Pennsylvania's Best Brook Trout Waters?

[caddisflyer]

I have always wondered why Brook Trout are so easy to catch? Blind cast almost any gaudy fly and they will aggressively take it ( on the small streams at least). I used to catch a fair number of them in a certain section of Elk Creek near Milheim (trib to Penns). I would catch about 50/50 Brook to Brown ratio at that time. They were super easy to catch. Biggest maybe 9 inches. Those sections were all eventually posted unfortunately. Not sure if the Brook Trout are still there or not.
I have caught my biggest Brook Trout in streams that also had good ratio of wild Browns. Streams that had only Brooks the fish were usually small.
It is sort of amusing when people go on about the colors on Brook Trout (they are pretty) but it usually means the fish is unremarkable in size. You never see a big one even with ideal conditions. I wonder how big a wild Brook Trout with perfect conditions. can even get in PA?
Count me in as someone in favor of killing all the non native fish in Big Spring and starting over. I like experiments. With all that "improvement" work it seems like a perfect laboratory. Let's see how the Brooks fair in this impaired {or is it improved} creek.

 

[Mike]

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.

Domesticated northern strain Brook trout feed most successfully on drift at current velocities of 1 ft per second or less. I have not seen a similar description for brown trout in the scientific literature. It probably exists; I just have not seen it.

Disregarding feeding efficiency, even in Pa when freshly stocked hatchery trout of all three species are stocked on a sharp bend with few obstructions to provide eddies, etc, the brook trout will be the species that segregates itself on the inside of the bend where current still exists but is slowest. I have an ideal location to watch that from a bridge over Hokendaqua Ck. That doesn’t mean, however, that the other two species have necessarily pushed the brook trout into those areas. Brook trout would likely occupy those areas anyway. Even when stocked as the predominant species (such as 70%ST, 30%BT) the ST still do not occupy the faster water.

I would say the word “forced” into high gradient sections of streams is a rather strong term and suggests that they were pushed through agonistic behavior into those areas, which I hope is not what was meant. High gradient allopatric brook trout streams are fairly common.

 

[silverfox]

I have always wondered why Brook Trout are so easy to catch? Blind cast almost any gaudy fly and they will aggressively take it ( on the small streams at least). I used to catch a fair number of them in a certain section of Elk Creek near Milheim (trib to Penns). I would catch about 50/50 Brook to Brown ratio at that time. They were super easy to catch. Biggest maybe 9 inches. Those sections were all eventually posted unfortunately. Not sure if the Brook Trout are still there or not.
I have caught my biggest Brook Trout in streams that also had good ratio of wild Browns. Streams that had only Brooks the fish were usually small.
It is sort of amusing when people go on about the colors on Brook Trout (they are pretty) but it usually means the fish is unremarkable in size. You never see a big one even with ideal conditions. I wonder how big a wild Brook Trout with perfect conditions. can even get in PA?
Count me in as someone in favor of killing all the non native fish in Big Spring and starting over. I like experiments. With all that "improvement" work it seems like a perfect laboratory. Let's see how the Brooks fair in this impaired {or is it improved} creek.

Brown trout in infertile mountain streams are just as easy to catch. It's not the species, it's the environment and the amount of available food. Go to the ditch on big spring and then come back and tell me brook trout are easy to catch.

The largest fish size is dictated by a whole host of factors. I've never read anything that suggested sympatry increases brook trout size (the exact opposite is true), except for your comment.

The obsession with size is one of the reasons some anglers devalue the species. I routinely catch 30-40 inch pike and musky. They're interesting fish, and fun to catch, especially on the fly, but I wouldn't say they're the most attractive fish.

Define "big." I'm not sure what you mean there. Have you seen the brook trout from the Nipigon? In PA, in freestone environments, I'd put the largest at 16 inches. Frank Nale caught a nice 16 incher in a small freestoner recently. My buddy caught a 15-1/2 female this fall. 15-16 inch brook trout were fairly common in Big Spring. For some reason I haven't seen any that size recently.

Going back before urban expansion, deforestation, and the introduction of non-native species, 20 inch brook trout weren't uncommon in Pennsylvania. Focusing on size, though, is ignoring the value of the species. Comparing them to something imported from another continent or the opposite side of this one is pointless. Pike, Musky, Catfish, and Sturgeon reach incredible sizes. Should we just ignore everything else that doesn't get that big?

I don't think we need to "start over" on Big Spring. I think the rainbows should be mechanically removed and C&R implemented. That's it.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Domesticated northern strain Brook trout feed most successfully on drift at current velocities of 1 ft per second or less. I have not seen a similar description for brown trout in the scientific literature. It probably exists; I just have not seen it.

Disregarding feeding efficiency, even in Pa when freshly stocked hatchery trout of all three species are stocked on a sharp bend with few obstructions to provide eddies, etc, the brook trout will be the species that segregates itself on the inside of the bend where current still exists but is slowest. I have an ideal location to watch that from a bridge over Hokendaqua Ck. That doesn’t mean, however, that the other two species have necessarily pushed the brook trout into those areas. Brook trout would likely occupy those areas anyway. Even when stocked as the predominant species (such as 70%ST, 30%BT) the ST still do not occupy the faster water.

I would say the word “forced” into high gradient sections of streams is a rather strong term and suggests that they were pushed through agonistic behavior into those areas, which I hope is not what was meant. High gradient allopatric brook trout streams are fairly common.

Oh, absolutely not.
I used the term forced into high gradient sections, when discussing larger watersheds, by mainly environmental and pollution factors mainly.

Certainly, without those, they would inhabit more areas preferably outside those areas.

 

[JeffP]

Oh, I think low flow affects browns. They do stack up at the mouths of tribs, or in spring holes. They become very concentrated at the height of a drought year. I think a lot even migrate significant distances, go miles up towards Elk/Pine where there's a stronger cold influence. I generally avoid fishing at such times but there's places where it's just visible and obvious.

But the population itself is remarkably resilient in Penns. You see the temperature of the main stem, see that stacked up behavior, and think, this is really gonna put a hurting on the brown trout population. There will be doom and gloom posts on this message board saying it's done for, someone saw a dead fish, temperatures have become lethal, no way many are surviving this, cross it off your list for a few years. Then come the following spring it's loaded with healthy brown trout of all ages just like it was every other year. Good streams have a way of doing that...

Guilty as charged!

 

[Fish Sticks]

Domesticated northern strain Brook trout feed most successfully on drift at current velocities of 1 ft per second or less. I have not seen a similar description for brown trout in the scientific literature. It probably exists; I just have not seen it.

Disregarding feeding efficiency, even in Pa when freshly stocked hatchery trout of all three species are stocked on a sharp bend with few obstructions to provide eddies, etc, the brook trout will be the species that segregates itself on the inside of the bend where current still exists but is slowest. I have an ideal location to watch that from a bridge over Hokendaqua Ck. That doesn’t mean, however, that the other two species have necessarily pushed the brook trout into those areas. Brook trout would likely occupy those areas anyway. Even when stocked as the predominant species (such as 70%ST, 30%BT) the ST still do not occupy the faster water.

I would say the word “forced” into high gradient sections of streams is a rather strong term and suggests that they were pushed through agonistic behavior into those areas, which I hope is not what was meant. High gradient allopatric brook trout streams are fairly common.

They actually do result in brook trout being “forced” up stream the strong term is warranted. Nathaniel Hitt’s 2017 study showing brown trout impair brook trouts use of thermal refuge concluded removal of brown trout would facilitate downstream expansion of brook trout in many cases. The proof of concept for that study is Doug deiterman’s brown trout removal on coolidge creek in michigan where brook trout there after immigrated downstream and occupied the larger habitat.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

(PDF) Long-term population demographics of native brook trout following manipulative reduction of an invader

PDF | Although laboratory studies have provided evidence for negative interactions between brook trout and brown trout, it is unknown how these... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

I had not seen this one.
Thank you!

Happily corrected doubly over, for correct terms inappropriately applied.

 

[Fish Sticks]

(PDF) Long-term population demographics of native brook trout following manipulative reduction of an invader

PDF | Although laboratory studies have provided evidence for negative interactions between brook trout and brown trout, it is unknown how these... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

I had not seen this one.
Thank you!

Happily corrected doubly over, for correct terms inappropriately applied.

Yea thats a good one, adult survival is a wash because of conditions affecting the control stream but the increased immigration to and decreased emigration from downstream reaches is what we are looking at. Theres another good one I want to try an find and put on here thats not completed yet but early results are pretty interesting.

 

[silverfox]

I would say the word “forced” into high gradient sections of streams is a rather strong term and suggests that they were pushed through agonistic behavior into those areas, which I hope is not what was meant. High gradient allopatric brook trout streams are fairly common.

I think "forced" is an accurate description. The species doesn't choose that habitat over downstream habitat where a larger, downstream habitat is available or occupiable without significant competition and/or predation, and environmental conditions are within their preferred range. Their seasonal use of large bodies of water, including in Pennsylvania, shows that the habitat type is preferable if all other conditions are met.

As for microhabitat use based on species composition, this recent study in the Shavers Fork in WV indicates that nonnative fish impact the use of optimal or suboptimal sites. See: https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.13678

Quote:

Specifically, marginal occupancy of brook trout was highest within restored sampling reaches post-restoration, while non-native trout marginal occupancy was lowest within restored sampling reaches after restoration.

and: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/rec.12925

We provide evidence to suggest that non-native salmonids may limit access by smaller brook trout to these restored habitats, as well as displace small and large brook trout from optimal focal habitats (e.g. thermalrefugia) therein.

I think it's fair to say that displacement results from agonistic behavior or other physical/behavioral effects from cohabitation (combined with abiotic factors). This seems to be true through all spatial scales from microhabitats to HUC10. Brook trout and brown trout do not coexist peacefully.

https://doi.org/10.1577/1548-8659(1992)121%3C0287:IBNBTA%3E2.3.CO;2

Cohort strength and body size in co-occurring salmonids in a small stream network: variation in space and time

Trout and salmon commonly coexist in stream networks. Exploring similarities and differences among species can help explain coexistence and invasive ability. Here, we describe spatial distribution, cohort strengths and size-at-age of three co-occurring species in a small stream network. Spatial...

doi.org

https://doi.org/10.1111/rec.12925

Changes in the Status of Native Brook Trout on Laurel Hill, Southwestern Pennsylvania

To evaluate the status of native Salvelinus fontinalis (Brook Trout) on Pennsylvania's Laurel Hill, we sampled fish, assessed habitat, and documented water quality from 20 non-randomly selected headwater streams of northwest- and southeast-facing slopes. In late spring and early summer of 2011...

doi.org

https://doi.org/10.1139/cjfas-2016-0255

 

[Fish Sticks]

Not only do they force them up there they seem to affect their ability to leave and share their genes with other populations which is critical for creating genetically diverse populations within a watershed and creating the ability for adapting their genes to stressors like climate change.

This dissertation done by casey weathers thomas tests this movement with sharing of genes termed “gene flow” against many variables, one being invasive trout. It reduced gene flow similar to the way a bad culvert does.

“My work supports that non-native trout removals combined with habitat restorations could improve connectivity and enhance the outlook for many fragmented populations of wild, native brook trout across southern Appalachia.”

eTD Explore

etda.libraries.psu.edu

PA fish and boat has an aquatic connectivity team looking at culverts in kettle creek but then like 60,000 stocked invasive trout go into the watershed lol, what does that do to connectivity?

 

[Fish Sticks]

From Dr. David Kazyak’s presentation at the STAC Chesapeake Bay Brook trout conservation genetics conference

 

[silverfox]

Yea thats a good one, adult survival is a wash because of conditions affecting the control stream but the increased immigration to and decreased emigration from downstream reaches is what we are looking at. Theres another good one I want to try an find and put on here thats not completed yet but early results are pretty interesting.

Probably the "best" one. I'm sure when the Catoctin study is published, we'll see the same results. I'm not sure how many more studies are needed before anything changes.

 

[silverfox]

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.

Could be environmental too. A couple years back there was a very, very low period on Penns that concentrated the browns, perhaps providing an opening? And late last summer the whole area flooded pretty good with the tropical remnants, maybe washed out a barrier, or pushed a slug of fish over one. I don't have a smoking gun, but stuff like that can lead to a pulse. Poe Lake dam was renovated bout 10 years ago as well, though I don't see anything obvious on what they did to say that's it...

Here's my hypothesis on Penns Creek brook trout in the mainstem. We know brook trout population size is highly variable due to many factors. A yet-to-be-published study will correlate brook trout density and movement rates. Essentially, a strong year class can create a situation where density, or an overabundance, causes a higher percentage of the population to move.

It's possible that a strong year class, or two, of brook trout, could result in overcrowding in the tributaries to Penns Creek. It's also possible that unfavorable conditions (drought) in the tributaries could create an overpopulation problem which has the same effect as a strong brook trout population with good conditions. One or both factors may have driven more brook trout into the mainstem giving the appearance of the mainstem supporting more brook trout.

I don't think it's some trend that is likely to continue. Unfortunately.

 

[troutbert]

I used the term forced into high gradient sections, when discussing larger watersheds, by mainly environmental and pollution factors mainly.

Certainly, without those, they would inhabit more areas preferably outside those areas.

The brook trout weren't forced into high gradient sections. Or forced into tiny streams. They lived in these places all along.

They were greatly reduced or eliminated in many places where they used to live, particularly larger streams and limestone streams.

The remnant populations are mostly in smaller streams. But that doesn't mean they were "forced" there. Because they were always there.

Most of the mileage of brook trout streams in PA is not high gradient. The great majority of it is medium gradient. And some of it is low gradient.

And even in high gradient streams, the trout are living mostly in the pools, which are low gradient locations, even though the overall gradient of the stream is high.

 

[troutbert]

Here's my hypothesis on Penns Creek brook trout in the mainstem. We know brook trout population size is highly variable due to many factors. A yet-to-be-published study will correlate brook trout density and movement rates. Essentially, a strong year class can create a situation where density, or an overabundance, causes a higher percentage of the population to move.

It's possible that a strong year class, or two, of brook trout, could result in overcrowding in the tributaries to Penns Creek. It's also possible that unfavorable conditions (drought) in the tributaries could create an overpopulation problem which has the same effect as a strong brook trout population with good conditions. One or both factors may have driven more brook trout into the mainstem giving the appearance of the mainstem supporting more brook trout.

I don't think it's some trend that is likely to continue. Unfortunately.

There is now much less stocking of Penns Creek's tributaries than there used to be. This may have increased the brook trout populations in the tribs, increasing the number of brook trout in Penns Creek near the mouths of those tribs.

But it would be interesting to see GPS points of where people are catching brook trout in Penns Creek. I'm guessing the points would be crowded in a fairly short stretch of Penns Creek.

I don't think there are significant numbers distributed throughout Penns Creek. I think it's pretty localized near a few tributaries.

 

[silverfox]

The brook trout weren't forced into high gradient sections. Or forced into tiny streams. They lived in these places all along.

They were greatly reduced or eliminated in many places where they used to live, particularly larger streams and limestone streams.

The remnant populations are mostly in smaller streams. But that doesn't mean they were "forced" there. Because they were always there.

Most of the mileage of brook trout streams in PA is not high gradient. The great majority of it is medium gradient. And some of it is low gradient.

And even in high gradient streams, the trout are living mostly in the pools, which are low gradient locations, even though the overall gradient of the stream is high.

Good point. A better word might be "restricted." That's reinforced by the fact that brook trout only inhabit roughly 1% of their historic habitat in Pennsylvania. That 1% is essentially high gradient, small 1st, and 2nd-order streams, though it's worth mentioning that recent research in the Smokies might reveal that they don't actually occupy 1st-order streams as much as previously thought.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The brook trout weren't forced into high gradient sections. Or forced into tiny streams. They lived in these places all along.

They were greatly reduced or eliminated in many places where they used to live, particularly larger streams and limestone streams.

The remnant populations are mostly in smaller streams. But that doesn't mean they were "forced" there. Because they were always there.

Most of the mileage of brook trout streams in PA is not high gradient. The great majority of it is medium gradient. And some of it is low gradient.

And even in high gradient streams, the trout are living mostly in the pools, which are low gradient locations, even though the overall gradient of the stream is high.

Yea basically we can choose any terminology that demonstrates they would be living downstream in more food tich larger habitat in many cases if invasive trout weren’t there and that their ability to travel to other streams is also decreased by the presence of these invasive trout. Both mentioned in above studies.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

The brook trout weren't forced into high gradient sections. Or forced into tiny streams. They lived in these places all along.

They were greatly reduced or eliminated in many places where they used to live, particularly larger streams and limestone streams.

The remnant populations are mostly in smaller streams. But that doesn't mean they were "forced" there. Because they were always there.

Most of the mileage of brook trout streams in PA is not high gradient. The great majority of it is medium gradient. And some of it is low gradient.

And even in high gradient streams, the trout are living mostly in the pools, which are low gradient locations, even though the overall gradient of the stream is high.

I don't think you are understanding what I was trying to convey.

Of course they were always there.
However larger specimens that would have moved to larger downstream sections cannot, and are forced to stay in high gradient areas they would prefer to leave.

 

[JeffP]

Here's my hypothesis on Penns Creek brook trout in the mainstem. We know brook trout population size is highly variable due to many factors. A yet-to-be-published study will correlate brook trout density and movement rates. Essentially, a strong year class can create a situation where density, or an overabundance, causes a higher percentage of the population to move.

It's possible that a strong year class, or two, of brook trout, could result in overcrowding in the tributaries to Penns Creek. It's also possible that unfavorable conditions (drought) in the tributaries could create an overpopulation problem which has the same effect as a strong brook trout population with good conditions. One or both factors may have driven more brook trout into the mainstem giving the appearance of the mainstem supporting more brook trout.

I don't think it's some trend that is likely to continue. Unfortunately.

I have not fished the tribs of Penns as much in the last few years. What little I have, I have not seen any strong brook trout populations in Poe, Panther, or Swift. I could be wrong. I'm also not sure there are that many more in Penns. I would like to see a study or someone who fishes the tribe a lot. With Penns there, I'm not sure there is anyone out there.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

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

Forgot to ask.
What 6' 2wt you building?

I'm currently building a 1pc 6'4"ish Fenwick.
Absolutely love this blank. I extended the blank which was 6'1" with a solid fiberglass stent.

I did a snub nose 6" grip and a spalted maple reel seat with dual ring blued hardware from RL Reel Seats.

I'm thinking between to golden yellow blank and the spalted maple, which is yellowish with black swirls, I'm going to use black thread for the wraps. Maybe some spirals. Add on a yellow agate stripping guide in gun smoke with gun smoke dual foot guides/tip and it should be a neat looking rod.

Of course a bear to transport but single PC fiberglass casts and feels too dang nice to pass up.

Be a nice rod to fish locally too.
Rated as a 6wt but I think it will cast a 4/5 well.

I installed the stint and grip yesterday. I like the grip further back on this rod, gives it a great action.