Stocked Trout

[Bamboozle]

A couple of things regarding wild fish...

I have caught stream bred or what has every indicator (to me) of stream bred rainbow trout in Cross Fork in the un-stocked sections many times and in many other Class A streams in PA so the impact or lack of impact of stocking non-resident species is debatable.

I would also be willing to believe that due to these occurrences, the PFBC choice of stocked species has less to do with resident wild species than what stocked species has the best chance for survival in the stocked waterway.

Not all sections of stream are the same, meaning not all adjacent sections have the same biomass due to many factors despite the belief of many that they do. I know of more than a few designated as such and coincidentally, they fish that way too...

I may be wrong about this, (Mike can clarify) but I believe a certain percentage of a stream section has to be surveyed and has to meet the criteria to be Class A. In other words, just because three holes are loaded with fish, the whole section doesn't necessarily meet Class A criteria.

 

[silverfox]

Bamboozle wrote:

Not all sections of stream are the same, meaning not all adjacent sections have the same biomass due to many factors despite the belief of many that they do. I know of more than a few designated as such and coincidentally, they fish that way too...

I may be wrong about this, (Mike can clarify) but I believe a certain percentage of a stream section has to be surveyed and has to meet the criteria to be Class A. In other words, just because three holes are loaded with fish, the whole section doesn't necessarily meet Class A criteria.

I think you touch on an important subject here. As far as I'm aware, designation of Class A is based solely on survey of fish, and when the kg/Ha numbers match the minimum, it get's it's designation.

Is there any other study to the underlying cause of the biomass though? It seems awfully simplistic and maybe even a little negligent to solely base a stream's protections on the amount/size of the fish you find. Is there something going on above/below the section that could be addressed to bring the rest of the stream into Class A status?

Some of the ways these sections are designated make no sense. Look at Yellow Creek for example;

First, sections supporting natural reproduction;

Sections that get stocked;

Class A;

This makes no sense to me. Every trib in the system supports NR, two of the tribs are class A themselves, the mainstem above the potter creek confluence is class A and the fly zone up through the gap on the mainstem is class A. I highly doubt there is anything going on in terms of water chemistry in the mainstem above Loysburg that would prevent the mainstem from being Class A.

I suspect the reason for this is access and use along with possibly barriers (mill dam). That is, that the FBC keeps that section as a stocked only section to keep the locals and private landowners happy. Same deal with Spruce creek. IF that's true, that's frankly blatant disregard for conservation.

I have to say too, that in my opinion, yellow creek has really gone downhill over the years in terms of wild trout. I'm curious if they surveyed the mainstem Class A section today if it would still qualify. Most of what you catch today are all stocked rainbows. Back in the 90's it seemed to have a much better wild fish (browns) population.

 

[Swattie87]

FWIW, I fished a small, forested freestone STW this weekend that I typically fish a couple times/year. It fished very well after the recent warm temperatures and rain. I caught approximately 40 fish, half of which were stocked trout, and half of which were wild Trout…about a 3:2 ratio of Browns to Brookies on the wild fish. I’ve caught a Stocker or two in it on a few outings before, but this is the first time I really recognized how many stocked Trout are probably put into it. (Most of my prior outings were later in the Summer.)

I had my suspicions on this stream after fishing it multiple times (and knowing reports of a few other reputable anglers who had similar results to me), and consistently catching good number of wild fish on it. I emailed the PFBC a few years ago and got the survey data on it, and had a couple of nice conversations with one of the biologists. Well, as suspected, it’s got Class A biomass, over multiple surveys over multiple decades. Right on the border of being listed as Browns, or mix Browns/Brooks probably. Closer to even in terms of numbers, but since the Browns run bigger than the Brookies on average, it’s mostly Browns in terms of biomass.

The one knock on it is that although I consistently catch good numbers on it, I’ve never caught a large fish wild fish out of it. Large by small stream standards I mean. The biggest Brown I’ve caught has only been about 12”…Which is still a nice small freestone fish, but in a stream with that much wild biomass, you’d expect to turn up a 14-16” range fish at some point. Well, the survey data confirmed this too…VERY good numbers of fish, but no big fish…12” Brown was the biggest they’ve found. It takes a lot of small fish to build up to Class A biomass. I mean, one 15” fish weighs the same as about ten 7” fish.

Until this past weekend, I had wondered why despite having a clearly good head of wild fish in it, it seemed incapable of producing a large wild Brown. I suspect I may have figured it out though…Nearly all of the primo holes/runs had at least one stocked Trout in them. The real good ones had several, that I caught, nonetheless didn’t. For a significant portion of the year, the wild fish are seemingly displaced from those big fish producing lies by the stocked fish. When fished later in the year, most of these primo lies will produce evidence of a wild fish being present in them, but this weekend most of the wild fish I caught were in the more marginal holding water. Out of the 20 or so wild fish I caught, only 2 were holding in what I would call primo lies.

Also FWIW, I fished about 3 miles of its STW section this weekend, and saw no one else fishing it, on a nice Saturday morning in early May only a few weeks after the opener. At midday, I saw 0 other cars parked along those 3 miles on the walk back to my vehicle. It’s not like the stocked resource even gets properly used by the angling public in this situation. Why are we stocking this stream, and others like it? I’m sure it probably gets an opening day following, but unless you were at one of those holes where the Stockies were congregated you probably weren’t catching much of legal size. And those holes on a stream this size can only really hold one angler each. You can’t tell me it doesn’t make more sense to drop this stream’s allotment of fish into a larger stream, incapable of producing a fishable population of wild Trout, and has easier fishing and more angler utilization to harvest and enjoy these fish.

I should have probably killed my limit of five, but I wasn’t expecting to catch that many Stockies and didn’t bring a Ziploc with me to transport them in my pack. I will next time.

 

[afishinado]

Swattie87 wrote:
FWIW, I fished a small, forested freestone STW this weekend that I typically fish a couple times/year. It fished very well after the recent warm temperatures and rain. I caught approximately 40 fish, half of which were stocked trout, and half of which were wild Trout…about a 3:2 ratio of Browns to Brookies on the wild fish. I’ve caught a Stocker or two in it on a few outings before, but this is the first time I really recognized how many stocked Trout are probably put into it. (Most of my prior outings were later in the Summer.)

I had my suspicions on this stream after fishing it multiple times (and knowing reports of a few other reputable anglers who had similar results to me), and consistently catching good number of wild fish on it. I emailed the PFBC a few years ago and got the survey data on it, and had a couple of nice conversations with one of the biologists. Well, as suspected, it’s got Class A biomass, over multiple surveys over multiple decades. Right on the border of being listed as Browns, or mix Browns/Brooks probably. Closer to even in terms of numbers, but since the Browns run bigger than the Brookies on average, it’s mostly Browns in terms of biomass.

The one knock on it is that although I consistently catch good numbers on it, I’ve never caught a large fish wild fish out of it. Large by small stream standards I mean. The biggest Brown I’ve caught has only been about 12”…Which is still a nice small freestone fish, but in a stream with that much wild biomass, you’d expect to turn up a 14-16” range fish at some point. Well, the survey data confirmed this too…VERY good numbers of fish, but no big fish…12” Brown was the biggest they’ve found. It takes a lot of small fish to build up to Class A biomass. I mean, one 15” fish weighs the same as about ten 7” fish.

Until this past weekend, I had wondered why despite having a clearly good head of wild fish in it, it seemed incapable of producing a large wild Brown. I suspect I may have figured it out though…Nearly all of the primo holes/runs had at least one stocked Trout in them. The real good ones had several, that I caught, nonetheless didn’t. For a significant portion of the year, the wild fish are seemingly displaced from those big fish producing lies by the stocked fish. When fished later in the year, most of these primo lies will produce evidence of a wild fish being present in them, but this weekend most of the wild fish I caught were in the more marginal holding water. Out of the 20 or so wild fish I caught, only 2 were holding in what I would call primo lies.

Also FWIW, I fished about 3 miles of its STW section this weekend, and saw no one else fishing it, on a nice Saturday morning in early May only a few weeks after the opener. At midday, I saw 0 other cars parked along those 3 miles on the walk back to my vehicle. It’s not like the stocked resource even gets properly used by the angling public in this situation. Why are we stocking this stream, and others like it? I’m sure it probably gets an opening day following, but unless you were at one of those holes where the Stockies were congregated you probably weren’t catching much of legal size. And those holes on a stream this size can only really hold one angler each. You can’t tell me it doesn’t make more sense to drop this stream’s allotment of fish into a larger stream, incapable of producing a fishable population of wild Trout, and has easier fishing and more angler utilization to harvest and enjoy these fish.

I should have probably killed my limit of five, but I wasn’t expecting to catch that many Stockies and didn’t bring a Ziploc with me to transport them in my pack. I will next time.

I've observed many times on the streams like you describe above, nice sized wild trout ending up on a stringer with the stocked trout in these mixed Class A wild population stocked streams. Many/most wild trout guys C&R. The one thing that stocking a stream brings is the harvesting of trout on the stream. That's why they were put there, for the most part.

I don't know the stream, or if this was the case at all but I wanted to add this as a factor as to, if the fish are there and habitat is good, why you rarely catch larger wild trout. Many of the big ones get cropped out early in the season.

 

[Bamboozle]

silverfox wrote:

I think you touch on an important subject here. As far as I'm aware, designation of Class A is based solely on survey of fish, and when the kg/Ha numbers match the minimum, it get's it's designation...

Without mentioning stream names, I fish a couple of places with regularity that have classification changes in adjacent sections or drastic habitat changes within sections. What I notice is dramatically different structure and stream bottoms that seem to correspond with lower fish numbers.

In sections where the Class A designation isn't assigned, there are long stretches where the flow is slow and the bottom is loaded with silt. It’s hardly scientific but coincidentally, the trout fishing slows. When I find the slow & silty condition within a Class A section, the same thing occurs.

I also see the same thing on stocked sections with natural reproduction. Again, it’s hardly scientific but I assume it is no coincidence that 100% of the wild fish I have caught in the Clark's Creek FFO stretch, haven't come from the slow silty stretches.

I know that “sections” are a PFBC management tool but it I am often amazed at one particular stream I frequent that my catch rate drops off a cliff about 50 yards above the upper Class A section limit. It’s almost as if the PFBC made that the upper limit just to keep things neat & tidy Class A section-wise.

It also makes me wonder that if a stream sections were a defined length, we would see a radical difference in the number of Class A sections, not necessarily related purely to the numerical difference but because the sample area would be smaller.

Of course stream improvements in a section could change things and make the habitat idea throughout, but of course that takes time, money & manpower to implement with no guarantees of success.

It is because of stuff like this that I swear I have been told by Mike or some other fisheries biologist that they have to survey something like 75% of a section and get the required biomass to designate a section as Class A.

I hope that Mike will chime in on this.

 

[blueheron]

I like trouts. Wild, stocked, smoked, grilled anyways I can get them.
Mostly kidding, I only keep trout when camping or if someone is extra nice to me and asks for some, but I have to admit smoked stockies make a fine topping on your favorite cracker. I went out to the Brodhead on Saturday and fished the lower section hard, walked a good long ways and got four wild browns in four hours, the only one rising was also the biggest. No one around and didn’t fall in, excellent afternoon. Got back to the truck and went in search of a new section for me, ended up at the confluence with McMichaels, I have this primal need to see new water. Fished with the bait bombers until they all left,
lost count of the stocked rainbows and fished until the magic hour at dusk while not moving at all. Threw em all back, excellent evening.
There’s room at the table for everyone, if you want wild fish and seclusion go for it, most fisherman have not reached the stage where they can distinguish between wild and stocked fish much less care about the situations that lead to the fish commissions practices. They just want to catch a few , same as the tweediest fly fisherman on his stretch of private water stocked with pellet pigs. To each his own.

 

[maxima12]

Well, let's put it where it belongs. I have fished more streams than you can imagine, Wild and stocked. I currently fish 20+ times a month, {need to get reorganized, 10 to 12 hours each time out, need a good sleep and sell some leaders}. I like catching fish and those I fish with like it too! Now, I can not get the guys to go on the Cushman, Slider, West Branch Pine Creek, Genesee Forks, etc. etc. But lucky this week to get them on Little Pine, Lower picnic area.

I was always a believer, wild and stocked did not breed. Stocked trout and wild trout feed at different times and conditions. The trout can coexist{ wild and stocked}.

Seems to me from experience, T. U. has undermined the true nature of fishing. They have gone so far as to change regulations, creel limits, etc. Lots have used this organization as a stepping stone for their own agenda, fly tying, lectures, seminars, guiding, books, and so on.

I am not picking on T. U. good, good, people. But, remember, { preserve cold water fisheries, that is our goal}. Seems it has been put aside, for other reasons mentioned. And I dislike the state of Pa. for following the end game!

It's been pounded in you head to follow these guidelines, rumors, fiction, fact, fantasy!

Thank God, Maxima12 has a hard head and still believes in future Pa.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Future PA is a great thing to believe in and for coldwater resources to thrive we need to protect our water resources. Clean water is vital to our success so on top of reducing the occurrence of stocking over wild fish, we also need to be involved with improving land management and stormwater guidelines at the local level to provide meaningful BMPs to help negate the impacts of future development.

 

[Swattie87]

afishinado wrote:

I've observed many times on the streams like you describe above, nice sized wild trout ending up on a stringer with the stocked trout in these mixed Class A wild population stocked streams. Many/most wild trout guys C&R. The one thing that stocking a stream brings is the harvesting of trout on the stream. That's why they were put there, for the most part.

I don't know the stream, or if this was the case at all but I wanted to add this as a factor as to, if the fish are there and habitat is good, why you rarely catch larger wild trout. Many of the big ones get cropped out early in the season.

You're definitely right afish, I think that may happen to a degree too. Admittedly, I considered it a bit of a risk to make the drive Saturday morning to fish this stream this early in the season, fearing that it may have other anglers on it given it still being only a few weeks removed from opening day. I typically don't fish these small freestone STW's with good wild Trout populations until into June most years to avoid other anglers. But maybe I'm overestimating their fishing pressure, outside of opening weekend? I was pleasantly surprised to find no one else fishing it all day...I was not pleasantly surprised by my catch rate of Stockers.

I think some wild fish definitely get caught by folks looking to harvest fish around opening day on streams like this. But I suspect the displacement of wild fish by the Stockers is a bigger factor in the size cropping long term honestly. I mean if it's only fished to a significant degree for a few days around OD with harvest in mind, how much damage on the wild fish can be done? The stockers are already in those primo holes anyway, possibly already displacing the wild fish that were there. And the stockers are much easier to catch, especially when considering most of the legal sized wild fish in this stream are Browns, which are harder to catch in most conditions than wild Brookies. From my experience this weekend, the catch and keepers missed a bunch of the Stockers, or there weren't a ton of anglers looking to keep them anyway. Or both.

 

[maxima12]

LYCO , I think I know you, yes, your the seed and I am the rain.

Maxima12

 

[pcray1231]

As a very general rule, I support making as much "viable" trout water as possible. That would mean if it's capable of being a solid fishery without stockies, then don't stock it. If it's not, then stock it.

The key term here is "viable", and where to draw that line. I may consider a class B or C population of mostly 5-9" difficult to catch wild trout to be a viable fishery, but I recognize that plenty of people disagree with me. So that's the trick, and that's ok.

I find it hard to use absolutes like never and always. Lets face it, the vast majority of streams have at least a handful of wild trout in them, or at least the possibility there-of at certain times of the year. It may be one every few miles, but it's enough to say that "never stock over wild fish" is too much of an absolute. The occasional wondering fish is not enough to make it a "viable" fishery in anyone's book. Nor will I say "always" stock a stream that doesn't have enough wild fish. Maybe it's posted and a waste of fish. Maybe it's dangerous to eat fish from it...

 

[PennKev]

pcray1231 wrote:
I may consider a class B or C population of mostly 5-9" difficult to catch wild trout to be a viable fishery, but I recognize that plenty of people disagree with me.

The key to the "Class" classification is that it relies on a measure of biomass and does not take into account the average size or absolute size range of the trout population. 1 trout weighing ten pounds is the same as 10 trout weighing one pound. For wild trout lovers, that's a positive. It removes a degree of personal preference from the decision making and favors robust wild trout populations regardless of fish size.

You are complicating things by factoring in both average size and difficulty of fishing. Difficulty of fishing should not be a factor in deciding whether or not stocking is needed IMO. As for average size, that is relative to the habitat and needs to be evaluated with that it mind.

Personally, I think we need a lower baseline for stocking, but that doesn't mean we can't also take account other factors. For example, in the case of you stream that only has a few wild trout scattered through it, that streams value as a wild trout fishery varies depending on location. In central PA, where good trout streams are abundant, stocking such as stream is not much loss to wild fish. On the other hand, such a stream in SW PA should probably be targeted for preservation and improvement and no stocking should occur.

 

[pcray1231]

Agreed, the class definition is about as good as it gets. I'd rather it be per "volume" rather than surface area, to take the "wide and shallow" vs. "deep and narrow" out of it. As it is, 2 streams could flow the same amount of water and have exactly the same number (and size) of fish, but the biomass of the narrower and deeper stream is greater because there is less surface area.

But yeah, that's really picking nits there.

Point is, the current break point between "viable" and not is class A vs. B. But in my book, class B and C streams are good waters, and don't need fish added. D, eh, not so much usually.

So, in the end, I'm on board with the currently used concept. I just think the threshold should be considerably lower than the current "class A".

 

[Swattie87]

Who’s this pcray guy showing up out of nowhere with like 2400 posts and posting all over the place? Seems like a know it all.

 

[troutbert]

maxima12 wrote:

yes, your the seed and I am the rain.

Maxima12

Look here brother, Who you jivin' with that Cosmik Debris?

 

[wildtrout2]

Swattie87 wrote:
Who’s this pcray guy showing up out of nowhere with like 2400 posts and posting all over the place? Seems like a know it all.

Just the other day I was wondering where he's been.

 

[troutbert]

lycoflyfisher wrote:
Is anyone aware of specific water quality parameters that or thresholds that indicate a certain stream section has the ability to support a Class A population?

No. Because water quality is only one of the factors that influence the wild trout population.

Physical habitat for adult trout (depth and cover) is very high on the list of factors that influence trout population.

When you were electrofishing, did you see this?

The same stream, carrying the same water, but sections close to each other that have wildly varying trout populations, because of differences in habitat?

This is pretty basic stuff that we see as fishermen. Some sections are flat and shallow for long distances. And those places have low trout populations.

Other sections have nice pools and cover for the trout to hide. Those sections have a lot more trout.

 

[PennKev]

pcray1231 wrote:
But in my book, class B and C streams are good waters, and don't need fish added. D, eh, not so much usually.

Is there an easily available source for anglers to find out which streams are which? I can't have an opinion on this until I know which streams to compare. All I can say with certainty is that there are plenty of non-Class A streams that can provide enjoyable fishing.

 

[troutbert]

silverfox wrote:

How many of you have caught rainbows on the little J? I know I have. Not often, but they're there. That illustrates that stocked fish travel for miles and miles through stream systems.

Those reproducing trout are the result of stockings of rainbows by private parties near the village of Spruce Creek.

Private parties buy rainbow trout from private hatcheries, so their genetics are different than PFBC rainbow trout, and they are capable of establishing wild populations.

The same thing has happened on numerous other limestone streams in the region.

 

[troutbert]

Prospector wrote:

A second scenario is a stream like Kettle that has a very sustainable wild population in its upper reaches but a lower section that gets too warm to maintain a significant trout population without stocking. Do you manage this in sections like they are doing today and are the wild trout advocates on here willing to make that distinction?

Yes. This is the position PA wild trout advocates have advocated for all along.

At least as far back as the early 1960s. About 45 years or so.

Some progress has been made. And there is still a long way to go.