Pennsylvania's Best Brook Trout Waters?

[troutbert]

With all these GIS projects going on, you'd think someone could create a GIS map of stream sections that:

1) Have a native brook trout population.

and

2) Are stocked by either the PFBC itself or PFBC affiliated coop hatchery.

I think such a map would be quite a revelation.

 

[silverfox]

With all these GIS projects going on, you'd think someone could create a GIS map of stream sections that:

1) Have a native brook trout population.

and

2) Are stocked by either the PFBC itself or PFBC affiliated coop hatchery.

I think such a map would be quite a revelation.

It would be easy. The problem is the "natural reproduction" layer doesn't specify species. So with the data publicly available, there's no way to separate wild brook trout from other species. The only data layer that does specify species is the Class A brook trout stream sections, and they don't stock IN Class A brook trout waters.

I'd ask for that information, but somehow I doubt PFBC would cooperate in distributing it knowing what it will be used for. I also don't know if they've got it in GIS format. The only way I've been able to get things in the past has been through RTK requests which I'm sure they love getting, or gracious AFMs/biologists. It is something I'd really like to see if it exists, though, so maybe I'll reach out and ask.

Here's the only data I can work with based on what's publicly available. No species ID is defined in the attributes of each section path. As I mentioned in the previous post, I don't trust the EBTJV catchment classifications, or you could extrapolate species from those patches pretty easily. It just wouldn't be accurate at all. It's worth pointing out that Dave Nihart has been quoted in news articles as saying that 20% of stocked trout stream sections have wild brook trout, so we already know the answer to the question anyway.

 

[wildtrout2]

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.

Sounds like you're describing the Elkhorn?

 

[troutbert]

It would be easy. The problem is the "natural reproduction" layer doesn't specify species. So with the data publicly available, there's no way to separate wild brook trout from other species. The only data layer that does specify species is the Class A brook trout stream sections, and they don't stock IN Class A brook trout waters.

I'd ask for that information, but somehow I doubt PFBC would cooperate in distributing it knowing what it will be used for. I also don't know if they've got it in GIS format. The only way I've been able to get things in the past has been through RTK requests which I'm sure they love getting, or gracious AFMs/biologists. It is something I'd really like to see if it exists, though, so maybe I'll reach out and ask.

Here's the only data I can work with based on what's publicly available. No species ID is defined in the attributes of each section path. As I mentioned in the previous post, I don't trust the EBTJV catchment classifications, or you could extrapolate species from those patches pretty easily. It just wouldn't be accurate at all. It's worth pointing out that Dave Nihart has been quoted in news articles as saying that 20% of stocked trout stream sections have wild brook trout, so we already know the answer to the question anyway.

View attachment 1641227516

Here's another problem. The PFBC has the data for the sections the PFBC itself stocks.

But I don't think they have specific information on the sections stocked by those in their cooperative nursery program. At least they did not have that in the past. In the past, when I asked to see where the coops were stocking, they had only lists of stream names submitted by each coop.

So it would say "Laurel Run" and you had to guess which of the 60-some Laurel Runs they were referring to. And there was no break down by sections. Some streams are very long, and the upper sections have brook trout populations and the lower sections do not.

The number of streams stocked by the coop hatcheries is very large. And many of the streams stocked by the coops have native brook trout populations. Some of these streams have only brook trout. Some have mixed brookies and browns populations.

 

[silverfox]

Here's another problem. The PFBC has the data for the sections the PFBC itself stocks.

But I don't think they have specific information on the sections stocked by those in their cooperative nursery program. At least they did not have that in the past. In the past, when I asked to see where the coops were stocking, they had only lists of stream names submitted by each coop.

So it would say "Laurel Run" and you had to guess which of the 60-some Laurel Runs they were referring to. And there was no break down by sections. Some streams are very long, and the upper sections have brook trout populations and the lower sections do not.

The number of streams stocked by the coop hatcheries is very large. And many of the streams stocked by the coops have native brook trout populations. Some of these streams have only brook trout. Some have mixed brookies and browns populations.

Correct. I always assumed that the Co-Op stocked streams were represented in the stocked trout stream layer or in general that they were the same. Then I found out that Co-ops stock streams that aren't listed as stocked streams. I did get the Co-Op stocking data, but its just handwritten forms and like you said, it's unclear exactly where they're referring to. I saw a fascinating handwritten note on one of them that listed the species stocked as brook trout and it said "sick fish" in the notes column. That's great.

Add to that the public stocking authorization issue where we don't know where private citizens are stocking trout acquired from commercial hatcheries, and there's a whole lot we don't know. "We" in that case also includes PFBC itself.

Anway, here's an overlay of all stocked trout streams that coincide with natural reproduction. Again, we don't know what species is represented in the natural reproduction sections, so this includes brook trout and brown trout (rainbows too).

Red=Match (957 sections)
Orange=Stocked (1,045 sections)
Blue=Natural Reproduction (5,704 sections)

 

[pcray1231]

So, 957 of the 1045 stocked sections are also on the natural reproduction list? Wow.

Or are there 1045+957 stocked sections, and 957 are also on the natural repro list? i.e. roughly half? Still a bigger number than I expected.

 

[wildtrout2]

Correct. I always assumed that the Co-Op stocked streams were represented in the stocked trout stream layer or in general that they were the same. Then I found out that Co-ops stock streams that aren't listed as stocked streams. I did get the Co-Op stocking data, but its just handwritten forms and like you said, it's unclear exactly where they're referring to. I saw a fascinating handwritten note on one of them that listed the species stocked as brook trout and it said "sick fish" in the notes column. That's great.

Add to that the public stocking authorization issue where we don't know where private citizens are stocking trout acquired from commercial hatcheries, and there's a whole lot we don't know. "We" in that case also includes PFBC itself.

And, this is why there needs to be oversight into ALL stocking of public streams, especially the Co-ops!

 

[Swattie87]

So when are you guys gonna actually start name dropping the best waters in the state for Brook Trout? There’s a ton of stream knowledge in the posters in this thread, yet there’s no names of streams to fish. (Other than Big Spring, and a certain portion of Penns that currently has an uptick in Brookies.) Who cares about those? I was looking for this thread to be the ultimate one stop cache for catching large, numerous and tasty, I mean beautiful, Gemmies. I figured this thread could solve my issue of actually having to research streams. C’mon guys, either start dropping some names or move on.

I’ll post mine right after everyone else posts theirs.

 

[silverfox]

So, 957 of the 1045 stocked sections are also on the natural reproduction list? Wow.

Or are there 1045+957 stocked sections, and 957 are also on the natural repro list? i.e. roughly half? Still a bigger number than I expected.

Of the 1,045 stream sections that are stocked, 957 of them are natural reproduction/wild trout streams. In other words, almost all stocked trout streams have wild native/non-native trout.

 

[silverfox]

So when are you guys gonna actually start name dropping the best waters in the state for Brook Trout? There’s a ton of stream knowledge in the posters in this thread, yet there’s no names of streams to fish. (Other than Big Spring, and a certain portion of Penns that currently has an uptick in Brookies.) Who cares about those? I was looking for this thread to be the ultimate one stop cache for catching large and tasty, I mean beautiful, Gemmies. I figured this thread could solve my issue of actually having to research streams. C’mon guys, either start dropping some names or move on.

I’ll post mine right after everyone else posts theirs.

The point of this thread is why won't anyone mention the best gemmy streams? We all know the answer to that. That's the point.

 

[Swattie87]

The point of this thread is why won't anyone mention the best gemmy streams? We all know the answer to that. That's the point.

We’re all selfish as anglers, myself included. It’s not that I don’t think the fish can’t take more angling pressure, it’s that when I drive 2 or 3 hours before dawn to fish a stream, I don’t want to see a vehicle already parked along it. There, I said it.

The fish (of catchable size) in Spring Creek get caught an average of six times/year or something like that. I just posted pictures of a fish that I myself have caught three separate times over 2 years, and it already had a jaw injury when I first caught it, indicating it was caught at least once before I ever caught it. The fish will be fine. I just don’t want to see any of you spincasters when I pull up to one of my favorite streams. Just like you don’t want to see a yakker like me at yours.

 

[silverfox]

We’re all selfish as anglers, myself included. It’s not that I don’t think the fish can take more angling pressure, it’s that when I drive 2 or 3 hours before dawn to fish a stream, I don’t want to see a vehicle already parked along it. There, I said it.

The fish (of catchable size) in Spring Creek get caught an average of six times/year or something like that. I just posted a picture of a fish that I myself have caught three separate times over 2 years, and it already had a jaw injury when I first caught it, indicating it was caught at least once before I ever caught it. The fish will be fine. I just don’t want to see any of you spincasters when I pull up to one of my favorite streams. Just like you don’t want to see me at yours.

We don't seem to have that same problem with the LJR, Penns, etc. We expect to see people there. Just like I would expect to see vehicles at the trailhead parking lot on fabled brook trout streams in other states.

We simply don't have a large brook trout stream with enough public access to support a bunch of anglers. It seems like nobody cares about brook trout anyway since they're not a component of the "modern trout angling experience" so I'm not sure why anyone would be nervous about name-dropping streams.

 

[pcray1231]

That is the point.

Largish, well known streams like the LJR, Spring, Penns, etc can handle pressure, regardless of whether they are inhabited by brookies or browns.

Small, thall shall not be named streams cannot handle large influxes of pressure, regardless of whether they are inhabited by brookies or browns.

But the species distribution is as such, that in a state where the brook trout is the state fish, the only native fish in a trout blessed state, that ALL of our bigger, more famous waters are inhabited by brown trout.

 

[Swattie87]

We don't seem to have that same problem with the LJR, Penns, etc. We expect to see people there. Just like I would expect to see vehicles at the trailhead parking lot on fabled brook trout streams in other states.

We simply don't have a large brook trout stream with enough public access to support a bunch of anglers. It seems like nobody cares about brook trout anyway since they're not a component of the "modern trout angling experience" so I'm not sure why anyone would be nervous about name-dropping streams.

I agree with all that, and your point in general, as I’m sure you probably know.

A bunch of other anglers on a big stream like Penns or the Little J doesn’t really effect your angling experience much. Aside from maybe GD’s on Penns, and the Barree Gorge lot on the Little J seemingly all the time any more, there’s enough room to spread out and there’s lots of fish everywhere and everyone has good water with fish to work and keep you busy. It’s not like you can fish 4 or 5 miles, thoroughly anyway, of these streams in a day like you can on a small Brookie stream.

One angler beating you to a small Brookie stream renders it useless to fish that day, behind them anyway. And to knowingly hop in front of someone else who beat you to a small stream is a significant breach of small stream etiquette, and something I don’t do to others in the hope for good juju that it is not done to me.

While there’s no streams the size of Penns or the Little J with sizeable Brookie populations in PA, there are some fairly good sized streams where they are found. I’m talking 50 to 100 square mile watersheds producing streams 40 or 50 feet across, or more in spots. These are not small streams by any stretch at that size. An obvious one, that shouldn’t ruffle any feathers by naming is Kettle, from about the FFO section upstream. Though I could name another dozen easy that fit that general size mold and have reliably catchable Brookie populations in them. Streams that size have enough room to support multiple anglers on them at once without the experience being ruined for/by each other.

 

[silverfox]

That is the point.

Largish, well known streams like the LJR, Spring, Penns, etc can handle pressure, regardless of whether they are inhabited by brookies or browns.

Small, thall shall not be named streams cannot handle large influxes of pressure, regardless of whether they are inhabited by brookies or browns.

But the species distribution is as such, that in a state where the brook trout is the state fish, the only native fish in a trout blessed state, that ALL of our bigger, more famous waters are inhabited by brown trout.

Note that an alternative to a single large stream/river is establishing an entire watershed for brook trout. That way, you spread the pressure out.

 

[troutbert]

Correct. I always assumed that the Co-Op stocked streams were represented in the stocked trout stream layer or in general that they were the same. Then I found out that Co-ops stock streams that aren't listed as stocked streams. I did get the Co-Op stocking data, but its just handwritten forms and like you said, it's unclear exactly where they're referring to. I saw a fascinating handwritten note on one of them that listed the species stocked as brook trout and it said "sick fish" in the notes column. That's great.

Add to that the public stocking authorization issue where we don't know where private citizens are stocking trout acquired from commercial hatcheries, and there's a whole lot we don't know. "We" in that case also includes PFBC itself.

Anway, here's an overlay of all stocked trout streams that coincide with natural reproduction. Again, we don't know what species is represented in the natural reproduction sections, so this includes brook trout and brown trout (rainbows too).

Red=Match (957 sections)
Orange=Stocked (1,045 sections)
Blue=Natural Reproduction (5,704 sections)

View attachment 1641227517

Great stuff! This really begins to show the situation.

Just to clarify, this does not include the stocking by the Coop hatcheries, just the PFBC stocking, correct?

 

[silverfox]

I agree with all that, and your point in general, as I’m sure you probably know.

A bunch of other anglers on a big stream like Penns or the Little J doesn’t really effect your angling experience much. Aside from maybe GD’s on Penns, and the Barree Gorge lot on the Little J seemingly all the time any more, there’s enough room to spread out and there’s lots of fish everywhere and everyone has good water with fish to work and keep you busy.

One angler beating you to a small Brookie stream renders it useless to fish that day, behind them anyway. And to knowingly hop in front of someone else who beat you to a small stream is a significant breach of small stream etiquette, and something I don’t do to others in the hope for good juju that it is not done to me.

While there’s no streams the size of Penns or the Little J with sizeable Brookie populations in PA, there are some fairly good sized streams where they are found. I’m talking 50 to 100 square mile watersheds producing streams 40 or 50 feet across, or more in spots. These are not small streams by any stretch at that size. An obvious one, that shouldn’t ruffle any feathers by naming is Kettle, from about the FFO section upstream. Though I could name another half dozen easy that fit that general size mold and have reliably catchable Brookie populations in them. Streams that size have enough room to support multiple anglers on them at once.

I understand. Again, other states don't seem to have this problem though. 🤷‍♂️

Kettle would be the closest thing to what we're looking for. However, I'd say that browns (wild and stocked) and stocked rainbows make up a good portion of the fish you encounter until you get well up into the watershed.

It probably has something to do with this: https://fbweb.pa.gov/stocking/TroutStocking_ATW_GIS_RFP.aspx?RFP_WaterID=3351

I forget the number. Fishsticks might remember off the top of his head, but we calculated all the trout stocked in Kettle in 2020 between the PFBC and Co-Ops, and it was either 40,000 or 60,000 stocked trout. Probably a good chance of running into those while fishing our best brook trout stream.

 

[pcray1231]

And upper Kettle has been mentioned numerous times.

Whether it is the "best" brookie stream is probably no, just like the "best" brown trout stream is undoubtedly one people won't mention here, and not actually Penns, Spring, LJR, etc etc.

But Kettle is probably our most famous and the one people are willing to mention.

I'd note the brook trout area is clearly the upper end. When you throw out stocking numbers to make an argument about stocking over our most famous brook trout stream, I'd stick to anything stocked ABOVE the dam at Ole Bull. Its a hard barrier that fish aren't going up. And nobody is really arguing lower Kettle shouldn't be stocked, and you'll be laughed out of town to claim that stocking the lower end hurts the brook trout way upstream.

 

[silverfox]

Great stuff! This really begins to show the situation.

Just to clarify, this does not include the stocking by the Coop hatcheries, just the PFBC stocking, correct?

Correct. That's just PFBC stocking. If I had more time I'd go through the Co-Op stocking records and get it into GIS. I started doing that a while ago but got sidetracked by life.

 

[wildtrout2]

One angler beating you to a small Brookie stream renders it useless to fish that day, behind them anyway. And to knowingly hop in front of someone else who beat you to a small stream is a significant breach of small stream etiquette, and something I don’t do to others in the hope for good juju that it is not done to me.

I had that happen to me on Jeans one early morning a number of years ago. I was already fishing when these two guys show up at the trail/stream crossing near the bottom. They saw me already fishing, but they proceeded to quickly hike upstream of me. I was pissed! But, I just turned around and left, in a not very good mood. Thank God that's a rarity.