Stocked Trout

[PennKev]

troutbert wrote:

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.

Not to derail the topic, but I believe that the nature of limestoners is simply better habitat for rainbow reproduction. I strongly suspect that the stability of flows and temperatures of a large spring influence plays a key role during the spring spawning season. I think that combination of flows and temps during that certain part of the year is also a reason you see more wild bows as you go south in the Appalachians. Granted, there could also be a water chemistry factor.
Regardless, I'm not convinced there are "special" hatchery fish that create or don't create wild populations. At the least I don't think it matters. Given the volume of trout stocked, and the decades of stocking that have occurred, every stream in PA has exactly the species of wild trout that it can sustain and those populations were likely started very early in the history of stocking in our state.

 

[Prospector]

troutbert wrote:

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.

This thread has been enlightening. Over the years I’ve seen many references made something like “don’t ever stock over wild trout”. I took that very literally and assumed that’s where people stood. However as people have explained their position in more detail, the overwhelming majority support a very sensible approach to the issue.

I’ve seen numbers something to the effect that there are 16,000 miles of wild trout water in PA and 5000 miles of stocked water. If the PFBC adopted the general consensus of this thread that proportion might be 16,000 & 4500. It really shouldn’t change on 90% of streams.

 

[troutbert]

Prospector wrote:

troutbert wrote:

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.

This thread has been enlightening. Over the years I’ve seen many references made something like “don’t ever stock over wild trout”. I took that very literally and assumed that’s where people stood. However as people have explained their position in more detail, the overwhelming majority support a very sensible approach to the issue.

I’ve seen numbers something to the effect that there are 16,000 miles of wild trout water in PA and 5000 miles of stocked water. If the PFBC adopted the general consensus of this thread that proportion might be 16,000 & 4500. It really shouldn’t change on 90% of streams.

There are many miles of Kettle Creek that are not on the wild trout list.

The same is true of Pine Creek. It's not on the wild trout list from Galeton downstream to the mouth. That's a LOT of water.

There are also large mileages not on the wild trout list on: Loyalsock Cr, Muncy Cr, Fishing Creek (Columbia Cty), Lycoming Cr, First Fork, Driftwood Br, Bennett Br, Oil Cr, Brokenstraw Cr, Tionesta Cr etc.

And these are just some streams in the northern part of the state, where people claim there is no place to stock other than over wild trout. It's just not true. And besides the streams there are many lakes and ponds that can be stocked.

And in the southern half of the state there are loads of streams that are not on the wild trout list, as well as ponds and lakes.

There are some entire counties in western PA that have zero stream mileage on the wild trout list.

There are plenty of places to stock trout without dumping them in over native brook trout.

 

[silverfox]

troutbert wrote:

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.

I meant the pectoral finless wonders that one sometimes encounters there. You know the ones. Pale colors, usually missing a pec or two and often lacking one or both Maxilla from being mishandled over on the fish farm, er, pay to fish park. You know pretty much instantly after hooking one because they immediately initiate their signature "death roll" move while floating to the surface. I'm less concerned with the wild/stream bred rainbows. At least they fight well, have all their body parts and their population is usually short lived.

What good is "no stocking" protections on Class A if a section up or down or a trib etc. gets stocked? Especially where habitat is the limiting factor on the same stream. They (PFBC, co-op nurseries, fishing clubs or pay to fish posers) put the fish in the poor habitat water and they end up finding the good Class A water. Pretty much negates the point of not allowing stocking within the Class A boundaries directly.

 

[Chaz]

While I lived near Neshaminy Creek as a kid, I never fished for trout as a kid. Dad didn’t fish. Pop did but it seemed like it was only during vacations.
As an adult I only rarely fish for stocker trout, not even at camp. I read all the outdoor magazines back in the day and all I ever wanted was to catch wild trout with flies. I’ll admit I’m the exception but I’ve only in the last 5 years taken up fishing for trout with spinning gear, and nearly all of that has been on hard water. I’ll even bring a couple home if they are hooked deep. When jigging that rarely happens. Since weather this year has so far been very rainy I’ve taken the opportunity to fish for trout in a private lake with friends and have had a few very good days. I even brought one home. I kinda get what the author is saying though and I have worked hard for T. U. For more then 30 years both for our Chapter and the Pa Council.

 

[pcray1231]

Is there an easily available source for anglers to find out which streams are which?

Define "easily". You can request the info from the PAFBC. I have a couple of counties worth of data broken down by A, B, C, D. The only ones you can get from public postings is the wild trout list (A, B, C, and D) and class A. So you can tell if A or "not A".

Frankly, I think the main difference between A, B, and C is habitat. i.e. all of them have fish where you expect fish to be. Just in A's, there's more of that per length of stream. As fisherman, we typically fish the better water and walk by the bad water anyway, so C's often fish as well as A's.

D's, it means, yeah, there's fish, but there's something wrong with it, and it ain't right. In my experience anyway.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Silver Fox Wrote:
"I think there has to be some criteria for what streams are stocked based on the amount of reproduction that is happening along with water quality parameters.

Some streams that have natural reproduction are limited in the amount of fish the stream can produce by the poor water quality. So to stop stocking every stream that has any natural reproduction isn't really the answer.

On the other side of that coin are streams with Class A sections. Even where the downstream portion of the stream may get too warm, if the other water parameters (pH, KH, ODO, TDS etc.) can support a Class A population, then no portion of that stream should be stocked. The simple argument in that case is that the only detrimental effect on the wild fish population in the stream is stocking and habitat. Why harm a stream like that?"

troutbert wrote:

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.

Troutbert I was primarily asking a question in response to Silverfox's above post. I am well aware of habitat playing an important role not only in providing better conditions for trout and other fishes to live but maybe more importantly a greater abundance and diversity of macroinvertebrates. There are obvious trends in certain water quality parameters, for example pH, temp, conductivity and alkalinity that correlate with wild trout populations but as you have said there are many other factors involved. I am not aware of any studies that correlate specific parameters as being a key factor in increasing biomass of trout.

 

[Swattie87]

pcray1231 wrote:

Frankly, I think the main difference between A, B, and C is habitat. i.e. all of them have fish where you expect fish to be. Just in A's, there's more of that per length of stream. As fisherman, we typically fish the better water and walk by the bad water anyway, so C's often fish as well as A's.

D's, it means, yeah, there's fish, but there's something wrong with it, and it ain't right. In my experience anyway.

This is largely my opinion too, especially when it comes to small forested freestoners. Unless there's something chemically wrong with the water, they CAN support a very high biomass of Trout. There's some small freestoners out there with limestoner like biomass numbers...100 kg/ha+. That's a lot of fish. Again, assuming good water quality, and no stocking, the limiting factor is nearly always habitat. Those big biomass small freestoners all have insanely good habitat.

I typically fish an average small freestoner at the pace of about a 1/2 mile/hr, or a mile every 2 hours. This is because you're walking between spots, and not fishing, a good bit of the time. Some of those primo habitat streams that have huge biomass you end up fishing much slower though, because there's much more good habitat spots to fish, and less walking in between them. There's a couple where it takes me 3 or 4 hours or more to fish a mile on, and I fish these streams pretty fast. A couple casts, no fish, move on to the next spot.

IMO how well a small wild Trout stream fishes from a practical standpoint is actually more closely tied to its habitat than its actual Trout biomass. My favorite small Trout streams in PA are "Class A" habitat streams - in my mind anyway, but not necessarily Class A biomass streams on the PFBC lists, if that makes sense.

 

[KenU]

It is amazing how good some freestones with low PFBC ratings can be. I have fished one fairly large freestone near home for many years. (Since I was a kid and that was a long time ago.) The PFBC quit stocking it back in the mid 80s because of acid rain problems. It gets pretty warm in the summer but the brookies seem to be able to find cool water somewhere as they are there on cool cloudy days, even in the summer. Keep in mind that fish swim. That’s how they survive when the water warms beyond their comfort level.
Here is my catch over the years 1996 to 2017 during which I fished it 18 times and recorded my catch. All were brookies. All were caught on flies with barbless hooks and released.
Sublegal - 185
7" or over – 105
9” to 10.5” - 22
After a particularly good day in mid-June 1998 I called Tom Greene to see what the PFBC classification for this stream was. He paused for a while and then told me it was a “Class D at best.”

 

[afishinado]

Think of the letter classification for streams as a snapshot in time when the stream was surveyed. Some streams are only surveyed once and others maybe only once in a decade or two.

Since the population of trout can change quite a bit depending on the year and time even time of year surveyed, the only thing one can infer from the classification is at the time it was surveyed it had a classification of "X".

Given that fact, it's best to use the wild trout natural reproduction listings or maps as a place to start exploring rather than a destination.

Only boots in the water can determine the the ability to access it to fish, fishablility of the stream, and the actual population of trout. All the above may change with the season as well as the past stream conditions such as a flood or drought or anchor ice, high predator populations, changes in farming practices, recent development, etc.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:

Is there an easily available source for anglers to find out which streams are which?

Define "easily". You can request the info from the PAFBC. I have a couple of counties worth of data broken down by A, B, C, D. The only ones you can get from public postings is the wild trout list (A, B, C, and D) and class A. So you can tell if A or "not A".

Frankly, I think the main difference between A, B, and C is habitat. i.e. all of them have fish where you expect fish to be. Just in A's, there's more of that per length of stream. As fisherman, we typically fish the better water and walk by the bad water anyway, so C's often fish as well as A's.

D's, it means, yeah, there's fish, but there's something wrong with it, and it ain't right. In my experience anyway.

I also agree for the most part. But stream chemistry certainly enters into this as well. I know that you know this, but I figured I'd add it. For example, Allegheny plateau (ANF) has lousy geology for the most part for trout streams. Very little buffering, so the streams are acidic and very infertile. You can have the best habitat in the world, but if it isn't fertile, it will not support much biomass over the entire food chain.

But as pat and others have said, if you know how to fish those streams, they can be very productive. They just require more walking.

 

[silverfox]

FarmerDave wrote:

pcray1231 wrote:

Is there an easily available source for anglers to find out which streams are which?

Define "easily". You can request the info from the PAFBC. I have a couple of counties worth of data broken down by A, B, C, D. The only ones you can get from public postings is the wild trout list (A, B, C, and D) and class A. So you can tell if A or "not A".

Frankly, I think the main difference between A, B, and C is habitat. i.e. all of them have fish where you expect fish to be. Just in A's, there's more of that per length of stream. As fisherman, we typically fish the better water and walk by the bad water anyway, so C's often fish as well as A's.

D's, it means, yeah, there's fish, but there's something wrong with it, and it ain't right. In my experience anyway.

I also agree for the most part. But stream chemistry certainly enters into this as well. I know that you know this, but I figured I'd add it. For example, Allegheny plateau (ANF) has lousy geology for the most part for trout streams. Very little buffering, so the streams are acidic and very infertile. You can have the best habitat in the world, but if it isn't fertile, it will not support much biomass over the entire food chain.

We've got the same situation on a fair number of streams down south too. Beautiful streams, excellent habitat, good year round flows, cold temperature year round, heavily forested and dead as a doornail. Mostly it's the lack of buffering from the quartzite formations. From playing with aquarium fish for years, nothing is worse for fish health than wild pH swings. Without the ability to buffer, the pH swings wildly with acid rain/snow.

This is another reason I think it's so important to do everything in our power to protect the streams that don't suffer from chemistry issues. Especially the best of the best/Class A streams. Short of lime dosing, a lot of streams are simply never going to harbor any significant number of wild trout, or any trout at all.

 

[KenU]

Trout in most mountain freestone streams are living on the edge of survival. That’s why they don’t get very big. Dumping a bunch of hatchery fish in over them has got to be a disaster and why stocking has such an effect. And these are typically the streams that we stock, simply because they can’t meet angler expectations. I saw this happen on the stream where I caught my first trout, a barely legal 6” brookie, when I was about 12. Stocking was resumed there about 10 years ago and it was a total disaster. Even the small brookies were decimated. This surprised me; I thought most of the sub-legal fish would survive, but they pretty much disappeared, too. Apparently stocking and the subsequent harvest removed a lot of the breeding sized brookies and the population collapsed. The unstocked upstream reaches above where it was stocked were recently designated Class A so the PFBC eliminated stocking in the whole reach above the reservoir that it feeds. We’ll see what happens.

 

[CRB]

KenU wrote:
Trout in most mountain freestone streams are living on the edge of survival. That’s why they don’t get very big. Dumping a bunch of hatchery fish in over them has got to be a disaster and why stocking has such an effect. And these are typically the streams that we stock, simply because they can’t meet angler expectations. I saw this happen on the stream where I caught my first trout, a barely legal 6” brookie, when I was about 12. Stocking was resumed there about 10 years ago and it was a total disaster. Even the small brookies were decimated. This surprised me; I thought most of the sub-legal fish would survive, but they pretty much disappeared, too. Apparently stocking and the subsequent harvest removed a lot of the breeding sized brookies and the population collapsed. The unstocked upstream reaches above where it was stocked were recently designated Class A so the PFBC eliminated stocking in the whole reach above the reservoir that it feeds. We’ll see what happens.

Perhaps that is the reason for 5 trout harvest daily from stocked streams.

I too would like to see the list of "wild trout streams" broken down in the classifications. This type of listing may give more support for habitat work.

How many of us on this thread practice catch and release? Stocked, Wild, Does not matter?
May be we are to blame too...

 

[PennKev]

pcray1231 wrote:
Define "easily". You can request the info from the PAFBC.

It should be as readily available as their other information on wild trout fishing. No requests, no phone calls, no email tag. We shoudl be able to just go online and download a PDF just like the currently available wild trout info.

 

[Mike]

There are no individual lists of B's, C's, and D's, at least none that I ever saw.

 

[pcray1231]

I have a spreadsheet of a couple NW PA counties which lists all streams (by section where appropriate) on the natural repro list, and a classification (A, B, C, or D).

I got it from a board member here, and it's possible he put it together himself based on info he was given by the PFBC.

Some of my favorites are C's, actually.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Given the age of some of the surveys, biomass data from the 80's and 90's may not be of the greatest relevance.

 

[pcray1231]

Truth

 

[RLeep2]

A long time ago, back when Marty Marcinko had the Cold Water Unit, I wheedled he and **** Snyder into doing a pull sort on the stocked stream sections list when they all had those four character identifiers to get me a list of the stocked B's. It was easy to do, just a sort on everything with a "B" in the right location in the section ID code. This had to be back in the mid to late 80's I'm guessing. It was a fun list to have, but of course became obsolete almost overnight.