Pennsylvania's Best Brook Trout Waters?

[caddisflyer]

I have occasionally intentionally fished for Brook Trout in tiny streams. After you catch a few it gets quickly boring. They are so easy to catch and also usually very small that I quickly lose interest. It really borders on micro fishing. I honestly don't get the obsession with Brook Trout. It's great that they exist where they do but they will likely never be much more than 10" for the most part. They apparently are also very vulnerable to pollution. In a way they just are not suited to the modern trout fishing experience and environment on any large scale. Brown Trout and Rainbows are the future of trout fishing in PA for the most part. Brook Trout are kind of an interesting novelty. It's not like a self sustaining wild Brown Trout fishery is doing any harm to a watershed.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I have occasionally intentionally fished for Brook Trout in tiny streams. After you catch a few it gets quickly boring. They are so easy to catch and also usually very small that I quickly lose interest. It really borders on micro fishing. I honestly don't get the obsession with Brook Trout. It's great that they exist where they do but they will likely never be much more than 10" for the most part. They apparently are also very vulnerable to pollution. In a way they just are not suited to the modern trout fishing experience and environment on any large scale. Brown Trout and Rainbows are the future of trout fishing in PA for the most part. Brook Trout are kind of an interesting novelty. It's not like a self sustaining wild Brown Trout fishery is doing any harm to a watershed.

Actually brook trout can withstand acid mine drainage that brown trout and rainbow trout can’t, their actually more hardy when it comes to that type of pollution. They have their maximum tolerances like any other species for pollution and temperature but the difference between brook trout and brown trout has been sooo over blown with the temp thing. Less than one degree Celsius difference between upper lethal temps over 7 day period. As far as “the future” in PA goes people were saying the same thing about the collapsing invasive brown trout populations in Montana. When you build your ecosystem on invasive species it goes back to the fact that they decrease the number of other species in the ecosystem/biodiversity which increases instability. We see these boom and busts all the time with invasive species. Look at what the invasive alweives and pacifics have done to lake ontario, now its gotta be stocked to death to provide any fishery for salmonids when lakers and atlantics could be doing alot better if they had just let the pacifics finish off the invasive alweives a few years ago when it was about to happen. Instead they cut back on their stocking and intentionally spared the invasive bait fish. Flat head lake invasive lakers caused the bull trout and cutts to disappear and then one they crashed the food web stunted out at tiny sizes making a terrible lake trout fishery. Invasive Blue cat fish introduced into the james river crazhed the food web and make uo 75% of the biomass and all stunt out at avg of like 20” or less now, no 100 lb blue cats anymore.

So you can try to say what you like to fish for is the “future” in PA. When those fish and other ecological threats remove enough other species from the food web its very possible we see you with a # save our wild brown trout post in the future. Snakeheads live in northern china, ive talked to dr joseph love whi studies them and he said they may actually seek out ground water in the winter if they get far wnough upstream and nothing to stop them from eating your fish of the future. As you can see alm it takes is someone else to decide their fish of the future is more important than the whole ecosystem and ruin your plans. As far as the obsession with size goes than why even chase tiny 20” browns. You should be on the susky with a john boat chucking bait for invasive flatheads. When it comes down to it our ecosystems are more stable with wild native brook trout in place and the people who son’t care will ironically likely have their fishing negatively affected either by the trophic cascade rippling through the food web if we lose brook trout, a key stone species for aquatic and terrestrial species i’ll remind you. Or someones new introduction of wells catfish, snakeheads, or some tiny invasive bait fish can donthe same thing.


Since your so big on the size of what you catch, how do you think brown trout in slate run, cedar run, and other infertile freestoners get so big??? Its eating brook trout. So when they eliminate them browns will likely stunt out to a degree as well just like the above examples. Your whole preference for size in alot of streams likely depends on native brook trout being on the menu based on an SRBC study on kratzer run in western PA done by Tom Clark, and we know thats no long term sustainable in most places.

 

[silverfox]

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.

It's just a "cheap" e-glass blank from the bay that I wanted to make up to look like a Hardy C.C. De France. I have 2 CC De Frances and they're nice, but they're original 1940's bamboo and make me nervous fishing them. I've just always liked the intermediate wraps and cork grip design. So basically a homage piece.

I've been eyeing up C. Barclay rods for quite some time. My go-to for the past 2 years is a Scott F series 5 piece 7'-2" 3wt, which is phenomenal. Hence the reason there's no real fire under my butt to make/get another rod.

 

[silverfox]

I have occasionally intentionally fished for Brook Trout in tiny streams. After you catch a few it gets quickly boring. They are so easy to catch and also usually very small that I quickly lose interest. It really borders on micro fishing. I honestly don't get the obsession with Brook Trout. It's great that they exist where they do but they will likely never be much more than 10" for the most part. They apparently are also very vulnerable to pollution. In a way they just are not suited to the modern trout fishing experience and environment on any large scale. Brown Trout and Rainbows are the future of trout fishing in PA for the most part. Brook Trout are kind of an interesting novelty. It's not like a self sustaining wild Brown Trout fishery is doing any harm to a watershed.

Different strokes for different folks. I like brookie fishing in remote mountain streams for the solitude and the knowledge that I'm fishing for a native species that evolved here and has persisted despite numerous obstacles. I also like micro fishing and fishing for obscure species, so I don't get hung up on fish size. I get bored catching brown trout because they're by far more common where I live than brook trout are. I went out yesterday for a few hours and caught a few and watched a big pod of them feeding from a high bank. I just laughed a few times because this pool was absolutely polluted with browns. Borderline comical. Just dozens and dozens of cookie-cutter 10 to 12-inch wild browns. It's worth mentioning that it isn't even considered a trout stream by the state.

I'm a fish nerd first and a fly angler second. I admire and respect fish. All fish. So things like size and all the other romantic notions that hardcore anglers like to wax poetically about are irrelevant to me.

I also put ecosystem health and conservation ahead of angling and don't look at everything through the lens of fishing.

It's great that they exist where they do but they will likely never be much more than 10" for the most part

This simply isn't true.

They apparently are also very vulnerable to pollution. In a way they just are not suited to the modern trout fishing experience and environment on any large scale.

This isn't quite accurate. In fact, there are examples where brook trout are the only species that can exist in a polluted stream.

In a way they just are not suited to the modern trout fishing experience

According to who? 😂 The "modern trout fishing experience"... Oh boy.

It's not like a self sustaining wild Brown Trout fishery is doing any harm to a watershed.

This is just patently false.

 

[Fish Sticks]

It's not like a self sustaining wild Brown Trout fishery is doing any harm to a watershed.

They are listed in the International Union of a conservation of nature as making the worlds top 100 worst invasive species list and have harmed or eliminated galaxids, perca, eels, endangered cray fish, darters, Himalayan snow trout, sculpin species, native trout species, endangered suckers and chubs( flaming gorge), and many amphibians. They eat larval and juvenile helmbenders and research shows their likely harmful to them too. Whats more is that most interactions with browns and native fish have not even been studied so we are just seeing tip of iceberg.

So yea no harm except in the majority of suitable watersheds they exist in on planet earth. It always makes me laugh when people do “conservation” work for brown trout. They have invaded all over the world and conservation is based on need. There is no such thing as conservation of jnvasive species.

 

[silverfox]

They are listed in the International Union of a conservation of nature as making the worlds top 100 worst invasive species list and have harmed or eliminated galaxids, perca, eels, endangered cray fish, darters, Himalayan snow trout, sculpin species, native trout species, endangered suckers and chubs( flaming gorge), and many amphibians. They eat larval and juvenile helmbenders and research shows their likely harmful to them too. Whats more is that most interactions with browns and native fish have not even been studied so we are just seeing tip of iceberg.

So yea no harm except in the majority of suitable watersheds they exist in on planet earth. It always makes me laugh when people do “conservation” work for brown trout. They have invaded all over the world and conservation is based on need. There is no such thing as conservation of jnvasive species.

Or "restore" brown trout in polluted watersheds...

Recovery of brown trout populations to what? Pre-colonial populations? 😂 It's ironic, too, because the C&R regulations were only applied to the mainstem, none of the tributaries, and the mainstem is almost entirely brown trout. Supposedly, brook trout have been caught in the mainstem, probably in transit, so I guess there's some truth to this. Or plausible deniability, anyway.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I myself can't wait for micro chipped programmable trout that are half Borg and shoot lasers at mayflies and other prey.

I've pretty much done it all when it comes to fly fishing in Pennsylvania. Trout, Muskie, Bass, Stripers, Shad, Carp etc.... They all have their appeal.

I've caught enough 20+ inch wild brown trout and 12+ inch wild brook trout to know I get far more excited over the latter.
In fact, I get far more excited of a 12" +wild brook trout than I do a 40 inch Muskie.

But yeah, I'm old fashioned I guess. I picture retiring some where to a stick hut, fashioned by hand, in some V cut Mountainous area with a creek near by so I can die in peace.

So the larger Borg Trout swimming in sewage and their modern day experience just doesn't appeal to me, not like the smaller speckled trout feeding aggressively in an open wooded area, between a channel dressed in ferns and arrayed in sunbeams.

We all have our likes and dislikes.
One day down the road, youll see it was never the fish you were after anyways.

 

[silverfox]

I myself can't wait for micro chipped programmable trout that are half Borg and shoot lasers at mayflies and other prey.

I've pretty much done it all when it comes to fly fishing in Pennsylvania. Trout, Muskie, Bass, Stripers, Shad, Carp etc.... They all have their appeal.

I've caught enough 20+ inch wild brown trout and 12+ inch wild brook trout to know I get far more excited over the latter.
In fact, I get far more excited of a 12" +wild brook trout than I do a 40 inch Muskie.

But yeah, I'm old fashioned I guess. I picture retiring some where to a stick hut, fashioned by hand, in some V cut Mountainous area with a creek near by so I can die in peace.

So the larger Borg Trout swimming in sewage and their modern day experience just doesn't appeal to me, not like the smaller speckled trout feeding aggressively in open wooded area, between a channel dressed in ferns and arrayed in sunbeams.

We all have our likes and dislikes.
One day down the road, you see it was never the fish you were after anyways.

In a previous life, I bred tropical fish for the aquarium trade. It was back when the "glofish" were developed (genetically engineered danios, barbs, and tetras that glow under a black light). I would not be surprised in any way if some state or private hatchery started genetically engineering trout to be blue, green, yellow, orange, or pink. We can't seem to get enough of the unnatural.

Same here with the brook trout and musky. I'd rather catch a 3-inch brook trout than a 48-inch musky.

The "sewer" in WV and Burt Dam are good examples of where people get so obsessed with large specimens of brown trout that they ignore everything else about the experience. Fishing in water laced with God knows what with raw sewage dumping out of pipes right behind them. 18 mile is so polluted that the EPA evacuated families from the banks and listed it as a superfund site. It's an absolute dump of a place just lined shoulder to shoulder with anglers in the fall. So it's no surprise that people would devalue a small native fish simply because of the average size they reach.

Nice Thoreau reference!

 

[caddisflyer]

Getting back to original idea of best Brook Trout waters. What in general makes a good place for bigger ones here in PA ? This is just a hunch but if I were looking for a real rare large once in a lifetime Brook Trout I would probably not be looking in North Central PA. I also would not be looking at any of the limestone creeks. I would maybe be looking at lower end of certain Delaware or Lehigh tributaries And possibly in the fall or winter. I think those bigger fish likely roam around the bigger rivers and head into those tribs either to spawn or follow bait.

 

[wildtrout2]

Getting back to original idea of best Brook Trout waters. What in general makes a good place for bigger ones here in PA ? This is just a hunch but if I were looking for a real rare large once in a lifetime Brook Trout I would probably not be looking in North Central PA.

Well, that could be up for debate, because the biggest native I've ever seen in my life was up in Potter county. Got a pretty good look at it too. It was a female, that was no less than 16". I'll never forget that day. You just never know.

Actually, it was the creek in my avatar.

 

[silverfox]

Getting back to original idea of best Brook Trout waters. What in general makes a good place for bigger ones here in PA ? This is just a hunch but if I were looking for a real rare large once in a lifetime Brook Trout I would probably not be looking in North Central PA. I also would not be looking at any of the limestone creeks. I would maybe be looking at lower end of certain Delaware or Lehigh tributaries And possibly in the fall or winter. I think those bigger fish likely roam around the bigger rivers and head into those tribs either to spawn or follow bait.

The Rose isn't known as one of the best brook trout streams in Virginia because it turns out 28" wild brook trout. It probably is the best bet for larger specimens, though I know for certain that those fish aren't easy to catch. I don't think Spring Creek is known as one of our best streams because of the fish size. In fact, that's the biggest complaint about the stream and I believe PFBC is going to attempt to correct that with the slot limit reg. There are big fish in Spring, but that's not really what it's known for.

Regardless, if you wanted to grow brook trout larger than the state average, you'd need a fertile environment (limestone/groundwater) and preferably sizeable with consistent flow and temperature. i.e. Big Spring, which is why it was a world-renowned brook trout fishery before all the shenanigans that took place there to ruin it. It was probably the best brook trout stream in the state at one time, and it was for the same reasons it could be today.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Getting back to original idea of best Brook Trout waters. What in general makes a good place for bigger ones here in PA ? This is just a hunch but if I were looking for a real rare large once in a lifetime Brook Trout I would probably not be looking in North Central PA. I also would not be looking at any of the limestone creeks. I would maybe be looking at lower end of certain Delaware or Lehigh tributaries And possibly in the fall or winter. I think those bigger fish likely roam around the bigger rivers and head into those tribs either to spawn or follow bait.

In my experience and I've caught my share of 12-15" brook trout, would be this:

1) fertile water like Big Spring. I've caught 3 15" brook trout in it.

2) if the water isn't fertile, look for recovering streams with limited competition (no brown trout or limited brown trout etc, preferably a larger watershed.

3) a stream with multiple beaver dams. I know of a few in NCPA that produce some really good Brook trout.

4) find a stream with a low biomass. Again limited competition but in the way of other brook trout.
Food is finite, so is bigger fish habitat, less fish mean more available food and more available habitat.
Avoid most class A streams

5) lake run fish. I know of a few streams with brook trout that seasonally use quarries and lakes.

6) your example isn't a bad one. A brook trout stream that drains directly into a larger river.

If you plan on hunting them, expect to not find many. While I've caught plenty larger specimens, most times you don't.

Migration, time of year is key.
According to some studies, some brook trout begin to migrate at 8". I would suspect most to all 12" and above move around.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Well, that could be up for debate, because the biggest native I've ever seen in my life was up in Potter county. Got a pretty good look at it too. It was a female, that was no less than 16". I'll never forget that day. You just never know.

Actually, it was the creek in my avatar.

One of the biggest I ever saw was in NCPA also.
Right on Pine Creek in the middle of summer while fishing for Bass.
Every bit as big as what you describe also. Being how clear the water was and it was swimming near the top, less than 2 foot away, I got a real good look at it.
That fish was trying to find thermal refuge. It didn't seem to mind my presence at all and looked real determined and undistracted to continue upstream at a steady but faster pace.

 

[glamcaster]

Pa is pretty bad about including species in their stream maps, in my opinion. A great resource I use is the trout unlimited brook trout atlas. It shows you brook trout populations, and what (if any) other species of trout have been documented in the watershed. Sometimes you'll fish a stream without a brook trout in sight. Many of the streams I've tried within ~60 miles of the Philadelphia suburbs have slim populations, too many browns , or seemingly no brookies at all. Once you head to more rural/mountainous areas of the state, the atlas is almost always accurate. Good luck and please release our native char! And keep all the browns you can lol

 

[silverfox]

Pa is pretty bad about including species in their stream maps, in my opinion. A great resource I use is the trout unlimited brook trout atlas. It shows you brook trout populations, and what (if any) other species of trout have been documented in the watershed. Sometimes you'll fish a stream without a brook trout in sight. Many of the streams I've tried within ~60 miles of the Philadelphia suburbs have slim populations, too many browns , or seemingly no brookies at all. Once you head to more rural/mountainous areas of the state, the atlas is almost always accurate. Good luck and please release our native char! And keep all the browns you can lol

A lot of that data is flat-out wrong. I'm not entirely sure what they used to determine allopatric vs sympatric patches, but it seems like more than half the time, it's wrong. There are streams listed as allopatric brook trout that are actively stocked w/ brown trout by PFBC and others and also have wild brown trout. Heck, I've gone to patches labeled "allopatric brook trout" and caught nothing but wild brown trout. There are also small watersheds that I know have allopatric brook trout that don't even show up on the conservation portfolio map with any status at all. In fact, one of the most remarkable places I've ever found isn't even listed as having brook trout.

I know some parts of the EBTJV data were algorithmically generated based on geographic and land use data (along with other inputs) to predict the status of the patch. Some of that has likely been recycled or has never been confirmed or denied.

 

[glamcaster]

A lot of that data is flat-out wrong. I'm not entirely sure what they used to determine allopatric vs sympatric patches, but it seems like more than half the time, it's wrong. There are streams listed as allopatric brook trout that are actively stocked w/ brown trout by PFBC and others and also have wild brown trout. Heck, I've gone to patches labeled "allopatric brook trout" and caught nothing but wild brown trout. There are also small watersheds that I know have allopatric brook trout that don't even show up on the conservation portfolio map with any status at all. In fact, one of the most remarkable places I've ever found isn't even listed as having brook trout.

I know some parts of the EBTJV data were algorithmically generated based on geographic and land use data (along with other inputs) to predict the status of the patch. Some of that has likely been recycled or has never been confirmed or denied.

You're definitely right, I think the data can be questionable. For example, one tributary of Valley Creek Chesco is listed as having rainbows, browns, and brookies. There is not a single rainbow in that watershed! Ridley creek is listed as having a population, and I'm almost confident that is due to brook trout stocking. I've also been to sympatric streams and only found browns etc. Still, I owe my first ever brook trout to that TU atlas. It's not perfect, but helpful for taking blue lines from the state map and seeing whether or not they might have brook trout.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

It's just a "cheap" e-glass blank from the bay that I wanted to make up to look like a Hardy C.C. De France. I have 2 CC De Frances and they're nice, but they're original 1940's bamboo and make me nervous fishing them. I've just always liked the intermediate wraps and cork grip design. So basically a homage piece.

I've been eyeing up C. Barclay rods for quite some time. My go-to for the past 2 years is a Scott F series 5 piece 7'-2" 3wt, which is phenomenal. Hence the reason there's no real fire under my butt to make/get another rod.

Those CC De Frances are attractive looking.
Scott makes excellent rods for sure.
C Barclay are neat sticks too.

The grip I put on mine is very similar to his style (Barclay).
They are very comfortable.

Can't go wrong with anything you are fishing or considering.

 

[pcray1231]

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.

I most often fish Poe Paddy area. I have caught them both upstream towards Ingleby and down almost to Cherry Run. Last year at the jam one evening I caught 2 in the Broadwaters pool. Both were in the 10-12" class, typical stockie size, but they were wild.

I can't say I ever caught one up towards Coburn, but I haven't fished that stretch very often in quite some time.

 

[pcray1231]

It's great that they exist where they do but they will likely never be much more than 10" for the most part.

In the small streams, neither are the browns.

In larger streams, the brookies can AVERAGE over 10". The "typical" fish in any given waterway, the brookies will be a touch smaller than the browns, but not by that much. But browns have taken over most of our big fish waters for sure.

I am not advocating getting rid of the browns in such places, for both fishing reasons, and because I think it's doomed to fail. But without them, brookies would be found in our bigger wild trout waters like Penns, LJR, etc. Old PA anglers discuss the invasion of browns and disapearance of brookies in places like Pine, Oil, Tionesta, Clarion, Loyalsock, and other large freestoners, those big freestoners once upon a time kept better water levels and temperatures and held significant numbers of wild fish. Reading George Harvey reveals that before the days of stocking the paradise and such, Spring Creek was an amazing brook trout fishery, with your cookie cutter fish being 10-12 inches and plenty of mid teens fish in the mix, not too different than the brown trout population there today. Again, not advocating it, but if you could somehow remove every brown trout in Spring and prevent them from coming back, I think brookies would take it back over no problem at all.

Why am I against trying? Confidence. In Spring Creek, I believe if you made an effort to get the browns outta there. You'd ruin the fishery, but not get them all. And it'd be taken back over by... browns. So you're just messing up an immensely popular quality fishery for no gain, it'd be a disaster. But I'm certainly open to the idea of trying in some places where it's perhaps more likely to succeed. If you have a system of streams, an established brookie population already competing decently with the browns, and a real barrier. Like Kettle above Ole Bull dam, for example, would seem to be an ideal situation for such an experiment.

I have no issue whatsoever fishing for small fish, but if small stream fishing for 5-10 inch fish ain't your thing, remember, it's not so much the species that keeps brookies small, its that for the most part, small fish habitat is the only place they remain, with most of our big fish habitat either being lost (as wild trout water) to development (boom bust flows, warm summer temps) or, if they remain cold, taken over by brown trout. Brook trout in big fish water is now the exception.

 

[silverfox]

I know I went over this in a different thread a while back, but since the topic of mapping and allopatric patches came up again (TU conservation portfolio/brook trout atlas), I thought I'd show some maps that help explain why things appear dire to brook trout anglers.

Disregarding that we know the allopatric patch assignments are incorrect and that there are patches that aren't represented that should be, here is a map that shows only allopatric patches from the same dataset that TU used in their conservation portfolio map (brook trout atlas).

That map shows all allopatric patches in Pennsylvania. There are 774 patches listed as allopatric brook trout. Again, we know this isn't accurate, but let's assume that the unrepresented patches cancel out the erroneously labeled patches. For reference, there are roughly 54,000 patches in Pennsylvania. So roughly 1.4% are claimed to be allopatric brook trout.

As anglers, we need patches/streams where we can fish. I used public land and selected all the allopatric populations that are either within or overlap public land. This doesn't account for public easements on private property, but that is likely a very small number of patches overall.

The map above shows patches with some portion of their boundary on public land. The count drops to 571 patches which is roughly 1% of all available patches. It's important to consider that some of the boundary overlaps with public land are very small. Here's an overlay showing public land and allopatric patches to see the overlap. Bright green is outside the public land boundary. The dark burgundy color is our public land areas (SGLs, State forests, State parks, and ANF).

Limiting the allopatric patches to only patches contained entirely within public land, the number drops to 93 patches or roughly .17% of available patches. Here's what that looks like in map form. I'm not going to get into overlap analysis and sorting by percent overlap. I'm just trying to visualize why it seems like we have very little allopatric brook trout water to fish. Again, knowing that the data isn't entirely accurate, it still paints a bleak picture.

It's also worth pointing out that this data was generated in 2006, and from what I can tell by looking at the TU conservation portfolio data, it's identical to 2006 Hudy et al./EBTJV classified catchments dataset. So it's likely that some of these have changed since they were classified in 2006. In other words, we've probably lost populations, gained populations, or lost/gained mixed populations.

The point is, I think there's a sentiment by some that we don't need to be concerned with brook trout because we still have a fair amount of them in the state. The question is/are, how healthy are those populations? Are we gaining allopatric populations or losing them? I know these questions need to be answered across the native range, and I hope we get an update on the 2006 study so we can establish a trendline. I'm concerned about what that will look like, but we need to know.

I know this comes across as alarmism. I'm not suggesting brook trout are imperiled to the level of some cutthroat subspecies in the west, but if we don't start making serious efforts to bolster their populations now, the long-term outlook is going to get very bleak very fast and cause more disruption far into the future when someone has to ultimately deal with it.