Pennsylvania's Best Brook Trout Waters?

[troutbert]

Hatcheries, wastewater treatment, global warming, public sentiment. Seems like a LOT to overcome to get streams repopulated with a certain trout. I stand by my previous statement that Rainbows and Browns are the future of trout fishing. Maybe you can get a few places set aside for Brook Trout but sure seems a lot is stacked against that happening. In the meantime I plan to keep fishing happily for the invasives.

Brook trout conservation is not all about, or even primarily about, "repopulating" streams with brook trout.

Brook trout exist in thousands of miles of streams in PA. But in many cases their populations are limited by certain factors. With better management, their populations can be greatly increased in the watersheds where they already exist.

Ending stocking of a brook trout does not cost anything, and it results in improved brook trout populations. Why not do that?

Of course there are people who want hatchery trout stocked over native brook trout, and don't care if brook trout populations thrive or dwindle, and they have a right to express their opinion. Why we should defer them? Those of us who would like to see brook trout populations improve also have a right to express our opinion.

 

[pcray1231]

I think they are largely going away from stocking brook trout altogether. To their credit. To enact something like that takes some time, as you have programs in place, contracts, things set up for them. It takes time to change, I get that. It's a good thing that we are moving away from stocking brookies.

But there's been no effort to not stock wild brook trout streams, or to manage them for brook trout. It's almost as if reaching class A brookies is a dissapointment. Awww, now we can't stock this stream.

Our focus on "class A" to me is an issue. I've had real good times on class B and C streams. There's still fish everywhere there should be, it's just the holding water is spread a little more apart. The class system is based on fish per surface area, but fishermen are good at skipping the bad water. So instead of 10 feet between good holes, it's 20, and the commission says it's half the fish density. Ok. But, when I throw a cast to a good looking lie, there's still the same number of fish in that lie. I'm not throwing casts to the bad looking areas. So you walk a little further in a few hours of fishing. If you most often find a fish in the spots you expect to, that's a quality fishery, I don't care whether it's class A or C.

 

[silverfox]

I think they are largely going away from stocking brook trout altogether. To their credit. To enact something like that takes some time, as you have programs in place, contracts, things set up for them. It takes time to change, I get that. It's a good thing that we are moving away from stocking brookies.

But there's been no effort to not stock wild brook trout streams, or to manage them for brook trout. It's almost as if reaching class A brookies is a dissapointment. Awww, now we can't stock this stream.

Our focus on "class A" to me is an issue. I've had real good times on class B and C streams. There's still fish everywhere there should be, it's just the holding water is spread a little more apart. The class system is based on fish per surface area, but fishermen are good at skipping the bad water. So instead of 10 feet between good holes, it's 20, and the commission says it's half the fish density. Ok. But, when I throw a cast to a good looking lie, there's still the same number of fish in that lie. I'm not throwing casts to the bad looking areas. So you walk a little further in a few hours of fishing. If you most often find a fish in the spots you expect to, that's a quality fishery, I don't care whether it's class A or C.

That's one of my biggest complaints as well. For all the reasons you mentioned. Without getting into the argument about the reasons streams haven't achieved "Class A", the biggest problem for me is that it assumes that the classifications, and possibly, more importantly, the boundaries of those classifications, are accurate. They also ignore seasonal changes in biomass as the fish move around for different reasons.

I know I've harped on that before, but I don't think it's possible to understate the importance of mistakes in understanding watersheds from a fish use perspective. I presented an example a while back on this forum of a small system with a Class A in the headwaters. If you fish that Class A in November through July, it's probably a Class E. I bet it would electrofish as a Class E as well. Fish it in July through October and it's Class A. The stream it feeds is a lower classification and it's stocked. It's stocked when the brook trout are in it (March/April), not up in the summer refuge "Class A".

PFBC surveys most streams in late summer when the fish are concentrated in thermal refugia. All that shows is the number of fish present at that time of the year in that thermal refuge. Classifying streams this way ignores how the fish use the system for 9 months of the year. I'm not suggesting the entire population moves, I know it's typically around 20% or less, however, there are also situations where the vast majority of the population moves. It's highly variable.

I mentioned earlier a list of things PFBC has done to reduce the impact of stocking on brook trout. I don't want to come across as denying the things they do. Frankly, PFBC aren't the ones who need to hear this/understand this. The readers of this forum are. The readers of Fly Fisherman magazine, podcast listeners, outdoor news subscribers. It wasn't PFBC that rejected the removal of rainbows on Big Spring. It was people who read this forum.

 

[troutbert]

But there's been no effort to not stock wild brook trout streams, or to manage them for brook trout. It's almost as if reaching class A brookies is a dissapointment. Awww, now we can't stock this stream.

That is not the case. From the beginning of Operation Future up to the present, they have ended stocking on quite a large mileage of streams with native brook trout populations.

And that didn't all happen in the early days of Operation Future (1980s). Quite a bit of it has happened in more recent decades.

But, there is much more to be done. And the opposition to these efforts is strong and well organized. And the support for it from our side is weak.

 

[Mike]

.

That is not the case. From the beginning of Operation Future up to the present, they have ended stocking on quite a large mileage of streams with native brook trout populations.

And that didn't all happen in the early days of Operation Future (1980s). Quite a bit of it has happened in more recent decades.

But, there is much more to be done. And the opposition to these efforts is strong and well organized. And the support for it from our side is weak.

Yes, for years AFMs and/or their crews had been occasionally to periodicallly surveying stocked sections that also supported substantial wild ST or BT populations in order to determine whether those populations had gradually grown to a Class A equivalent biomass so they could be removed from the stocking program. In my case I even reduced the number of inseason stockings and shifted remaining stocking(s) to RT only with some success.

Once the trout residency study was completed and many streams with wild trout present were shifted to stockings of much higher proportions of RT or 100% RT I wondered whether many sections that were stocked with greater proportions of RT had increases in wild trout biomasses to Class A equivalents. If so, those sections could be removed from the stocking program if that were known. The one that I watched, Pine Ck, trib to Ltl Schuylkill R, did not have a substantial biomass increase.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Yes, for years AFMs and/or their crews had been occasionally to preiodically surveying stocked sections that also supported substantial wild ST or BT populations in order to determine whether those populations had gradually grown to a Class A equivalent biomass so they could be removed from the stocking program. In my case I even reduced the number of inseason stockings and shifted remaining stocking(s) to RT only with some success.

Once the trout residency study was completed and many streams with wild trout present were shifted to stockings of much higher proportions of RT or 100% RT I wondered whether many sections that were stocked with greater proportions of RT had increases in wild trout biomasses to Class A equivalents. If so, those sections could be removed from the stocking program if that were known. The one that I watched, Pine Ck, trib to Ltl Schuylkill R, did not have a substantial biomass increase.

With all due respect, I find this a little counter intuitive or silly.

If they had "substantial populations" why did they need stocked to begin with?

If a stream had a substantial population why must it reach class A to be taken off the stocking program?

Do we have the same definition of substantial?

So you reduced the number in season stockings and shifted the remaining stockings to RT with some success.

So you then shifted the stocking to only 100 rainbows and did not see an increase in wild trout biomass.


So was it the reduced stocking or the species stocked?

Obviously not the latter, did you try not stocking at all and then observe?

It's the next logical step right?

 

[troutbert]

Yes, for years AFMs and/or their crews had been occasionally to preiodically surveying stocked sections that also supported substantial wild ST or BT populations in order to determine whether those populations had gradually grown to a Class A equivalent biomass so they could be removed from the stocking program. In my case I even reduced the number of inseason stockings and shifted remaining stocking(s) to RT only with some success.

Once the trout residency study was completed and many streams with wild trout present were shifted to stockings of much higher proportions of RT or 100% RT I wondered whether many sections that were stocked with greater proportions of RT had increases in wild trout biomasses to Class A equivalents. If so, those sections could be removed from the stocking program if that were known. The one that I watched, Pine Ck, trib to Ltl Schuylkill R, did not have a substantial biomass increase.

Reducing inseason stockings leading to higher wild trout populations makes sense.

But what was/is the theory regarding stocking higher proportions rainbow trout potentially leading to higher wild trout populations?

 

[troutbert]

With all due respect, I find this a little counter intuitive or silly.

If they had "substantial populations" why did they need stocked to begin with?

If a stream had a substantial population why must it reach class A to be taken off the stocking program?

Do we have the same definition of substantial?

So you reduced the number in season stockings and shifted the remaining stockings to RT with some success.

So you then shifted the stocking to only 100 rainbows and did not see an increase in wild trout biomass.


So was it the reduced stocking or the species stocked?

Obviously not the latter, did you try not stocking at all and then observe?

It's the next logical step right?

The politics of all this, i.e. the PA Trout Wars, has been explained on here many times.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

The politics of all this, i.e. the PA Trout Wars, has been explained on here many times.

Yeah, I know.
But it's the bowing down to political Trout Wars through pseudo science and labeling it as gospel that is infuriating to me.
Isn't it to you?

In Mike's example, if the goal was to see if the stream would reach class A status through various applications was one not "overlooked"?

 

[Mike]

Substantial meant that they had enough biomass to possibly move up to Class A. They certainly were not D’s and may have been high C’s or possibly even low B’s. It depended on the stream and sometimes past experiences on the same stream. It was new territory and had not been done often enough to see a pattern except that it worked with RT and that response would be anticipated due to 1) their high vulnerability to angling and 2) much higher vulnerability to angling in cold water than BT.

It was not a true experiment; it was fisheries management, so in at least one case if you could change species and cut the stocking too, then go for it. Frankly, I don’t recall if that happened in successive yrs or during the same yr. Some considerations also included landowner desires and angler acceptance per troutbert’s comment. As I have said plenty of times before, a well-regarded fisheries bureau Chief once said to me when I was a green-horn; “if you aren’t prepared to accept political realities, then you are not prepared to be a fisheries manager.”

Stocking can’t be whimsically discontinued; there are specific requirements for discontinuing stocking. At the time, a stocked stream section achieving a Class A biomass resulting in a Class A designation by the Commissioners was usually all that was needed.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Substantial meant that they had enough biomass to possibly move up to Class A. They certainly were not D’s and may have been high C’s or possibly even low B’s. Depended on the stream; it was new territory; and nphad not been done often enough to see a pattern except that it worked with RT and that would be expected due to their high vulnerability to angling and much higher vulnerability to angling in cold water than BT.

It was not an experiment; it was fisheries management, so in at least one case if you could change species and cut the stocking too, then go for it. Frankly, I don’t recall if that happened in successive yrs or during the same yr.

But now wait.
It was certainly an experiment.
You used a scientific procedure undertaken to make a discovery.

You used your fisheries degree, made some hypotheses on what might happen and applied certain conditions to the environment. You even tested the results.


Did you try not stocking it?
If seen you say that quote before.
My answer to it is any agency managing fisheries that is bowing down political realities and realities of angler desire isn't managing fisheries, they are managing people.

 

[troutbert]

Yeah, I know.
But it's the bowing down to political Trout Wars through pseudo science and labeling it as gospel that is infuriating to me.
Isn't it to you?

In Mike's example, if the goal was to see if the stream would reach class A status through various applications was one not "overlooked"?

Simply ending stocking was not "overlooked."

The fisheries managers do not have the option to end stocking on Class B, C, D streams.

In PA's system, the fisheries managers are not the "deciders." The Commissioners make the decisions. And they are very heavily influenced by the sportsmens clubs and state legislators. The other side is much better at making their wishes known than we are.

I think it would be a good idea to end stocking on all Class B and C streams. But the only way that could happen is if the Commissioners voted for that.

The fisheries managers don't have the authority to do that.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Simply ending stocking was not "overlooked."

The fisheries managers do not have the option to end stocking on Class B, C, D streams.

In PA's system, the fisheries managers are not the "deciders." The Commissioners make the decisions. And they are very heavily influenced by the sportsmens clubs and state legislators. The other side is much better at making their wishes known than we are.

I think it would be a good idea to end stocking on all Class B and C streams. But the only way that could happen is if the Commissioners voted for that.

The fisheries managers don't have the authority to do that.

You're right.
But I never see this voiced by this AFM.

All we get is the pseudoscience.
Mike do you think elimination of stocking would increase wild trout biomass?

 

[Mike]

Asked and largely answered……

https://www.fishandboat.com/Transact/AnglerBoater/AnglerBoater2003/JanuaryFebruary/Documents/wildtrout.pdf

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Asked and largely answered……

https://www.fishandboat.com/Transact/AnglerBoater/AnglerBoater2003/JanuaryFebruary/Documents/wildtrout.pdf

Thank you for this.
I'll take that as a yes.

My apologies too. Sometimes it feels like gaslighting even when it isn't.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

Asked and largely answered……

https://www.fishandboat.com/Transact/AnglerBoater/AnglerBoater2003/JanuaryFebruary/Documents/wildtrout.pdf

Interesting. How did they control for confounding variables like hot, dry summers, poor year class recruitment, etc.?

 

[troutbert]

You're right.
But I never see this voiced by this AFM.

All we get is the pseudoscience.
Mike do you think elimination of stocking would increase wild trout biomass?

I think the fisheries managers are deliberately low key about how many miles of streams were changed from stocked "hatchery outlets" to wild trout management over the decades, and the techniques they've used to achieve that, to avoid riling up the other side, and giving them too much information that could be used against the fisheries managers.

It's a shame that they have to operate that way, and not get credit for what they've achieved. But the PA system is what it is.

 

[silverfox]

All of this places a substantial value on a classification system that may be more variable than admitted. It also completely ignores any population value beyond the number of kg/ha of animals in a limited sample. The only value the species has is in the number of lbs of fish available for angling. If a surveyed section of a stream doesn't meet some human-constructed baseline of value during limited seasonal sampling, then it's ripe for abuse.

Brook trout are a sportfish, but they're also a species of greatest conservation need. We're managing them based on angling metrics above all else even when the science points to that being detrimental to the species long-term survival.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

All of this places a substantial value on a classification system that may be more variable than admitted. It also completely ignores any population value beyond the number of kg/ha of animals in a limited sample. The only value the species has is in the number of lbs of fish available for angling. If a surveyed section of a stream doesn't meet some human-constructed baseline of value during limited seasonal sampling, then it's ripe for abuse.

Brook trout are a sportfish, but they're also a species of greatest conservation need. We're managing them based on angling metrics above all else even when the science points to that being detrimental to the species long-term survival.

Thank you!

See that meets my definition of substantial,
of considerable importance, size, or worth.

i was talking importance and worth, Mike was talking size.

The class A system is faulty for the very reasons you described

 

[Mike]

Thank you!

See that meets my definition of substantial,
of considerable importance, size, or worth.

i was talking importance and worth, Mike was talking size.

The class A system is faulty for the very reasons you described

That’s not exactly the case for a few reasons:
Some Class A sections are essentially unfishable for a variety of habitat or social reasons; it is recognized that there is seasonal and annual variation in the biomasses; and the wild trout designation alone, often Class D waters, offers water quality protections through DEP’s Chapter 93. I have mentioned the seasonal variations and the PFBC work that showed early spring vs summer variations numerous times in the past. A Class A biomass adds to the protections that CWF streams receive. Wild trout = CWF protections for the stream plus EV (exceptional value) protections, the highest possible protections in Pa, for the surrounding wetlands. Class A = HQCWF protections. High Quality (HQ) is the second highest possible water quality protection in Pa.