Waters with the Biggest Potential

[Fish Sticks]

Its not a like or dislike one trout species over another issue or preference. Its just that the brook trout could survive in a lot of these streams if the invasive ones weren’t there. People kind of have the perception that the water is hust to warm or dirty and alot of times the brook trout can actually survive worse water quality(AmD). So I try to communicate how the fisheries science field views some of these realities and misconceptions. I have been guilty of not chowing the right venue we will say for these discussions in the past at times, you got me. Its hard for me sometimes if i am in a forum for another reason and I see something that is factually incorrect and propagates the myth that native brook trout are too sensitive or fragile persist or improve. Theres alot about this topic anglers don’t understand but their still the biggest stakeholder and I just want to help as many people as possible understand what fisheries scientists understand. Its why I recorded this pod cast.

PA NFC Board Member James Suleski Talks Brook Trout with Rob Snowhite — Native Fish Coalition

Pennsylvania NFC board member Dr. James Suleski talks brook trout with Rob Snowhite on Fly Fishing Consultant podcast.…

nativefishcoalition.org

Your still one of my favorites Kray and I think youd be suprised at how much I actually like to fish for brown trout here and even admire them. They have a native range where brook trout are taking over in some places and from a conservation standpoint id like those invasive brook trout not to be there. I just view the fishing we all like to do and conservation of our at risk native species as two separate things like church and state. Id like to see people be able to enjoy how they like to fish and have that opportunity without fishing stakeholders handcuffing fisheries science/conservation to a sport.

 

[silverfox]

Why do so many threads on here degenerate/morph into a brook trout advocate forum? Yes it's our state fish. Yes they are beautiful. If they are not hardy enough to survive or compete, sorry about your luck. If they can't live in stream ABC, maybe we can clean up stream XYZ and they will flourish but that doesn't mean F other trout....or does it in your eyes? I know this will make me a real favorite 😉

I'll still stand with the raystown outflow as offering tremendous potential. I can also understand the kinzua outflow potential. Lehigh is already pretty good and don't know that the release tower repair will happen in my lifetime... which is sad.

I don't think enough people are talking about the negative effects of nonnative trout. Especially in PA. To be clear, for me anyway, it's not so much about brook trout per se, but rather the value of intact native species assemblages. Think Leopold, trophic cascade, mountains fearing deer like the deer fear the wolves. That kind of thing. We've become too comfortable with manipulating fish populations. If they had fur and legs we would've ended this stuff in the 70s.

I still think Raystown is a terrible idea from an engineering, ecological, and practical standpoint.

 

[PennKev]

Why do so many threads on here degenerate/morph into a brook trout advocate forum? Yes it's our state fish. Yes they are beautiful. If they are not hardy enough to survive or compete, sorry about your luck. If they can't live in stream ABC, maybe we can clean up stream XYZ and they will flourish but that doesn't mean F other trout....or does it in your eyes? I know this will make me a real favorite

Seriously.
Some guys just need to take a breather.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The thread is about streams that have greatest potential. No one gets tired or objects to decreasing sedimentation or cooling down water temperature. I am in great support of doing both of these things. I am just pointing out some impairments are biological/Biotic like invasive species. They are more limiting than the above mentioned physical impairments in many cases here in PA but for some reason their not ok to talk about.

Fisheries scientists John Hoxmier and Doug Deiterman have pointed out, citing the 5 component frame work of factors governing stream salmonid populations, that improving one or two variables like water quality and habitat and ignoring biotic impairments(invasive species) will not likely result in restoration goals for target species. Yet when it comes to native brook trout the myth of fragility and that there is some unattainable level of water quality or habitat we just can’t hit in fully forested streams being taken over by invasive trout species became the easier to stomach central dogma of our sport.

Meanwhile fisheries scientists trying to keep these fish around bang their heads against wall because we have handcuffed them to fishing goals and are not incorporating their knowledge and tools available into our management to help these fish.

The numerous streams in Pa that don’t require any improvement in temperature, habitat or water quality in order to regain or sustain native brook trout have no potential worthy of mentioning on here and is a “degeneration” in your opinion and people that see this potential are not welcome to talk about this potential because it makes others feel uneasy about what they would rather do with a stream.

Maybe everyone is tired of people calmmoring for more dam manipulations to create artificial tail waters where native warm water species should live. Maybe people commenting above in this thread not opting for an invasive brown trout fishery over native smallmouth on allegheny are tired of the make the whole world artificial tailwaters degeneration. As for hardiness mentioned above the browns are the ones that are tanking and we are saying “sorry about your luck “ for in the madison right now yet ther calls for a governors task force to save/prop up a failing invasive species grow louder while native bull trout won’t get a shred of that level of attention or funding.

when we talk about potential. Maybe the people commenting/liking above saying take out the pohopoco tailwater dam despite the cold invasive salmonid disneyland it creates downstream in the summer. Maybe the people who want more trout at all costs need to “give it a rest”.

The fact is different people all want different things out of a river. You want this, kayakers/rafters want that/I want this.The only difference between what you and I want is that me backing a native keystone species thats a critical cog in the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem benefits someone besides humans while the invasive trout people protect do the opposite.

 

[Schaefer406]

On a lighter note, here's the stream I mentioned. If anyone knows where this is, please don't mention it. You really have to be there to see what I mentioned in my post. All those barrens are like walking on a giant sponge. There's probably more water under you than in the stream. These photos are just a tiny glimpse. It's absolutely loaded with brook trout. There was never any human activity up there. At least not any organized resource extraction beyond logging 100 years or so ago. No mining. No roads. It's a few mile hike in from any direction. I don't think it needs anything other than left alone despite the water being open to the blazing sun and probably not your textbook stream.
View attachment 1641226764

View attachment 1641226765

View attachment 1641226766

View attachment 1641226767

View attachment 1641226768
There are about a dozen of these springs down along the stream.
View attachment 1641226769

I would love to fish this stream, but I am a believer in working to find your spots. I need to start researching and doing some exploration to find this one! I have not even the slightest clue where to start looking. Awesome find and kudos on not publicly stating the name.

 

[tomgamber]

Seriously.
Some guys just need to take a breather.

OR STICK TO DOING IT IN FORUMS DESIGNATED FOR THAT TOPIC, WHICH I THINK IS THE POINT.

 

[Acristickid]

It was the Yough, it shoulda been the Yough but alas I’d file the Yough as ok with a big side of disappointment.

Yough been around for 50 years, has cold water for 10-11 mo the a year, has decent bugs and has a few huge trout. When I think of the other tailwaters it comes up short, the Casselman is cleaning up but still dumps lots of AMD and several gushers of AMD still dump into the Yough along its course.

I want it to be great but it’s really just ok. It’s ok because July and August you can fish it because it says cool

 

[Fish Sticks]

OR STICK TO DOING IT IN FORUMS DESIGNATED FOR THAT TOPIC, WHICH I THINK IS THE POINT.

My point is its plenty relevant in this forum talking if we are talking about streams with untapped potential

 

[troutbert]

It was the Yough, it shoulda been the Yough but alas I’d file the Yough as ok with a big side of disappointment.

Yough been around for 50 years, has cold water for 10-11 mo the a year, has decent bugs and has a few huge trout. When I think of the other tailwaters it comes up short, the Casselman is cleaning up but still dumps lots of AMD and several gushers of AMD still dump into the Yough along its course.

I want it to be great but it’s really just ok. It’s ok because July and August you can fish it because it says cool

I wonder what the limitation of the Yough really is. It could be limited spawning habitat.

But also, I've been there in late summer when the river was very warm. I don't remember the exact temperature, but probably around 80F. They run cold water early in the summer, but then they run out of cold water in late summer. Maybe they don't have the capability to mix flows to conserve cold water to last through the summer.

 

[dryflyguy]

I wonder what the limitation of the Yough really is. It could be limited spawning habitat.

But also, I've been there in late summer when the river was very warm. I don't remember the exact temperature, but probably around 80F. They run cold water early in the summer, but then they run out of cold water in late summer. Maybe they don't have the capability to mix flows to conserve cold water to last through the summer.

My understanding, is that the dam doesn't have mixing capabilities.
It just releases from he bottom.

That said, the tailrace does stay cold most of the summer.
Water temps there have been in the 50's until the last few days, when it has just touched 60.
And by next month, will probably inch up close to 70.

Very limited - if any - natural reproduction. For whatever reason.

The hatches are sparse and inconsistent.
But they do get better further downstream from the dam.
However, you also have warmer temps there too.

Which makes things pretty complex.
You have to always take into account the flow and water temps, to decide where to fish it.

 

[krayfish2]

The thread is about streams that have greatest potential. No one gets tired or objects to decreasing sedimentation or cooling down water temperature. I am in great support of doing both of these things. I am just pointing out some impairments are biological/Biotic like invasive species. They are more limiting than the above mentioned physical impairments in many cases here in PA but for some reason their not ok to talk about.

Fisheries scientists John Hoxmier and Doug Deiterman have pointed out, citing the 5 component frame work of factors governing stream salmonid populations, that improving one or two variables like water quality and habitat and ignoring biotic impairments(invasive species) will not likely result in restoration goals for target species. Yet when it comes to native brook trout the myth of fragility and that there is some unattainable level of water quality or habitat we just can’t hit in fully forested streams being taken over by invasive trout species became the easier to stomach central dogma of our sport.

Meanwhile fisheries scientists trying to keep these fish around bang their heads against wall because we have handcuffed them to fishing goals and are not incorporating their knowledge and tools available into our management to help these fish.

The numerous streams in Pa that don’t require any improvement in temperature, habitat or water quality in order to regain or sustain native brook trout have no potential worthy of mentioning on here and is a “degeneration” in your opinion and people that see this potential are not welcome to talk about this potential because it makes others feel uneasy about what they would rather do with a stream.

Maybe everyone is tired of people calmmoring for more dam manipulations to create artificial tail waters where native warm water species should live. Maybe people commenting above in this thread not opting for an invasive brown trout fishery over native smallmouth on allegheny are tired of the make the whole world artificial tailwaters degeneration. As for hardiness mentioned above the browns are the ones that are tanking and we are saying “sorry about your luck “ for in the madison right now yet ther calls for a governors task force to save/prop up a failing invasive species grow louder while native bull trout won’t get a shred of that level of attention or funding.

when we talk about potential. Maybe the people commenting/liking above saying take out the pohopoco tailwater dam despite the cold invasive salmonid disneyland it creates downstream in the summer. Maybe the people who want more trout at all costs need to “give it a rest”.

The fact is different people all want different things out of a river. You want this, kayakers/rafters want that/I want this.The only difference between what you and I want is that me backing a native keystone species thats a critical cog in the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem benefits someone besides humans while the invasive trout people protect do the opposite.

Why can't you have an artificial "Disneyland of trout" below in existing lake and still do restoration of native brook trout in other waters? Nobody's asking for new lakes to be constructed in order to have more tail waters.

Once again, I'll go back to raystown as my example. Having a bottom release with temps in the 50's would likely push carp another warm water species downriver. You've been part of enough studies regarding the Susquehanna and how temperatures negatively impact the smallmouth. Wouldn't the cooling effect on the Juniata add a refreshing shot of cold water to the river that could be very beneficial to the invasive smallmouth population? That's 5.5 miles of the raystown branch and then the thermal plume should continue down the main river for another 2-5 miles on the west side of the river allowing for additional quality trout opportunities until August or beyond. Same thing could apply for most tail waters.

At the very same time, brook trout habitat/populations could be restored in other locations.

Seems like there's an awful lot of protection for the artificial striper fishery in raystown. If I'm not mistaken, that fish isn't native to the Juniata drainage so let's get it out of there 😁

 

[Fish Sticks]

Why can't you have an artificial "Disneyland of trout" below in existing lake and still do restoration of native brook trout in other waters? Nobody's asking for new lakes to be constructed in order to have more tail waters.

Once again, I'll go back to raystown as my example. Having a bottom release with temps in the 50's would likely push carp another warm water species downriver. You've been part of enough studies regarding the Susquehanna and how temperatures negatively impact the smallmouth. Wouldn't the cooling effect on the Juniata add a refreshing shot of cold water to the river that could be very beneficial to the invasive smallmouth population? That's 5.5 miles of the raystown branch and then the thermal plume should continue down the main river for another 2-5 miles on the west side of the river allowing for additional quality trout opportunities until August or beyond. Same thing could apply for most tail waters.

At the very same time, brook trout habitat/populations could be restored in other locations.

Seems like there's an awful lot of protection for the artificial striper fishery in raystown. If I'm not mistaken, that fish isn't native to the Juniata drainage so let's get it out of there 😁

There are no doubt places where brook trout restoration will not be feasible for logistical, social, or other reasons your right. I think there will be alot of invasive salmonid fisheries and we are more at risk of increasing them rather than losing any sig amount. I think sometimes I like yo talk about the dynamics between native and non native species in a watershed and people take that as it should be totally rotenoned or reclaimed. Removal projects are only possible in such a few small places that meet the criteria that are not on most fisherman’s radar because the native and invasive trout competing are same size due to the size of the waterway and infertility. So your right there is no reason that invasive trout streams that are regarded as blue ribbon streams will go anywhere if PAFB listened to EBTJV or fisheries scientists or TU national’s brook trout conservation portfolio.its just not possible to do removal on them.

I think one stream, as you suggested, that we could restore for brook trout somewhere else would be kettle. Can you do removal on a system that large above alvin bush. Not currently no, however. Managing invasive trout species in there wouldn’t be all or nothing. We see in other states stocking reductions have allowed excellent native brook trout populations. Kettle gets 60,000 trout roughly when you factor in adults and coops and thats not county private stuff like sportsman’s clubs ect. Not stocking above Alvin bush or in the lake would be a massive win for the entire aquatic ecosystem. Then there would likely be an increase in both native brook trout and invasive brown trout. You could then have a mandatory harvest on brown trout and people can keep something for the table if they like. It won’t eliminate invasive brown trout but preventing or removing a combined 60k stocked invasive species + what people keep in a heavily trafficked stream is going to be very beneficial to those native brook trout. Less competition for prime feeding lies, thermal refuge, and likely more movement which will increase genetic adaptation.

Back to the raystown i guess you would have to do an assessment on what AIS are below it and whats above it conpared with migratory patterns of native fish such as white suckers, yellow bullheads, shad, eels ect and do a risk benefit to remove. What would happen if they bottom released could be anyones guess if invasive wild brown trout really take off. It could harm native brook trout by placing a source of invasive species downstream from them in much much higher density(high density and competition spreads fish out and drives movement which why stocking below a class A IS stocking a class A). But sometimes brook trout do use those tailwaters we have seen that in limited numbers though and it’s usually higher ratio browns. These decisions are really complex to keep or remove a dam even for fisheries professionals so I won’t pretend to know in that instance. Heres a good example of how tough these barrier/dam decisions can be with some big time relevance to this topic i think you will all find it interesting because this is PAFB’s own stocked brown trout being studied in the ANF. Illustrates the complexity of decisons with dams and barriers but also shows what happens when you stock downstream of a brook trout stream like PA fish and boat or slate run brown trout club. (No pay wall for the research can read whole article or one paragraph abstract)

https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tafs.10078

 

[Fly-Swatter]

The thread is about streams that have greatest potential. No one gets tired or objects to decreasing sedimentation or cooling down water temperature. I am in great support of doing both of these things. I am just pointing out some impairments are biological/Biotic like invasive species. They are more limiting than the above mentioned physical impairments in many cases here in PA but for some reason their not ok to talk about.

Fisheries scientists John Hoxmier and Doug Deiterman have pointed out, citing the 5 component frame work of factors governing stream salmonid populations, that improving one or two variables like water quality and habitat and ignoring biotic impairments(invasive species) will not likely result in restoration goals for target species. Yet when it comes to native brook trout the myth of fragility and that there is some unattainable level of water quality or habitat we just can’t hit in fully forested streams being taken over by invasive trout species became the easier to stomach central dogma of our sport.

Meanwhile fisheries scientists trying to keep these fish around bang their heads against wall because we have handcuffed them to fishing goals and are not incorporating their knowledge and tools available into our management to help these fish.

The numerous streams in Pa that don’t require any improvement in temperature, habitat or water quality in order to regain or sustain native brook trout have no potential worthy of mentioning on here and is a “degeneration” in your opinion and people that see this potential are not welcome to talk about this potential because it makes others feel uneasy about what they would rather do with a stream.

Maybe everyone is tired of people calmmoring for more dam manipulations to create artificial tail waters where native warm water species should live. Maybe people commenting above in this thread not opting for an invasive brown trout fishery over native smallmouth on allegheny are tired of the make the whole world artificial tailwaters degeneration. As for hardiness mentioned above the browns are the ones that are tanking and we are saying “sorry about your luck “ for in the madison right now yet ther calls for a governors task force to save/prop up a failing invasive species grow louder while native bull trout won’t get a shred of that level of attention or funding.

when we talk about potential. Maybe the people commenting/liking above saying take out the pohopoco tailwater dam despite the cold invasive salmonid disneyland it creates downstream in the summer. Maybe the people who want more trout at all costs need to “give it a rest”.

The fact is different people all want different things out of a river. You want this, kayakers/rafters want that/I want this.The only difference between what you and I want is that me backing a native keystone species thats a critical cog in the terrestrial and aquatic ecosystem benefits someone besides humans while the invasive trout people protect do the opposite.

Pohopoco clarification: leave the Beltsville cold water release dam, get rid of the Palmerton silt catcher dam.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Pohopoco clarification: leave the Beltsville cold water release dam, get rid of the Palmerton silt catcher dam.

Someone told me there is some massive pay-lake or hatchery upstream of the beltsville lake and they have massive “accidental” escape/release events and there are hatchery escapees everywhere. I have never fished above the lake. Someone told me happens every year at predictable time sounds intentional and fish are somehow distinct or suspect from coming from this place not the state. Can anyone familiar confirm or deny?

 

[silverfox]

Why can't you have an artificial "Disneyland of trout" below in existing lake and still do restoration of native brook trout in other waters? Nobody's asking for new lakes to be constructed in order to have more tail waters.

Once again, I'll go back to raystown as my example. Having a bottom release with temps in the 50's would likely push carp another warm water species downriver. You've been part of enough studies regarding the Susquehanna and how temperatures negatively impact the smallmouth. Wouldn't the cooling effect on the Juniata add a refreshing shot of cold water to the river that could be very beneficial to the invasive smallmouth population? That's 5.5 miles of the raystown branch and then the thermal plume should continue down the main river for another 2-5 miles on the west side of the river allowing for additional quality trout opportunities until August or beyond. Same thing could apply for most tail waters.

At the very same time, brook trout habitat/populations could be restored in other locations.

Seems like there's an awful lot of protection for the artificial striper fishery in raystown. If I'm not mistaken, that fish isn't native to the Juniata drainage so let's get it out of there 😁

Native fish aside, my issue with Raystown is that even if the money was spent to redesign the discharge works to manage a coldwater fishery, the habitat in the short stretch of the RTB sure doesn't look like it would be conducive to producing a high-quality trout fishery. So it would likely have to be maintained with continual stocking, which will cost even more money, and currently, it costs next to nothing. Then there's the impact on the cool water fish that are already providing that free fishery to a larger demographic of anglers than trout fishermen represent.

 

[Fish Sticks]

From conservation and fishing perspective can I throw Susquehanna river in there and emphasize my endorsement of the potential not logistical ease. Stripers and shad used to make it to New York I believe. Both species embattled in Chesapeake bay with the degradation and other threats would benefit from having their 8,185 miles of migratory/spawning habitat returned to them along with eels and perch species. Imagine fishing runs of shad with spey like for Atlantic salmon and chasing stripers around Harrisburg.

There is the issue with invasive species below the dam but most of them have gotten up those ladders besides blues I think. The benefits to native migratory fiah would outweigh I would think but not sure would have to consult a fisheries scientist.

A few relicensed dams will make sure we never see it.

 

[Acristickid]

I wonder what the limitation of the Yough really is. It could be limited spawning habitat.

But also, I've been there in late summer when the river was very warm. I don't remember the exact temperature, but probably around 80F. They run cold water early in the summer, but then they run out of cold water in late summer. Maybe they don't have the capability to mix flows to conserve cold water to last through the summer.

TB- I know the local TU has placed spawning boxes in the river but it’s just and handful.

 

[jifigz]

You could then have a mandatory harvest on brown trout and people can keep something for the table if they like.

You can't have a "mandatory harvest" on brown trout. You cannot force someone to kill something or make it illegal for someone not to kill something and set it free.. It may only be encouraged.

 

[Swattie87]

You can't have a "mandatory harvest" on brown trout. You cannot force someone to kill something or make it illegal for someone not to kill something and set it free.. It may only be encouraged.

Sure you can. (I’m not suggesting I’d be in favor of it.) But sure you can. Very very difficult to enforce, but you can certainly have a regulation like that. If a WCO observes someone releasing a Brown Trout, they get cited. Simple.

 

[silverfox]

You can't have a "mandatory harvest" on brown trout. You cannot force someone to kill something or make it illegal for someone not to kill something and set it free.. It may only be encouraged.

Tell that to the National Park System.