Our waters get too warm

[silverfox]

I hear a lot of the same arguments recycled to explain why brook trout are disappearing from our landscape. Often these statements sound like they were copy/pasted from a guidebook on how to explain why we can't or shouldn't do more for brook trout.

• Our waters get too warm in the summer to support brook trout.

Does the Letort get too warm? Falling springs branch? Big spring? Yellow Creek in Bedford? Etc. Etc. Etc. If it's all about maximum summertime temperatures, why are brook trout mostly gone from those groundwater-influenced coldwater refuges that maintain constant summertime temperatures that are conducive to brook trout survival? If we really do care about the species, how did we let that happen?

• We used to have big brook trout but then the state was deforested before the turn of the century.

Hemlock growth rates are between 18-24 inches per year. The deforestation that is often cited as the primary factor in the decline of brook trout occurred close to 200 years ago. Hemlocks that were planted sometime directly after the massive destruction that apparently turned most of PA into a moonscape would be between 200 and 400 feet tall by now.

• Brook trout live in high elevation mountain streams.

The high mountain peaks of Newville in Cumberland County seem to support brook trout year-round quite well.

• Brook trout are short-lived (2-4 years) in Pennsylvania and therefore can't reach larger sizes.

Recent studies in Maryland in the Upper Savage River project area have been documented to live 7 years and longer where they're protected from harvest and the impact of nonnative species.

• People won't drive to PA to fish for brook trout.

License plates at the USR in Maryland seem to indicate that people do in fact travel long distances to fish for brook trout exclusively. Given the rarity of brook trout-specific preserves on the East Coast, the few places like it that exist likely attract more fishing tourists than any other water type.

• The money is in other species.

I'm not sure where this myth plays into proper fisheries or natural resource management or why revenue should drive species preferences in fisheries management. I'll repeat the often hated analogy of whether the PGC should stock Bengal tigers in the PA wilds to attract more money to the sport. They're certainly a superior predator to our native species. If it's all about which species can attract the most dollars, why stop at what we've already got? Let's bring in some exotic sheep from Africa too while we're at it.

My point in all of this is that there seems to be more going on here than simply a mountain of obstacles and a difficult road to enhancing brook trout in PA. The elephant in the room is that anglers in PA love nonnative species. To the point that most are likely unwilling to sacrifice any ground. Every time a major regulation overhaul comes up, the lack of focus on brook trout is telling. The rainbow trout of Big Spring are possibly more telling. Even when it's plainly obvious and admitted by fisheries management that rainbows are a detriment to the population of brook trout there, nobody is willing to sacrifice the nonnatives to help the brookies.

The love of multiple species that are incompatible in most cases is muddying the waters of protecting our state fish. I doubt anything I say could ever change anyone's mind. I get that. I just wish we could openly discuss our preferences truthfully without the constant repeating of myths about why brook trout aren't present in more PA waters.

 

[Baron]

Is it possible for stocked brook trout to naturalize and reproduce on their own? Do the native brook trout come from a historic line native to the area or do they come from hatcheries trout added over the years?

 

[henrydavid]

Historic line indeed, the native brookies are the royalty of Pa. trout

 

[KenU]

Brook trout waters, at least big freestones like Loyalsock, Kettle Creek, Sinnemahoning, etc, always got too warm for brook trout in the summer. They moved upstream into headwaters and tributaries to spend the summer months, spawned n the fall and, with the first winter rains, moved back downstream to winter over. Old PA angling literature is full of this. Now stream sections that get too warm for brookies in the summer are mostly managed as put-and-take fisheries and heavily stocked every spring while they are still cool. This was once the very time when brookies fed up after spawning and the winter fast. This is when they put on most of their growth and weight gains.

Brown trout have also moved into more fertile freestone waters. Browns are slightly more temperature tolerant so they can stay there thru the big hatches of late spring. And browns are much more difficult to catch than brookies. Studies have shown that brookies are from 3 to 6 times more susceptible to harvesting than browns - yet another factor. Is it any wonder that browns have come to dominate even our big freestones with variable water levels and temperatures.

And we still stock and plunder our small freestones, the last refuge of the brookie – often with brown trout. I welcome the switch to rainbows, but take note of how they have taken over the brook trout streams in the southern Appalachians.

Browns probably dominate our limestone streams because they evolved in European waters, which typically are very similar in morphology and chemistry to our limestone streams. And then you add the effects of past stocking practices. So browns have taken them over almost totally.

This only touches on the problems, but I’m getting tired of typing. I would love to have a Brook Trout symposium with the fishery scientists from Penn State and other Universities. And wouldn’t it be fun to have E. Richard Vincent as a speaker?!

 

[troutbert]

silverfox wrote:

Hemlock growth rates are between 18-24 inches per year. The deforestation that is often cited as the primary factor in the decline of brook trout occurred close to 200 years ago. Hemlocks that were planted sometime directly after the massive destruction that apparently turned most of PA into a moonscape would be between 200 and 400 feet tall by now.

Hemlock trees do not grow that tall. ,

From Wikipedia:

"The eastern hemlock grows well in shade and is very long lived, with the oldest recorded specimen, found in Tionesta, Pennsylvania, being at least 554 years old. The tree generally reaches heights of about 31 m (102 ft), but exceptional trees have been recorded up to 53 m (174 ft)."

The tallest hemlock in PA that I found mentioned in PA is 148 feet, in Cook Forest. And that is old growth, not second growth.

 

[troutbert]

KenU wrote:

This only touches on the problems, but I’m getting tired of typing. I would love to have a Brook Trout symposium with the fishery scientists from Penn State and other Universities. And wouldn’t it be fun to have E. Richard Vincent as a speaker?!

A symposium might present information that ending stocking over native brook trout is a good idea.

But we already know that. That was known in the 1940s.

The real question is: How to ACCOMPLISH the ending of stocking over native brook trout?

And that is a political question, not a scientific question.

At a brookie symposium you would probably get stuff about migration studies, genetic studies, GIS based studies, climate change modeling, etc.

None of which would accomplish the most obvious thing that needs to be done to improve brook trout populations: Quit stocking over them.

 

[KenU]

Troutbert, -Amen

 

[dc410]

troutbert wrote:

silverfox wrote:

Hemlock growth rates are between 18-24 inches per year. The deforestation that is often cited as the primary factor in the decline of brook trout occurred close to 200 years ago. Hemlocks that were planted sometime directly after the massive destruction that apparently turned most of PA into a moonscape would be between 200 and 400 feet tall by now.

Hemlock trees do not grow that tall. ,

From Wikipedia:

"The eastern hemlock grows well in shade and is very long lived, with the oldest recorded specimen, found in Tionesta, Pennsylvania, being at least 554 years old. The tree generally reaches heights of about 31 m (102 ft), but exceptional trees have been recorded up to 53 m (174 ft)."

The tallest hemlock in PA that I found mentioned in PA is 148 feet, in Cook Forest. And that is old growth, not second growth.

Troutbert did his research on Hemlock trees, for sure. A 200-400’ foot tall tree is one heck of a tall tree!

 

[TimMurphy]

Dear silverfox,

• We used to have big brook trout but then the state was deforested before the turn of the century.

Hemlock growth rates are between 18-24 inches per year. The deforestation that is often cited as the primary factor in the decline of brook trout occurred close to 200 years ago. Hemlocks that were planted sometime directly after the massive destruction that apparently turned most of PA into a moonscape would be between 200 and 400 feet tall by now.

This is simply not true. The last log rafts on the Susquehanna were in the late 1910's, and they weren't floating cherry and maple then either. In March of 1938 they ran a re-enactment in which 7 people died. That raft was run by a raft Captain with 50 years experience floating logs on the river.

In the early 1900's there were more millionaires in Williamsport PA than there were in NYC. Why do you think the High School sports teams are nicknamed the Millionaires?

I have a good friend whose family has owned land in in Lycoming County since the early 1800's. I have seen pictures from his family's property dated 1905 that were taken of the men of the family all sitting on the same hemlock stump. Behind them was a hillside of mud and similar sized stumps.

Deforestation and development are the real reasons for the decline of the brook trout. Had brown trout not been stocked, there would likely be 1000's of miles less self supporting trout waters in PA.

I'm not willing to give that up.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[jifigz]

Brown and rainbow trout can tolerate water pushing almost to 80° and brookies can't. Sure, if browns weren't here we would probably have much more water that brookies could have reclaimed, but many of our streams do indeed get too warm for brookies due to our altered landscape. Sure, there are lots of waters that brookies could inhabit that stay within their thermal range, but browns will once again displace them. I love all wild trout. I'm okay accepting change. Yes, I think the PFBC should maybe work on protecting our brookies and encourage their return where they can, but our brown trout aren't going anywhere.

What would your exact management practices be to encourage the return of brookies? Harvesting the non-natives? No stocking over brookies? Habitat enhancements to keep water colder?

 

[Baron]

Stream temp is a sore subject. I feel you would have to require miles and miles of tree replacement/planting. And no one but no one could be exempted if you want it to work. The trees would have to extend quite aways back on both sides of the creeks to cool the air. There are fewer species to plant with the chestnut, and elm family gone; fewer trees that could shade streams. This policy would have to extend up every valley and rivilet. and still the temps may not come down much. I don't see how any of this is practical. Gov't overreach and enforcement would be a nightmare. On top of this there certainly are numerous other social concerns that also divide our attention. I don't see how it would be practical or even possible to cool a stream. It will be interesting to watch this topic progress.
I'm wondering if a selective breeding program has been tried to develop a strain of brookies that are heat tolerant.
The native brookie is, I think, the best tasting of the trout in our waters
but who would have the heart to harvest any knowing the challenges they are having (excepting the harvest of injured fish of course).

 

[Mike]

Baron,
Cooling a stream with plantings of trees and shrubs works very well. If temps are all that are of concern, the plantings may not have to extend more than a few feet back from the stream’s edge. After that all you need is good survival and time. This has occurred naturally (without plantings) and through plantings in a number of SE Pa locations. As a result, wild trout populations are expanding, occupying formerly trout-free reaches, and some are becoming Class A. All of this without using the wrong tools for the job, such as C&R or other fishing regs more restrictive than statewide regs..

 

[troutbert]

I was walking along a small brook stream during a drought, on a very hot afternoon, and saw brook trout in the stream. I took the water temperature and it was 79F.

I also know of a stream that is 70 feet wide and gets to 80F in the summer that has good brook trout fishing.

During the 1979 drought, water monitoring devices recorded temps of 80F on Cross Fork Creek and on upper Kettle in sections that hold native brook trout.

Spring Creek and the special regs area of the Little Juniata never reach 80F. They top out at about 76F during droughts, on very hot days.

 

[jifigz]

troutbert wrote:
I was walking along a small brook stream during a drought, on a very hot afternoon, and saw brook trout in the stream. I took the water temperature and it was 79F.

I also know of a stream that is 70 feet wide and gets to 80F in the summer that has good brook trout fishing.

During the 1979 drought, water monitoring devices recorded temps of 80F on Cross Fork Creek and on upper Kettle in sections that hold native brook trout.

Spring Creek and the special regs area of the Little Juniata never reach 80F. They top out at about 76F during droughts, on very hot days.

Okay, well then the browns are stilk there to dominate anything other than the remote, high alkaline stream. I've never known of brookies in water that warm and my research didn't show them able to handle that temp. It really doesn't matter..ther are a myriad of problems facing our brookies..I'll sit back and wait for someone to come up with a good, viable solution to bring them back and I'd be ok board.

But, I want to admit, my name is Jifigz and I love the wild brown trout....

 

[Baron]

I find this subject kind of facinating.
I wonder if old dams help or hinder any recovery/survival of Brook trout due to a lesser ability to move around within streams. I had read some time ago that the Bushkill had at one time contained the most dams per mile of any stream in the state.
As far as the depth of reforestation along streams there is more benefit for the stream than shade. The duff or leaf load and the depth of organic forest floor debris buffers how contaminants, nutrients, food and water itself enters the stream. So although shade alone will cool a stream these other benefits are missing without a much broader planting. I know that on the stream of my youth there were open pastures from Dublin to the Tohickon. The stream was warm and would flood at the drop of a hat. Now days most of the meadows are grown up and are unmown and the stream is cooler, less flood prone and smaller. There is little to no manure entering the stream anymore.
Maybe these are innacurrate ideas and observations but I thought I’d add them to the discussion. I’m definitely in over my head on this but I’d love to see more native species return and just wonder which ones are native and would fishermen be happy.
Now, define what the native species are ......

 

[silverfox]

troutbert wrote:

silverfox wrote:

Hemlock growth rates are between 18-24 inches per year. The deforestation that is often cited as the primary factor in the decline of brook trout occurred close to 200 years ago. Hemlocks that were planted sometime directly after the massive destruction that apparently turned most of PA into a moonscape would be between 200 and 400 feet tall by now.

Hemlock trees do not grow that tall. ,

From Wikipedia:

"The eastern hemlock grows well in shade and is very long lived, with the oldest recorded specimen, found in Tionesta, Pennsylvania, being at least 554 years old. The tree generally reaches heights of about 31 m (102 ft), but exceptional trees have been recorded up to 53 m (174 ft)."

The tallest hemlock in PA that I found mentioned in PA is 148 feet, in Cook Forest. And that is old growth, not second growth.

My comment was tongue in cheek. How tall on average are our second growth hemlocks? That was my point.

 

[silverfox]

KenU wrote:

And we still stock and plunder our small freestones, the last refuge of the brookie – often with brown trout. I welcome the switch to rainbows, but take note of how they have taken over the brook trout streams in the southern Appalachians.

Browns probably dominate our limestone streams because they evolved in European waters, which typically are very similar in morphology and chemistry to our limestone streams. And then you add the effects of past stocking practices. So browns have taken them over almost totally.

Tell me about it. I just got home from 2 days in Sinnemahoning. I don't get up there enough anymore. I drove along Wycoff run going up and coming back. It was getting absolutely pummeled with fishermen/women the whole way up by Quehanna hwy. That's one that I can't wrap my head around. I see browns are being stocked in that stream by the way. Maybe PAFBC secretly wants to get rid of every last brook trout in PA?

KenU wrote:
This only touches on the problems, but I’m getting tired of typing. I would love to have a Brook Trout symposium with the fishery scientists from Penn State and other Universities. And wouldn’t it be fun to have E. Richard Vincent as a speaker?!

I'm very interested in this as well. I'm going to a genetics symposium in MD later this year. I'd love to put something like this together in PA and have discussed trying to organize one.

 

[troutbert]

silverfox wrote:


I drove along Wycoff run going up and coming back. It was getting absolutely pummeled with fishermen/women the whole way up by Quehanna hwy. That's one that I can't wrap my head around.

Wykoff Run. That's a good example. If stocking was ended there, the brookie population would increase significantly.

Medix Run is another example in the same region.

We need to compile a list of streams with brook trout populations, as shown by the electrofishing data, that are stocked with hatchery trout.

Does anyone have ideas on how to compile such a list?

 

[silverfox]

troutbert wrote:

silverfox wrote:


I drove along Wycoff run going up and coming back. It was getting absolutely pummeled with fishermen/women the whole way up by Quehanna hwy. That's one that I can't wrap my head around.

Wykoff Run. That's a good example. If stocking was ended there, the brookie population would increase significantly.

Medix Run is another example in the same region.

We need to compile a list of streams with brook trout populations, as shown by the electrofishing data, that are stocked with hatchery trout.

Does anyone have ideas on how to compile such a list?

Yep, Medix too. Mix is stocked right up to the convergence of the upper Class A section and Red Run which is Class A. Though they're both mixed brook/brown. Wonder how that happened?

There's interest in building a database and not just for brook trout. There are some seriously imperiled native fish (logperch) that are being stocked over too. That's one that doesn't make any sense. There is all kinds of money going into raising, stocking, and protecting logperch and then PFBC is stocking brown trout over the enhancement population. I don't even understand how that's legal frankly. Maybe brown trout don't eat logperch.

One of the issues is, I'm not sure if there's a recorded list of all the private "clubs" or other organizations that have private hatcheries and where they're stocking on a regular basis. I saw a post a little while back by a stocking club and one of the streams they listed as being stocked isn't on any lists and I'm not sure it's supposed to be stocked. Then there are all the folks that pool some cash together, buy some fish from a private hatchery, and dump them in a stream running through their buddy's property. I know of 2 of those personally.

You could build it based on the publicly available PFBC stocking list but it sounds like they want to update that to more clearly define the boundaries of where they're stocking. At the end of the day, I'm not sure how much good it would do to do all the work of documenting it all. Though PFBC seems to respond to brown trout petitions so maybe the brookie folks need to start a petition too?

 

[maxima12]

4 -18- 21. Son and i just had this discussion today WE find you as loose, morally wrong, opaque, and rude! "Get this", -------We do not appreciate your lame luster of what is good and bad!'''

Over----- it is over. Brook trout can not withstand the "hand of man".

simple put, in real words. You lost!

Maxima12