KenU wrote:
OK, given that brook trout cannot live much longer than 5 or 6 years in the wild and growth is not necessarily linear, riddle me this: How do brookies in NE Canada achieve weights from 4 to over 8 lbs? Is it habitat, genetics, long lives? Or is it some combination of these and other factors? Keep in mind, up until 10,000 years ago the last Great Glacier covered everything north of the PA border. That’s the blink of an eye geologically speaking.
Brookies are thought to have evolved about 1 million years ago. Until the turn of the 20th century brook trout living in PA’s big freestone and limestone streams once achieved 20 inches? Where’s the proof that they still can’t get that big? If YOY brookies are put into ponds where there is ample food and allowed to live to their maximum life span, they can still achieve 20+ inches. That’s how that big brookie that escaped the hatchery in Lamar got to be over 7 lbs. Why was it so special?
Those genes are probably still extant in our brook trout populations, but have been suppressed over the last 100 years because brookies have been confined to small infertile streams. This selects for short life spans and small size. But the combination of genetic factors needed to reach the really modest size of 20 inches is probably still in the broad population. We need a long term study of these fish to see what their genetic potential is. Sounds like a great thesis subject to me.
Perhaps because we are talking about the brookies that live in the habitats and environments of Pennsylvania, and not NE Canada? We do not have the large rivers, lakes and ponds in PA that Canada does and there are larger pieces of ecosystems still intact in Canada, whereas we have but a patchwork quilt here in PA.
A hatchery fish is fed pellets to it's little pea-brained heart's content and it's usually insulated from the stresses that cause wild fish to succumb at a much earlier age than their maximum potential. Take any organism raised in an artificial environment and for the most part, subtract inches from length and years from lifespan when it has to fend for itself in a wild or natural environment.
I've looked for scientific proof of the historical size of brookies in PA freestone streams and never found any. All reference is to angling literature, and of course, anglers never lie or embellish stories, so it must be true.
From the
PA Council of TU brook trout restoration roadmap, which you may well have authored or contributed to, and which I often see paraphrased:
"History
Until late in the 19th century, brook trout were widespread in the Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania. Some indication of the average size of brook trout taken by anglers in the
late 19th and early 20th centuries comes from the creel carried at the time. It was called a
12-pounder, because, when filled with the limit of 40 trout, it weighed twelve pounds.
The average brook trout in that creel would therefore have weighed about 0.30 lb.
According to the PFBC Weight-Length Estimator IIthey would have averaged about 9
inches.2
According to old angling literature, brook trout of 12 to 14 inches were not
uncommon in large freestone streams like Kettle Creek, Sinnemahoning and Loyalsock
and limestone streams. Maximum size in large freestone waters was said to be about 20
inches.3-5"
The references cited are:
2. PFBC, Weight-Length Estimator Part II,
http://www.fishandboat.com/images/pages/fishin1/weightlength2.pdf
3. Wetzel, Charles, 1962 “Brook Trout Fishing in the Kettle Creek Country.” From:
“100 Pennsylvania Trout Streams and How to Fish Them,” Compiled and edited
by Jim Hayes.
4. Lose, Charles, 1931, “The Vanishing Trout” Published by The Times Tribune
Company., Altoona, PA
5. Greeley, Max with Hayes, Jim, 1980 “Potter County Trout Fishing in the Good
Old Days” Pennsylvania Angler p14.
I've read all three sources and there are a few items to note. First, the time ranges of the publications (or the recollections contained in them) are from when fish were stocked in PA, so it cannot be unequivocally said that the length of the fish caught (if an accurate length) was the length of wild fish. Second, the PA Angler article (which is from April 1980, missing in the citation) speaks to the size of the fish, which is not a whole lot different than today. The old timers referenced there spoke of more fish, not necessarily drastically larger fish, but they did allude to the migration of fish from larger bodies of water. That's where you get your larger fish from and that's the habitat that has been altered by warming of the water, and deforestation. A similar sizing (maybe an inch larger on average) is listed by Wetzel. That fragmented, patchwork ecosystem that exists today is one of the primary reason why I feel larger fish are not as prevalent as in the past. They can't move like they used to because they can't live where they used to overwinter.
Anyone know what site might contain these bones (or the publication of the unearthing of them)?
"Skeletons of brook trout found in Native American sites along streams in Pennsylvania indicate that they sometimes caught and consumed trout weighing as much as six pounds." This is claimed
in a PennLive article
.
If I were to write an article about angling in 2018, guess what? It would include fish caught that were on average size 9-11" and up to 20". That's my angling experience every year.
I went back to Thad Up De Graff's "Bodines" for a pre-stocking source (published 1879, just six years after the first hatchery opened in PA). A note-worthy trout mentioned there from the Loyalsock is a 16-inch fish caught by Sanders (but lost at his feet while trying to net).
So, all of that to say - the nostalgia that seems to exist for the days of yore may just be largely mythology. Our notions about the size of wild brookies in the past may simply not be correct (except for limited locations). But drainages, like Pine Creek (northern tier), Loyalsock, Kettle, and Penns all had the potential to be overwintering sites for brookies to grow larger in the past.
2" or 12" or 20" aside, that fragmented habitat thing is a real issue. The stocking of any fish (brown, rainbow or brook) is a real issue. The warming of water is an issue. The overall water quality (and it's ebb and flow over time) is an issue. Some changes are reversible, some are permanent, and some are in flux.
