What killed the trout?

[sarce]

Silverfox wrote:

I just wish there was more priority put on brook trout in this state. Even where it's obvious that they should be given protections (BS) it's an uphill battle. Hell, if people hadn't broken out the pitchforks and torches, the PAFBC would still be pumping out stockers in the headwater of BS to the detriment of the entire stream. When the state actively destroys a world famous brook trout fishery to raise pellet heads, you know their priorities are jacked up. This isn't ancient history either. The BS hatchery went online in 1972, and it was only 2001 when they reluctantly closed it down.

I don't even expect or wish that they made some statewide change in regs. Just set aside a stream or few for brookies only and protect them. At the very least, stop stocking over (just downstream) them in a few places where it might make the biggest difference. For some reason, the state seems satisfied to say that few people fish for them in the headwaters streams, and that's where they're relegated to, and they don't need protections.

I know I've brought it up before, but what Maryland has done with the Savage system should be a model. The mainstem and ALL of it's tributaries are C&R for brook trout. They still stock the lower section of the mainstem with rainbows and goldens, but they do get caught/die and pose no risk to the natives. I think they could do more (stop stocking it entirely), but it's a huge step in the right direction. What's important here is that they did this on a system level. Changes don't have to be statewide to make a huge impact.

Circling back to the OP's post, and hopefully tying this together somehow. Often, it's not one thing that causes damage to the fisheries. It's the culmination of multiple issues. When the primary objective of fisheries management is to stock fish, and fool people into believing that trout only occur in April because the white trucks bring them, the general public has no idea about spawning, or what they should be doing in the fall as fishermen.

So the dead spawner has as much to do with education as it does stream management. Perception can change people. I bet if the club members saw how big wild browns can get on their own they'd consider focusing on letting the wild fish do their thing and stop stocking over them. That takes time and foresight though. Something a lot of instant gratification folks can't handle these days. They want to go out in April and catch a 10lb rainbow, and could care less where it came from. For some reason, the thrill isn't diminished by the fact that someone darn near hooked it on their line for them. I guess that's why people still pay money to fish out of those swimming pools at the sports shows.

sf,

Yours are some of the most accurate posts I've read on PAFF. Everything here is spot on.

If anyone wants a preview of what *could* happen to many PA brook trout streams, especially in the SE counties, take a look at MD's central region (Balt, Harford, Carroll, and Howard counties). First, development caused isolation of brook trout streams by wrecking main waterways. Then, browns got into many of the isolated tributaries and forced out brookies. Flash flooding due to more intense rainfall in the past 5-10 years has eliminated habitat in many streams that still had brook trout. Add up all of these impacts, many of which are present and worsening in parts of PA, and the result is Central MD lost 50% of its brook trout streams in the last 30 years.

Meanwhile, the Savage basin has been protected from these impacts and it hasn't lost anything, in fact it has improved. Connectivity is incredibly important. The isolated trickle populations can blink out in the span of a few years when conditions go south - if there is no downstream source population to replenish it, guess what, that brookie stream is now gone for good.

 

[Swattie87]

It's been discussed a little in the past by this same group of posters, and perhaps alluded to a bit again here, but the answer IMO, lies in the study of recovering AMD watersheds. The PFBC needs to look at this, and learn from it.

Brook Trout, wild ones, are the first fish species (first species period, not just Trout) to show up as an AMD watershed begins to recover. Why? They are very acid tolerant. No one is stocking Brook Trout in these places, but they start to show up. How's that possible? They survived, somewhere in the watershed, in a stream or section of stream that wasn't as badly polluted. As the watershed recovers, they use their fins and swim around and begin to repopulate other areas that were devoid of life. They're brilliant really, and pretty good at it. As long as it goes relatively unnoticed.

I know of three relatively large watersheds specifically, but I'm sure there are more. The three I know all eventually turn into large, warm water rivers...Gives you an idea of the scope of how much water Brook Trout are able to reclaim if they're allowed.

As the watershed recovers though, what is their biggest threat? Answer: Brown Trout. As the system continues to recover to a PH that Brown Trout can inhabit, if they're introduced to the watershed, they will. (Brookies are more acid tolerant than Browns, but many AMD watersheds have recovered to PH's well within the safe range for Browns.)

One of the three I know is about 20 years or so ahead of the other two in its recovery. Already, it has transitioned from being all, or nearly all Brook Trout early in its recovery, to being predominantly wild Brown Trout...Thanks to Brown Trout being stocked in large quantities in its main stem and several of its larger tribs. Brown Trout, even stocked ones, come equipped with fins and can swim and reproduce.

The other two currently don't have anywhere in their upper watersheds stocked with Brown Trout, but I'm sure they'll turn up somewhere, sometime. No need to help them any by stocking them into recovering water that has Brookies, and they're doing well. Don't get me wrong...I like wild Brown Trout, but if we have places with wild Brookies, that don't currently have wild Browns, we should try to keep it that way.

Edit: If anyone from the PFBC sees this, and wants more info, send me a PM, and we can get in touch.

 

[troutbert]

Swattie87 wrote:
It's been discussed a little in the past by this same group of posters, and perhaps alluded to a bit again here, but the answer IMO, lies in the study of recovering AMD watersheds. The PFBC needs to look at this, and learn from it.

Brook Trout, wild ones, are the first fish species (first species period, not just Trout) to show up as an AMD watershed begins to recover. Why? They are very acid tolerant. No one is stocking Brook Trout in these places, but they start to show up. How's that possible? They survived, somewhere in the watershed, in a stream or section of stream that wasn't as badly polluted. As the watershed recovers, they use their fins and swim around and begin to repopulate other areas that were devoid of life. They're brilliant really, and pretty good at it. As long as it goes relatively unnoticed.

I know of three relatively large watersheds specifically, but I'm sure there are more. The three I know all eventually turn into large, warm water rivers...Gives you an idea of the scope of how much water Brook Trout are able to reclaim if they're allowed.

As the watershed recovers though, what is their biggest threat? Answer: Brown Trout. As the system continues to recover to a PH that Brown Trout can inhabit, if they're introduced to the watershed, they will.

As these acidic streams begin to recover, their biggest threat is: Hatchery trout being stocked over the wild brookies.

I know of two large streams, about 70 feet wide, where the only wild trout are native brook trout.

Before stocking started, one had good fishing for brookies, and the other had VERY good fishing for brookies.

Both had limestone treatments done to raise the pH. Both still only have wild brookies, so far as I know.

But after the liming began, stocking of hatchery trout began, and on both streams the native brookie population has been knocked down very hard.

If you go there now, what you catch is mostly stockies.

 

[Swattie87]

Perhaps hatchery Trout are more accurately the root cause of the threat. You’re right TB. In my example of the wild Brown takeover of a recovering AMD system with Brookies, those wild Browns ultimately resulted from the stocking of waters within the watershed.

 

[troutbert]

Swattie87 wrote:
Perhaps hatchery Trout are more accurately the root cause of the threat. You’re right TB. In my example of the wild Brown takeover of a recovering AMD system with Brookies, those wild Browns ultimately resulted from the stocking of waters within the watershed.

It's both. In the cases I mentioned, wild brown trout don't seem to have established. At least not yet. They still might. But the stocking of hatchery trout has resulted in the brookie population getting knocked down.

There are other acidic streams that are recovering where the wild trout population is expanding and competing with the brookies. In many cases the brown trout have been there for a long time, but in low numbers, and further down in the drainage. As the pH and alkalinity rise, the brown trout move up.

In some cases though the brookie/brown ratio seems to be shifting in favor of the brookies in the last 15 years or so. Some examples are: upper Kettle, upper Cross Fork Creek, Hammersley Fork.

I'm saying that based only on my fishing experiences + accounts from other fishermen. I don't know if the PFBC surveys confirm that.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

There it is.

 

[ryansheehan]

I see alot of posting about the savage so I want to point out a few things. First they stock over wild populations of brookies. I have caught many brookies in the catch and return area and many rainbows in the unstocked sections. Second, I have also caught small wild rainbows in many of the reservoir feeders. The stocked bows in the reservoir definitely make their way up. While the program has gotten good results I think it's far from the gold standard. I just don't get the stocking over wild populations and the savage is no exception.

 

[silverfox]

ryansheehan wrote:
I see alot of posting about the savage so I want to point out a few things. First they stock over wild populations of brookies. I have caught many brookies in the catch and return area and many rainbows in the unstocked sections. Second, I have also caught small wild rainbows in many of the reservoir feeders. The stocked bows in the reservoir definitely make their way up. While the program has gotten good results I think it's far from the gold standard. I just don't get the stocking over wild populations and the savage is no exception.

I did mention that they stock bows in the lower mainstem put and take section. I wish they'd stop stocking it completely. That said, I've personally never caught rainbows in any of the tribs and I've pretty much fished them all. I've also never caught rainbows above the bridge just up from Poplar lick. I've caught brookies down in the lower section of the mainstem and I've even caught smallmouth in one of the tribs. That was a surprise.

The put n take section gets hammered, and in my experience, the rainbows get removed pretty quickly. I also seriously doubt their stocking claims. Unlike PA, MD stocks year round in smaller numbers. I've been there when they were supposed to be stocking and never saw anyone stocking fish. I've also been there right after they supposedly stocked and didn't encounter any more rainbows than normal.

Like I said, I do wish they'd stop stocking it completely and close the put n take, but what it is now is leaps and bounds beyond anything we have in PA, and for that I'm extremely grateful.

 

[moon1284]

To answer your question about NY. NY is harder to find information on than PA, and in general trout anglers are tighter lipped than PA.

With the exception of the upper Delaware and the west branch of the ausable, NY doesnt have many famous trout streams. Aside from a few stocked ones in long island, NY has one short spring creek that had its WT population decimated by mergansers a few years ago, so NY doesnt have an abundance of spring creeks either. As someone who has fished a lot in both NY and PA, I would still say NY has very good wild trout fishing, probably on par with PA, maybe slightly worse.

I worked in Bangor for 6 months - maine blows them both away. I dont think I caught one rainbow or brown trout in maine, all landlockeds and brook trout, the vast majority native. Then I fished 3 days in NB for salmon and it absolutely blew maine away...