Native Brook Trout Reintroduction

[silverfox]

I find it very interesting that all of the proposed C&R streams were previously dead or declining from acid rain. Declines caused by man, and then reversed by man through limestone sand dosing, which requires maintenance. But no C&R for the streams that are natural brook trout factories with clean water.

Maybe because those recovered waters don't have nonnative fish species present?

 

[pcray1231]

Or because they aren't historically stocked, and don't have a legion of truck chasers who have been doing opening day there as a tradition for 30 years and thus opposing any change in the way it is managed.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I find it very interesting that all of the proposed C&R streams were previously dead or declining from acid rain. Declines caused by man, and then reversed by man through limestone sand dosing, which requires maintenance. But no C&R for the streams that are natural brook trout factories with clean water

Or because they aren't historically stocked, and don't have a legion of truck chasers who have been doing opening day there as a tradition for 30 years and thus opposing any change in the way it is managed.

Haha yea that probably factors into it as well I’d guess, not familiar with it though. I’d love to fish something like that though. It’s on the list. I’ll have to cross state lines as usuall.

 

[wildtrout2]

But no C&R for the streams that are natural brook trout factories with clean water.

Well, Pa tried it, on I think 6 or 7 streams, but with much skepticism. After a couple of years it was terminated.

Edit: It was actually only 3 streams in the study. So long ago my memory failed.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Well, Pa tried it, on I think 6 or 7 streams, but with much skepticism. After a couple of years it was terminated.

Yea I think the big hole in that study was they didn’t actually measure the brook trout population per say, just measured in their arbitrary little stream sections. Like looking at your results through a keyhole.

 

[sarce]

Or because they aren't historically stocked, and don't have a legion of truck chasers who have been doing opening day there as a tradition for 30 years and thus opposing any change in the way it is managed.

That is a very good point!

 

[Fish Sticks]

Well, Pa tried it, on I think 6 or 7 streams, but with much skepticism. After a couple of years it was terminated.

I think some of those study sections might have been only a few hundred yards long if I remember too but could be wrong.

 

[sarce]

Yea I think the big hole in that study was they didn’t actually measure the brook trout population per say, just measured in their arbitrary little stream sections. Like looking at your results through a keyhole.

I'm not sure I buy that random sampling was the problem. I would believe it was the selected streams themselves not being diverse enough, big enough, or fertile enough to produce bigger fish. And then using those examples to say that PA doesn't have anywhere, in all those thousands of stream miles, where the outcome might be different.

 

[Mike]

I’d be happy with even just C and R in a closed watershed like upper kettle and no stocking. You’d essentially lose rainbows immediately and could put no limit/mandatory dispatch on browns in a system that isn’t really a special brown trout fishery at all. I have hear multiple guides saying they don’t even care about the browns on kettle. As far as wild brown trout it’s not really a numbers fishery or a size fishery. Even just that would be something and there’s no question since it’s one of the hardest stocked streams in the state the brook trout would see a huge benefit.

These are probably as close as you'll get right now....
Upper Kettle Creek Basin – 28.3 miles; Kettle Creek from the headwaters downstream to the confluence with Long Run and all tributaries including Long Run upstream to the headwaters

West Branch Susquehanna River – 26.1 miles; from outflow of AMD treatment plant near Watkins downstream to confluence of Cush Creek near Dowler Junction.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I'm not sure I buy that random sampling was the problem. I would believe it was the selected streams themselves not being diverse enough, big enough, or fertile enough to produce bigger fish. And then using those examples to say that PA doesn't have anywhere, in all those thousands of stream miles, where the outcome might be different.

Yea you may be right that some of the streams were infertile. But I guess we will never know what they would have found if they sampled widely enough . Lol I looked and all sample sites were puny, they certainly didn’t measure the population with 330 yards for each. That’s a serious limitation with how much the hydrograph fluctuates. Who knows if a low water or high water event would have moved or displaced fish in those reaches or changed habitat features like downed wood that would alter fish in those sections. I agree with scarce that study would have been better carried out in more fertile waters though if you were only going to pick as few streams as they did. Just poorly powered interms of sample size and scope of survey, low quality data.

These creel surveys they also take as gospel as well. they think they are infailable on brook trout, like the person walking into game land to treat a class A stream like their own personal fish kettle is going to fill out a survey. One thing I’ve noticed is they only recfference/operate on their own internal suspect data and when federal science agencies or EBTJV make recs on management based on much more high quality data they just ignore it.

From article

“Backpack electrofishing was conducted at one historic sampling site in each stream to monitor brook trout abundance and size structure. The length of each sample site was 300 m (or 330 yards).”

PFBC 2008 Biologist Report - Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Evaluations

 

[Fish Sticks]

These are probably as close as you'll get right now....
Upper Kettle Creek Basin – 28.3 miles; Kettle Creek from the headwaters downstream to the confluence with Long Run and all tributaries including Long Run upstream to the headwaters

West Branch Susquehanna River – 26.1 miles; from outflow of AMD treatment plant near Watkins downstream to confluence of Cush Creek near Dowler Junction.

I fished upper kettle this last spring. Caught rainbows and stocked/wild browns all the way up past Indian run and that’s where I stopped fishing after hiking in from 44. I was disappointed and felt like the experience I wanted got stock-blocked. I have never fished the west branch though will have to check it out thanks

 

[silverfox]

Or because they aren't historically stocked, and don't have a legion of truck chasers who have been doing opening day there as a tradition for 30 years and thus opposing any change in the way it is managed.

Exactly. They also don't have 100 years of precious naturally reproducing European salmonids present either.

 

[wildtrout2]

I'm not sure I buy that random sampling was the problem. I would believe it was the selected streams themselves not being diverse enough, big enough, or fertile enough to produce bigger fish. And then using those examples to say that PA doesn't have anywhere, in all those thousands of stream miles, where the outcome might be different.

As far as fertility goes, most of the native streams I've fished are not very fertile at all, yet I've caught some really nice (10", 11" and 12") natives in them regardless. And the numbers in some of these streams are surprising.

 

[silverfox]

Well, Pa tried it, on I think 6 or 7 streams, but with much skepticism. After a couple of years it was terminated.

I don't think it's possible for a human being who is obsessed with brook trout as much as I am to rue an "attempt" at protecting them as much as I do that god-forsaken program.

As WV DNR and MD DNR (and others) have discovered (through the actual effort to understand it), you need to manage at a watershed level. Not 12 disconnected 1st order stream sections spread from the Poconos to Potter Co. As the WV DNR biologist noted, "Connectivity between the tributaries and main stems is how we see increased growth in fish". That's the magic sauce. Not C&R on a 1 meter wide x 1 mile long mountain tributary.

Ironically, the only stream that showed a positive response from that program was Kettle creek. The largest system in the study. They then went halfway to the promised land by making the whole thing C&R, but for all species, and basically continued stocking it with nonnative fish. If you're looking for the desired outcome, you need to remove variables that could influence that outcome. If it's growing larger average brook trout and angling regs are the test, you can't leave all the competing species in the system and then say the angling regs were a failure.

 

[silverfox]

These are probably as close as you'll get right now....
Upper Kettle Creek Basin – 28.3 miles; Kettle Creek from the headwaters downstream to the confluence with Long Run and all tributaries including Long Run upstream to the headwaters

West Branch Susquehanna River – 26.1 miles; from outflow of AMD treatment plant near Watkins downstream to confluence of Cush Creek near Dowler Junction.

Neither of which are managed for brook trout.

 

[Fish Sticks]

As far as fertility goes, most of the native streams I've fished are not very fertile at all, yet I've caught some really nice (10", 11" and 12") natives in them regardless. And the numbers in some of these streams are surprising.

Yea I have had the same experience and then some that are food rich with big brookies and some infertile with big brookies as well. Your right I have seen both too.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Yea I have had the same experience and then some that are food rich with big brookies and some infertile with big brookies as well. Your right I have seen both too.

Have always wondered about cannibalism in those tiny streams that have low forage and big brookies, don’t know if there’s any data on that.

 

[wildtrout2]

Have always wondered about cannibalism in those tiny streams that have low forage and big brookies, don’t know if there’s any data on that.

I've always wondered about that as well. It would seem to me that it must take place at least some of the time.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Neither of which are managed for brook trout.

Oh yea, since no streams in PA are and other states have better fisheries in streams with Likey less potential based on water quality, connected stream miles, and other variables the fact that those are the best places in the state probably just reflects their the most squandered opportunities. They are what they are inspite of what we won’t do.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I've always wondered about that as well. It would seem to me that it must take place at least some of the time.

Also I know sculpins can stick it out up in those infertile streams too. Just saw a study in laurel highlands mentioning lot of sculpins in those waters in some cases. Shoot could be both I dunno.