Thoughts on class a lists

Any stream that holds a wild trout population, whatever the classification, would more than likely have a much improved population of wild trout if stocking were halted. Low fertility mountain streams are probably most affected. Trout numbers and typical size plummets whenever wild trout are stocked over. That is well known and well documented. Halting stocking would, in most cases, result in a significant increase in biomass and average size of the wild trout population. It’s a “Catch 22.” The biomass and size of the wild trout in Young Womans Creek were a smidgeon below Class A just before stocking was resumed. And the brook trout biomass wasn’t even included because it was considered to be brown trout water. I wonder what the situation is now?
 
I have had the heart to go back to YWC only once since they began to stock it again. Kind of sad, though I did catch some lovely wild brooks and browns. However, I caught more slimy rainbows than wild trout, and I haven't gone back. To me, YWC was once an "exotic," special place to fish for wild trout; no longer.

(Of course, this week I can't fish anywhere for wild trout, since my wife and granddaughter have forced me to go to Cape May, NJ, with them. Heck, I'd rather fish for stocked trout than be here.)
 

Troutbert's post that I referenced included the nine sections. Eight were on his list and the ninth was in the text. So, yes, I know that one Class A section of Fishing Ck is stocked and I included it in the nine that I referenced in my post above.

Thanks for the support, Lycoflyfisher.

As for Bald Eagle, I neglected to include it since I was speaking of stockings of adult trout and, frankly, I don't stay informed regarding which streams are still receiving fingerling stockings since many were terminated and successful cases of fingerling stockings are few and far between in Pa.
 
As mentioned frequently in the past, an analysis of Pa's before and after stocking termination for the 2002 Trout Summit showed that the impact of terminating adult stocking over wild Brown populations was a crap shoot. Fifty percent increased and the other half either stayed the same or decreased. As for Brook Trout, the response was more positive and the trend was in the positive direction.

 
The PFBC 2002 Trout Summit graph showed the effects of stocking on legal sized brook trout before and after stocking in 9 streams. Of the numbers when not stocked: 7 showed large increases, typically 2 or even 3X higher; one showed a slight decrease and one a slight increase. If the results of all nine were averaged, an overall 80% increase in legal sized brookies occurred when stocking was terminated. I think that is pretty conclusive when the effects of stocking over wild brook trout are considered.

As for brown trout - E.R Vincent’s study on the Madison River showed very significant increases in brown trout size and numbers when the stocking of legal sized rainbows was terminated and a similar reverse in numbers whenever stocking was resumed in O’Dell Creek, a major tributary to the Madison.
 
That paper in my view has limited applicability to Pa because the stocking program in those two Montana streams was much different from that in Pa. For example, one stream (O'Dell) was stocked with adult trout at a rate that was nearly twice the rate that Pa's most heavily STATE-stocked streams receive and both streams were stocked more frequently than Pa's streams, having been stocked monthly from April through August. Greater frequency typically keeps angler interest and pressure up unless the stream involved is not attractive to anglers or the number fish stocked just overwhelms angler interest.There are other material differences as well.

To update knowledge on research on the topic of stocking adult trout over wild trout populations, I suggest reviewing the following paper, presented at the Wild Trout Symposium IX in 2014, that summarizes and critiques a number of such studies:

Competition between wild trout and stocked "catchable" trout: A literature review and thoughts on a long-standing debate.
Author: Daniel J. Schill

Note that the literature review above involved BT, RT, and CT) and not ST. The review also considered only adult "catchable" trout stockings, not fingerling stockings. Recall, however, that CT are generally considered at least equally if not more vulnerable to angling techniques than ST.




(It may be recalled by some who attended the 2002 Pa Trout Symposium the response of 7" and longer ST to the cessation of stocking in the nine streams resulted in an average increase of 42 fish of that length per mile. In comparison to the impact of special regs on ST, I said that the best way to improve wild ST populations was to stop stocking over them rather than applying special regs. I would now add, however, that this assumes that the streams would have the habitat, water quality, etc to support substantial numbers of legal size ST year around).




 
It seems to me that it is just common sense that adding more, larger and far more aggressive hatchery trout to an established wild trout population must surely have a negative effect on wild trout. Stocking occurs during the spring whenever wild fish are recovering weight lost during the fall spawn and then long winter fast. Weight losses during the winter months in small freestone streams can be very high and even fatal to trout recovering from the rigors of spawning. Most weight gains are made during the first few months of spring. Piled on top of that is the increase in angling pressure that accrues from stocking. There are lots of places we could stock without negatively affecting wild trout. Stocking over native brook trout populations is especially problematic.
 
Here is a summary of the Montana study Mike mentioned and the results of the cessation of stocking in Montana back in the 70's > http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2004/****Vincent.htm

Below is an excerpt from the article discussing the interaction of wild and stocked trout >

Based on my observations over the years and the results of studies done in Pennsylvania, I believe that hatchery fish disrupted the natural behavior and feeding territories of wild trout. Wild trout have feeding territories and a social hierarchy based on size and behavior that efficiently makes use of available food and makes the fish less vulnerable to predation while feeding. Fish reared in hatcheries don’t worry about predation while feeding and swarm to food fed at concentrated locations with regular timing. Those who get to the food first survive.

Thus, when hatchery fish are dumped in with wild trout, they are not used to finding their own food, and their nutrition and survival suffers at the same time that they are disrupting the feeding territories of wild trout. The behavior of hatchery trout also makes them more vulnerable to predation. The disruption of the behavior and territories of the wild trout both reduces their feeding efficiency and nutritional level and also makes them more vulnerable to predation than they previously were. Thus, both wild and hatchery fish have a lower survival rate when in the same stream area.

One example of stress changes due to stocking that we observed during our study was anincrease in detectable movement of the resident wild trout after hatchery rainbow trout were stocked. Normally, wild trout in these streams show very little detectable movement (less than 5 percent), with most movement being very localized around feeding sites and cover. Release of hatchery trout in O’Dell Creek increased detectable movement by over 1,000 percent, which left the wild trout more vulnerable to predation (including by anglers) and reduced nutrition due to poor feeding sites.
 
Further, here is an article referencing Dr. Bachman's study of trout in PA >

https://www.nytimes.com/1991/07/23/science/hatched-and-wild-fish-clash-of-cultures.html

Here are a few paragraphs about the study of the interaction of trout stocked over wild fish in a PA stream. From the article >

When brown trout raised in a hatchery were placed in a stream with wild brown trout, Dr. Bachman found in a study in Pennsylvania, they would "throw caution to the winds," rushing around in search of food. But they spotted wild food less skillfully and swam farther than wild fish to get it. Their energy equations did not balance and they tended to get thin and die.

While they lived, they thoroughly disrupted the ecology of the stream. Wild trout jealously guard their prized feeding and resting stations. But because hatchery trout do not easily recognize body-language signals used by wild trout to warn away interlopers, they readily antagonized the established residents. Exhausting fights ensued, and the wild trout were often ousted from their preferred spots, disrupting their feeding patterns. The upshot, said Dr. Bachman, was that after two years the stream contained fewer trout, both hatchery and wild, than there were wild trout when the experiment started.
 
Let's please stop stocking so many fish. I feel that my voice in this one doesn't matter (I know, not the right attitude) but I think we would be better off for it. We always here of how successful Montana is/was....we aren't going to be the next Montana but we could be pretty special and set the precedent here in the east. Trout are just as naturally sustainable as other species here if people responsibly harvest.

So, at least to start, PFBC, please stop stocking all of Kish Creek.
 
The stocking vs not stocking over wild trout "debate" reminds me a lot of the flat earth vs round earth "debate."

 
Does anyone here remember when the PFBC posted the actual relative number of fish stocked in each stream in the county? Because I definitely do. This was before I realized how quality the trout fishing here is and before I knew any better. I remember those numbers quite accurately and looked them over many times for my county. Kish received something like 6,000 fish. Think about that. 6,000 additional fish moving on top of the wild fish. That's crazy. Some streams only got a few hundred fish. But, the point is, the PFBC stopped supplying this info and I can only imagine it is because they started stocking less and less fish due to budget constraints and didn't want people to see the decline. Now, the less number of fish is a blessing in disguise.

However, with afishanado's info above (if it is accurate and whatnot) means a fair amount of pressure over those wild fish.
 
jifigz, down here in MD they post the number of trout stocked and here's a pretty bad example I can throw in. A small mountain brook trout stream in Frederick County received 2,700 rainbows last year. MDNR claims the stocking isn't having an impact because the brook trout population in an unstocked tributary (which is half the size and half the depth) has similar number and size structure of brook trout to the stocked water. Imagine if PFBC said "because Tea Creek only has X number of brown trout, Kish Creek's population will never exceed that of Tea Creek" and that's basically MDNR's logic.

So what impacts are observed on the stocked brook trout stream?
Well, you catch big, finless wonders in the 2-3 ft deep plunge pools with beautiful rock ledges, and skinny 6-7" brook trout in the pocket water between the pools. Go upstream of the stocked portion and you'll catch an 8" brookie in every spot with a log or tree root and a foot of water. It's painfully obvious that the rainbows displace the brook trout from the prime lies.
 
Sarce,

And the good side was that I remember streams like Town Run being stocked with something like 600. A much better number for the stream's size but still a lot. Town is much like Tea but a little smaller. High gradient heavily limestone influenced tiny stream with plenty of browns. I've only ever fished that stream after it was taken off the stocking list many years ago. Pollution isn't always bad. I can see many trout streams around me that have ceased to be stocked because of pollution and now their wild trout potential shines.

Either way, PFBC should stock overall less fish.
 
Mike wrote:
... I would now add, however, that this assumes that the streams would have the habitat, water quality, etc to support year around).
Click to expand...

Mike, I'm not a biologist, but I would argue that this is somewhat irrelevant or possibly even backwards.

First of all, "substantial" is ambiguous.

Secondly, I would argue that stocking over a wild ST population has impact on said wild population regardless of whether the habitat or water quality can support someones definition of "substantial numbers of legal size ST year round."

In fact, I would argue that there is likely greater impact to natural populations in less fertile freestone streams when they are stocked over.

"Substantial" might mean one thing in North Central PA, and quite another in NWPA. Just look at the numbers.

If PF&BC stops stocking a NWPA stream that is currently tested class C or D, will it result in a class A? Highly unlikely. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't result in more legal size natives.

I witnessed the impact on such a stream caused by the commencement of stocking. Why shouldn't I think it would return to being a decent (for that area) native stream if stocking was stopped?

It looks like we might find out.
 
Quote:


Mike wrote:
... I would now add, however, that this assumes that the streams would have the habitat, water quality, etc to support year around). 



Mike, I'm not a biologist, but I would argue that this is somewhat irrelevant or possibly even backwards.

First of all, "substantial" is ambiguous. 

Secondly, I would argue that stocking over a wild ST population has impact on said wild population regardless of whether the habitat or water quality can support someones definition of "substantial numbers of legal size ST year round."

In fact, I would argue that there is likely greater impact to natural populations in less fertile freestone streams when they are stocked over.

"Substantial" might mean one thing in North Central PA, and quite another in NWPA. Just look at the numbers.

If PF&BC stops stocking a NWPA stream that is currently tested class C or D, will it result in a class A? Highly unlikely. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't result in more legal size natives. 

I witnessed the impact on such a stream caused by the commencement of stocking. Why shouldn't I think it would return to being a decent (for that area) native stream if stocking was stopped?

It looks like we might find out.
Click to expand...

Haven't been on for a bit and this was the first post i read.

Cheers Dave well said
 

All I know is Bald eagle creek, Penns creek, and Fishing creek are the streams I fish 99.9 percent of the time and don't care to go anywhere else enough trout in them for me to catch in my lifetime.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top