Stocking small streams (in the existing program) that support wild trout

[Mike]

The impact of stocking a small stream, say 12-18 ft wide, that supports wild trout is not nearly what you may think it is, depending upon your line of thought. See the discussion of the small York Co stocked stream that is moving in the direction of Class A wild brown trout, for instance. Many of these streams receive a stocking rate that amounts to 300 trout per each two miles or so, which is a relatively low rate, and many are stocked one time per year. Additionally, there are a number of these streams that receive relatively low angler usage despite being stocked and, if trout residency is good post-stocking, most of the fish stay within 200 meters of where they were stocked. Given that there are typically only four stocking points or less on such streams, the vast majority of the wild trout present in all probability never interact with a stocked trout. Furthermore, most anglers fishing these streams know where the stocking points are located and don't seem to spread out too much. This results in much of these stream sections' lengths not seeing much angling pressure.

So, if I were an angler looking to fish for stocked trout and avoid other anglers opening day afternoon and beyond, these are the types of waters I would fish, especially if there are a fair number of wild trout present as well. The thing is, that is not what most anglers do, at least on the streams that I have seen that are only stocked one time per year. These streams typically see some initial pressure at the stocking points and near-by. Some anglers may spread out a bit on opening day, but generally speaking the fishing pressure drops off rapidly, possibly because anglers think the stream is fished out (even if they did not fish there on opening day) and possibly because many of these streams are not stocked inseason while other larger streams near-by continue to be stocked. Still, on some small streams, some die-hards (few , in my observation) persist.

There are those who wrestle with the idea of continuing to stock such waters, especially those with relatively low angler usage and those that are close to larger, more popular waters. One advantage to the stocking is that if such streams are entirely or substantially surrounded by private vs public land, private stretches in many cases are being kept open to public fishing by the stocking program through WCO or sportsmens club interactions with the landowners. If there are wild trout present, it means that a wild trout stream is being kept open to fishing as well. In a minority of cases, landowners threaten to post if the stream is not stocked!

And looking to the future, even if a stream remains unposted when stocking stops, there is a good probability that it will become posted when the existing landowner, who is used to seeing anglers, sells the property to one of the majority of individuals who are not used to fishing or fishermen.

I would add two things: it may be that some a sportsmen would favor continuing to stock over wild brown trout populations in the above circumstance, but not over wild brook trout populations, all other things being equal. Additionally, it might make a difference to some with respect to the stream's biomass classification or whether or not the stream is on public or private land. All worth thinking about......

 

[FarmerDave]

Mike, I highly respect your opinion and knowledge as a biologist, but I still have to throw the challenge flag on this one.

I say, it depends on the stream. You are comparing all of them to just one study on one York County that is moving in the direction of Class A.

I told this story before and for that I apologize, but since it doesn't involve bluegills, I feel it is safe to repeat.;-)

When I was in my teens I used to fish Toms Run in cook forest. It had native brook trout in most of it's length. I knew the stream well. I even did stream improvement on it as part of summer employment in 76. I worked there later years as well and I used to fish it after work, and occasionally even at lunch time. Most people thought it only had minnows, but some of us locals knew better.

This stream is a little high in acid, and also had been scoured flat from logging over 100 years ago.

I don't know what it tested at back then, but last I checked, you guys have it as a class D. Not a ton of trout, but the stream was improving on it's own. Plus, you go a couple miles up and it wasn't bad at all. Even still, brookies up to about 10 inches were not uncommon right down int eh center of the park.

Then in about 1978 give or take a couple years. DER and PFBC decided to "improve" things some more.

The first stocking was 50 brook trout but it was never publicized. Apparently it was an experiment. Actually it was likely the second stocking, but first in the in the park itself. I worked in the park that summer and didn't even know about it until I fished it that very same day, both before and after it was stocked (at lunch and after work). Purely coincidental.

At lunch time I caught a very nice 9 or 10 inch beauty which was my best up to that point. I didn't measure of photograph, but the picture is still in my mind. I also had another take, so I decided to hit the same spot after work. this time all I caught were cookie cutter brook trout. I asked around and that is when I heard about the 50. I wished I had kept them all and should have done my best to fish them all out because apparently you guys were happy with the results. They stocked the living shat out of that crick apparently to get more tourist dollars. It worked. This stream has a road that parallels it for a few miles and they use it for stocking. The stream gets trampled to death by thousands of happy stringer draggers each year. To this day, one would be hard pressed to catch a single native trout in there anywhere along where it is stocked. I don't know for sure because the last time I fished it was likely 30+ years.

Don't get me wrong, it sucks for me, but it is a great stocked fishery and it makes economic sense to stock the living crap out of it. But saying stocking over wild populations has very little effect on the wild fish is just plain false on that crick.

And by the way, the type of stream that you mentioned is the type of stream I often seek out for opening day, and I don't appreciate the spot burn. :lol:

Edit: My response was before I read the last paragraph that you added. Amazing how it fit right in.

 

[pcray1231]

Agreed,

I think Mike is right more often than not. And I agree on the side impacts, such as keeping private lands open. I'd rather have a stocked fishery open to the public than a wild one which is not.

But at the same time, every single stream is a unique situation. And it's disengenuous for EITHER side of this argument to use a single example to try to prove a broader point. I do believe there are examples which support either viewpoint. But findings from one stream should perhaps not be applied to another.

 

[geebee]

I understand the point - but have a question, if you want to stock to keep the water open, why not stock with fingerling brook trout from the same genetic brood stock rather than brown trout ?

 

[FarmerDave]

geebee wrote:
I understand the point - but have a question, if you want to stock to keep the water open, why not stock with fingerling brook trout from the same genetic brood stock rather than brown trout ?

Wow, we could write a book on that, but I'll try ot keep it short.

1. What if owner want adult fish, right now?
2. Raising fingerling brook trout from same genetic brood stock is not feasible for several reasons.
a. wild strain has low survival in a hatchery environment
b. Would require lots more, but smaller hatcheries,
c. etc...

Don't get me wrong, I think this is a really good idea if it were feasible, but it isn't unless it is for just one specific and famous stream.

IMO, we should only be stocking brook trout in streams where other trout simply wouldn't survive, for example, half the streams in the ANF. Why much up the gene pool in a given stream with hatchery brood which likely lacks genetic diversity.

I think I will stop there.

Some day we will see land owners threatening to post if they don't stop stocking over the wild fish.

Edit: I also want to add something that I left out of my earlier to Mike. I also think Mike's example is applicable to some extent in most cases (as Pat said). I can think of a few of those, too.

 

[Mike]

Why be so literal? The York Co stream was just an example and it is rather well spelled out. I have neither the time or inclination to give you an all inclusive list, but I can assure you that a list could be made of past and present waters. So, if it depends on the stream, you apparently find some cases where continued stocking would be acceptable and others where it would not. That is a bit of a surprise. What criteria would you use?

Frankly, I am surprised that the immediate response was not
"Don't stock any of them."

 

[troutbert]

If you need to stock some trout to keep the landowner allowing fishing, that's one thing.

But the argument of continuing stocking over wild trout in order to keep the landowner happy so that they don't post does not apply to streams on public lands such as the state forests, gamelands, Allegheny National Forest etc.

And IMHO, anglers who understand the issue should continue to advocate ending of stocking over wild trout in these streams. And those within the agencies who are able to help on this issue should do what they can.

In these streams the population being stocked over is often all or mostly brook trout, and in other cases mixed brown and brook trout.

There is no biological justification for doing this. Anyone who studies fisheries in a decent university will be taught that this should not be done, because it harms wild trout populations.

Many in the PFBC would prefer to end stocking these streams. And many in the land agencies would prefer that also. I know of cases where DCNR people have asked that some streams be taken off the stocking list.

But it continues because some state legislators are very active and aggressive in keeping these streams stocked. They essentially bully the PFBC to keep stocking them, by making various threats to fire people and get rid of the PFBC, by combining it with the PGC, or combining it with DCNR, as is done in other states.

The legislators are in turn influenced by those sportsmen who want those small streams stocked, and will not be satisfied to fish for those same hatchery fish in a larger stream 15 minutes drive away.

So, that is the situation. You have one side advocating for stocking those small wild trout streams. And the other side advocating for moving the stocking off the small wild trout streams and stocking those fish in larger waters, that do not support wild trout. The PFBC is caught in the middle.

Neither advocacy for continuing to put hatchery fish in those little native brook trout streams or advocacy for moving those fish to larger streams is "anti-PFBC." The reason I mention that is because it is often portrayed that way.

Advocating ending stocking on these wild trout streams actually SUPPORTS those in the PFBC and other agencies who would prefer to shift the stocked trout currently stocked in these small wild trout streams over to larger waters.

In 2003 the PFBC announced that they were going end stocking on many sections of Class B streams, around 62 sections or so. Most of them went back on the stocking list, because of pressure from state legislators.

By advocating that those streams be taken off the stocking list, we are SUPPORTING those PFBC biologists and managers who are trying to "do the right thing," and put their education to use for the betterment of trout populations.

I've seen cases where they have ended stocking on some of these freestone wild trout streams, and it WORKS. The population improves. In particular, you see more decent sized brookies. They aren't cropped off so hard.

But it also works on the freestoners that are dominated by brown trout. I won't mention stream names, so as not to spot burn. But the PFBC has the data from stream surveys. They know this.

They simply are not at liberty to use "best management practices" all the time, because if they did, the legislators who throw them out in the street.

 

[Mike]

geebee,
fingerling stockings have rarely been successful in Pa.

 

[Mike]

Troutbert,
Thank you for that commentary involving the public waters side of the equation.

For those of you who attended the trout symposium years ago, you'll recall that I said in my presentation that special regs were not the way to improve wild brook trout populations in Pa; rather, terminating the stocking over wild brook trout would have a much better chance of success. That was if you were choosing between the two. Obviously, cooling the waters would be even better, but I was speaking of a more immediate response than a decade or two for riparian vegetation to grow to the point of shading the streams.

note: my op was primarily was aimed at streams that are in private or substantially private ownership.

 

[Mike]

Farmer Dave,
I would have just gone up the road to Tubbs Rn or E Hickory. I forget which one it was, but back about the time that you discussed I surveyed one or both of those streams and despite being stocked, the sizes if the wild ST were impressive. I forget if we were above the stocked area or within it at the time, but given the type of survey we were involved with at that time, I believe we were in the stocked stretch.

 

[Chaz]

Maybe if the WCO did a little leg work before stocking those streams was halted the landowners would leave the streams open when stocking was halted. It never hurts to try, but oftentimes the WCO's are on the side of stocking. All the data tells us otherwise, that stocking over wild trout is harmful of the wild trout populations. PFBC guys even agreed in the article that recently appeared in PA. Outdoor News.

IMHO, there is no reason to stock trout over wild brook trout populations, especially when the stocked trout put in aren't even from local streams. Wild Trout populations are fragile, though not as fragile as some anglers think they are, they do withstand some pressure, but not the kind of pressure seen on opening day.

Recently I counted at least 12 anglers on WB Perkiomen Creek fishing the open water and this stream isn't even stocked. It leads me to believe opening day pressure is high on many streams that have wild fish and are stocked. I've seen examples of that all over NC PA.

 

[FarmerDave]

Mike wrote:
Farmer Dave,
I would have just gone up the road to Tubbs Rn or E Hickory. I forget which one it was, but back about the time that you discussed I surveyed one or both of those streams and despite being stocked, the sizes if the wild ST were impressive. I forget if we were above the stocked area or within it at the time, but given the type of survey we were involved with at that time, I believe we were in the stocked stretch.

As far as tubbs run goes, I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't appreciate you mentioning that one because it isn't as publicized as some. But since you already did... Back then I believe it was only stocked in the small dams down where the parking area is. People would stop and gawk at and feed the pigs. So, if you tested it and found natives in the stocked part, I would be surprised, but remember, it was also illegal to fish in those stretches.

I think later there was a YCC project or something like (stream improvements) that and it is now open to fishing. Not sure. Only did a drive by the last time I was there.

E-Hickory was stocked, but it was and is special regs which would fit your example, but not mine. Toms Run gets beat to death as do several of the smaller freestone streams in that part of the state. Besides, I'll start fishing special regulations streams the day I start feeling "special."

I seem to have annoyed you by disagreeing. Please consider that I did it in a very respectful way and even added that your summation fits in most instances in another thread. However, one of my pet peeves with the PFBC is the over-generalization. The stream class system for example. You apply the same rules in Forest County which is devoid of class A as you do in center county. No stocking to class A statewide. Rest are fair game for the bucket brigade. What about those areas where Class A are extremely rare, like pretty much all of Western PA. In NWPA, you stock the crap out of just about anything over 6 feet wide that has access. If class B or even C is the best in the area, then why not leave one or two of them alone? It's a big damn state, why not regionalize that. Yu regionalize other things such as opening day. Yea, I know, public pressure won't allow it.

And another thing, why is it almost always about brown trout?

Your example has a low stock rate. That's fine. I'll agree again that low stock rate doesn't harm the wild brown population in a York county stream. It likely wouldn't hurt the native brookie population in the average native brookie stream either. But the reason is that the freezer fillers aren't going to hit the smaller streams that only get 300 fish. But I also know of a few other streams that get hammered pretty good. I'm not going to name them and you probably know of some too. Although these cases are the minority, you aren't going to convince me that this does not hurt the native population.

It wouldn't bother me a bit if you guys only stocked the lakes and the larger streams like Tionesta and Oil Creek which warm up anyway. But I know that the vocal public and TAPs wouldn't stand for it.

Sure these are selfish reasons. So what? We are just BSing.

 

[streamerguy]

Mike wrote:
if trout residency is good post-stocking, most of the fish stay within 200 meters of where they were stocked. Given that there are typically only four stocking points or less on such streams, the vast majority of the wild trout present in all probability never interact with a stocked trout.

As with most of the people on here, I don't like the act of stocking trout in ANY stream that supports wild trout, but at the same time I also kinda agree with your quote.

Regarding the really tiny streams, most of the stocked trout I see tend to stay in the big holes where they were stocked in and I find it pretty easy to lose most of the stockies sometimes even if you just simply walk "around the bend." Of course, the stocked fish will be taking up space and food in those bigger easy access holes, but for the most part I don't think the stockies have a huge impact on the total wild trout population on these streams, unless the pressure they may bring impacts the stream. I still don't agree with stocking these types of streams, but the impact not be as great as we think it is.

One of the problems I see with stocking fingerlings on small streams is since they are smaller they are able to squeeze into the small holding lies where most of the wild fish would normally be located. The bigger fish won't fit into those holes, or simply just won't go in them.

Plus I believe the fingerlings travel more. Last spring I caught a small stocked fingerling out of a Class A that waaaay downstream flows into a stream on the fingerling program.

 

[k-bob]

OP simply states that "The impact of stocking a small stream, say 12-18 ft wide, that supports wild trout is not nearly what you may think it is, depending upon your line of thought." (italics added)

so Mike said that the effect of stocking a small stream with wilds may not be as great as is sometimes assumed or stated.

TB: "There is no biological justification for doing this. Anyone who studies fisheries in a decent university will be taught that this should not be done, because it harms wild trout populations."

OP doesn't say that there is no harm/effect of stocking on wilds. he simply said that the effect may not be as great as some people think it is. so, the effect may be a medium size effect on wilds when people expect a large effect. or, it may be a small effect when people expect a medium size effect.

he simply said that the effect may be overestimated, and as a biologist he's probably in a good position to consider this. he also pointed out that there are sometimes other issues involved, such as access.

thanks Mike for posting here, as always.

 

[Eccles]

Mike,
I feel that there seems to be both an 'aesthetic', for want of a better word, reason for not liking stocked fish, especially over wild fish, and then there are more fundamental measures of whether it has any biological impact.

You mentioned that stocking density was quite low in your example but isn't the relative stocking density more the issue. If its 300 stocked fish per 2 miles or so (not withstanding you point about the stocked fish staying in one place which I agree with if stream conditions are stable) does that mean the density is less of the wild fish density, the same as the wild fish density, or higher? Is there a measure or a rule of thumb that you use?

I think this aspect is important because aside from the direct competition for food between stocked and wild (which has never really been shown to impact on wild fish where stocked and wild are the same species) the real scale of impact is whether there is introgression of stocked fish genes into the wild established population. So I 'd much rather know things like what the overwintering survival of your stocked fish is, whether PFBC has done any genotyping studies to see if the YOY have any stocked parentage (assuming you are using a heavily selected line for stocking) and other factors along those lines. If you have the data to show that stocking at the levels you report doesn't impact on any of these fundamental measures it can only be a good thing. Right? The argument then really does revert to access etc.

The same would apply to stocking over brook trout - though as I am not as familiar with the system as most here on the board so it is not clear if we are talking about browns of brookies or brookies on top of brookies. If the latter the same points apply. If the former there is clearly no introgression but the line of stocked fish and its ability to overwinter and establish still needs to be considered. You'd want to be stocking with a very heavily selected multi generation hatchery line to ensure they didn't survive, don't establish and don't then start competing with the wild brook trout and repeating a story we've all seen or heard about before.

Or have I got the wrong end of the stick?

Eccles

 

[PennKev]

Eccles wrote:
You mentioned that stocking density was quite low in your example but isn't the relative stocking density more the issue. If its 300 stocked fish per 2 miles or so (not withstanding you point about the stocked fish staying in one place which I agree with if stream conditions are stable) does that mean the density is less of the wild fish density, the same as the wild fish density, or higher? Is there a measure or a rule of thumb that you use?

I agree. Stocking density is relative. It is relative not just to just to the wild population of trout but also to the available habitat. 300 fish per mile may be low stocking density in a wide, fairly deep stream, but 300 adult ~10" trout seems like a lot for a 10-15' wide (or smaller) stream that may largely be shallow riffles that don't hold many fish.

The fish per mile method of stating stocking numbers is lacking as it does not differentiate between large creeks and small creeks. Surface area would be a better way of stating trout allocations. After all, doesn't the PAFBC state wild trout populations in trout per acre or hectare? Granted, surface area is not a perfect way to quantify and compare trout populations (wild or stocked), but at least it overcomes some of the problems with comparing small and large streams.

Kev

 

[Maurice]

I'd give a thumbs up on preseason only stocking of low density, contrasting species on small streams (12-15 ft wide). Mikes example stream in YC demonstrates the result of reduced stocking while not eliminating it. These small streams have small wild trout. Even left alone they rarely reach 12" although sometimes you get a lunker of 14".

The fact of the matter is that as Mike claims the pressure is concentrated within the stocking range "holes" and the pressure tapers quickly. Soon after there is literally nobody fishing them and after summer practically no stocked trout left. While the wild trout reign free in the stream.

Are there some wild trout casualties during the early season pressure? I am sure there is but I will trade that for the ability to go there on a summer or early fall day and plunk a dozen fish from 6"-12" while not seeing another angler.

The trend of "losing" these streams to no stocking is occurring anyway through attrition. I think there are bigger fish to fry than fighting over a handful of small wild brown trout when the stream can provide early season anglers some enjoyment and fulfill the tradition of "trout season" in rural counties.

The truth of the matter is that we are in a trend of improving wild trout populations through improved conservation practices, land use and riparian forestation. Mikes point is that these wild brown trout are winning despite the stocking.

Personally I believe it has more to do with the shrinking angling population and the encouragement or choice of C&R over the hassle of carrying a stringer of trout around.

But thats not to say that it doesn't hurt a little to see someone dragging a red spotted 13" brown trout around.

Oh, and for Eccles... 20 years ago there were no wild trout so I am not sure the argument of breeding of wild and stocked has much merit since the population likely came from hatchery stock over the last 20 years.

 

[Mike]

Kev:
Yes, trout are stocked on a per acre basis in Pa., but to integrate the trout residency aspect (distance trout move) and explain the number of stocking points involved, it was necessary to use a stocked trout per linear distance description. That would not have worked very well if I had used a trout per acre description. I also described the widths of the streams that I was discussing so that the acreage could be calculated or the streams pictured in the readers' minds' eyes if desired. Sometimes I have to sacrifice technicalities for clarity.

 

[Mike]

Eccles,

Densities of wild fish do not factor into stocking rates in Pa streams. Biomass does, however. Class B streams that have been grandfathered in the stocking program (no B's may be added to the program) receive a relatively low stocking rate and are stocked one time per year. Biomass Class C and D streams are stocked independently of wild trout densities, with their stocking rates based largely on social factors and stream width.

PFBC brown trout will reproduce in the wild and have done so repeatedly when and where conditions are favorable. I can't say that I have found any evidence of successful modern day stocked brook trout reproduction in Pa. There is certainly more awareness of brown trout impacts on brook trout populations than in the past and some species mixes involved in individual stream stockings have changed in part over the years with this in mind. For various reasons, more and more RT are being stocked instead of BT and ST, and rarely do RT that reproduce in Pa produce a fishable population. Densities are very, very low except in a few streams. Finally, with respect to genetic impacts of ST on ST, I recall having read paper(s) quite a while ago from studie(s) in Pa and other adjacent states that have, as I recall, found no genetic mixing, but I am waiting for another more recent study to be published.

 

[Eccles]

Maurice
I take your point. "Wild" have stocked origins but I assume that they are designated "wild" because they have formed self-sustaining populations which have lasted for a number of years. As such they represent the winners of those original stockings, those individuals with the best adaptations and their subsequent offspring are increasingly well adapted to their particular stream. So my point, perhaps badly put originally, is that newly stocked fish might (depending on.. depending on .. etc etc) dilute all those good adaptions made in the resident, wild population.

Mike,
Thanks for that reply. And fair enough biomass is a standard measure. The move to RT is simply because they are a bit crap then - unlikely to interfere with any standing population or create one themselves presumably. PFBC never done anything with triploids?

Yes, my reading suggest genetic introgression highly dependent on place and also on the hatchery line stocked - the fewer generations from wild the more likely introgression will happen. But also density/biomass is important as you can force introgression by dumping in a ton of trout - some make it through.

I'll obviously have to get a clearer idea of what everyone means by wild population though.