wild trout list, such as the big water on Pine, Kettle, Loyalsock, etc.

And just re-stating the same thing: Choosing to stock hatchery trout in good wild trout sections means there are less trout available to stock Pine, Kettle, etc.

It's just like dividing up 10 jellybeans between 2 people. If I get 5, you get 5. If I get 7, you get 3. If you get 8, I get 2.

I think many people have the misconception that if stocking is ended on a good wild trout stream, and it was previously stocked with 1,500 trout, that it means that the PFBC raises and stocks 1,500 less trout.

But that isn't so. It doesn't change their hatchery trout numbers at all. They simply stock those 1,500 trout in some other place, a better place than stocking them over native brook trout.

 

[Mike]

Troutbert’s last paragraph above is true, but it is highly unlikely that the fish would be redistributed to “big water” sections, particularly those located in rural areas. Return to anglers in “big water” sections, is generally poor and better angler use and harvest occurs in other stream section classifications.

Rather, relatively small numbers of trout returned to the hatchery system resulting from the occasional loss of a stream section or two or three on an annual basis are quickly used up by 1)formerly drained lakes being returned to the stocking program and 2) fish being added to stream sections where conditions, such as access or ownership, have changed or improved to the extent that the stream’s classification calls for a greater allocation.