Waters with the Biggest Potential
- Thread starter falsecasts
- Start date
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
A lot of people have voiced interest in different management on that stream. Some including myself are advocating for such management changes in ecologically valuable streams statewide.
Are Pennsylvania's trout stocking practices harming the native brook trout?
The Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission is stocking 3.2 million adult trout this year. Nearly 94% are brown and rainbow trout, both non-native to Pennsylvania.
www.fox43.com
Coontail77
New member
Huntington Creek and Fishing Creek in Columbia County!
fishjake
Member
we have talked about trying to make mosquito a wilderness trout stream due to this and get the stocking stopped
fishjake
Member
Add bowmans in with that
fishjake
Member
Bowmans is a sad stream because of this now, liming is helping but they stock the best water now......
I fished Bowmans Creek up in the State Gamelands before they started liming and stocking. (The L&S treatment.) There were native brook trout up there.
And I fished it since the liming and stocking. I think the numbers of native brook trout are way down now.
Regarding big potential specifically for brook trout, Bowmans Creek up in the SGLs, and Mosquito Creek and its tributary Gifford Run are way up there because those are sizeable waters for brook trout streams.
rustbeltwilds
Well-known member
Are there wild browns in mosquito. Drove by it the other day.
So far as I know, Mosquito Creek does not have a wild brown trout population. A club is stocking it now, so you're likely to catch hatchery trout.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
I believe they only stock Gifford Run? I suspect the water chemistry keeps the browns out.
A club stocks Mosquito Creek.
I agree that the water chemistry prevents browns from establishing there. So far. A lot of liming has been done there.
If brook trout were a priority, stocking would end on Mosquito Creek and Gifford Run. And liming would also be ended.
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
Exactly, or a barrier put in place and liming could continue.
As we clean up watersheds, the brookies disappear. That is because of displacement and as the majority laughs at the "zealots" , it's only a matter of time for many watersheds.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
Interesting. So add Mosquito Ck to the list of streams that are stocked that aren't listed as stocked.
I'm surprised DCNR is ok with some private club introducing nonnative species in a wild area. That's in violation of PA code.
Last edited:
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
Here's what I want to know; habitat is the problem. We shouldn't even be discussing nonnative trout until the habitat is improved, 15 bazillion trees are planted, climate change is solved, CO2 emissions reduced, etc... So what happens when all of that is done?
What happens when we've improved the stream to the point it can support brook trout again? Is someone going to reintroduce brook trout? If we're "restoring" habitat, at what point do the original inhabitants that got displaced (or replaced) get to return as part of the "restoration?" When that fails, will we still blame the habitat or finally face reality? Then what? Oh well?
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
I think you know that sad answer.
Even now, what should be defenders of these fish, yuk it up in another thread.
It's just stupid and they won't be the ones that see these fish disappear totally.
Wykoff Run is also in the Quehanna Wild Area and is also stocked with hatchery trout.
Are you sure that is in violation of PA code?
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
Absolutely. The only reason it’s ok for PFBC is that they’re a sister agency (written permission). Which is why I believe it's ok for Wykoff and Mix. I’m not sure that extends to clubs, but I intend to find out.
Title 17, § 21.115. Natural resources.
(a) The following activities are prohibited without written permission of the Department:
(5) Releasing an animal that was brought into a State forest.
Last edited:
tomgamber
Well-known member
Maybe, some believe, with everything in the first paragraph in play, what's the point of wasting time on the second.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
Because some people are fully aware that the second isn't really a goal at all, and the excuse of focusing on one while ignoring two is simply to silence those people. 🤷♂️
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
Right, that's it.
I haven't seen any brook trout streams restored, which includes reduction of mine acid drainage, reduction in nitrate and phosphorus loading, boosts in water quality, better pH, aquatic biota as well as native plants leading to the eventual wild brown trout proliferation in the watershed from outside sources and the start of a crash the wild brook trout population and in some cases a almost complete crash.
Not once ever.
Why discuss it?
It's just a waste of time to think the brook trout that was already in that watershed couldn't have made it with all those good things happening to it's water quality and habitat, especially given it was already hanging on while it was poor in condition.
Clearly then, in other watersheds, if fully restored, they wouldn't make it there either.😂
I was reading an interesting thread from the search bar the other week about the fragility of brook trout. You were one of the major players advocating that they aren't fragile, yet here we are. There is no hope for them.
I agree, in part, but not because of any of the reasons in either paragraph, but rather your response to it.
Apathy is a son of a @#$*&
Last edited:
