Some stocked wild trout streams populations still grow to become Class A

[Mike]

It isn’t the case that there is no way a low or moderate biomass stream could ever improve if stocked with adult trout to attract anglers. I can give you six examples from SE Pa where in general angling pressure is/was relatively high and the number of stocked wild trout streams is relatively low, yet I have these examples...all Brown Trout stream sections.
Blymire Hollow Rn, York Co
Leibs Ck, York Co
Codorus Ck, York Co
Valley Ck, Chester/Montgomery Co
W Br Perkiomen Ck, Berks Co
Conowingo Ck, Lancaster Co.
Some of these would have been Class E (no wild trout) and some Class D and C. I don’t recall that any of these were B’s when first surveyed, but maybe some were.. All went to Class A while being stocked, but in the case of Valley stocking was stopped after one site reached Class A and the other two reached Class B (likely on their way to Class A) not because we thought the other two sites needed to have stocking stopped to reach Class A but because of an unrelated issue.

It would not surprise me if Wild Brook Trout streams that are stocked would have a more difficult time reaching Class A. There was one in SE Pa that went from Class D to Class A when unusually high rates of stocking and fishing pressure ceased ( PFBC stocked, co-op hatchery next to stream also stocked its fish, fishing rodeo). In another case, PFBC stockings were terminated and the stream bounced around annually with respect to biomass. The entire section was sometimes a high Class C, sometimes a Class B, and once a Class A. Recently, a segment of that section (about a quarter or third) was officially classified Class A. I took that stream off of the stocking program in about 1981.

It seems to me that most here who condemn stocking over wild trout fail to make a distinction between high and low biomass streams, wild species involved, stocked species involved, frequency of stockings, stocking rates, stocking timing, and extent of angling pressure generated. These factors can make a big difference on the extent of any impact! It would not surprise me that the lower stocking rates and frequencies enacted within about the past decade or more as larger but fewer trout were stocked and the shift since the trout residency study to stocking a much higher proportion of RT has or will have made a difference in enhancing wild trout biomass in some stream sections to the extent that some new Class A’s may be generated.

One more point, the illogical approach of any proposal to make all Class A’s C&R statewide becomes even more evident when one thinks about the number of stocked wild trout streams that were removed from the stocking program in 1982 (80+ sections)and thereafter because they were already Class A or improved to Class A while being stocked, many with higher stocking frequencies, higher rates, and different species than are used today. Those removed after 1982 progressed to Class A despite stocking. These formerly stocked Class A’s already saw the greatest amount of fishing pressure and most likely the greatest harvest that they will ever see. C&R “protection” was not needed then to allow those populations to thrive and it certainly isn’t needed now that the pressure and the harvest has been greatly reduced. C&R will do nothing to protect these trout populations from the real enemies ....habitat and water quality/quantity degradation and diminishment.

 

[silverfox]

I agree that the distinction between "wild trout" and "wild native trout" muddies this conversation. Stocking over wild brown trout may not have the same impact that stocking over wild native brook trout has. Heck, stocking over wild brown trout may actually reinforce the wild population as you're constantly adding more fish to the breeding pool to replace the ones that may have been harvested. Though that doesn't get into the issue of hatchery genetics vs legacy genetics and what long-term impact that might have on the wild browns. I've said this before and was chastized for it btw.

In the petition I shared here, we used a lot (39) of scientific studies that prove stocking over wild native brook trout is bad and that petition is ONLY about stocking over wild native brook trout. Regardless of biomass by the way.

I'm sorry Mike, there is a mountain of evidence and more coming every day that suggests that stocking (any species) over wild native brook trout is a really bad management approach.

I'll reiterate a point from the body of that petition here from the Hudy study in 2005. “Pennsylvania had the greatest number of watersheds with brook trout populations classified as reduced, severely reduced, extirpated, or unknown” within the eastern brook trout’s native range.

Maybe this nonchalant attitude of stocking over them has had something to do with that.

 

[Mike]

Nonchalant? I would not call removing a Class A and a Class B (on avg) population of ST from the stocking program or stating at the 2002 PFBC wild trout symposium that the best way to enhance wild ST populations in Pa would be to stop stocking over them (where suitable habitat exists to support enhancement) a nonchalant approach. Remember, I am now a layman, but if the PFBC ever proposed eliminating stocking over Class B ST populations rather than just saying that no Class B ST sections could be added to the program I would support that. Likewise I would support the idea of removing Class C ST sections that met some yet-to-be determined qualification based on the number of legal size wild ST per mile or per km if such an idea was floated for the better Class C’s.

 

[Mike]

Reminder: In the past we have spoken about the very limited RT reproduction in Pa streams vs that in the southern Appalachian ST streams.

 

[silverfox]

Mike wrote:
Nonchalant? I would not call removing a Class A and a Class B (on avg) population of ST from the stocking program or stating at the 2002 PFBC wild trout symposium that the best way to enhance wild ST populations in Pa would be to stop stocking over them (where suitable habitat exists to support enhancement) a nonchalant approach. Remember, I am now a layman, but if the PFBC ever proposed eliminating stocking over Class B ST populations rather than just saying that no Class B ST sections could be added to the program I would support that. Likewise I would support the idea of removing Class C ST sections that met some yet-to-be determined qualification based on the number of legal size wild ST per mile or per km if such an idea was floated for the better Class C’s.

Sorry Mike, wasn't really referring to you specifically. I don't mean everyone who works at PFBC either. There is a very clear preference for stocking though, or it wouldn't still be going on.

I agree with you on breaking down classifications to a degree as long as the classifications are accurate and representative of the entire stream. I know they're not always.

The one experience I had that really made me stop and think about all this was on a low biomass wild native brook trout stream that is also stocked. I know the AFM gave me stats a long time ago but I don't remember what class it is. The upper section has to be Class A but it's not a historical survey reach so I'm not sure if it's ever been surveyed. Seeing sublegal dead wild brookies in there really fired me up. That whole class approach ignores migration too, which is a whole other can of worms I know I've beaten to death.

 

[Dave_W]

Mike's point in this thread is worth making and remembering (and I say that as someone who generally supports reducing or ending stocking over strong wild populations).

In my neck of the woods there are three or four heavily stocked streams that have very strong or growing wild trout populations in spite of many years of stocking. While I can't say if they're Class A (the local AFM has been reluctant to survey them due to the likely demand to stop stocking if Class A is revealed - these are very popular streams with traditional anglers and ending stocking would produce an angry backlash). I just know from my own experience that wild trout populations are robust.

One of them only has wild STs and, while I doubt this section is Class A, I catch a lot of wild brookies, including recently an 8" fish near a public swimming pool in a section very heavily fished for stockies. I'm always surprised to see so many wild STs there. I have never seen another angler (other than an FF partner with me) catch anything other than stockies in this stretch. Yet the wild brookies are there and I often catch more of them than stocked trout.

Another example is upper Yellow Breeches. I can't think of a stream in PA that gets fished harder or is stocked more heavily than this section of stream. It's loaded with wild BTs and I am highly confident it would meet Class A if surveyed. If stocking were stopped here, I am skeptical of the notion that this section would have any more wild trout than it already has. It is stocked almost weekly in springtime and absolutely pounded by anglers.

Stocking vs wild trout is a complicated topic.

 

[jifigz]

I will say that the streams in my neck of the woods seem to be thriving with wild trout despite being stocked. Now, most of these waters are BT fisheries, but, still, the wild browns are doing great.

Now, the majority of the brookie streams I fish in my area are not stocked, and truthfully I don't go out for brookies that often. Of the stocked streams I fish that are "brookie" streams only one maintains decent level of brookies, but not great. East Licking Creek has enough brookies to be interesting but not as many as some other streams that are in relatively close proximity. Is this because those brookies are stocked over and the others are not or is it due to a habitat/water quality issue with the streams? Honey Creek and West Licking Creek are both listed as natural reproduction and both stocked, however, I would say they are not quality brookie streams. I haven't explored either one enough to be extremely knowledgeable on, but on Honey at Reeds Gap SP I've caught a handful of wild browns and one brookie. In West Licking Creek I've never caught a wild trout at all, but I've also never spent a lot of time on it, but I'm starting to fish it almost weekly die to a convenience factor, so maybe I'll turn some up. So, streams that are all stocked, on the natural reproduction list, and yet have lackluster wild brookies. Other streams within close proximity to both areas that are unstocked are thriving with wild brookies. Is stocking the factor that makes the difference?

I am sure that stocking over wild brookies is harmful, but how much, who knows? The browns don't seem to be affected by it, and, I hate to say it, I'd rather be on the larger water chasing browns..

 

[silverfox]

All of this is exactly why we referenced the scientific studies in the petition. There should be no doubt about the story those 39 studies tell. Variations in elevation, flow, geology, chemistry, angler use, the extent of stocking etc. may cause the effects to be greater or worse.

Anecdotally, as I've mentioned before, I've watched the makeup of a favorite stream of mine shift species in my short time on this rock. So I'm sure there are examples where stocking may not have been the death knell to the brook trout population, but for me, seeing it first hand and then reading solid scientific studies that explain exactly why, it's hard for me to look the other way.

 

[jifigz]

Sure, and I believe that, but some other streams maintain high priorities of brook trout despite being stocked, right? They don't here in my part of the state though. I can't think of many brook trout streams that are stocked and have good numbers of wild brookies. My area of central PA represents what you are saying. But, it could be more than just stocking.

If ending stocking over the wild brookies here would lead to a good population of fish, then I'm all for it. If they quit stocking and the brookies were to never materialize, then obviously other factors are at play..

 

[silverfox]

jifigz wrote:
Sure, and I believe that, but some other streams maintain high priorities of brook trout despite being stocked, right? They don't here in my part of the state though. I can't think of many brook trout streams that are stocked and have good numbers of wild brookies. My area of central PA represents what you are saying. But, it could be more than just stocking.

If ending stocking over the wild brookies here would lead to a good population of fish, then I'm all for it. If they quit stocking and the brookies were to never materialize, then obviously other factors are at play..

I've personally never seen a stream that is stocked maintain a high population of wild brook trout. In all cases that I'm familiar with personally, it's the exact opposite.

Again, there are so many variables. Maybe PA could do what MD and NJ did and make regs by region? Not all waters behave the same way. I'm sure that's true. So should we manage to the least common denominator? i.e., it might not have as big of an impact in stream A compared to stream B, so, therefore, use the results of stream A as the baseline and just continue on our merry way?

 

[Bamboozle]

I've fished Section 8 of the Monocasy for decades and have only caught ONE stocker in my entire life of fishing that section.

I also had ONE day at Clarks Creek where the number of wild fish exceeded stocked fish, SERIOUSLY!!

What does it mean, I don't know, I’m not a biologist nor are a lot of other people with strong opinions. When I was kid trout fishing the best Delco had to offer, I dreamed of wild trout but figured I’d never catch one. Today I feel SO lucky to catch ANY wild trout that I could give a rats arse what species they are.

In the interim, I am starting a group called BTM (Brown Trout Matter) to protect the wild brownies I love the most from the crazed "natives only" crowd, (or should that be “indigenous only” so we don’t offend anyone?)

I’ll be posting a membership form & petition soon. ;-)

 

[Baron]

Bam I got that.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Stocking over larger brown trout streams that have limestone influence vs mountain Freestone brook trout populations is a completely separate issue. Lower Fishing Creek, Bald Eagle Creek, yellow Breeches etc all have exceptional wild brown trout populations while being heavily stocked and heavily pressured.

 

[Mike]

#10 above is sliding into the “what came first, the chicken or the egg debate.” There were certainly wild trout streams that were entered into the stocking program because their populations were low and not of a density or size distribution that would provide a fishery. Naturally, those stocked streams have depressed ST or BT populations, but it is not because of stocking. Likewise, there are wild ST and wild BT streams that have been removed from the stocking program but no improvement in the wild populations occurred.

There are such natural variations in wild ST (and BT) populations and the legal components of those populations that fishing them during a year when the populations of legal fish are up and then returning the next when they are down is almost undoubtedly blamed on over-harvest, yet I have seen this occur naturally in a longer term study of an unfished, Class A wild ST population (water authority property) as well. Realize that these harvest blaming biases are common in a portion of the fishing community and that segment needs to begin thinking more objectively. A good start would be for individuals to start saying that the effects that they are seeing could be harvest related OR related to natural variations in the trout population. That’s especially true since they are using gear that is so inefficient as fishing rods and subject to all kinds of fishing related and not trout population related variables.

Electrofishing gear in comparison is not subject to nearly the number of variables that affect angling. Furthermore, based on overall abundance, an electrofishing crew will return to said stream to complete the second pass of a population estimate regardless of how many legal fish are found in the first pass. How many anglers will do that on a typical ST stream, but instead write off the stream as being overharvested? The second trip could have been completely different.

 

[jifigz]

lycoflyfisher wrote:
Stocking over larger brown trout streams that have limestone influence vs mountain Freestone brook trout populations is a completely separate issue. Lower Fishing Creek, Bald Eagle Creek, yellow Breeches etc all have exceptional wild brown trout populations while being heavily stocked and heavily pressured.

Bald Eagle Creek.....nah......there are no wild browns in there...….everyone can just keep fishing Spring Creek who goes to that general area......definitely stay away from Bald Eagle...…nothing to see there......

 

[jifigz]

Mike wrote:
#10 above is sliding into the “what came first, the chicken or the egg debate.” There were certainly wild trout streams that were entered into the stocking program because their populations were low and not of a density or size distribution that would provide a fishery. Naturally, those stocked streams have depressed ST or BT populations, but it is not because of stocking. Likewise, there are wild ST and wild BT streams that have been removed from the stocking program but no improvement in the wild populations occurred.

There are such natural variations in wild ST (and BT) populations and the legal components of those populations that fishing them during a year when the populations of legal fish are up and then returning the next when they are down is almost undoubtedly blamed on over-harvest, yet I have seen this occur naturally in a longer term study of an unfished, Class A wild ST population (water authority property) as well. Realize that these harvest blaming biases are common in a portion of the fishing community and that segment needs to begin thinking more objectively. A good start would be for individuals to start saying that the effects that they are seeing could be harvest related OR related to natural variations in the trout population. That’s especially true since they are using gear that is so inefficient as fishing rods and subject to all kinds of fishing related and not trout population related variables.

Electrofishing gear in comparison is not subject to nearly the number of variables that affect angling. Furthermore, based on overall abundance, an electrofishing crew will return to said stream to complete the second pass of a population estimate regardless of how many legal fish are found in the first pass. How many anglers will do that on a typical ST stream, but instead write off the stream as being overharvested? The second trip could have been completely different.

Mike, I can echo what you are saying exactly through years of fishing one of my favorite brookie streams. It is a stream that sees very little pressure (I can say this absolutely, believe me or not), it is not a Class A stream, and some years it is amazing and fish are everywhere, other years I just don't do great. I will generally fish this stream a lot each year. There is no way that the high catch rates and then the low catch rates are caused by overharvest. I have never seen another angler here, nor have I ever seen evidence of another angler here. Sure, I know I am not the only one who fishes it or who has fished it, but the pressure is low. Swattie87, you can probably guess the stream. You had messaged me about it years ago and I replied truthfully.

Even when the catch rates were low, there could have been plenty of brookies there. Trout have an amazing way of staying out of sight when they want to, even in small trickles they can really blend in.

Oh, and sign me up for BTM. I am a huge lover and supporter of our European invaders. In fact, I am so very thankful that they made it to this continent.

 

[silverfox]

Boiling this down, there seems to be two camps. A) everything is fine. Let's just keep plugging along and B) there's a concerning trend in this state and something needs to change.

Taking a step back, again, according to Hudy et. al, “Pennsylvania had the greatest number of watersheds with brook trout populations classified as reduced, severely reduced, extirpated, or unknown”.

How is it that our neighbors to ur south, east, and north didn't end up with that classification? Is Pennsylvania really an island when it comes to the impacts to brook trout? Is everything fine here or isn't it? When you see MD and NJ creating brook trout specific regs, it really makes you wonder. Or it should I think.

What is different about PA that we've lost more brook trout than any of our neighbors? Why are our neighbors focusing on brook trout protection and enhancement and we're not? If it's not stocking, what is it? Why did this happen here and not to our neighbors? Serious questions.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

We have way more fisheries data available now than in 2005. You have to be well aware of the Unassessed Water program by now and that started in 2010. The PFBC has documented thousands of wild trout stream miles in the last decade. I know there are watersheds where populations may be gone and trending down, however there are many others that continue to thrive and others that are on the rebound following restoration activities.

 

[silverfox]

lycoflyfisher wrote:
We have way more fisheries data available now than in 2005. You have to be well aware of the Unassessed Water program by now and that started in 2010. The PFBC has documented thousands of wild trout stream miles in the last decade. I know there are watersheds where populations may be gone and trending down, however there are many others that continue to thrive and others that are on the rebound following restoration activities.

Apples and oranges. One study looked at historical population levels across the entire range. The other is created by a state agency with an agenda to keep a hatchery/stocking machine running. Are you suggesting that the Hudy study was able to nail down the situation in all the other states except PA was an outlier and somehow came off unscathed and has far more brookies than represented?

 

[silverfox]

This defense of stocking over wild trout is alarming. I don't want anyone arguing that I have to focus on ending the stocking over wild trout thing again. Maybe in 100 years someone else can take this issue up. Maybe by then this state will have progressed to a point where there's more appetite for it.