Pennsylvania's Best Brook Trout Waters?

[silverfox]

There are also very underrated, underutilized trophy brook trout opportunities in Southern New York.

This is something I plan on exploring more next year. I've gotten to know quite a few folks in NY lately and have some streams to try out. I'm going up to ADK the first week in May to pick up a canoe I ordered and have a week in the backcountry pond hopping brook trout ponds.

NY is interesting because they haven't published quite as much information as PA has. Finding places requires knowing people and exploring on your own. That's pretty exciting to me.

 

[caddisflyer]

This is something I plan on exploring more next year. I've gotten to know quite a few folks in NY lately and have some streams to try out. I'm going up to ADK the first week in May to pick up a canoe I ordered and have a week in the backcountry pond hopping brook trout ponds.

NY is interesting because they haven't published quite as much information as PA has. Finding places requires knowing people and exploring on your own. That's pretty exciting to me.

"NY is interesting because they haven't published quite as much information as PA has. Finding places requires knowing people and exploring on your own."

I often wonder about this being a factor in the quality of the fishing. I imagine these fish, especially because of the smaller waters they tend to be in, more than perhaps Browns are negatively effected by fishing pressure. Putting out lists of streams with Brook Trout probably doesn't help them.

 

[silverfox]

"NY is interesting because they haven't published quite as much information as PA has. Finding places requires knowing people and exploring on your own."

I often wonder about this being a factor in the quality of the fishing. I imagine these fish, especially because of the smaller waters they tend to be in, more than perhaps Browns are negatively effected by fishing pressure. Putting out lists of streams with Brook Trout probably doesn't help them.

I'm sure in some cases it does. Depends on access. We don't really have a lot of public land compared to neighboring states. At least not large contiguous tracts of land with little access.

A counterpoint to that is a stream I know of (not in PA) that biologists have confirmed 18 inch plus brook trout, and one biologist claims to have caught a 20 inch fish fly fishing on personal time. I've seen photos of the 18+ fish. These aren't skinny 18 inch fish either. Nobody would even suspect there are brook trout in this stream, and it's very urban. So there's no map saying it's a "Class A" brook trout stream. There's no map at all. Looking at it, you'd think it is heavily polluted, and it kind of is, but similar to the sewer in WV, sometimes pollution is "good" if it's the right kind of pollution. The kind of pollution that adds a lot of nutrients to the water that results in abundant food.

So in that case, you can see that if nobody fishes it, and even if they do, nobody would ever harvest them to eat, and it's got the ingredients to grow large brook trout, and has thermal protection, you can get huge brook trout. The only reason that place exists is that very few know it exists.

 

[caddisflyer]

I'm sure in some cases it does. Depends on access. We don't really have a lot of public land compared to neighboring states. At least not large contiguous tracts of land with little access.

A counterpoint to that is a stream I know of (not in PA) that biologists have confirmed 18 inch plus brook trout, and one biologist claims to have caught a 20 inch fish fly fishing on personal time. I've seen photos of the 18+ fish. These aren't skinny 18 inch fish either. Nobody would even suspect there are brook trout in this stream, and it's very urban. So there's no map saying it's a "Class A" brook trout stream. There's no map at all. Looking at it, you'd think it is heavily polluted, and it kind of is, but similar to the sewer in WV, sometimes pollution is "good" if it's the right kind of pollution. The kind of pollution that adds a lot of nutrients to the water that results in abundant food.

So in that case, you can see that if nobody fishes it, and even if they do, nobody would ever harvest them to eat, and it's got the ingredients to grow large brook trout, and has thermal protection, you can get huge brook trout. The only reason that place exists is that very few know it exists.

"The only reason that place exists is that very few know it exists."

 

[silverfox]

"The only reason that place exists is that very few know it exists."

Right. The counterpoint is places like the USR. There are 14-15 inch fish in that system, and I'm convinced there are larger fish too. The fish are all protected there, though. So aside from incidental mortality, angling pressure is widely distributed, and you don't have angler harvest cropping out the larger fish. So I don't think the only way you get larger fish is by hiding them. You can promote them if you protect them.

 

[Wild_Trouter]

"NY is interesting because they haven't published quite as much information as PA has. Finding places requires knowing people and exploring on your own."

I often wonder about this being a factor in the quality of the fishing. I imagine these fish, especially because of the smaller waters they tend to be in, more than perhaps Browns are negatively effected by fishing pressure. Putting out lists of streams with Brook Trout probably doesn't help them.

I can honestly tell you that the specific region of Southern New York that I am referencing has WBT up to 16" in streams roughly the same size as Big Spring upstream of Nealy Rd. bridge and with many of the same chemical characteristics/habitat as Big Spring. I'm also aware of your typical forested freestoners up there that also have plentiful WBT >12"+. I've fished both this past year and depending on plans for '23- I expect to explore that area even more.

 

[double00]

Here's an example of a brook trout stream stocked by a coop hatchery, but not by the PFBC. At least it was still being stocked about 10 years ago, when a buddy and I fished it.

N 41.34776 W 78.80545

You can copy and paste those coordinates into Google Maps or Acmemapper etc.

This is a small stream flowing through forested State Gamelands. It has a native brook trout population, but no brown trout.

We found hatchery trout from near the mouth up to about 100 yards above the forest road seen on the map.

Here's an example of a brook trout stream stocked by a coop hatchery, but not by the PFBC. At least it was still being stocked about 10 years ago, when a buddy and I fished it.

N 41.34776 W 78.80545

You can copy and paste those coordinates into Google Maps or Acmemapper etc.

This is a small stream flowing through forested State Gamelands. It has a native brook trout population, but no brown trout.

We found hatchery trout from near the mouth up to about 100 yards above the forest road seen on the map.

I believe it still is...co-ops dump stockers all over in that area. Don't know for sure though, as I haven't bothered to hike it to catch stocked rainbows there for the last several years.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I honestly think at times they are afraid to do a brook trout management zone because of what the consequences would be for them at PFBC.

We have seen small streams I won’t name come off the list and go gang busters. Henry Ramsey has written about this in the reading eagle and eastern fly fishing magazine as far as notable PA examples.

If they said “you know what kettle creek is one of our best native brook trout watersheds and we are going to make a brook trout management zone as The EasternBrook Trout Joint Venture is recommending with their mapping data. We are going to stop stocking, put C and R on brook trout, and allow unlimited harvest on invasive trout.” The price of success would be very high for the comission as its set up now. It would be a disaster if wild native brook trout used the mainstem to grow larger reproduce more and create a wild native brook trout numbers and size fishery.
It would be catastrophic for them.

Maryland, WV, and Va have done this with great results so if PA follows this recipe for success and it works…… then what about big pine? What about sinnemahoning? What about the Loyal sock. It will become blatantly obvious that the commissions stocked invasive species are holding us back in all these watersheds the EBTJV recognizes as high priority and they can’t keep pointing the finger at habitat and water temp and falsely trying to convince you potter/tioga/lycoming county completely forrested streams are just too warm and dirty for native brook trout and we need to stock them all downstream of class A’s. It would essentially publicly highlight the fish comissions harchery program as one of native brook trouts highest ranking problems in Pa(as the EBTJV threat list would currently indicate).

If the stockings never stop then they can just keep pretending brook trout can only survive in tiny headwater streams, can’t grow bigger than they are, and don’t need to use the downstream habitat to put on the feed bag and grow that they stock with invasive trout that limit their movement and corner them upstream as has been demonstrated in various studies.

 

[caddisflyer]

I honestly think at times they are afraid to do a brook trout management zone because of what the consequences would be for them at PFBC.

We have seen small streams I won’t name come off the list and go gang busters. Henry Ramsey has written about this in the reading eagle and eastern fly fishing magazine as far as notable PA examples.

If they said “you know what kettle creek is one of our best native brook trout watersheds and we are going to make a brook trout management zone as The EasternBrook Trout Joint Venture is recommending with their mapping data. We are going to stop stocking, put C and R on brook trout, and allow unlimited harvest on invasive trout.” The price of success would be very high for the comission as its set up now. It would be a disaster if wild native brook trout used the mainstem to grow larger reproduce more and create a wild native brook trout numbers and size fishery.
It would be catastrophic for them.

Maryland, WV, and Va have done this with great results so if PA follows this recipe for success and it works…… then what about big pine? What about sinnemahoning? What about the Loyal sock. It will become blatantly obvious that the commissions stocked invasive species are holding us back in all these watersheds the EBTJV recognizes as high priority and they can’t keep pointing the finger at habitat and water temp and falsely trying to convince you potter/tioga/lycoming county completely forrested streams are just too warm and dirty for native brook trout and we need to stock them all downstream of class A’s. It would essentially publicly highlight the fish comissions harchery program as one of native brook trouts highest ranking problems in Pa(as the EBTJV threat list would currently indicate).

If the stockings never stop then they can just keep pretending brook trout can only survive in tiny headwater streams, can’t grow bigger than they are, and don’t need to use the downstream habitat to put on the feed bag and grow that they stock with invasive trout that limit their movement and corner them upstream as has been demonstrated in various studies.

Do the Kettle or Pine or Loyalsock watersheds really resemble these other streams in other states where this has been done?

 

[Fish Sticks]

Do the Kettle or Pine or Loyalsock watersheds really resemble these other streams in other states where this has been done?

The savage mainstem gets too warm in the summer from what I understand and i am not sire about the VA and WV ones.

I don’t think they have to be though to see a benefit to the brook trout populations from watershed level stocking reform. We have a very significant amount of research directly demonstrating or conceptually explaining that brook trout can move downstream when invasive trout are not present. Also we have tested the effects of PA fish and boat’s stocked brown trout in PA and saw a 12x decrease likelyhood for a stream to be a brook trout stfeam if no barrier is between the brown trout stocking location and the brook trout. This proves that stocking downstream of “wild trout” stream sections containing brook trout in PA, with PFBC invasive brown trout used in the study is harmful. Essentially if the stream can support brook trout/they are present and you stop stocking on or downstream of them we know based on the research that its almost certainly going to benefit them to varying degrees.

In a kettle if you stopped stocking the whole watershed you’d be talking 60,000 less invasive competitors stocked at a larger size than they could obtain in the stream at numbers that stream would likely never produce either.

When your talking about a research proven harmful disturbance that has highly reproducible negative effects on native brook trout that is at such a volume that its saturating their watershed, it would be near impossible based on what we know not to see a benefit to those populations getting hit that hard if the stocking stopped.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Proven large negative effects with PA wild native Brook trout and PA fish and Boat commission stocked invasive brown trout stocked downstream, all carried out in Pennsylvania.

https://easternbrooktrout.org/science-data/science-publications/evaluating-the-trade-offs-between-invasion-and-isolation-for-native-brook-trout-and-nonnative-brown-trout-in-pennsylvania-streams

 

[Fish Sticks]

Proven large negative effects with PA wild native Brook trout and PA fish and Boat commission stocked invasive brown trout stocked downstream, all carried out in Pennsylvania.

https://easternbrooktrout.org/science-data/science-publications/evaluating-the-trade-offs-between-invasion-and-isolation-for-native-brook-trout-and-nonnative-brown-trout-in-pennsylvania-streams

The sad part about this study is the fish commission is so unwilling to carry out stocking reform in PA that scientists may have to recommend building barriers in some cases in the future to protect native brook trout from the fish commission’s stocked(at all costs) invasive trout species and wild decedents when its not clear if they would even need to if they JUST stopped stocking in some cases.

Think about how ridiculous that is for a second

 

[afishinado]

Read the "Stocking Heresy" article from 1968 >

https://www.fishandboat.com/Transact/AnglerBoater/LegacyIssues/1960s/Documents/10october1968.pdf

 

[Fish Sticks]

Read the "Stocking Heresy" article from 1968 >

https://www.fishandboat.com/Transact/AnglerBoater/LegacyIssues/1960s/Documents/10october1968.pdf

Yea I had read that lol illustrates a lot of the same concepts of stocked invasive species, incidental mortality from stocking/crowds. We definitely have a lot more science today on the effects of stocked brown trout on wild native brook trout than the author had but it seems like they understood the end result even if not all the mechanisms of action like we do today. I just wrote an article with some similarities to this one most of you will get in your mailboxes here soon 54 years later from this one lol. I hope I am not writing another one 50 years from now.

 

[Fish Sticks]

 

[silverfox]

Read the "Stocking Heresy" article from 1968 >

https://www.fishandboat.com/Transact/AnglerBoater/LegacyIssues/1960s/Documents/10october1968.pdf

It has been found that when brown trout become established in a stream they soon reduce or even elimniate the brook trout population.

We knew this in 1968, and there are still people arguing against it today. When the agency recently announced they would stop stocking hatchery-reared brook trout in any waters that support wild natural reproduction of brook trout (which I fully support), the alternative is to stock brown trout and rainbow trout.

Usually brown trout won't persist in the very upper reaches of a brook trout stream; but if you want to chance wrecking a good brook trout stream, then stock brown trout.

I don't think this is necessarily true in all cases. While anecdotal, I seem to run into quite a few wild brown trout far into the headwaters of mountain streams. In one case earlier this year, in a first-order stream with 700ft in elevation change over a mile and a half. As temperatures increase, this trend is likely to get far more common. At some point, the brook trout run out of water to be pushed into.

That particular day, I caught twenty and returned them, but the real story is that ten were hooked so deeply they probably died. I calculated, as I returned to the car, that if the fifty anglers on the stream caught as many fish as I—and I am sure they did because I wasn't fishing seriously—then 500 fish were caught and inadvertently destroyed before they were legal, caught before they could provide the angling they were so capable of doing had not this artificially induced pressure destroyed this fishery.

This is the real issue with stocking over brook trout. I've seen around a dozen cars along the road to Cub run, the tiny stream I mentioned earlier. With an assumed average of 2 anglers per car or 24 total anglers per day, the incidental mortality on this stream has to be extremely high for the first two weeks of trout season. Incidentally, it was the stream to the south of Cub run where I found several dead sub-legal brook trout in the stream that catalyzed the realization of the damage stocking causes to wild native brook trout.

I keep hearing this argument that PFBC doesn't stock over substantial wild brook trout populations as if that's a good thing. What's worse? 500 dead brook trout in a stream section with 500 brook trout, or 500 dead brook trout in a stream section with 1,200 brook trout? The statement "stocking isn't suppressing the brook trout population in low-biomass populations" becomes even more absurd based on that example.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I think Mike even pointed out on here that staff wanted to at least stop stocking class B brook trout streams. Obviously that does not go far enough but its different thats their work environment and I get that a lot of people don’t feel stocking reform can happen all at once(i’ve always ripped off my bandaids). Despite the fact that ecologically we just don’t have enough time to continue minimal/ symbolic progress in stocking reform/native brook trout management at the same snails pace, I would have supported staff’s request Mike brought up that I was previously unaware of before he apprised me of it.

I bring this up because the Article Afishinado shared from 68 shows we have had fisheries personnel telling us we are doing it all wrong in Pa for brook trout. It seems like a lot of the staff historically and presently care about brook trout, despite even being forced to propagate mistruths about brook trout managment by association as we saw in fish jakes e-mail from AFM/biologist on the fishkng creek thread.

So whats holding us back??? Whats the problem???

Well we have people with NO formal fisheries science training for the most part denying/ refusing to aknowledge solid accepted fisheries science done by EBTJV, USGS, Pennsylvania Universities, and other state’s equivalents of PA fish and Boat(usually a DNR which is telling of priorities).

This executive director is set on keeping the status Quo, and we have commissioners in charge of potter county(an EBTJV native brook trout stronghold watershed hotbed) fighting stocking reform that was haplenjng on freeman run. The above is the still just the tip of the ice berg because what we saw the house and senate fish and game committees do when John Arway threatened to aim the fish stocking cannons at other districts that supported the license fee increase was unmistakable. They telegraphed their priorities and what they want from the fish commission, stocked fish at all costs. The house and senate fish and game committee showed what they have the power to do and its no suprise they won’t push for stocking reform because it would come as a shock to the system to their voters who have near zero understanding of the issue. Of course their not going to step in if the people that elect them can’t see the benefit and it just feels like some is being taken away from them. Many senators and congressmen in pa have youtube videos of them stocking fish in their districts. I have counted well over 10 of such YouTube videos and thats not all i am sure.

No amount of dereliction of duty, no amount of shame, no amount of mismanagement will force the comission to change how they manage native brook trout and other native fish and amphibians without increased public education and awareness. We will not force them to do anything if a large majority of people don’t have this on their radar. Thats why science communication to the general public, education, and awareness are paramount. We see how unrelated other historic issues have been daylighted and reformed. Its when it gets in the public eye and gets talked about that you see changes. So if your reading the article Afish shared or any of the fisheries science I or silver fox have shared, talk about it with people in and outside fishing circles if you want this to change.

Does it burn me up that this kind of grassroots push for public awareness was not needed to simply get other states to prioritize some of their best native brook trout watersheds for conservation, yes it does. They just listened to the science and made some executive decisions as fisheries managers in the interest of the resource even if still falling short in other departments. I can smoke the Hope-ium all day ling but thats not going to be PA fish and Boat. This state is different sadly and its going to take a lot more but we can certainly get it done. Theres just a number floating around out there of people that when aware of how bad this is will spur change. Its that simple, I don’t know what that number is it is but we gotta find it.

 

[CRB]

​

​

Hallowed WatersMatt Supinski pod cast​

Indigenous Brook Trout-Are they America’s Fly Fishing Founding Fish? or not?!

Guest: Maine’s Bob Mallard
Matthew Supinski, host and publisher of Hallowed Waters Journal and Podcasts; along with guest Bob Mallard
Buckle your seatbelts and prepare for an intense couple of hours all you Salmonid saveurs and fellow Troutbum troubadours as Matthew Supinski, host and publisher of Hallowed Waters Journal and Podcasts; along with guest Bob Mallard take you listeners on a controversial, highly opinionated and riveting podcast that you surely can’t afford to miss! If you love wild brook trout, wild brown trout and rainbows, form your own opinions as the two authors joust opinions about their passions and favorite fish, and what is the right thing in the bigger scheme of things.

15: Indigenous Brook Trout-Are they America’s Fly Fishing Founding Fish? or not?! Guest: Maine’s Bob Mallard

Podcast Episode · Hallowed Waters · 05/17/2022 · 2h 47m

podcasts.apple.com

 

[Fish Sticks]

​

​

Hallowed WatersMatt Supinski pod cast​

Indigenous Brook Trout-Are they America’s Fly Fishing Founding Fish? or not?!

Guest: Maine’s Bob Mallard
Matthew Supinski, host and publisher of Hallowed Waters Journal and Podcasts; along with guest Bob Mallard
Buckle your seatbelts and prepare for an intense couple of hours all you Salmonid saveurs and fellow Troutbum troubadours as Matthew Supinski, host and publisher of Hallowed Waters Journal and Podcasts; along with guest Bob Mallard take you listeners on a controversial, highly opinionated and riveting podcast that you surely can’t afford to miss! If you love wild brook trout, wild brown trout and rainbows, form your own opinions as the two authors joust opinions about their passions and favorite fish, and what is the right thing in the bigger scheme of things.

15: Indigenous Brook Trout-Are they America’s Fly Fishing Founding Fish? or not?! Guest: Maine’s Bob Mallard

Podcast Episode · Hallowed Waters · 05/17/2022 · 2h 47m

podcasts.apple.com

I heard this when it came out. Matt Supinski is very passionate about fly fishing for various species of native and invasive trout. Seems like a nice enough guy and good angler.

However, i think if he wanted to convince people that invasive trout species are not whats hurting native brook trout he is 50 years and a couple hundred fisheries science publications too late. With what we know to be true from a fisheries science standpoint today this is not hardly a “controversial subject” as far as how invasive fish interact with native brook trout. I think acknowledging this research can be viewed as controversial for anglers in the fly fishing community in some cases because of misconceptions and fears about how recognition of these facts might somehow supposedly alter their ability to do what they love(it won’t).

But as far as what invasive trout are and what they do to native brook trout, claiming their not an issue today is like trying to convince people in 2022 the earth is flat. Theres just absolutely no “controversy” that their detrimental in fisheries science to be clear.

skys blue and invasive trout displace native brook trout in the overwhelming majority of cases their both found.

Thanks for sharing CRB. I think listening to Bob navigate discussing the topic of invasive trout species effects on brook trout with someone who certainly has strong passionate feelings for wild invasive brown trout, fear of loss of brown trout, and is not up on a lot of this research shows us all how to have these discussions and share the science.

Theres nothing wrong with loving fishing for wild invasive brown trout so I respect Matt’s passion and skill for pursuing them with a fly rod. Fishing is different than conservation. So if you enjoy all the fishing for an invasive species but don’t stand in the way of protecting native species where possible and don’t promote the spread of invasive species you can enjoy your fishing and truly support conservation. I think Supinski and a lot of anglers who love fishing for wild invasive brown trout can sometimes feel almost attacked when someone acknowledges something they love fishing for is an invasive species that harms native fish, especially when PFBC has selectively omitted this information for so long and continues to hide it. People just are not prepared for this discussion sometimes with messaging as it is coming from PFBC. There can also be a big fear for some that this acknowledgment will lead to loss of fishing opportunities for this popular invasive species. Neither assumption should be the case however because invasive brown trout actually cannot be logistically removed from large watersheds in Pennsylvania. Fisheries scientists and conservationists do not look negatively upon anglers and instead want to dialogue with them on this issue in the intwrest of awareness. And the ultimate safety net in our state for theses fisheries is PA fish and boat unfortunately currently takes the watershed scale protection from harvest and stocking model recommended by scientists for native brook trout and actually applies them to wild invasive brown trout on streams like little J and Spring while Brook trout don’t get these protections ironically. So you can see we are much more at risk of invasive trout depleting native brook trout than we are of losing wild brown trout fisheries in this state by simply acknowledging how these fish behave and interact.

I love wild native brown trout found in Europe, Iceland and other places they evolved to be a beneficial species and not harm/ burn through their aquatic ecosystems. No one beating this drum hates brown trout as a species, no one hates brown trout fishermen as a group(I am one so please don’t hate me lol), and no one is taking away any high quality trophy wild invasive brown trout fisheries in PA. I think people picture NFC as this organization that wants to drive an 18 wheeler tanker full of rotenone into their favorite trophy wild invasive brown trout fishery and that couldn’t be further from the truth. Removal wouldn’t work in those places, it wouldn’t be socially acceptable, and given this its not where anyone trying to conserve native brook trout wants to waste their energy. Theres a lot of fear mongering surrounding this topic Its just not justified or true and it stands in the way of conserving native brook trout where we actually have a shot to do so through stocking reform, regulations, or some removal in places the fly angler will never miss them(especially when brook trout of similar size replace the smaller brown trout through reintroduction).




Heres a group of anglers that could be more passionate about catching wild invasive brown trout than supinski even and in this recent podcast episode they really don’t shy away from this discussion of acknowledging invasive trout species. They aren’t scared of it.

Podcast: Catch and Release: Always or Sometimes? And How C&R Changes Things -- S5, Ep5

We consider the ways that catch and release changes the experience of fishing for us — how our approach shifts when the goals are different.

troutbitten.com

They calmly acknowledged it, provided a few examples, and moved on. Recognizing the threat invasive trout can pose to native trout in their podcast obviously hasn’t decreased any of their passion they have for what they do or changed how they find enjoyment on the water or live their lives.

 

[troutbert]

I think Mike even pointed out on here that staff wanted to at least stop stocking class B brook trout streams. Obviously that does not go far enough but its different thats their work environment and I get that a lot of people don’t feel stocking reform can happen all at once(i’ve always ripped off my bandaids). Despite the fact that ecologically we just don’t have enough time to continue minimal/ symbolic progress in stocking reform/native brook trout management at the same snails pace, I would have supported staff’s request Mike brought up that I was previously unaware of before he apprised me of it.

PFBC staff recommended taking 63 Class B sections off the stocking list. The Commissioners, under pressure from the sportsmens clubs and state legislators, rejected it.

I've written about that on Paflyfish many times over the years.

What this shows of course is that the hangup is not PFBC staff (biologists/managers). The hangup is the Commissioners, who are heavily influenced by the sportsmens groups and the state legislators. The state legislators have control of the PFBC budget.

Looking at it from the Commissioners and the legislators perspective, they are going to represent the people they hear from. They hear from the sportsmens clubs, not very much from us.

The brookie and wild trout advocates have always talked to PFBC "staff." But not talked to the Commissioners and legislators very much, even though they are the deciders.

The sportsmens clubs talk to PFBC staff also, but they also talk to the Commissioners and their state legislators. They are representing their position in a much savvier way.

The Commissioners and legislators are not going to be impressed by "I read this research paper." What would impress them is large numbers of anglers who contact them because they are passionate about brook trout. That will not "flip" them, because they will still be hearing from the other side. But if they hear from both sides, that may give them a more balanced view.