Pennsylvania's Best Brook Trout Waters?

[afishinado]

Brook trout are the native "trout" in the state of PA. As others have mentioned above, one can't name even one major stream or river with a thriving brook trout population throughout. Some would say Big Spring, but the fact of the matter is the PFBC constructed a hatchery on BS and the native brook trout all but disappeared. What remains is likely the strain of fish raised in the hatchery. Plus rainbow trout dominate Big Spring (with the possible exception of the "ditch" area).

Not a record to be proud of in our state. And I agree, very little is being done to preserve what brookie streams are left, or even expand their range. I also agree PA is way behind neighboring states when comparing programs to save and/or expand brook trout populations.

 

[wildtrout2]

Silverfox, your initial statement was "Pa doesn't list any of them publicly", which it does. That map from W Virginia isn't nearly as inclusive as the Pa Class A list. Let's face it, W Virginia has much better native brookie fishing than Pa has. Also, I don't know of a single fisherman who would publicly share info on a great native trout stream.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Yea basically heres what silver fox is trying to say

Take what would be our best brook trout watersheds and picture the watershed like a hand shape with the wrist being the large mainstem water shannon whites study identified as critical for brook trout.

Other states give the brook trout “the whole hand including the wrist” and they have healthier populations. So they have larger waters that grow larger fish in larger numbers.

In PA we have large watersheds that could be like that but we give the brook trout the finger tips essentially and stock and manage invasive species in the rest of the hand and wrist so all we can offer you in pa for blue ribbon fisheries is the brown fish.

 

[silverfox]

Silverfox, your initial statement was "Pa doesn't list any of them publicly", which it does. That map from W Virginia isn't nearly as inclusive as the Pa Class A list. Let's face it, W Virginia has much better native brookie fishing than Pa has. Also, I don't know of a single fisherman who would publicly share info on a great native trout stream.

Does Pennsylvania (PFBC) promote any one stream or watershed as the best brook trout fishery in the state?

 

[wildtrout2]

I also believe that W Virginia has better, more remote/isolated brook trout habitat. They also tend to produce consistently bigger natives, which I attribute to having less fishing pressure.

 

[wildtrout2]

Does Pennsylvania (PFBC) promote any one stream or watershed as the best brook trout fishery in the state?

No, they don't promote any of them, they just list what's available. Fishermen are supposed to do the leg work to figure out which one's are best, instead of being totally spoon fed.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I also believe that W Virginia has better, more remote/isolated brook trout habitat. They also tend to produce consistently bigger natives, which I attribute to having less fishing pressure.

This program in below article is a big reason West Virginia has consistently bigger native brook trout, their managing whole watersheds. Even besides these streams, a study was conducted on the shavers for showing brook trout cannot benefit from habitat restorations in the setting of invasive trout, so they stopped stocking the study area. The upper savage river in maryland gets huge fishing pressure but its C and R brook trout no stocking of brown trout so everyone can go there fish the 100+ miles of water and run into mid teens brook trout if they put their time in.

DNR looks to enhance native brook trout waters - WV MetroNews

Plan being crafted is the next step in the evolution of trout management after work to improve habitat and water quality for many years begins to pay dividends in West Virginia.

wvmetronews.com

 

[Silent Ocelot]

No, they don't promote any of them, they just list what's available. Fishermen are supposed to do the leg work to figure out which one's are best, instead of being totally spoon fed.

Thank you @wildtrout2, I forgot to mention that too. What is with the majority of anglers nowadays wanting everything handed to them? If I had to work to find a new spot or method so should the next angler.

 

[silverfox]

I also believe that W Virginia has better, more remote/isolated brook trout habitat. They also tend to produce consistently bigger natives, which I attribute to having less fishing pressure.

I agree. It's also worth mentioning that WV never had all that much to work with. It's unknown whether they ever existed to the west of the Allegheny Front in the Appalachian plateau. Considering the state's history in natural resource extraction, it's incredible that they have any left at all, let alone some of the largest stream-dwelling specimens in the range.

 

[silverfox]

No, they don't promote any of them, they just list what's available. Fishermen are supposed to do the leg work to figure out which one's are best, instead of being totally spoon fed.

Correct. The difference is that our neighbors all list at least one stream or watershed and promote it/them as the best in the state for brook trout.

The telling issue here is that we don't have any brook trout resources that the state could promote openly. If the populations are so sensitive to angling pressure that you can't direct the public to them by name, then they're probably not in very good shape.

Going back to the Best Fishing Waters map that started all this, once the labeling errors are corrected, we'll see that there are no streams on that list that are brook trout streams. PA does have a promotional tool to promote our best fishing waters. That's distinctly different than the general Trout Streams map that lists everything. We can all name multiple brown trout streams without fear of being lambasted for spot burning. That map is the #1 result in a few google searches for best fishing waters in PA (a query I'm sure gets a fair amount of traffic). What does it say that we don't have a single brook trout stream listed there?

 

[Fish Sticks]

i think a very interesting question is what COULD be PA’s best brook trout watershed? Where could brook trout occupy the mainstem that the watershed is named after 3 seasons a year and use the increased forage abundance to grow? Where could the use the mainstem as a dispersal corridor to share their genes with other tributaries and drive adaptation without being eaten more effectively? What watersheds if you subtracted half a hundred thousand stocked trout from could function like this?

 

[wildtrout2]

Statewide C&R of native brook trout and NO stocking of ANY stream that holds even a small number of natives, because once stocking is halted those numbers will increase. That's my answer.

 

[silverfox]

One of the problems with listing our "best brook trout water" is that we don't have any brook trout specific angling regulations to protect them. That's part of why MD DNR can openly promote the Upper Savage River, and why I have no problem directing people there. Brook trout are protected above the lake (in the lake, too technically). You can't kill them at all, and they patrol that area heavily.

 

[wildtrout2]

One of the problems with listing our "best brook trout water" is that we don't have any brook trout specific angling regulations to protect them.

You're right. And to me, that makes statewide C&R for native brook trout sound even better.

 

[Silent Ocelot]

Statewide C&R of native brook trout and NO stocking of ANY stream that holds even a small number of natives, because once stocking is halted those numbers will increase. That's my answer.

The correct response.

 

[sarce]

Idk if WV has less fishing pressure on their brook trout streams. There are a lot of catch and cook anglers hitting those waters. Which doesn't bother me when the habitat is so good and populations are so strong. A few of those big remote brook trout watersheds have campsites all along them and the fish seemed cropped off at 9", at least in recent years.

 

[silverfox]

This might sound surprising coming from me, but I don't think statewide C&R is necessary or warranted. This may or may not be what I've said in the past, but it's what I believe at the moment. Giving credit where credit is due, we have one of the highest length restrictions on brook trout in the east. The 7-inch minimum likely protects a lot of brook trout in general regs streams. That said, I think in strategic locations across the state (certain waters, watersheds, or regions), there should be stronger harvest protections including C&R.

I'm really not a hardcore anti-harvest guy when it comes to brook trout. Limited harvest for consumption likely isn't going to cause any harm to a population, and could actually benefit some populations (Mike's favorite term, compensatory mortality comes to mind). Where I think it can cause a problem is in high-use areas, where limited individuals likely have more ecological value, and especially where stocking occurs. As the folks at MD DNR have stated:

The department believes that the value of releasing native brook trout is greater, both socially and ecologically, than harvest, especially given the abundant opportunity to harvest stocked trout.

In other words, if you're going to stock over wild brook trout, why allow the harvest of the wild brook trout?

I'm also not an angling method extremist. I'm not convinced that the method (bait, artificial lures, flies) changes the outcome enough to make large blanket rules on what type of equipment people can use. I'll temper that by saying I do think, in certain circumstances, it may make a difference. High-use areas with populations that can't support significant harvest. I think this goes hand-in-hand with the above.

I will also say that in smaller populations where exploitation could have a larger impact, I think there need to be stronger limitations on the harvest. I've seen photos of abuse in other states where anglers harvested far more than their limit due to the smaller size. I've also witnessed firsthand people using seine nets to harvest hundreds of brook trout from small tributaries. Admittedly, those people were breaking the law, and they may have broken the law whether there was a C&R reg or not. The bottom line is, I think fisheries folks tend to overlook the impact that a few reckless individuals can have on a population. Regardless, as I've said repeatedly, I believe there is a psychological impact to C&R regs that has value and potentially more value than the biological results.

I also think the state should've included a brook trout component in the slot limit program. That program favors larger brown trout, and as folks have mentioned recently, Penns creek seems to be turning out a lot of brook trout lately. The slot limit program essentially allows the harvest of all brook trout (7-12) while protecting mid-size brown trout to encourage more larger brown trout. This is another example of where brook trout appear to be an afterthought or not considered at all. The impact of the slot limit on brook trout was not only ignored, there wasn't even a hypothetical impact statement that showed they even considered what might happen to brook trout.

Stocking nonnative trout over wild brook trout is the big issue. The biggest issue. Again, I think there should be C&R "zones"based on some criteria where it makes sense and is likely to have a positive impact (like the Upper Savage), but the stocking issue is the biggy. This includes where the state is stocking fingerling brown trout in brook trout streams directly below Class A brook trout streams. That move seems like they're actively attempting to change the species composition. Stocking also leads to increased angling pressure. Incidental mortality of brook trout in stocked trout waters is likely as big or an even bigger problem than the stocked trout themselves.

Then there's the private stocking issue and the continued rearing of brook trout in private hatcheries that still appear to be ending up in wild native brook trout streams where the private hatchery brook trout are breeding with our wild native brook trout.

 

[wildtrout2]

In regards to keeping/eating native brook trout, that seems ridiculous to me. Seriously, it would take a lot of these, generally very small fish, to actually make a meal of them. You would have to catch/keep your limit of big natives to make that happen, and that's not reality.

 

[silverfox]

In regards to keeping/eating native brook trout, that seems ridiculous to me. Seriously, it would take a lot of these, generally very small fish, to actually make a meal of them. You would have to catch/keep your limit of big natives to make that happen, and that's not reality.

Right, and I honestly don't think it happens very much. Which is why I'm not so sure statewide regs are necessary. That said, I think there are a lot of aficionados who think brook trout are the "tastiest" fish that swims. I think they taste like trout. Which I don't really care for. To each his own. Just based on the number of times I've seen the comment, "they sure are tasty," as soon as someone posts a photo of a brook trout, there's clearly still harvest going on. Or a lot of trolling going on anyway.

 

[wildtrout2]

Stocking also leads to increased angling pressure. Incidental mortality of brook trout in stocked trout waters is likely as big or an even bigger problem than the stocked trout themselves.

Absolutely!