Pennsylvania's Best Brook Trout Waters?

[sixfootfenwick]

So, a once thriving brook trout fishery that has forever been ruined by PFBC hatchery should be restored to what it was in 1870? With the damage done by the hatchery, we should be pretty happy that trout of any type live in the upper 2-3 miles.

Public opinion/ desire should never override biologist. Really? That may have also been the home range of the Dodo bird, maybe that can be restored too.

If bio report shows that only darter, sculpins and dace lived in that stream but it currently supports a high quality trout fishery that draws people from surrounding states to fish there..... you are onboard with removing the trout? Who cares what the public wants. Clean browns out of penns, little j, spruce, letort, etc. Let's get back to the way it used to be and reestablish ST as our state fish, only native trout..err char and we'll all be better for it.

From the early 80's -mid 90's, BS was an insane fishery. If any restoration work was done from town up to the hatchery, it would have continued down river. I don't think trout like living an ankle deep water where they can be picked off at will by predators.

Or.....we could leave out the emotional diatribes of nonsense from one extreme to the next and look at reason.

I think restoring it to the way it was during the mill pond era is not practical. However the project aimed at slowing velocity and providing habitat favorable to brook trout. It accomplished that goal and the brook trout expanded. More could be done too.

Yes public opinion and desire should never override biologist recommendations if the goal is to protect or enhance habitat for a native species. The public, in large, can't tell the difference between a brook or a brown trout. I'm not sure I want or it is wise to placate to their selfish desires to override the interest of the natural world anymore than it already does. Mauritius, in the Indian Ocean was the Dodo birds only native range and they are extinct. You cannot restore an exstinct species. While I'm sure you made this attempted analogy for the sake of arguement, it is poor. Brook trout are not extinct from Big Spring and there still exists opportunity to protect, enhance and monitor Big Spring's Brook Trout population, unlike the Dodo bird. I would hope, if it was possible, you would have been in favor of doing so for the Dodo bird too before extinction. If I'm incorrect, then take note that having people that think the Dodo might have inhabited the Big Spring valley and there is a possibility of restoring them as evidence enough why public desire shouldn't override a biologists suggestion. After all, most can't tell brook trout from brown trout.

If a bio report showed that those species of darter, sculpins , dace etc, were indeed the only species present and the current non native salmonoid population threatened them, then yes I would. Conviction over socioeconomic impact is admirable. It's unfortunate we as a society tend to value the one and scoff at the other. It's one reason we are in such a mess environmentally around the world.
Money is the root of all evil indeed.

However, into reality and away from hypothetical attempts at gotcha moments, brook trout are indeed native to Big Spring and are threatened by non native salmonoid populations. A lot more before, than they are after the project, but still are. Being subjected to the ditch, which was caused by pollution and habitat degradation because of the same desire of socioeconomic consideration by a hatchery and the public, is not suggestive of a health stream or population. To use the unhealthy by products of that socioeconomic consideration to make a new consideration against the native species is suggestive of a poor understanding of conservation and the state of our native fish.

Double down if you wish, and you will judging by the emotional outburst but it's the reality. Might as well give a green light to all stocking buckets and non native salmonoid takeover to all watersheds. You care nothing for native species.

No one is suggesting clearing out any of the watersheds you mentioned. Most of those have a very limited or non existent brook trout population for various reasons. Big Spring is different than those, it is loaded with opportunity.


In the 80's and 90's Big Spring was an insane artificial fishery. Jordan Creek is an insane fishery by that measure every April. Lots of Big fish and a large density of stocked trout.

Notice though, you say "Let's get back to the way it used to be and reestablish ST as our state fish, only native trout..err char and we'll all be better for it."

No. See that is the same mindset, the "What can the fish do for the angling public?" mindset. It's the same selfish desire. We won't necessarily be better for it when considering Big Spring as anglers, but the brook trout will be.

Is conservation of wildlife about you, or the wildlife?

🤔

 

[silverfox]

So, a once thriving brook trout fishery that has forever been ruined by PFBC hatchery should be restored to what it was in 1870? With the damage done by the hatchery, we should be pretty happy that trout of any type live in the upper 2-3 miles.

Public opinion/ desire should never override biologist. Really? That may have also been the home range of the Dodo bird, maybe that can be restored too.

If bio report shows that only darter, sculpins and dace lived in that stream but it currently supports a high quality trout fishery that draws people from surrounding states to fish there..... you are onboard with removing the trout? Who cares what the public wants. Clean browns out of penns, little j, spruce, letort, etc. Let's get back to the way it used to be and reestablish ST as our state fish, only native trout..err char and we'll all be better for it.

From the early 80's -mid 90's, BS was an insane fishery. If any restoration work was done from town up to the hatchery, it would have continued down river. I don't think trout like living an ankle deep water where they can be picked off at will by predators.

This is exactly the mentality that leads to the situation that prompted this thread. The reality is nowhere in this state have we attempted to establish, maintain, restore, or convert anything to what it was in pre-colonial times. The entire state is a melting pot of species introduced to please people.

Then someone brings up one single stream in the entire state as an example of where we should attempt to restore it, and people lose their minds. It's not like the state is predominantly intact native ecosystems, and I'm part of some selfish group that wants even more. It's the exact opposite.

I'll say it again, public opinion/desire should never override a fisheries biologist's (or a team of them) recommendations for how to manage the fisheries. They've devoted their lives to managing aquatic resources, and then you've got John Doe public throwing a temper tantrum because it's not what they want. Even when what John Doe wants already exists in the vast majority of the state. Yeah, Dodo birds. How about we stock Bengal Tigers and import some Ibex, too, while we're at it? Turn the state into a zoo to please a group of people who want to hunt bighorn sheep in Potter county.

Whenever this topic comes up where someone lists a single place where we should focus on native fish (our state fish), someone always has to argue the Appeal to Extremes fallacy of "oh yeah, let's just eradicate nonnative fish out of every stream in the state." It's as predictable as the sun rising in the morning.

 

[Fish Sticks]

This “we can’t have” Brook Trout defeatism based on personal preference is pervasive in this state. It makes us say the stream this the stream that, which to be clear in some cases is true. However, people focus on the less than 1 degree Celsius upper incipient lethal 7 day temperature different between brook and brown trout and pay no mind that brown trout kick brook trout out of springs and thermal refuge, prime feeding/sheltering lies, and heavily predate on them.

 

[krayfish2]

I thought I was on PAFF but it seems to have morphed into a forum whining about brook trout. Threads that always seems to have the same know it all big brains.

Removing all brown trout from the letort, penns etc.... That's what's known as sarcasm. It sounds just as silly as the droning on about brook trout.

I don't care if we become the brook trout destination for the entire world. I simply fish to enjoy myself and for the challenge.

Looks like brown trout and rainbow trout are here to stay. I didn't bring them here 100 years ago but it is what it is. If browns displace brooks, looks like the stronger / better suited species won. Honestly don't care if I ever catch a brook trout again and if I do, maybe I'll whip it up on the bank for nature to consume.
The quicker they go extinct, the sooner I can stop hearing whining about gemmies.

I'll probably end up fishing for flatheads and snakeheads as they take over waterways. Too late now to close the door once the horses have already run into the pasture.

Where were your biologists and studies while all of these things were happening?

 

[troutbert]

There was a section that was taken off the list, though that's downstream a bit, and they mainly stock bows.
Best guess is look for changes in fish passage in the lower ends of Poe, Panther, or Swift. I am thinking these are adult brook trout entering Penns from tribs, and given the location of where brookies are turning up, those are the most likely sources. There was always a smattering of stocked brookies coming in from Poe, but the ones I've caught lately aren't stockies.

There is much less stocking of the tributaries than there used to be, so that may have helped the brookie populations in the tribs, and therefore in Penns Creek near the mouths of the tribs.

Are you catching brook trout over long stretches of Penns Creek, or mostly near Swift and Panther Runs?

 

[Fish Sticks]

I thought I was on PAFF but it seems to have morphed into a forum whining about brook trout. Threads that always seems to have the same know it all big brains.

Removing all brown trout from the letort, penns etc.... That's what's known as sarcasm. It sounds just as silly as the droning on about brook trout.

I don't care if we become the brook trout destination for the entire world. I simply fish to enjoy myself and for the challenge.

Looks like brown trout and rainbow trout are here to stay. I didn't bring them here 100 years ago but it is what it is. If browns displace brooks, looks like the stronger / better suited species won. Honestly don't care if I ever catch a brook trout again and if I do, maybe I'll whip it up on the bank for nature to consume.
The quicker they go extinct, the sooner I can stop hearing whining about gemmies.

I'll probably end up fishing for flatheads and snakeheads as they take over waterways. Too late now to close the door once the horses have already run into the pasture.

Where were your biologists and studies while all of these things were happening?

Making better case for fisheries scientists to decide without public input ^ . Part of fly fishing was supposed to be being the best stewards of the resource so yes this is on PA fly fish website. Also “superior” always gets mentioned with invasive trout but no one mentions the human charity of repeated hatchery reinforcements. Brook trout dominate brown trout in europe, its not that any one species is superior its just that putting species outside of where it evolved allows these fish to go nuts on a prey base they didn’t evolve with and grow larger. This is called growth plasticity and is the reason why browns eat more smaller fish in their invasive range than their native range where brook trout are hurting them. As far as “big brains” your right about that they just don’t belong to us. They belong to the fisheries scientists who have devoted their lives to keeping our aquatic ecosystems healthy and you say should be overridden by people like you.

 

[silverfox]

I thought I was on PAFF but it seems to have morphed into a forum whining about brook trout. Threads that always seems to have the same know it all big brains.

Removing all brown trout from the letort, penns etc.... That's what's known as sarcasm. It sounds just as silly as the droning on about brook trout.

I don't care if we become the brook trout destination for the entire world. I simply fish to enjoy myself and for the challenge.

Looks like brown trout and rainbow trout are here to stay. I didn't bring them here 100 years ago but it is what it is. If browns displace brooks, looks like the stronger / better suited species won. Honestly don't care if I ever catch a brook trout again and if I do, maybe I'll whip it up on the bank for nature to consume.
The quicker they go extinct, the sooner I can stop hearing whining about gemmies.

I'll probably end up fishing for flatheads and snakeheads as they take over waterways. Too late now to close the door once the horses have already run into the pasture.

Where were your biologists and studies while all of these things were happening?

Constructive post. 😂

If you don't want to participate in discussions about brook trout and don't care about brook trout, you could just scroll on by. There are plenty of threads here about everything else.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Constructive post. 😂

If you don't want to participate in discussions about brook trout and don't care about brook trout, you could just scroll on by. There are plenty of threads here about everything else.

The double down was expected, as was teetering the line of violating board rules.

Grace should be applied because deprogramming is as painful for the technician as it is the subject.

You pointed out before the absolute distain for even one watershed to be mentioned for this consideration, while all the rest of the state is how they want it, I would suspect the same applies to threads on the board.

I enjoyed this thread very much and appreciate the Brook Trout fanatics on this page.
It seems my view points are not as alone as I thought, I have little faith the whole will ever follow suit though but as you know, that should never deter you from speaking out.

 

[krayfish2]

Making better case for fisheries scientists to decide without public input ^ . Part of fly fishing was supposed to be being the best stewards of the resource so yes this is on PA fly fish website. Also “superior” always gets mentioned with invasive trout but no one mentions the human charity of repeated hatchery reinforcements. Brook trout dominate brown trout in europe, its not that any one species is superior its just that putting species outside of where it evolved allows these fish to go nuts on a prey base they didn’t evolve with and grow larger. This is called growth plasticity and is the reason why browns eat more smaller fish in their invasive range than their native range where brook trout are hurting them. As far as “big brains” your right about that they just don’t belong to us. They belong to the fisheries scientists who have devoted their lives to keeping our aquatic ecosystems healthy and you say should be overridden by people like you.

If brooks dominate browns in Europe, what is the issue here?
Very politician like response, you should consider running for office John.

 

[krayfish2]

The double down was expected, as was teetering the line of violating board rules.

Did you contact the police?

 

[Fish Sticks]

The issue is the entire rest of the food web. Just because you have brook trout dominating brown trout in sweden and the opposite in PA doesn’t mean the rest of the food web is stable. Their wreaking havoc on alot more in both scenarios. For example browns are harming endangered darters,crayfish, suckers, and amphibians over here. And im sure brook trout are harming more than brown trout over there.

 

[krayfish2]

The issue is the entire rest of the food web. Just because you have brook trout dominating brown trout in sweden and the opposite in PA doesn’t mean the rest of the food web is stable. Their wreaking havoc on alot more in both scenarios. For example browns are harming endangered darters,crayfish, suckers, and amphibians over here. And im sure brook trout are harming more than brown trout over there.

Cutting the old growth forest is something that might take several more generations to recover from or it might never happen. That did more to the food web than browns or brooks will ever do. On the bright side, many waterways are recovering or have recovered enough to hold trout.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

The issue is the entire rest of the food web. Just because you have brook trout dominating brown trout in sweden and the opposite in PA doesn’t mean the rest of the food web is stable. Their wreaking havoc on alot more in both scenarios. For example browns are harming endangered darters,crayfish, suckers, and amphibians over here. And im sure brook trout are harming more than brown trout over there.

One thing I find interesting on this subject as it relates to Big Spring:

Invasion of north European streams by brook trout: hostile takeover or pre-adapted habitat niche segregation? - ProQuest

Explore millions of resources from scholarly journals, books, newspapers, videos and more, on the ProQuest Platform.

www.proquest.com

If you open the pdf, the mention of brook trout preferring pool habitats and the brown trout preferring faster moving water.

This has always been counter to what most people with a narrow scope of understanding and observation encounter.

Brook Trout have been forced into high gradient streams in PA, but they certainly don't prefer it. It's why Big Spring produces what it did during the mill ponds era, it's why it produces a good population now and why the restoration work was so successful when they slowed velocity. It's also why they are at threat in those higher gradient streams, when brown trout prefer a more moving water. To the casual observer that doesn't read, or care as much to learn as much about our native fish mistakes that they prefer that habitat. They do not and it hinders and further stunts them.

Fascinating stuff.

 

[silverfox]

The double down was expected, as was teetering the line of violating board rules.

Grace should be applied because deprogramming is as painful for the technician as it is the subject.

You pointed out before the absolute distain for even one watershed to be mentioned for this consideration, while all the rest of the state is how they want it, I would suspect the same applies to threads on the board.

I enjoyed this thread very much and appreciate the Brook Trout fanatics on this page.
It seems my view points are not as alone as I thought, I have little faith the whole will ever follow suit though but as you know, that should never deter you from speaking out.

To be clear, much progress has been made in Pennsylvania as far as brook trout are concerned. I'll quote another board member from a paper he wrote a while back as evidence.

In 1983, many of Pennsylvania’s best wild trout streams were removed from the trout-stocking program in an effort to manage these streams solely as wild trout fisheries. Wild brook trout streams responded favorably to the cessation of stocking with eight of the nine monitored streams showing at least some improvement in the abundance of legal trout.

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

The wilderness trout stream designation was created for brook trout specifically.

Established in 1969, this option was designed to protect and promote native (brook trout) fisheries, the ecological requirements necessary for natural reproduction of trout and wilderness aesthetics.

Trout Water Classifications

www.fishandboat.com

While other factors have influenced the decision, the cessation of stocking hatchery-reared brook trout will benefit native brook trout, and was done partly for wild brook trout.

An additional benefit to stocking Rainbow Trout is that there are rarely concerns of them reproducing and establishing wild populations, especially in watersheds where they could compete with wild Brook Trout. Similarly, not stocking Brook Trout into watersheds where wild Brook Trout occur eliminates the possibility of introgression of hatchery genes into wild fish, which can reduce fitness and negatively impact wild Brook Trout populations over time.

https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Stocking/Documents/TroutStocking-FactSheet.pdf

The most recent trout management plan had a significant focus on brook trout.

https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Fisheries/TroutPlan/Documents/TroutPlan2020.pdf

That said, advocating for further changes and enhancements involves discussing it openly. Whether advocating for a new park, boat ramp, better environmental protections, or better protections for our state fish, online discussion forums are a part of the process. As with any advocacy, people will disagree with you and rather you keep quiet about your position. Some will outright say it. It goes with the territory.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Cutting the old growth forest is something that might take several more generations to recover from or it might never happen. That did more to the food web than browns or brooks will ever do. On the bright side, many waterways are recovering or have recovered enough to hold trout.

Old growth Forrest are ideal but your talking about it like if its not perfect its not worth trying to save anything which is all too convenient if you just rather there be brown trout in every case. While there were many insults none of them by themselves are deal breakers statewide for brook trout. Its not all or nothing there is an enormous spectrum of possibilities inbetween and in fact other states have proven this already with their brook trout management zones. 2 hours and 46 min southwest of Harrisburg what you saying isnt possible without old growth exists without old growth, ya just have to leave pa where the managment is actually choosing to have brook trout

 

[silverfox]

One thing I find interesting on this subject as it relates to Big Spring:

Invasion of north European streams by brook trout: hostile takeover or pre-adapted habitat niche segregation? - ProQuest

Explore millions of resources from scholarly journals, books, newspapers, videos and more, on the ProQuest Platform.

www.proquest.com

If you open the pdf, the mention of brook trout preferring pool habitats and the brown trout preferring faster moving water.

This has always been counter to what most people with a narrow scope of understanding and observation encounter.

Brook Trout have been forced into high gradient streams in PA, but they certainly don't prefer it. It's why Big Spring produces what it did during the mill ponds era, it's why it produces a good population now and why the restoration work was so successful when they slowed velocity. It's also why they are at threat in those higher gradient streams, when brown trout prefer a more moving water. To the casual observer that doesn't read, or care as much to learn as much about our native fish mistakes that they prefer that habitat. They do not and it hinders and further stunts them.

Fascinating stuff.

Absolutely! Brook trout don't live in 2nd order streams because they prefer it. They've been driven there by biotic and abiotic factors.

It's a concern with habitat alterations too. Especially in mixed populations comprised of brook trout and brown trout. If the brown trout weren't there, the brook trout would use the pool habitat. With brown trout present, they'll keep brook trout from using the habitat. So you could focus on habitat modifications that favor brook trout by increasing velocity, decreasing depth, and reducing pool and ambush habitat. That might give brook trout an edge, but it's less beneficial to the brook trout too.

That's the fundamental problem of trying to manage mixed populations to maintain mixed populations. One or the other is going to lose out. The different species aren't analogs for one another.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Amen to that.

I know a ton of Beaver dams in NCPA that always have a fairly good population of larger than average wild brook trout in them.

It has also made me curious about a certain larger watershed that has brook trout and with many quarries in the headwaters that feed the stream.

Regardless. I appreciate the conversation guys.
Now I'm off to building my new fiberglass "brook trout bank flinger".

😂
Can't let the "guides" have all the fun.
🤷

 

[silverfox]

Amen to that.

I know a ton of Beaver dams in NCPA that always have a fairly good population of larger than average wild brook trout in them.

It has also made me curious about a certain larger watershed that has brook trout and with many quarries in the headwaters that feed the stream.

Regardless. I appreciate the conversation guys.
Now I'm off to building my new fiberglass "brook trout bank flinger".

😂
Can't let the "guides" have all the fun.
🤷

Exactly! Here are some beaver pond brook trout from this fall. No flow brookies! I have a 6' 2wt "in progress" that I really need to finish. One of these days...

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Yes, just like those.
Some really good quality Squaretails there!

 

[wildtrout2]

Exactly! Here are some beaver pond brook trout from this fall. No flow brookies! I have a 6' 2wt "in progress" that I really need to finish. One of these days...

View attachment 1641227488

View attachment 1641227489

View attachment 1641227490

View attachment 1641227491

Those are some big natives! The colors on that last brookie are stunning. So beautiful.