Pigeon creek southeast PA

[Fish Sticks]

Yo FS - Valley Forge TU supports over a dozen TIC programs. I heard Dave ****ens commenting that F&BC had switched over from brookies to rainbows. I think they felt the bows would be raised in the classrooms more successfully.

Is peyton’s stream in VFTU footprint? I really like your chapter’s brook trout in Chester county initiative, maybe warrants some further investigation. I wish something like that initiative was just a standard PA TU chapter function like other things, a banquet ect. Also like that you guys invited shannon white to talk to your membership.

 

[lestrout]

Is peyton’s stream in VFTU footprint? I really like your chapter’s brook trout in Chester county initiative, maybe warrants some further investigation. I wish something like that initiative was just a standard PA TU chapter function like other things, a banquet ect. Also like that you guys invited shannon white to talk to your membership.

Yo FS - I'm guessing Peyton's is in the next county over. VFTU looks after cold water in Chester County. Yes, Shannon White gave us a marvelous presentation which was entertaining and informative, with good science happening.

 

[Peyton]

Peyton, I spoke with the AFM and based on your tip and our previous survey from yrs ago, the present Area 6 crew surveyed Pigeon Ck looking for wild trout. While they did not find wild trout throughout or a big population, they found some wild Brown Trout in a somewhat extended portion of the stream, not just at one site. No ST were found…only BT. This was better than what my crew and I found in the 1990’s since we only found one small, wild BT at just one site and none at sites above or below that site. The stream is apparently gradually improving just like a number of wild BT streams or portions thereof in SE Pa. and while your tip on ST didn’t work out, at least a wild BT pop was found. That’s a lot better than no wild trout.

I’m not too happy about there being a wild brown population in there, but I’m sure they won’t take over as long as the rainbow stocking continues. Any wild trout is better than none, so I’ll try and find some more wild trout there in the fall.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I’m not too happy about there being a wild brown population in there, but I’m sure they won’t take over as long as the rainbow stocking continues. Any wild trout is better than none, so I’ll try and find some more wild trout there in the fall.

This gets into the question of how do invasive trout species displace native trout. Short answer is we know some of the mechanisms with brook and brown trout when it does happen. I have posted these many time on here(predation, displacing brook trout from prime feeding lies, displacing brook trout from thermal refuge(cool spots in summer), reducing brook trout’s ability to travel from thermal refuge to feed for brief periods before returning, excavating and destroying brook trout redds(nests), blocking movement/gene flow acting like a culvert of sorts, and there are many more.

However, whats interesting is we don’t really have a good understanding about what allows the invasive species to invade and establish themselves in the first place to cause all the above listed harms via the mechanisms listed above. The role of geographic distribution of brook trout(southern range vs. northern), evolutionary history(how recently did they break off from another population and isolate or evolve on their own, environmental resistance(stream flow characteristics among others), and biotic resistance(how many competitors or diseases did they evolve with) are all being looked at in assessing what allows invasion to successfully occur after introduction in the first place. Kurt Fausch has a really interesting paper on this published in 2008.

There are a tiny handful of certain streams relatively nearby where the scientific community just can’t figure out why invasion hasn’t occurred or what has caused the stream’s “resistance” to invasion. And its not temperature. This is an evolving part of invasion biology.

But with the rainbow stocking, stream born brown trout, and native brook trout in your stream one things for sure. It has a limited carrying capacity so the invasive species that do in fact take hold ultimately likely represent a loss of potential native brook trout population if the stream, or sections of the stream, they occupy are truly suitable for native brook trout or not.

The funny thing is if you have in fact found a small population thats some how holding on in a developed corner of the state with multiple invasive species, in what mike is indicating is not the coldest stream, this would be discarded by our current native brook trout management system simply because it cannot provide significant recreational opportunity for brook trout.

However, let me tell you what it potentially means for the fish, not us! Lol

If your a tiny population of native brook trout and your eeking out an existence on the front lines(development/impervious surfaces, deforestation, agriculture, invasive species ect.) you have survived alot. Natural selection(what kills brook trout) is different here than it is on say slate run in tioga county. These brook trout could posses unique genetic diversity or traits that are the reason their still somehow here( thermal tolerance genes or genes that help with other stressors).

If thats true these class C class D “marginal” streams need to share those important genes that represent adaptive potential with other populations to make them resilient.

So as you can see if this was about conserving the species themselves and helping them adapt to climate change alot of these class C and D’s could be a genetic goldmine. But its about the fishing right now not the fish.

All this assuming their not fingerling stockies lol

 

[silverfox]

Additionally, so much for wild brown trout and stocked PFBC and Cooperative Nursery adult trout gobbling them up right away! Obviously, parks are heavily stocked yet the spring stocked fingerlings made it to late June or July.

Yeah, so much for scientifically proven examples of the opposite happening, or all of the other factors beyond predation that this ignores. This one anecdotal occurrence renders all other opposing views moot?

 

[Fish Sticks]

Yeah, so much for scientifically proven examples of the opposite happening, or all of the other factors beyond predation that this ignores. This one anecdotal occurrence renders all other opposing views moot?

Not to mention fingerling stockings are after a lot of the age zero year for those fish. What happens when tens of thousands of 8-11” fish get dropped in one stream like kettle creek a couple weeks before as the brook trout alevins crawl out of gravel. I’m sure PFBC studying that as intensely as they are studying effects of stocked invasive brown trout on last 6-8 streams on planet earth that contain sculpin sized threatened Chesapeake log perch. Single observations are good enough for me. I haven’t SEEN stocked trout eating endangered Iowa darter or eastern sand darter in the french creek watershed. I haven’t SEEN stocked invasive trout hurting hellbender recruitment at the juvenile and larval stages. If you don’t see it or don’t study it doesn’t exist.

 

[Mike]

Fish Sticks, in making the following comment please clarify how many Chesapeake Logperch streams are you saying the PFBC is stocking with adult trout.

“I’m sure PFBC studying that as intensely as they are studying effects of stocked invasive brown trout on last 6-8 streams on planet earth that contain sculpin sized threatened Chesapeake log perch.”

 

[Fish Sticks]

Fish Sticks, in making the following comment please clarify how many Chesapeake Logperch streams are you saying the PFBC is stocking with adult trout.

“I’m sure PFBC studying that as intensely as they are studying effects of stocked invasive brown trout on last 6-8 streams on planet earth that contain sculpin sized threatened Chesapeake log perch.”

Thats a rough number but are you aware of where Jay stauffer is placing his conservation hatchery fish? Because if not you may underestimate the number.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Fish Sticks, in making the following comment please clarify how many Chesapeake Logperch streams are you saying the PFBC is stocking with adult trout.

“I’m sure PFBC studying that as intensely as they are studying effects of stocked invasive brown trout on last 6-8 streams on planet earth that contain sculpin sized threatened Chesapeake log perch.”

Heres an even better question, how many streams are acceptable when we are talking about stocking a known IUCN top 100 worldwide worst invasive species that has caused the decline, loss, or harm of populations of galaxids,cyprinids, cottidae and many more globally over an ESA threatened baitfish sized species?

 

[Peyton]

I’d love that stream to hold native or wild brookies, but it’s so slow moving, farther up at the headwaters there’s a large pond that just heats up all the water. Browns took over from being stocked and being able to survive in the warmer water, they were also stocked at a larger size.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I’d love that stream to hold native or wild brookies, but it’s so slow moving, farther up at the headwaters there’s a large pond that just heats up all the water. Browns took over from being stocked and being able to survive in the warmer water, they were also stocked at a larger size.

Yea it ultimately may not be able to thats a reality we will face on many brook trout streams. Many because not ecologically possible and many because its just not important enough to us societally to fix the streams, change our invasive species behaviors, and allowing/helping the fish change themselves genetically to be successful in their changing streams(anglers/ general public has zero idea this last possibility even exists despite fisheries scientists saying it should be top management priority).

The other potential option would be gene banking the fish to not lose potentially unique genetics from face of earth to possibly use in a reintroduction or genetic rescue project and keep those genes on the landscape which helps entire species level resiliency. Michigan state looking at thermal tolerance genes in brook trout and entire genome almost sequenced i think. Might be eventually able to see what we have valuable gene wise in some of these “marginal” populations.

 

[Mike]

Thats a rough number but are you aware of where Jay stauffer is placing his conservation hatchery fish? Because if not you may underestimate

They are certainly rough, as you will learn below. I am aware of nine naturally occurring populations of Chesapeake Logperch and one stocked population, that being the one in Chiques Ck, stocked by Jay Stauffer, PhD and the PFBC based on video from Lancaster.

Of the naturally occurring populations, two are in stocked trout streams, but one of those streams is stocked about 14 mi upstream from the logperch pop. In the second case, it is unclear if trout are stocked directly over logperch because it is possible (speculating) that the logperch population has expanded upstream into an area that is directly stocked. That is an unknown at present. Based on my original survey of the stream in the early 1980’s and where logperch were found, it is possible as well that there is no direct stocking over logperch in that case. Since that time, however, the wild brown trout population has expanded over a number of miles from the upper end of the stocked section down to the lower end, presumably as water temps have improved. This has resulted in a sympatric, moderately good logperch population with a low density of wild brown trout.

In the case of Chiques Ck, those logperch are being stocked in a stretch of stream very close to a heavily stocked trib. If there were concerns regarding the exposure of a fledgling logperch population to stocked trout that are known to run out of that trib even to the extent that there has been a Chiques Ck fishery for the “migrants” in the past, then I doubt that Chiques logperch stocking site would have been selected. Likewise, there is an abundance of Walleye in Chiques at times.

In the case of the unstocked wild brown trout streams where logperch sympatry exists, the trout populations are good in all three, with at least two of them being Class B’s as I recall. It is quite possible that one will eventually support a Class A equivalent brown trout pop in the stretch where the logperch are located. This is also where the logperch population is the most robust that I have seen in any stream. So the best sympatric wild brown trout population (w/ logperch) co-exists with the best logperch population! The Cheaspeake Logperch are abundant and are the most abundant of the forage fish in that stretch, even exceeding the abundance of blacknose dace, the usual most common forage fish. As I have said in the past, these populations have probably co-existed for decades (I know that one stretch has had a wild brown trout population at least since the late 1950’s). The logperch abundance in sympatry with good wild brown trout populations is suggestive to me that there is an acceptable balance between the brown trout and the forage fish populations. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the browns are just feeding on logperch. It hasn’t even been established that they eat logperch, although I have no reason at present to believe that they wouldn’t.

Finally, Chesapeake Logperch seem to do well when exposed to other non-native predators. There has been a Chesapeake Logperch population in the Susquehanna, and I believe it is still there based on some discussions, and there absolutely is one in a reservoir. Both waters have excellent populations of non-native predators, so the logperch must be pretty good at avoiding predation or else their reproductive rates/juvenile survival rates are quite high.

Without evidence from a researcher who wants to take up the task, I would not hang my hat on the idea that stocked trout OR wild trout are having population level negative impacts on Chesapeake Logperch in the Lower Susquehanna Basin.

 

[silverfox]

I wish you would stop such “rough numbers.” They are certainly rough, as you will learn below. I am aware of nine naturally occurring populations of Chesapeake Logperch and one stocked population, that being the one in Chiques Ck, stocked by Jay Stauffer and the PFBC based on a video from Lancaster.

Of the naturally occurring populations, two are in stocked trout streams, but one of those streams is stocked about 14 mi upstream from the logperch pop. In the second case, it is unclear if trout are stocked directly over logperch because it is possible (speculating) that the logperch population has expanded upstream into an area that is directly stocked. That is an unknown at present. Based on my original survey of the stream in the early 1980’s and where logperch were found, it is possible as well that there is no direct stocking over logperch in that case. Since that time, however, the wild brown trout population has expanded over a number of miles from the upper end of the stocked section down to the lower end, presumably as water temps have improved. This has resulted in a sympatric, moderately good logperch population with a low density of wild brown trout.

In the case of Chiques Ck, those logperch are being stocked in a stretch of stream very close to a heavily stocked trib. If there were concerns regarding the exposure of a fledgling logperch population to stocked trout that are known to run out of that trib even to the extent that there has been a Chiques Ck fishery for the “migrants” in the past, then I doubt that Chiques logperch stocking site would have been selected. Likewise, there is an abundance of Walleye in Chiques at times.

In the case of the unstocked wild brown trout streams where logperch sympatry exists, the trout populations are good in all three, with at least two of them being Class B’s as I recall. It is quite possible that one will eventually support a Class A equivalent brown trout pop in the stretch where the logperch are located. This is also where the logperch population is the most robust that I have seen in any stream. So the best sympatric wild brown trout population (w/ logperch) co-exists with the best logperch population! The Cheaspeake Logperch are abundant and are the most abundant of the forage fish in that stretch, even exceeding the abundance of blacknose dace, the usual most common forage fish. As I have said in the past, these populations have probably co-existed for decades (I know that one stretch has had a wild brown trout population at least since the late 1950’s). The logperch abundance in sympatry with good wild brown trout populations is suggestive to me that there is an acceptable balance between the brown trout and the forage fish populations. Furthermore, it is unlikely that the browns are just feeding on logperch. It hasn’t even been established that they eat logperch, although I have no reason at present to believe that they wouldn’t.

Finally, Chesapeake Logperch seem to do well when exposed to other non-native predators. There has been a Chesapeake Logperch population in the Susquehanna, and I believe it is still there based on some discussions, and there absolutely is one in a reservoir. Both waters have excellent populations of non-native predators, so the logperch must be pretty good at avoiding predation or else their reproductive rates/juvenile survival rates are quite high.

Without evidence from a researcher who wants to take up the task, I would not hang my hat on the idea that stocked trout OR wild trout are having population level negative impacts on Chesapeake Logperch in the Lower Susquehanna Basin.

With all due respect, I think the point here is the lengths to which we seem willing to defend stocking and nonnative species. To the point where we're looking for any sliver of a chance that the preferred gamefish aren't negatively impacting a listed species in Pennsylvania (and likely soon to be federally listed).

This post exemplifies the issue as some people see it. We're defending the wrong species, and looking for any reason under the sun to maintain the status quo. This is the sentiment that's so concerning on a much larger scale. I don't have much hope for other important native fish in this state if this is how we look at endangered species where they overlap a beloved nonnative gamefish.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I wish you would stop such “rough numbers.” They are certainly rough, as you will learn below. I am aware of nine naturally occurring populations of Chesapeake Logperch and one stocked population, that being the one in Chiques Ck, stocked by Jay Stauffer and the PFBC based on a video from Lancaster.

Of the naturally occurring populations, two are in stocked trout streams, but one of those streams is stocked about 14 mi upstream from the logperch pop. In the second case, it is unclear if trout are stocked directly over logperch because it is possible (speculating) that the logperch population has expanded upstream into an area that is directly stocked. That is an unknown at present. Based on my original survey of the stream in the early 1980’s and where logperch were found, it is possible as well that there is no direct stocking over logperch in that case. Since that time, however, the wild brown trout population has expanded over a number of miles from the upper end of the stocked section down to the lower end, presumably as water temps have improved. This has resulted in a sympatric, moderately good logperch population with a low density of wild brown trout.

In the case of Chiques Ck, those logperch are being stocked in a stretch of stream very close to a heavily stocked trib. If there were concerns regarding the exposure of a fledgling logperch population to stocked trout that are known to run out of that trib even to the extent that there has been a Chiques Ck fishery for the “migrants” in the past, then I doubt that Chiques logperch stocking site would have been selected. Likewise, ther is an abundance of Walleye Chiques at times.

In the case of the unstocked wild brown trout streams where logperch sympatry exists, the trout populations are good in all three, with at least two of them being Class B’s as I recall. It is quite possible that one will eventually support a Class A equivalent brown trout pop in the stretch where the logperch are located. This is also where the logperch population is the most robust that I have seen in any stream. So the best wild brown trout population co-exists with the best logperch population! The Cheaspeake Logperch are abundant and are the most abundant of the forage fish in that stretch, even exceeding the abundance of blacknose dace, the usual most common forage fish. As I have said in the past, these populations have probably co-existed for decades (I know that one stretch has had a wild brown trout population at least since the late 1950’s). The logperch abundance in sympatry with wild brown trout populations is suggestive to me that there is an acceptable balance between the brown trout and the forage fish populations. After all, it is unlikely that the browns are just feeding on logperch.

Finally, Chesapeake Logperch seem to do well when exposed to other non-native predators. There is a population in the Susquehanna and one in a reservoir. Both have excellent populations of non-native predators.

Without evidence from a researcher who wants to take up the task, I would not hang my hat on the idea that stocked trout OR wild trout are having population level negative impacts on Chesapeake Logperch in the Lower Susquehanna Basin.

Its an ESA Threatened species Mike, we are talking about something at risk of disappearing from the earth and we have to prove stocking a known invasive species over them is harmful after we just spent 500k on a conservation hatchery reintroducing into a stream with stocked trout flowing into it?!? And further you seem to be very “meh” about someone studying these effects. FOR WHAT, someones stocked trout experience in a state with some of the highest density of streams in this country????

I HAVE to use “rough numbers” because I never had access to comission surveys, or surveyed these streams personally, like you did and they don’t post the names of these streams on putpose because these fish are ESA listed as threatened. Also can’t find alot of information on PA fish and boat’s website about where they stock invasive species over ESA listed species. Guessing they know its happening and are not proud of it. Recovering America’s Wildlife Act is in great hands.

This attitude of “prove it but we wont study it but don’t worry heres some simply observational data” to make anyone asking questions feel warm and fuzzy inside is why PA is in its current state of invasive species ignorance and natove fish decline. Its why the snake head bounty thread has people posting save the snake heads like their the Orca in the movie Free Willy! We are the worst state in the east with non natives. You rotenone it we stock it.

Lastly, you were a fisheries professional. Lets not pretend you and I don’t know the limitations of observational data vs. a well designed prospective study. Your observational data about best lot perch pop and and brown trout pop insame stream singing coumbaya together is very possibly reflective of quality of the stream itself. We both know knows observational data invites correlation without causation and you’ll notice when I post research highlighting the dangers of stocked/wild invasive species they are well designed studies with the exception of two case reports because of a paucity of research on the topic. We are really going to say “you can’t prove it but not worth studying and instead worth a couple stocked trout fisheries” on this one???? And don’t forget propagule pressure increases the wild population so what your suggesting is not negatively influenced by stocking because there are wild fish is likely influenced by relatively recent or continuing irresponsible stocking practices.

 

[Mike]

No it isn’t on a federal ESA list. It is a Threatened species on the Commonwealth list of threatened and endangered species and the USFWS will be doing a fed species status review in 2023 per the following from their web page on the species…
“The Service will be reviewing the logperch’s status in 2023 to determine whether or not it needs federal protection.”

I wouldn’t use the term “likely to be listed” for any species under review. About all proponents can do is cross their collective fingers.

By the way, it is hardly a “ sliver of a chance” that there is little population impact when the logperch populations are thriving. I previously mentioned demonstrated logperch populations in sympatry with a host of predators in the river and a reservoir. Furthermore, it’s not unusual for biologists, and former professional biologists in my case, to make observations based on previous research, studies, ecological and fisheries principles, or years of experience that later turn out to be scientifically true based on research by others. It has happened to me on a number of occasions that published info has matched my observations.

I would remind you that fisheries management is an art based on science and that everything can’t be studies to death. But there is at least one study that shows a reduction in forage fish in a southern stocked trout stream and one that doesn’t. Generalizing from one study to the next on this topic requires at the very least knowledge of the stocking rates and frequencies in these studies in comparison to what is being done in a Pa stocked stream under study. I once saw a section of stream where the forage population was nearly gone in comparison to the stocked section above because the reduced forage section was a C&R area that was getting way overstocked by a private group on top of PFBC fish. The section above was stocked much less, harvest was allowed, and in that one case it was apparently reflected in the forage fish pop. Again, if a researcher or grad student wishes to take up quality research on Chesapeake Logperch, I’m sure that would be interesting and I would be glad to see the null hypotheses disproven if that would be what occurred.

It also seems logical that exposure to a wild brown trout population on a year-round or at least for a half yr (if the logperch populations happen to only be present seasonally and then return to the river) would be more of a predation concern than stocked trout being present at lesser and lesser densities for a few months.

As for stream quality, I would recommend avoiding that speculative route since nearly all of the streams drain agricultural land. One population, using the term loosely (only one fish), where a survey crew found they were not thriving was in a small, very silty, sluggish stream.

Returning to one thing I said previously about Chiques, perhaps there were few concerns about stocked trout coming from the trib because of relatively recent, very substantive, about as substantive as they can get, habitat changes that might discourage stocked trout from a trib taking up temporary residency in Chiques. There may no longer be a local fishery due to the stream’s now shallower nature. And again regarding quality, Chiques drains a lot of ag land.

 

[Fish Sticks]

No it isn’t. It is a Threatened species on the Commonwealth list of threatened and endangered species and the USFWS will be doing a species status review in 2023 per the following from their web page on the species…

“The Service will be reviewing the logperch’s status in 2023 to determine whether or not it needs federal protection.”

Ok so threatened at state level instead of federal level with pending review. We talking about a species that is threaten, only left in a small scale regional area with 9 populations left. How does this change the fact that we have not studied the effects of an IUCN top 100 invasive species we continue to put in the same stream, sub watershed, or watershed?

When they remove invasive brown trout is other states do they just take the fish in the reach with the target native species? No they treat the stream down to a barrier usually. This is because fish move. For the same reason you wouldn’t only do removal on a single stretch of stream with no barriers deliniating it from others is the same reason why saying the negative impacts of stocked fish are limited to placement area or reach specific is hot garbage.

 

[Fish Sticks]

No it isn’t on a federal ESA list. It is a Threatened species on the Commonwealth list of threatened and endangered species and the USFWS will be doing a fed species status review in 2023 per the following from their web page on the species…
“The Service will be reviewing the logperch’s status in 2023 to determine whether or not it needs federal protection.”

I wouldn’t use the term “likely to be listed” for any species under review. About all proponents can do is cross their collective fingers.

By the way, it is hardly a “ sliver of a chance” that there is little population impact when the logperch populations are thriving. I previously mentioned demonstrated logperch populations in sympatry with a host of predators in the river and a reservoir. Furthermore, it’s not unusual for biologists, and former professional biologists in my case, to make observations based on previous research, studies, ecological and fisheries principles, or years of experience that later turn out to be scientifically true based on research by others. It has happened to me on a number of occasions that published info has matched my observations.

I would remind you that fisheries management is an art based on science and that everything can’t be studies to death. But there is at least one study that shows a reduction in forage fish in a southern stocked trout stream and one that doesn’t. Generalizing from one study to the next on this topic requires at the very least knowledge of the stocking rates and frequencies in these studies in comparison to what is being done in a Pa stocked stream under study. I once saw a section of stream where the forage population was nearly gone in comparison to the stocked section above because the reduced forage section was a C&R area that was getting way overstocked by a private group on top of PFBC fish. The section above was stocked much less, harvest was allowed, and in that one case it was apparently reflected in the forage fish pop. Again, if a researcher or grad student wishes to take up quality research on Chesapeake Logperch, I’m sure that would be interesting.

It also seems logical that exposure to a wild brown trout population on a year-round or at least for a half yr (if the logperch populations happen to only be present seasonally and then return to the river) would be more of a predation concern than stocked trout being present at lesser and lesser densities for a few months.

As for stream quality, I would recommend avoiding that speculative route since nearly all of the streams drain agricultural land. One population, using the term loosely (only one fish), where a survey crew found they were not thriving was in a small, very silty, sluggish stream.

Returning to one thing I said previously about Chiques, perhaps there were few concerns about stocked trout coming from the trib because of relatively recent, very substantive, about as substantive as they can get, habitat changes that might discourage stocked trout from a trib taking up temporary residency in Chiques. There may no longer be a local fishery due to the stream’s now shallower nature. And again regarding quality, Chiques drains a lot of ag land.

I think this topic hasn’t been studied to death as you mentioned. I can appreciate art vs. science of practice because I’m a practitioner of a discipline as well as a physician and there is art of medicine and science of medicine as well. However, i think since we are down to 9 streams and other states are removing invasive brown trout stocking from endangered candy darter streams and endangered guyandotte crayfish streams, virgina has evidence of a a native sucker species being negatively impacted by brown trout, galaxids have crashed in newzealand because of invasive brown trout, perca in Argentina seem to be negatively affected by them, cyprinids like himalyan snow trout have taken a hit from them, sculpins in north america, brook trout, cutthroat trout, California golden trout, gila trout, apache trout, and many others like amphibians have been harmed as well as many others that we have a real concerning invasive track record the stocking needs to stop unless we want to get up off our butts and do that study you mentioned.

I am aware observational data has its place and not suprised observational data has been showed proof on concept when studied. But if the resources are there to study something it should support a hypothesis not be touted as proof of context in a situation as important as this. The speculation on stream quality could still be valid because both draining Ag land doesn’t mean ground water contributions, spawning habitat, and hydrologic funtion is the same. There are plenty of other potential reasons for correation between high densities of the fish together in that one stream there without causation as well.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Moved thread and my response to “

Stocking on Chesapeake Log Perch and other non game threatened or endangered species: moved from Pigeon Creek thread”​

I know its not pigeon creek related. Ut good topic gave it forum on conservation forum for futher discussionas well as mike i wanted to know if you had info on French creeks endangered darters and stocking thats another area of concern for me.

 

[Peyton]

I got a 20” wild brown today, super skinny as always. The creek just can’t support multiple fish this size, they 24+ is still lurking around.

 

[pcray1231]

Well I'll be... Nice fish Peyton. Congrats!!!