Those brook trout "fry" stockings 1891 to 1902

[pcray1231]

A lot of people question how horrible the old days were, environmentally speaking, because it goes against the position that things are getting worse.

Are there problems today? Sure. Of course. But they pale in comparison to what happened previously. The sum of all factors is positive, things are getting better, not worse for our streams.

I am not saying that means to cover your eyes and do nothing for our streams. It's just perspective, that's all.

 

[RLeep2]

I'm going to hazard a modestly informed but almost completely uneducated guess that considerably fewer than we may think of the wild brook trout we catch in Pennsylvania are of the original lineage that inhabited our streams before William Penn arrived on these shores selling oatmeal in those cylindrical containers...

I remember when I was spending a lot of time in the Area 2 files at Tionesta that it was very, very difficult to find a stream in the files, regardless of how small or inconsequential, that had not been augmented (usually with brook trout..) at some point with fry, fingerlings, etc. to some degree by some civic minded group of outdoor sports. In the files I looked at, most of this "help" took place in the very late 19th or early 20th Centuries. But a lot of it was still going on well into the 1930's and beyond. Additionally, I remember finding a lot of references to the brood fish for these efforts being from Vermont in many cases. Which means that if and when these plants took hold, the new pops were in a sense, "doubly non-native". This is a phrase I just made up special for this situation...

While there is really no way of knowing how much of this stocking was done over existing original Pennsylvania brook trout remnant populations, just knowing it happened takes a lot of the value and potential veracity out of the use of brook trout as a historical bench mark of the environmental degradation of our Commonwealth in the not-so-good-old-days. And I can think of no fish that is used more for this purpose here in PA than the brookie.

I mean, when I was a kid, my Dad used to tell me that back in the 1930's when he was a kid, they used to catch legal brook trout out of Thomas Run, a trib to Walnut Creek about 4 miles south of the light at 26th and Peninsula in Erie. And I would listen and nod my head and think, wow, it hasn't really been that long since things were "right". But with all the scattergun stocking of brook trout that apparently took place almost everywhere there was a bit of cold water trickling between some rocks, who knows what the real history is? Maybe the Thomas Run brookies were the PA originals or maybe they were stocked there by the, umm, Great Grandfathers of Lake Erie Who Haven't Yet Heard Of Steelhead(forerunners of S.O.N.S...) and there were never brook trout in Thomas Run to begin with.

I realize that an example from Erie County (and northern Erie County at that..) may or may not have any applicability anywhere else in PA, but at the least, it seems to yet add another layer of "unknowableness" (I may have just invented this word too, I'll have to look it up) to the real history of our state fish.

Just a few thoughts while I'm waiting for the Mrs. to come back with my new bottle of cough syrup. I'm hoping to live until Opening Day, but right now I'm not placing any bets on it...

 

[Mike]

A recent paper on brook trout genetics with the same stream and in very near-by streams indicated substantial within (sub-populations distributed along the length of a stream) and between stream genetic differences, expressed in physical features, such that the authors believed that if these were not fish, but organisms from different taxa, the genetic differences were such that they might be considered to be different species or, at the very least, different sub-species. In evolutionary biology, you have the "groupers" and the "splitters." Come to think of it, that's something that might be said about fly anglers' fly recommendations.

 

[franklin]

Mike wrote:
A recent paper on brook trout genetics with the same stream and in very near-by streams indicated substantial within (sub-populations distributed along the length of a stream) and between stream genetic differences, expressed in physical features, such that the authors believed that if these were not fish, but organisms from different taxa, the genetic differences were such that they might be considered to be different species or, at the very least, different sub-species. In evolutionary biology, you have the "groupers" and the "splitters." Come to think of it, that's something that might be said about fly anglers' fly recommendations.

Hey Mike could you point me to that paper? I'd like to read it.

 

[Eccles]

Quote:

franklin wrote:

Hey Mike could you point me to that paper? I'd like to read it.

Don't know if this is the paper Mike was thinking of but Kanno et al. 2011 (can be found here) have done some work on brook trout population differentiation in CT. Actually there are a number of these studies on various trout species that show similar results.

 

[FarmerDave]

franklin wrote:
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.

I've seen these on many streams in NWPA.

 

[Chaz]

But not all of the trees were removed from all the drainages, there were places they couldn't get into and could not get the lumber out either.Trout would still survive in those remote areas and would have been seed stock. USGS has an ongoing study of brook trout from the entire mid Atlantic States range that sheds light on where they found heritage strains of brook trout. It is broken down into heritage strains, mixed strains, stocked strains and so forth.
Brook Trout were never fully extirpated from Pennsylvania. There are streams in SE PA that never were stocked or stocked once and they have brook trout. There are streams that have AMD that still have brook trout and some of those were never stocked.

 

[Chaz]

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.

Actually it's at least 3 there's a very large patch on Cherry Run that was added in the early 2000's of over 5000 acres. Hearts Content and Cook Forest are the other 2.
The Glen at Ricketts Glen is a Virgin Forest it makes up most of the Kitchen Creek upper drainage, and has never been stocked and isn't even fished.

 

[JimKennedy]

A bit of interesting reading about old growth forests in Pa. More than I thought there was, but, as one of ya'll pointed out, the good old days weren't all that good. (For that matter, the future ain't what it used to be.)

http://www.nativetreesociety.org/fieldtrips/penna/old_growth_forests_in_pa.htm

 

[pcray1231]

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.

Actually it's at least 3 there's a very large patch on Cherry Run that was added in the early 2000's of over 5000 acres. Hearts Content and Cook Forest are the other 2.

Cook Forest is not in the ANF. Near it, yes, but not in it. So whether you can include that depends on whether you are talking the ANF proper or the "greater ANF area". I'm not familiar with the Cherry Run tract, unless your talking about the one in Cook Forest, which I considered part of the same tract.

But in addition to Hearts Content, there is about a 4000 acre tract just west of Kane that is within the ANF, I believe. Tionesta Scenic and Research Natural Area. Unfortunately about half of it was taken out by the huge tornado in 1985. So that part of it is "technically" virgin but no longer old growth.

It's still, overall, a VERY small % of the ANF, and a very small % of the state overall. With no figures to back me up I'd guess that north of I-80, about 1% of the state is virgin forest.....

Nobody claims that brook trout were completely eradicated. Obviously, they weren't, else we wouldn't have brook trout! The question is how severely the population was hit. Are we just talking reduced numbers for a period of time? Total eradication from a subset of streams, to be repopulated from other streams? If so, how big a subset? Are we talking about this little trickle was eradicated and the next one over was not, or did we eradicate or nearly so from largish drainages before being reseeded from others? These are questions I don't have the answer to. My main point is that the good old days weren't so good. There certainly was damage and shuffling of populations. Extent of which is TBD. But our northern forests are substantially different than they were.

The biggest damage, IMO, is that the larger streams didn't come back. Streams like Pine, Tionesta, Clarion, etc. That's not to say there are no fish today. But pre-logging they stayed MUCH colder with more stable flows. That's mostly to do with the nature of the forest before and after the logging. There was a much greater % of conifers prior to the logging. Conifers create soft spongy soils. Soft spongy soils reduce runoff and increase spring flow. Though we have discussed pH (conifers generally are more acidic soils) as well as the prospects for land dwelling wildlife. Hardwoods are more productive for them. So what is ultimately better is debatable, and depends on your point of view. But certainly the "brush" transition period was not good for trout.

 

[troutbert]

I wonder what they considered "spring runs" back then.

Does the report say?

The great majority of the stream mileage in the state does not have limestone springs.

In a typical freestone drainage, what would they consider "spring runs?"

 

[pcray1231]

All PA streams, limestone or freestone, are fed by springs. Outside of the few days following a precipitation event, almost 100% spring fed.

Freestone springs are, of course, shallower. The water penetrates soil and overburden but does not typically penetrate bedrock. As such, the water does not flow far enough underground to coalesce into larger underground waterways, and thus the springs tend to be much smaller and far more numerous. By the time you reach a sizable stream, the majority of the stream's flow is from rather distant springs.

I'd assume a freestone "spring run" is a small trickle arising from primarily a single spring, or at least a single draw in a hillside.

 

[FarmerDave]

Chaz 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.

Actually it's at least 3 there's a very large patch on Cherry Run that was added in the early 2000's of over 5000 acres. Hearts Content and Cook Forest are the other 2.

I did specifically say the ANF, so you are wrong.

Cook Forest is in Cook Forest State Forest/Park, and what Cherry Run?

I am very familiar with the stand of virgin Timber in Cook Forest. Back in the 70s I actually rebuilt many of those "steps" that lead up Longfellow trail. Beautiful trees. Unfortunately many were blown down awhile back. I can't remember the year, but there is a sign up there.

I also know of no Cherry Run in the ANF.

Department of forestry says there are just 4 Old growth sites in all of NWPA, two of which are not in the ANF. Of the two in the ANF, one is about 4000 acres, and although it contains Old Growth trees, it is debatable if it is virgin timber. So I will concede it could be 2 which was my original claim, 1 or 2.

Here's a link.

Cherry Run? Could you be more specific?

ANF was logged more aggressively than the entire rest of the state. That is fact, and I have data to support this as well.

 

[FarmerDave]

pcray1231 wrote:
All PA streams, limestone or freestone, are fed by springs. Outside of the few days following a precipitation event, almost 100% spring fed.

Freestone springs are, of course, shallower. The water penetrates soil and overburden but does not typically penetrate bedrock. As such, the water does not flow far enough underground to coalesce into larger underground waterways, and thus the springs tend to be much smaller and far more numerous. By the time you reach a sizable stream, the majority of the stream's flow is from rather distant springs.

I'd assume a freestone "spring run" is a small trickle arising from primarily a single spring, or at least a single draw in a hillside.

That's a pretty good summation.

Bedrock in NWPA is mostly some form of sandstone which is not impervious. However, water does not disolve it, hence you don't have the large springs and caves. Just small springs and lots of them.
Amazing that some people think, no limestone means no springs. OK, then explain that wet stuff at the bottom of my well.

 

[salmonoid]

FarmerDave wrote:

pcray1231 wrote:
All PA streams, limestone or freestone, are fed by springs. Outside of the few days following a precipitation event, almost 100% spring fed.

Freestone springs are, of course, shallower. The water penetrates soil and overburden but does not typically penetrate bedrock. As such, the water does not flow far enough underground to coalesce into larger underground waterways, and thus the springs tend to be much smaller and far more numerous. By the time you reach a sizable stream, the majority of the stream's flow is from rather distant springs.

I'd assume a freestone "spring run" is a small trickle arising from primarily a single spring, or at least a single draw in a hillside.

That's a pretty good summation.

Bedrock in NWPA is mostly some form of sandstone which is not impervious. However, water does not disolve it, hence you don't have the large springs and caves. Just small springs and lots of them.
Amazing that some people think, no limestone means no springs. OK, then explain that wet stuff at the bottom of my well.

Groundwater moving through the pore space in the sandstone?

 

[pcray1231]

Groundwater moving through the pore space in the sandstone?

Correct. And there's also cracks and soforth in that sandstone. Or, find a shale outcrop, and note the water seeping out between layers. This is common along road cuts, for instance. It could be a week since it rained but that cliff face is still wet. Hmmm. Not to mention drive through the mountains and see a PVC pipe sticking into the ground along the road with water flowing out of it.

Many camps in the northern tier even have spring houses, or utilize springs as a water source, or have built a pond fed by springwater!

Lets see. Underground water is 1. moving, and 2. More is being added every time it rains. So, if there are no springs, where does it go? Magically disappear?

If water goes into the ground, the amount of water coming out of the ground has to be equal. And water coming out of the ground is, by definition, a spring. With freestoners, it merely tends to come out closer to where it went in than is the case with limestoners. So instead of having one big spring in the valley spitting out water from an entire region, you have the same amount of water coming out in a whole bunch of small springs up on the hillsides, collecting into draws which flow into small streams, which flow into larger streams.

And since it takes less time for water to soak into the ground and come out at a nearby spring than it does to come out at a distant spring, those springs are indeed more variable in output than a limestone spring. Get a dry week or two and the spring output slows considerably.

 

[mr7183]

So are "old growth" forests gone to never return? Are the forests still recovering to the point that mountain streams will continue to get measurably colder in the future and trout water will expand?

 

[pcray1231]

Never is a very long time. And "old growth" is relative.

Again, regarding temp, you have a few things. One is development. Gains can be, and have been, made with creation of greenways, collection ponds near roads, and the like. There's also potential with new inventions like water permeable concrete.

As far as drainages that are fully forested, it's the forest type. Again the original forest had a lot more pine, fewer hardwoods. After an impact like logging or tornadoes or fires, hardwoods are the first to return to our woods. But even now, there are patches of conifers. Anyone who's ever walked through such places will note the spongy moist soil, cool temps in summer and warm in winter, and total lack of hardwoods. Once a patch like that starts it won't give up that ground, barring major impact. It's changed the soil to it's own benefit, and completely shaded out all hardwood undergrowth. That patch will slowly grow.

How long till it takes over to it's natural capability? Well, many generations. And these are tree generations, which are pretty long. In the meantime we'll ever so slowly work in that direction.

And we will have "old growth" before that. Just with the current species mix. Oak, maple, beech, cherry, etc. get old too. Heck, today our northern tier is dominated by trees of 80-130 years, generally all around the exact same age in any given area. They ain't young. And we are getting some mixing of those with new growth due to natural mortality, selective logging, and the like. I think in another 100 years we'd have to consider that growth and resulting mix "old" in terms of age distribution, even if not yet "resembling original" in terms of species distribution.

Though disease and invasives are certainly a danger. Like the Hemlock Woolly Adelgid and various borers. Strangely, gypsy moths might actually accelerate things!

Of course, not all changes are bad. As far as supporting land animal biomass, the current forest is more productive than the original. Same goes for insect life, and thus birds too. But trout? Probably not. But even there, the original would have had more acidic soil. Different type of acid, so that wouldn't be a primary danger, but the current forest may indeed cope with acid rain better.

 

[Chaz]

Bark Cabin Run would probably classify as a spring run, it didn't take long for it to catch into a stream bed and coalesce into a flow. Then it suddenly joined Otter Run.

 

[franklin]

mr7183 wrote:
So are "old growth" forests gone to never return? Are the forests still recovering to the point that mountain streams will continue to get measurably colder in the future and trout water will expand?

I'd say for the most part state land such as the state forests have stabilized from a water temperature standpoint. (They have been stable for probably 75 years.) The real thermal issues come further downstream as development continues and farming practices maximize cultivation of every square yard. Keep in mind the largest portion of the state forest lands have a forestry plan to cut about 2% per year or an average maturity age of 50 years. In practice it is about 60 years as the goal is often not met.