Those brook trout "fry" stockings 1891 to 1902

[pcray1231]

But even if many did survive, I doubt it would have made much of a genetic difference as long as there was still some of the old strains still there. Nature sorts out what genetics works best.

In regards to genetic "purity" of today's wild brookies.

1. It's a fair bet that, before white men, a genetically unique strain existed in nearly every separate drainage. And I'm not just talking Allegheny vs. Susquehanna vs. D. I'm saying Pine Creek fish would have been distinct from Kettle Creek Fish and from Little Pine Creek fish. As you break it down to smaller and smaller streams in the same watershed, differences would have been lesser, but still there. Whether they are different "strains" depends purely on where you draw the line of being a separate "strain". Populations nearer to one another would be more similar but still pretty distinct.

2. The impact of these stockies would not have been to eliminate wild trout DNA's. But their DNA may have combined. i.e. each strain still unique, but different than it was before white men. Probably can't prove it even with DNA testing, as you don't have a sample of "before" to compare it to. i.e. if you test and find the strain is still unique, that doesn't mean it's the same as it once was, merely still unique.

3. Aside from stocking. Human influence has certainly damaged populations. The logging boom, as well as other forms of human influence. If a stream gets wiped out and then recovers, seeded from nearby stock from another stream, THEN you lose some or all of your uniqueness. i.e. there were always a handful of Cedar Run fish that made it through Pine and went up Slate Run. With a healthy Slate Run population, their genetic influence on the Slate Run population is minor. But if Slate Run population had previously been wiped out, those Cedar Run fish seeded the entire new population. If Slate hadn't completely wiped out but was down to just a few fish remaining, those Cedar fish still have a much larger influence than they would have otherwise.

A full study of the degree of uniqueness of DNA in different streams could, theoretically speaking, tell you many things. If, say, there's still a large genetic difference between Slate and Cedar populations, that tells you that those populations likely never really died out, and streams weren't wiped out even on a small scale. If, on the other hand, pretty much all the fish in the Pine drainage are similar, but different than those elsewhere in the W. Br. drainage, then that tells you that individual small streams may have been wiped out but whole drainages never were. If all fish in the Susquehanna drainage are similar, then that tells you that entire regions were likely driven to the brink of extinction, and reseeded completely by a select few isolated holdouts.

 

[franklin]

Doing some studying of the logging area in central PA, Union/Centre/Snyder in particular. Those mountains were completely denuded and the streams silted in and clogged with wood chips and bark. Trout just simply didn't survive in many of those watersheds. (I have pictures and you would hardly believe a large mountain with a single tree for miles.)

Both my grandfathers were sportsmen, both born in the 1880s. They relayed stories to me of fishless streams and work to re-populate. (Same was true with small game such as grouse and turkey.) One told of placing fish in Penns from the train and also White Deer Creek (which was also decimated) from the train that ran from the town of White Deer up to Loganton. The stories they relayed were probably closer to 1910 but not uncommon in heavily logged areas.

I know the woodland I own which was bought by my family in the early 1900s has a stream that took many years to recover but does not hold trout due to a small mill dam from the mid 1800s which keeps trout from moving up into this prime stream. (The land was the lower edge of a large tract logged in 1887. The bulk of the tract is now part of BESF.)

I suspect similar impacts occurred in other areas of the state which were heavily logged. I question if native trout survived in those areas.

 

[afishinado]

franklin wrote:
Doing some studying of the logging area in central PA, Union/Centre/Snyder in particular. Those mountains were completely denuded and the streams silted in and clogged with wood chips and bark. Trout just simply didn't survive in many of those watersheds. (I have pictures and you would hardly believe a large mountain with a single tree for miles.)

Both my grandfathers were sportsmen, both born in the 1880s. They relayed stories to me of fishless streams and work to re-populate. (Same was true with small game such as grouse and turkey.) One told of placing fish in Penns from the train and also White Deer Creek (which was also decimated) from the train that ran from the town of White Deer up to Loganton. The stories they relayed were probably closer to 1910 but not uncommon in heavily logged areas.

I know the woodland I own which was bought by my family in the early 1900s has a stream that took many years to recover but does not hold trout due to a small mill dam from the mid 1800s which keeps trout from moving up into this prime stream. (The land was the lower edge of a large tract logged in 1887. The bulk of the tract is now part of BESF.)

I suspect similar impacts occurred in other areas of the state which were heavily logged. I question if native trout survived in those areas.

Interesting stories from way back in the day. Post some of the pics if you can.

I wonder if the train traveled through the Poe Paddy Tunnel.

BTW, it's officially opened: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/stateforests/baldeagle/

 

[salmonoid]

franklin wrote:
Doing some studying of the logging area in central PA, Union/Centre/Snyder in particular. Those mountains were completely denuded and the streams silted in and clogged with wood chips and bark. Trout just simply didn't survive in many of those watersheds. (I have pictures and you would hardly believe a large mountain with a single tree for miles.)

Both my grandfathers were sportsmen, both born in the 1880s. They relayed stories to me of fishless streams and work to re-populate. (Same was true with small game such as grouse and turkey.) One told of placing fish in Penns from the train and also White Deer Creek (which was also decimated) from the train that ran from the town of White Deer up to Loganton. The stories they relayed were probably closer to 1910 but not uncommon in heavily logged areas.

I know the woodland I own which was bought by my family in the early 1900s has a stream that took many years to recover but does not hold trout due to a small mill dam from the mid 1800s which keeps trout from moving up into this prime stream. (The land was the lower edge of a large tract logged in 1887. The bulk of the tract is now part of BESF.)

I suspect similar impacts occurred in other areas of the state which were heavily logged. I question if native trout survived in those areas.

Stocked trout would struggle in the same water that the natives were extirpated from, until the habitat improved, and trees started to grow again. It may be that very few of the initial reintroduction attempts succeeded and that a lag time of 20-30 years was needed for a population to be re-established. It's not an experiment I would want to create but it would be interesting to study a large watershed that had been denuded of trees and document how the fluvial system responds, from a hydrologic and biological perspective.

 

[troutbert]

Where are you getting this idea that the brook trout were extirpated?

Are there historical accounts, books, etc. that back this up?

Mike, do Fish Commission records back this up this theory?

 

[franklin]

afishinado wrote:


Interesting stories from way back in the day. Post some of the pics if you can.

I wonder if the train traveled through the Poe Paddy Tunnel.

BTW, it's officially opened: http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/forestry/stateforests/baldeagle/

Yes the train traveled through the Poe Paddy tunnel on those trips.

A bit later one of my grandfathers was a friend and fishing buddy with Raymond Winter and often took the train to his place along Penns which still stands in the PFBC land above Cherry Springs. As a side note Winter's wife taught in Mifflinburg and had my mother as a student. Also another teacher rode the train in to the school each day as he lived in one of the cabins by the tunnel tressel.

 

[franklin]

troutbert wrote:
Where are you getting this idea that the brook trout were extirpated?

Are there historical accounts, books, etc. that back this up?

Mike, do Fish Commission records back this up this theory?

From accounts handed down from family. Also from study I've been doing on area logging. White Deer Creek, Buffalo Creek in Union, most of the drainages to Penns such a Weikert Creek, large parts of Penns.

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:
Where are you getting this idea that the brook trout were extirpated?

Are there historical accounts, books, etc. that back this up?

Mike, do Fish Commission records back this up this theory?

In some streams they were....

Below is a good summary of what went on in PA around the turn of the last century, which shaped what we have today in our PA streams:

By the late 1800 to early 1900s, almost all areas of Pennsylvania had been cut at least once. Forest cutting up to this time was not really managed with sustainability in mind. Environmental effects were not considered. The effect of logging on streams and rivers was not even considered. Loggers would move on to a new area once the trees were cut. The result was that our stream and river habitats were degraded. So was the water quality. Without trees for shade, water temperatures rose. The higher temperatures became too stressful for brook trout. There was no vegetation to hold the soil. Erosion washed silt into prime spawning habitat. The silt covered the gravel and made it impossible for brook trout to reproduce. The aquatic insects that brook trout feed on could not survive. Shelter in the form of tree roots was lost. The result was that native brook trout populations were depleted from much of their original range.

Depleted fish populations brought about concern. The aristocracy of the New World enjoyed sport fishing, but there were no fish! Their solution to the problem was to stock new fish. There was little thought about restoring or improving habitat. They believed that stocking fish would bring back good populations. It also gave them an opportunity to duplicate the species that they once caught in their homeland -- Europe. So they brought in carp during the mid-1800s. Smallmouth bass were introduced from the Potomac River. They were released into the Delaware and Susquehanna rivers during the 1870s. Brown trout from Europe were introduced in the late 1800s. Rainbow trout were eventually transferred from western North America to the East Coast. Brown, rainbow and brook trout were raised in hatcheries and then released into the wild.

Little did they know that they were providing a source of competition for the native brook trout. When they co-exist in the same habitat, brown trout compete with brook trout for resources.

http://fishandboat.com/anglerboater/2000/marap00/habtrout.htm

Brown Trout in Pennsylvania
The first brown trout ( Salmo trutta) arrived in North America in 1883 with the shipment of 80,000 eggs
that arrived at Cold Spring Harbor on Long Island New York, some of these eggs were then sent to
Caledonia New York, the rest were sent to the US fish Commission. These eggs along with subsequent
shipments of eggs became the brood stock from which many wild populations in North America have
been established.
The first brown trout to come to Pennsylvania arrived in 1886 and were soon stocked in hundreds of
streams that formerly had native populations of brook trout ( Salvelinus fontinalis) . Brown trout quickly
filled the niche in streams where brook trout had been extirpated or where numbers were reduced by
logging, farming, dams, or industrial discharges.
By 1900 nearly all of the primeval forests were logged at least once causing warming and siltation of
trout streams many times all the way into the headwaters. Where brook trout weren’t completely
eliminated they have coexisted with brown trout for over 100 years. The resulting fisheries give
Pennsylvania some of the most varied and most challenging trout fishing anywhere.
Generally brown trout prefer warmer water temperatures than brook trout, allowing browns to
establish populations in a somewhat warmer environment. In particular brown trout do well in our
limestone streams even though brook trout evolved there. Because brown trout are more aggressive in
establishing territories and feeding lies they always grow larger and move brook trout to the less
preferred lies when to 2 species live in the same streams. For this reason brown trout for many anglers
have become the preferred quarry.

http://www.patrout.org/docs/reference-materials/brown_trout.pdf?sfvrsn=2

http://www.patrout.org/docs/reference-materials/easternbrooktroutrestorationroadmap.pdf?sfvrsn=2

 

[pcray1231]

White Deer Creek, Buffalo Creek in Union, most of the drainages to Penns such a Weikert Creek, large parts of Penns.

Really, most of the northern tier of PA. And they did wholesale sections. After a logging, there would be miles and miles without as much as a single tree. So it's not as if this stream is impacted and this other nearby stream isn't, then while the first recovers the next one up gets hit. Entire regions were completely deforested and only a few very small patches were missed.

Really the entire northern tier of PA was completely deforested in a total of about a 30 year time frame. Pretty amazing.

The Allegheny National Forest was a joke when it was bought. Just a bunch of brush and weeds, no woods at all. They called it the Allegheny National Brushpile. Of course, it regrew. But even today you look at it, and all of the mature trees are of the same age, aside from a few small pockets that were logged more recently.

The logging boom started in about 1870 in NE PA and moved steadily west. The end came not out of choice, but because they ran out of trees. This was around 1930 (the end of the boom).

It is notable, that along the northern tier, the original forest was primarily pine, not hardwood. The current domination of hardwoods is due to the logging. Hardwoods are the first to grow back.

 

[pcray1231]

A few pics, available on google.

 

[salmonoid]

troutbert wrote:
Where are you getting this idea that the brook trout were extirpated?

Are there historical accounts, books, etc. that back this up?

Mike, do Fish Commission records back this up this theory?

EBTJV states that currently brook trout are extirpated from 34% of their historical range in PA and greatly reduced in up to 70%. That's today, when I think we have an overall awareness of the impacts of our activities on the land. So for areas that were clear cut (and then often caught fire and burned), I don't think it is a stretch to say that the brook trout was extirpated in those areas. Note that not all the state was cut in the same manner, nor at the same time, so I am envisioning a rolling period of tens of years where at best, populations were severely depressed. Think, for instance, about the amount of sediment released into the stream. If the spawning gravel is completely covered, in three years, your population is gone, even if the fish are not subject to increased predation, temperature stress, etc. And those stressors would be up as well.

But it is really hard to confirm any of that, because PFBC and it's predecessor released so many brookies, the brown came on the scene, and, well, fish being fish, they tend to swim from place to place. If you have historical records that show that brookie populations remained strong in areas that were clear cut and burned, i'd like to read them

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:

White Deer Creek, Buffalo Creek in Union, most of the drainages to Penns such a Weikert Creek, large parts of Penns.

Really, most of the northern tier of PA. And they did wholesale sections. After a logging, there would be miles and miles without as much as a single tree. So it's not as if this stream is impacted and this other nearby stream isn't, then while the first recovers the next one up gets hit. Entire regions were completely deforested and only a few very small patches were missed.

Really the entire northern tier of PA was completely deforested in a total of about a 30 year time frame. Pretty amazing.

The Allegheny National Forest was a joke when it was bought. Just a bunch of brush and weeds, no woods at all. They called it the Allegheny National Brushpile. Of course, it regrew. But even today you look at it, and all of the mature trees are of the same age, aside from a few small pockets that were logged more recently.

The logging boom started in about 1870 in NE PA and moved steadily west. The end came not out of choice, but because they ran out of trees. This was around 1930 (the end of the boom).

It is notable, that along the northern tier, the original forest was primarily pine, not hardwood. The current domination of hardwoods is due to the logging. Hardwoods are the first to grow back.

Pat is right on the money on this, cept it was the Allegheny Brush PATCH, not Pile. LOL!

Seriously, when the ANF was created, it had already been completely deforested with the exception of one or two very tiny pockets.

It is not a stretch to assume that brook trout were extirpated in at least some of those streams, so I don't know what the beef is there.

But as long as some remnants of the original populations survived in some of the streams or even in tiny springs and rivulets, it isn't all that important if fry from native populations in other streams were relocated because Mother Nature will sort out what genetic traits are best for a given location.

Will it be slightly different genetics from the original?

Probably. So?

And we didn't even talk about strip mining extirpating populations from some streams. Many of which to this day still have no trout. But I know of a few isolated populations, completely isolated by dead stream downstream. The likelyhood of those being pure unadulterated original genetics to that stream are likely pretty darn good.

So?

Relax Pat, I think this agrees with what you said in previous as well. I just didn't see a point or purpose in the Troutbert question in the first place.

Edit: Apparently the number of old growth pockets in the ANF is only 1, and it covers only 20 acres of the 802 square mile national forest.

 

[salmonoid]

FarmerDave wrote:

Edit: Apparently the number of old growth pockets in the ANF is only 1, and it covers only 20 acres of the 802 square mile national forest.

Let me spot burn that:

Fascinating, in that it shows the end of the line at Hearts Content, and the railroad is so lightly built.

 

[FarmerDave]

I don't think I have ever been there. Maybe once. But you seen one old growth forest, you seen them all. :lol:

Interesting that it was actually owned and protected by a lumber company for several decades and eventually donated to US Forest service. They probably made enough money on the surrounding 100+ acres also donated, but interesting they would set aside some.

 

[pete41]

Have you seen the one in Vancouver B.C. ?

 

[FarmerDave]

pete41 wrote:
Have you seen the one in Vancouver B.C. ?

No, but sure would like to. Bucket list material.

Please note the laughing face after my "seen one seen them all" comment. It was meant to convey that I wasn't being ... not serious.

And as additional note, there are apparently only about 20 "patches" of virgin forest left in PA, and the only reason they exist today is likely due to inaccessibility, or boundary disputes.

 

[pete41]

FarmerDave wrote:

pete41 wrote:
Have you seen the one in Vancouver B.C. ?

No, and please note the laughing face after my seen one seen them all comment. It was meant to convey that I wasn't being serious.

And as additional note, there are apparently only about 20 "patches" of virgin forest left in PA.

and if this wasn't a family show we could have fun with that--
the one I mentioned is worth seeing , makes you feel like you are back in dino's day.

 

[FarmerDave]

pete41 wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:

pete41 wrote:
Have you seen the one in Vancouver B.C. ?

No, and please note the laughing face after my seen one seen them all comment. It was meant to convey that I wasn't being serious.

And as additional note, there are apparently only about 20 "patches" of virgin forest left in PA.

and if this wasn't a family show we could have fun with that--
the one I mentioned is worth seeing , makes you feel like you are back in dino's day.

You mean like ... Old growth + virgin = Damned ugly?

Anyway, I edited my previous after you replied.

Vancouver BC rain forest is bucket list material for me.

I haven't seen the redwoods yet, either.

 

[pete41]

FarmerDave wrote:

pete41 wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:

pete41 wrote:
Have you seen the one in Vancouver B.C. ?

No, and please note the laughing face after my seen one seen them all comment. It was meant to convey that I wasn't being serious.

And as additional note, there are apparently only about 20 "patches" of virgin forest left in PA.

and if this wasn't a family show we could have fun with that--
the one I mentioned is worth seeing , makes you feel like you are back in dino's day.

You mean like ... Old growth + virgin = Damned ugly?

Anyway, I edited my previous after you replied.

Vancouver BC rain forest is bucket list material for me.

I haven't seen the redwoods yet, either.

The most beautiful city in North America bar none-go in the summer-I wanted to move there when I won[if] the lottery.

 

[franklin]

In the early part of the logging boom aside from completely de-nuding a mountain they used splash dams to move the logs to the mill. White Deer is a good example. After clear cutting an area they piled the logs at spots along the stream and built dams. Once the spring runoff was at it's peak they broke each dam in succession and washed the logs down stream. Along White Deer today there are remnants of these dams. This action scoured the stream bed further destroying insect, reptile, and small fish life that was critical to survival of game fish.