Our waters get too warm

[troutbert]

Silverfox, I don't have GIS capabilities, but maybe you or others do.

https://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/SearchResults.aspx?originator=Pennsylvania+Fish+and+Boat+Commission

The data layers at this website include the PFBC stocked sections and the wild trout sections.

It does not include the sections stocked by coop hatcheries, which is a large number, and many of them are wild trout streams.

The coop hatcheries are required to report annually what streams they stock. Many years ago, around 1989 or so, I asked to see what streams are stocked by the coops. They handed me the stack of paper reports. It's hundreds of streams.

I don't know if the coop stocking information has ever been put in database form. If so, I don't think it's ever been made public.

 

[Mike]

Silverfox,
Because Chesapeake Logperch are listed as inhabiting a stocked trout stream, it does not mean that they occupy the stocked trout section or the portion of a stocked section that is actually stocked.

 

[silverfox]

troutbert wrote:
Silverfox, I don't have GIS capabilities, but maybe you or others do.

https://www.pasda.psu.edu/uci/SearchResults.aspx?originator=Pennsylvania+Fish+and+Boat+Commission

The data layers at this website include the PFBC stocked sections and the wild trout sections.

It does not include the sections stocked by coop hatcheries, which is a large number, and many of them are wild trout streams.

The coop hatcheries are required to report annually what streams they stock. Many years ago, around 1989 or so, I asked to see what streams are stocked by the coops. They handed me the stack of paper reports. It's hundreds of streams.

I don't know if the coop stocking information has ever been put in database form. If so, I don't think it's ever been made public.

I pulled that dataset into a map and I'm pretty sure it's the same as the arcgis map in the PAFBC trout map. I never tried comparing them precisely but at first blush they look the same. Same with all of the PAFBC datasets on trout on pasda.

I asked for the list of coop stockings about a month ago or so. I haven't seen it yet (no response to request). I think eventually I'll have to file a RTK to get it I guess.

 

[silverfox]

Mike wrote:
Silverfox,
Because Chesapeake Logperch are listed as inhabiting a stocked trout stream, it does not mean that they occupy the stocked trout section or the portion of a stocked section that is actually stocked.

I would buy that if there is a physical AOP barrier to prevent either species from moving up/down the stream, but as far as I'm concerned, regardless of Lat/Long boundaries of species limit, movement is likely throughout the entire stream by either species. Should be easy enough to prove either way.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

In the lower susquehanna tribs, I would imagine an upstream brown trout stocking is far from the biggest concern with logperch. The lower susquehanna is polluted with non native species flathead catfish, smallmouth bass, various sunfish species etc now maybe even snakehead.

 

[silverfox]

lycoflyfisher wrote:
In the lower susquehanna tribs, I would imagine an upstream brown trout stocking is far from the biggest concern with logperch. The lower susquehanna is polluted with non native species flathead catfish, smallmouth bass, various sunfish species etc now maybe even snakehead.

That's really the crux of the issue with nonnative species introduction. All our native species evolved together and a balance was formed. What is the impact of nonnative species introduction "downstream" in the ecosystem for all native species?

Now it's a question of what is within our power to fix. The nonnative species in the susky isn't going to change, but continued stocking of a nonnative predatory fish in a breeding tributary of a threatened species is something we CAN change. That leaves habitat and pollution, which are within the realm of possibility to at least improve.

This is a good window into the future in my opinion. What is most important? The continuation of stocking for recreational enjoyment or the protection, preservation, and enhancement of the resource? That's going to get harder to deal with when you throw ESA listings into the mix.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

Growth rate differences between resident native brook
trout and non-native brown trout

"When growth differed, non-native brown trout grew faster than native brook trout in all but one comparison."

Can we all agree Brown trout are quite piscivorous? And, as they grow large enough to prey upon brook trout, that growth accelerates, magnifying their competitive advantage? Do the math.

I'm not suggesting invasive brown trout are the sole cause of the decline in brook trout in PA. It's more complicated than that. But browns do outcompete brooks pretty much anywhere they coexist in PA, right?

Personal anecdote: An unstocked trib to a stocked tailwater I've fished since the late 70 used to be full of brook trout. Now it's full of brown trout. The larger stream stays at least as cold as the trib. There are no barriers to migration.

Another thought: When the hungry hoards of white truck chasers invade a stream, they are not too careful about stomping all over the streambeds. The benthic layer on small streams surely takes a pounding. I'm thinking specifically about the less fertile refuges of the remaining remnant populations of native brook trout. I never hear this mentioned on paflyfish, though.

 

[tabasco_joe]

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.

We have the old growth in Snyder-Middleswarth to verify. I think the main problem is that the soil isn't deep enough to support trees that size. We should also keep in mind that many of the valleys had large chestnut. Those chestnuts went into the barn and home timbers that built all those farms in the 1800s. Those chestnuts certainly helped shade the valley streams and likely resulted in a few degrees lower water temps.

KenU mentions the angling literature that describes brookies pulling back upstream during warmer periods. It's likely those accounts were written after many of the valleys were denuded of chestnuts and stream temps were a bit warmer than in their natural state prior to settlement.

 

[Mike]

Silverfox,
They co-exist with good wild Brown Trout populations, so I would not worry about the occasional stocked trout passing through.

 

[Lkyboots]

Seems to me in Western Pa. it's about the water table. I remember fishing clear till the 4th of July before the water dropped and got too warm. The last ten years it seems by June the water is too hot.

 

[LetortAngler]

All the limestone streams of CV you mentioned have suffered terribly since the days of Brook trout swimming in their waters. There’s way more variables than just water temperature, although it seems to be a big one for most freestone streams. One CV creek still has Brook Trout confined to the headwaters because conditions are still conducive for their survival ie - minimal silt. Silt is one of the leading causes of mortality among Brook Trout eggs. It has been observed in various studies that heavy sediment loads in spawning gravel have been shown to kill, in some cases, 100% of deposited eggs. There’s enough silt in the CV springs that could probably fill up 5,000+ Olympic size swimming pools. When Brook Trout lived in the Letort long ago, you could actually wade across beautiful white clean gravel and rocky bottom according to historical documents. I’d like to see someone try wading across the Letort outside of the Bonnybrook bridge area to the end of the FFO section. (Actually, here in a few years you might be able to do that if water levels continue to drop.) On a side-note, I’d love to see a few Brook trout from BS reintroduced to the Left Branch Letort. I think they’d take hold as habitat seems much better suited there than the main branch.

If you want to see firsthand how a spring creek Brook Trout stream should be - I’d urge you to fly a couple hours west and go to the Driftless region of the Midwest. The last few years I’ve been traveling to the Driftless region to observe and fish some of there limestone Brook trout streams. Many of the streams there are basically identical to ours. In the areas where Brook Trout populations are doing well - there is almost no silt. As you move downstream where poor farming practices have resulted in a degraded and silt ridden stream - the browns begins to make an appearance. If you go further west to Montana where Brook Trout were introduced in the late 1800s, they now absolutely thrive through as much as 2/3 of the state found in almost every upper watershed. Why hasn’t the browns and bows displaced them? How is it that the little Brook Trout was able to thrive in these watersheds with trout species much much bigger than them within the same waters?

In PA, we have a much larger issues at hand after hundreds of years of mining, deforestation, pollution, poor farming practices, and the continuation of stocking over natives than our Brown Trout.

 

[silverfox]

LetortAngler wrote:

In PA, we have a much larger issues at hand after hundreds of years of mining, deforestation, pollution, poor farming practices, and the continuation of stocking over natives than our Brown Trout.

At least you admitted in the end that brown trout are in fact a problem for brook trout. That was my entire point here. The lengths at which folks are willing to go to explain away the situation while avoiding saying that part of the issue is the displacement of brook trout by nonnative salmonid species.

I really didn't want to get into the minutia of individual waterways. It's really hard to talk about brook trout enhancement seriously if we can't even admit one of the issues. As for habitat, just for the sake of argument, what would happen if we corrected all these environmental issues that are the supposed sole cause of the reduction of brook trout? If somehow a giant bucket of money became available to fix all these habitat problems. What would the remaining problem be?

It's hard reading countless scientific studies that show how nonnative species displace native brook trout and then get every explanation under the sun from PA anglers as to why it's everything else. Meanwhile in MD, right now the USGS and MD DNR are conducting yet another manual removal of brown trout study and documenting the brook trout population increase. I don't know how many more studies are needed. I guess a lot.

 

[k-bob]

Sure there are many places in PA that would have more brookies if the browns were somehow removed. Consider the places that are heavily browns up to a waterfall, and brookies above. Now hypothetically have the money and ability to remove the browns below the barrier, then add brookies and add even a new lower barrier. More brookies sure.

But as things are right now, the biggest browns below the barrier are imho bigger than the biggest brookies above the barrier. Longer average lifespan of brown trout than brook trout, probably other factors as well. And some of the people who fish for those browns after a rain would miss the bigger fish.

All imho and hypothetical of course ...

 

[sarce]

MD has many streams where the invasion of brown trout coincided with booms in urban and suburban housing expansion and the associated degradation of instream habitat. Brook trout would have a better chance of hanging on without the added pressure from brown trout, sure, but competition between the two wasn't the main cause of MDs decline in brook trout. If you remove the browns and reintroduce brook trout to those streams, they will either survive at a lower population density than 30 years ago, or not survive at all.

The same dynamic is happening across the Piedmont region of PA, development paused for a while during the great recession but now that it has resumed it is trashing brook trout streams in real time. In some cases it's given browns the upper hand, in other cases the brookies vanish and there are no browns moving in to replace them.

If you have a watershed in PA that is equally suitable for both brown and brook trout, yes, the browns will eventually win out...but is that as urgent of a threat as a development that will wipe out a whole stream within the span of 5 years? It's not wrong to want to reduce competition from brown trout, but there are other threats that are extremely urgent that are being ignored.

 

[silverfox]

sarce wrote:
MD has many streams where the invasion of brown trout coincided with booms in urban and suburban housing expansion and the associated degradation of instream habitat. Brook trout would have a better chance of hanging on without the added pressure from brown trout, sure, but competition between the two wasn't the main cause of MDs decline in brook trout. If you remove the browns and reintroduce brook trout to those streams, they will either survive at a lower population density than 30 years ago, or not survive at all.

The same dynamic is happening across the Piedmont region of PA, development paused for a while during the great recession but now that it has resumed it is trashing brook trout streams in real time. In some cases it's given browns the upper hand, in other cases the brookies vanish and there are no browns moving in to replace them.

If you have a watershed in PA that is equally suitable for both brown and brook trout, yes, the browns will eventually win out...but is that as urgent of a threat as a development that will wipe out a whole stream within the span of 5 years? It's not wrong to want to reduce competition from brown trout, but there are other threats that are extremely urgent that are being ignored.

I'll rely on USGS and MDDNR for the results down there and take their word for it.

We're not ignoring development, AMD recovery, agricultural impact, legacy sediment, or any other environmental impacts frankly. It's what I've personally been working on almost every day. What we're ignoring is what happens to the species composition when the habitat is improved or protected? Are we improving and protecting habitat only to have the brook trout there displaced?

 

[sarce]

I see your point. I was thinking more along the lines of the habitat and runoff from development needs to be addressed in any given watershed before trying something like removing brown trout. But I realize now you are talking about places that are still primarily brook trout. Thanks for clarifying.

What I think would be an awesome achievement in PA is to get orgs like yours, TU, and PFBC on board with basically picking a single sizable watershed with good habitat and low amount of development, remove the browns, and put up a barrier to their return. Maybe in some cases there already is a barrier in the form of a reservoir. Turn a whole watershed including some 4th and 5th order streams into a brook trout only fishery and hold it up as a shining example of what is possible. I think there needs to be a concerted effort to achieve that, focused initially in one place, and for it to be well publicized in order to help others see the light. Western states do this all. the. time.

 

[silverfox]

sarce wrote:
I see your point. I was thinking more along the lines of the habitat and runoff from development needs to be addressed in any given watershed before trying something like removing brown trout. But I realize now you are talking about places that are still primarily brook trout. Thanks for clarifying.

What I think would be an awesome achievement in PA is to get orgs like yours, TU, and PFBC on board with basically picking a single sizable watershed with good habitat and low amount of development, remove the browns, and put up a barrier to their return. Maybe in some cases there already is a barrier in the form of a reservoir. Turn a whole watershed including some 4th and 5th order streams into a brook trout only fishery and hold it up as a shining example of what is possible. I think there needs to be a concerted effort to achieve that, focused initially in one place, and for it to be well publicized in order to help others see the light. Western states do this all. the. time.

I couldn't agree more! Exactly. I'd love nothing more.

 

[troutbert]

sarce wrote:
What I think would be an awesome achievement in PA is to get orgs like yours, TU, and PFBC on board with basically picking a single sizable watershed with good habitat and low amount of development, remove the browns, and put up a barrier to their return. Maybe in some cases there already is a barrier in the form of a reservoir. Turn a whole watershed including some 4th and 5th order streams into a brook trout only fishery and hold it up as a shining example of what is possible. I think there needs to be a concerted effort to achieve that, focused initially in one place, and for it to be well publicized in order to help others see the light. Western states do this all. the. time.

At present there is widespread stocking of hatchery trout over native brook trout.

Focusing on ending that is likely to have the most benefits.

The foundation is built BEFORE the roof.

 

[silverfox]

troutbert wrote:

At present there is widespread stocking of hatchery trout over native brook trout.

Ending that will have to be done first.

I disagree that we should ignore all else and hammer PFBC on this one point incessantly until something is done and THEN move on to other issues. I'm all for multitasking personally. If you have any ideas on how we might convince PAFBC to listen on the stocking over brook trout thing I'm all ears.

 

[KenU]

Brown trout do get bigger than brook trout, but they do not grow any faster until they get big enough to switch over to eating other fish. They were introduced in 1886 mostly because they were thought to be a better game fish. They were said to take dry flies more readily than brookies, which is nonsense, And indeed they can get bigger by devouring other fish, in many cases brook trout.

Pictures af anglers holding up big browns (especially in fly fishing magazines) are rampant. The PFBC introduced brown trout to PA as did fish culture commissions all over the world. And they have established naturalized populations all over the world.

Brown trout have developed a large constituency here in PA. I learned to fly fish at Fishermans Paradise on Spring Creek as a boy. Since then I have spent many days on the Little Juniata, Fishing Creek and other fine brown trout waters in PA. They re a fine game fish and we can’t change the past.

The limestone streams of Pennsylvania have been pretty much taken over by brown trout probably because they so closely resemble the European waters where they evolved. And even if we wanted to we could not replace the brook trout in these waters, nor should we even try. But the last refuge of the brook trout, our upstream freestones, still hold plenty of brookies. They are the state fish of PA and a lot of other coldwater streams in the East. We currently treat them as if they were nothing more than cold water pan fish. They deserve better.