Wild Brook Trout

[PennKev]

jifigz wrote:
I really don't think that anglers many years ago keeping larger fish has anything to do with why brook trout in the state are on the smaller side. I'd be willing to bet that it has everything to do with them being confined to the most infertile, smallest, and secluded streams. Everywhere they are surrounded by barriers, as the article pointed out. Human development, warm temps, and the now much more dominant and adaptable brown trout which rules the larger, more fertile streams. I've certainly seen brookies in Big Spring that are significantly larger than any of my favorite brookie waters here in Mifflin and Centre counties. Why aren't those fish all 7 inches from the heavy creeling of larger fish in years past?

^This is probably the most accurate assessment of the situation. I think many bookie enthusiasts don't want to face the truth that we simply don't have many streams left that can produce bookies of decent size in any real quantity. I think putting the blame on harvest, whether current or in the long-term, is more palatable since it is more feasible to stop harvest and even introduce new strains of brookies. On the other hand, restoring the environment to a condition that once again supports big brookies is insurmountable.

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:
The issue of widespread stocking over native brook trout (and wild trout in general) was not mentioned at the Wild Trout Summit.

It was the "elephant in the room" there.

And it was the "elephant in the room" in this article too.

Any discussion or article about native brook trout that does not include this issue has a severe credibility problem.

If you are going to have a serious discussion about a topic, you have to include the important issues.

If you just omit obviously important ones, because they are difficult to deal with, you're killing your credibility.

PennKev wrote:
This is probably the most accurate assessment of the situation. I think many bookie enthusiasts don't want to face the truth that we simply don't have many streams left that can produce bookies of decent size in any real quantity. I think putting the blame on harvest, whether current or in the long-term, is more palatable since it is more feasible to stop harvest and even introduce new strains of brookies. On the other hand, restoring the environment to a condition that once again supports big brookies is insurmountable.

Great discussion.

IMO, the "elephant in the room" is not really just the current stocking of trout (brown trout for the most part), it is the trout introduced in past stockings, likely from strains stocked many years ago, and their proliferation as a wild fish, replacing the native brookies in their former habitat.

One can (and should) continue to protect and enhance stream habitat, but the brown trout is now the king of the stream in PA.

We actually do now have great streams for brook trout to prosper...but the brown trout has taken over many of them leaving only the smaller streams and headwaters for the natives. Tiny streams yield tiny fish, for the most part. That's really what's insurmountable, IMO.

The best we can do is try to help native brookies hold on to what's left of their population in the streams they current inhabit.

 

[jifigz]

afishinado wrote

The best we can do is try to help native brookies hold on to what's left of their population in the streams they current inhabit.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[k-bob]

I guess brookies are often small due to a double whammy. First, Brookies have a shorter lifespan than wild Browns. For example the PFBC sites says a wild Brown might live 10 to 12 years while few brookies would survive past 6. Second, bookies are often in small and infertile environments, this is in part due the to their acid tolerance .. they are in the head waters where the acid rain has not been neutralized as much. But these acudic waters have fewer aquatic bugs... Short life plus low food leads to small fish.

 

[jifigz]

k-bob wrote:
I guess brookies are often small due to a double whammy. First, Brookies have a shorter lifespan than wild Browns. For example the PFBC sites says a wild Brown might live 10 to 12 years while few brookies would survive past 6. Second, bookies are often in small and infertile environments, this is in part due the to their acid tolerance .. they are in the head waters where the acid rain has not been neutralized as much. But these acudic waters have fewer aquatic bugs... Short life plus low food leads to small fish.

Once again I think the point is being missed here. Yes brook trout may not be as genetically given to as long of a life as brown trout (I honestly don't know if that's true or not.) But at the same time more of it had to do with where they are confined to. It is essentially comparing a child in the U.S. to a child in a very under developed country. Less food, nutrition, shelter and care generally leads to shorter lives. Those are similar to the habitats brookies face with where they are trapped to. There is less nutrition and survival is harder.

 

[JackM]

Combining two popular misconceptions, I would recommend keeping all browns because we know that harvest decimates populations and stunts the gene pool. Thus would brook trout thrive in any given brown/brook culture.

 

[troutbert]

There is a great potential to improve the populations of PA brook trout.

The first, most obvious would be to end stocking over brook trout, by the PFBC and by the coop hatcheries.

This would improve both the numbers and the size of the brookies in a very large mileage of streams. And it would cost nothing, and in fact would actually save money.

If the agencies (and the public) ever gets serious about brook trout populations, that step will be taken. Until that step is taken, you will know that they are not serious.

Once that step is taken, then there are a great many things that could be done regarding restoring the habitat on brook trout streams. Including:

Removing dams that impound brookie streams, which would reduce water temperatures, and allow brookie movement to find thermal refuge in the summer.

Restoring riparian vegetation where that is lacking. Restoring large wood debris where that is lacking.

Reconnecting streams and floodplains where they have been separated. Many streams have been "channelized" i.e. moved, straightened, had their secondary channels eliminated, and been locked into place. Including on public lands. These things can be undone, restoring the normal habitat-forming processes of dynamic streams flowing through a normally vegetated floodplain.

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:
There is a great potential to improve the populations of PA brook trout.

The first, most obvious would be to end stocking over brook trout, by the PFBC and by the coop hatcheries.

This would improve both the numbers and the size of the brookies in a very large mileage of streams. And it would cost nothing, and in fact would actually save money.

If the agencies (and the public) ever gets serious about brook trout populations, that step will be taken. Until that step is taken, you will know that they are not serious.

Once that step is taken, then there are a great many things that could be done regarding restoring the habitat on brook trout streams. Including:

Removing dams that impound brookie streams, which would reduce water temperatures, and allow brookie movement to find thermal refuge in the summer.

Restoring riparian vegetation where that is lacking. Restoring large wood debris where that is lacking.

Reconnecting streams and floodplains where they have been separated. Many streams have been "channelized" i.e. moved, straightened, had their secondary channels eliminated, and been locked into place. Including on public lands. These things can be undone, restoring the normal habitat-forming processes of dynamic streams flowing through a normally vegetated floodplain.

I'm certainly against stocking over any viable wild trout population, including stocking over wild browns.

But stocking over any population of wild native brook trout is a cardinal sin and should be opposed vehemently.

Troutbert, give us a list of native brookie streams, the major ones or the ones you feel are most vulnerable, that are currently being stocked over by the PFBC and/or the coop hatcheries or clubs. With this list, we can come up with an action plan to stop it.

This point in time is likely the perfect time for us to voice our opinions and help shape the future of wild trout in PA, since it is very likely stocking policies will change drastically due to the lack of funding.

This is our opportunity to actually do something for the native brook trout, rather than just complaining about it. With a list of streams in hand, we can advocate for saving the remaining native population of brook trout and possibly turn the tide and actually expand its range.

 

[mav1958]

JackM wrote:
Combining two popular misconceptions, I would recommend keeping all browns because we know that harvest decimates populations and stunts the gene pool. Thus would brook trout thrive in any given brown/brook culture.

Wasn't there a short lived program on a couple of streams?

Brook trout enhancement or something of that sort?

 

[sarce]

Continued rehabilitation of AMD streams could open up many miles of fairly large would-be brook trout waters.

I have one for the list Afish. S. Fork of Beech Creek. Club and state stockings of all 3 species on miles of super clean, cold brook trout water. I used to fish it in summer and caught more native brookies than anything else, reverse is true early in the season.

Then you could clean up the AMD in the main stem of Beech and bam, there's several miles of prime brookie habitat that just opened up.

 

[tomitrout]

Troutbert, give us a list of native brookie streams, the major ones or the ones you feel are most vulnerable, that are currently being stocked over by the PFBC and/or the coop hatcheries or clubs. With this list, we can come up with an action plan to stop it.

Yes please, I'll second this suggestion. I'm curious where all of these tremendous brookie streams are that are being held back by overstocking.

I can think of one in my neck of the woods, and that would possibly be East Licking Creek (but it can get awfully skinny during the dog days of summer, so I doubt stocking is the main detriment there). Just about every other brookie stream I frequent, it's the habitat and not stocking policies that are holding us back from regularly catching trophy sized natives. Granted, I don't head up into the northern tier much to chase brookies, so my knowledge is admittedly weak in that regard.

 

[Mike]

My impressions from seeing the use of the word "viable" here over the years is that the definition has varied depending upon the individual and that the definition has been contextual. By definition, a viable population can be pretty darn minimal and certainly not large enough to provide any kind of fishery.

 

[troutbert]

I'll start putting a list together, but it will take awhile.

In the meantime, other people feel free to post some.

Afish, Mike, anyone.

Surely many of you are familiar with streams where hatchery trout are being stocked over native brook trout.

 

[wildtrout2]

Drakes Creek (Carbon) comes to mind. It is a tiny little stream, but has such potential. It does have some deep pools in certain spots. I'm sure the stocked trout eat their share of little natives, because their numbers aren't what they were 10 years ago, when I fished it for the first time. It really is a cool little stream further up in the gorge. My buddy caught a 9" native on Drakes, so they're not all 4" trout. I think Drakes would be well served if they stopped the stocking.

 

[troutbert]

Here are a few:

Eddy Lick Run, Wolf Run, Pine Creek (Penns drainage), Sixmile Run, South Fork Beech Creek, White Deer Creek, Marsh Creek.

All in Centre Cty.

 

[troutbert]

A few more:

Brooks Run, Clear Creek, Driftwood Branch (upper part), East Branch Cowley Run, Mix Run, North Creek, Upper Jerry Run, West Branch Hicks Run, Wykoff Run.

All Cameron County.

 

[afishinado]

Mike wrote:
My impressions from seeing the use of the word "viable" here over the years is that the definition has varied depending upon the individual and that the definition has been contextual. By definition, a viable population can be pretty darn minimal and certainly not large enough to provide any kind of fishery.

Everyone has a different definition of what the consider a viable stream. For me, it's a stream that currently has a population of trout and has the potential to become a Class A wild trout stream.

I can just imagine if in the 80's some fish huggers suggested that stocking be halted in Valley Creek to allow it to become a Class A wild trout stream. Stocking stopped and it grew into a very popular wild stream right in the middle of millions of people. There was a lot of work done to get it cleaned up and protect it, but it was a viable stream....I guess.

To the credit of the Clean Water Act, conservation organizations as well as the PFBC, many stream have been cleaned up and now are viable wild trout streams. Look at the Little J as an example, the training wheels have been taken off and it's no longer a "viable" wild trout stream, it's an "actual" wild trout stream.

Anyway the best way to start is to ID the wild streams being stocked and decide if stocking is the best way forward. Let's face it, given the budget realities of the PFBC, the number of streams as well as the amount of fish stocked will have to be cut. It would make the most sense to cut stocking where wild fish numbers make a stream a viable fishery and move the stocking more to streams that are not viable fisheries without stocked fish.

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:

Here are a few:

Eddy Lick Run, Wolf Run, Pine Creek (Penns drainage), Sixmile Run, South Fork Beech Creek, White Deer Creek, Marsh Creek.

All in Centre Cty.


A few more:

Brooks Run, Clear Creek, Driftwood Branch (upper part), East Branch Cowley Run, Mix Run, North Creek, Upper Jerry Run, West Branch Hicks Run, Wykoff Run.

All Cameron County.

Good stuff, Dwight!

There's a lot of knowledgeable anglers on this site from all parts of the state. Let's everyone participate to compile an entire list of brook trout streams in PA that are currently stocked. We can check each one out to confirm, and work from there.

 

[Mike]

Valley Creek is not a good example and at some point in the future I will most likely show that. My point, however, was that your group will somehow eventually need to settle on a definition of viable or choose another word that more clearly defines what the group is seeking. It sounds as though you are saying viable fishery while in the past others have seemingly meant viable populations, the definition of which are less restrictive. I'm not here to debate this; I'm just pointing it out. It is up to your group to settle.

 

[streamerguy]

Let's put our rods and reels down for a second..

Does there HAVE to be a viable fishery, to move forward and protect/enhance brook trout populations? So just because there aren't "enough," or they're "too small," or whatever to provide any kind of "viable" fishery in someone's mind, let's go ahead and dump some hatchery fish on top of them. Because creating a viable fishing opportunity(stocked trout) > conservation of the state fish

Point being, why spend a ton of money on something that is potentially destructive to, or limits a native brook trout population. The trout could be stocked in other waters that don't have brook trout, or the money could be used on other stuff. Why does there NEED to be stocked trout fisheries in these streams? License sales, I guess.....