Wild Brook Trout

[troutbert]

Mike wrote:
The list is already running into the problem of separating the stocked sections from the sections of the streams that support the streams' good wild trout populations. It is not enough to know that a stream is stocked; one also needs to know which section is stocked.

How difficult would it be to pull up that from the PFBC database?

And display those sections on a GIS map?

Could you do that for us? It would be really helpful to understanding the situation.

 

[Acristickid]

From the Brodhead link-

“Historic Beginning

Brodhead Creek was once a tremendous brook trout fishery, and was a destination spot for anglers from all over. Anglers stayed at the many inns and boarding houses in the Stroudsburg and Delaware Water Gap area and fished streams teeming with trout.

The most popular and famous place to stay was the Henryville House in Henryville, Pennsylvania. It sat alongside Paradise Creek, a quality, coldwater tributary of Brodhead Creek. Guests would fish the nearby sections of the Paradise and upper Brodhead watershed for some of the finest native brook trout in the region; Henryville House logbooks reveal anglers keeping their 40-fish limits, with some individual fish weighing more than 4 pounds. Unfortunately, this tremendous fishery was not going to last.”

 

[Mike]

I am not involved other than to comment on a few basic complexities, particularly since one list included some Area 6 waters and, therefore, resulted in my comment above and the examples below.
Trout Rn, Lanc Co...not stocked by PFBC
Willow Ck, Berks...stocked in section that annully has a smattering of ST from a trib, but gets too warm every summer or dries up. No permanent population.
Northkill Ck, Berks...stocked stretch has very low density of wild BT. Good ST sections were removed from stocking around 1981 or 1982. Based on a recent survey, Section 01 is being submitted as a Class A candidate while Section 02 remains Class B-high C, depending upon the year, and is not stocked. Stocked downstream from Section 02.

This may also be indicative of a problem of interpretation when some individuals claim that a Class A stream is being stocked. Streams are managed by sections, which are management units, and while a stream name may appear in the list of stocked trout waters it does not automatically mean that a Class A section is stocked.

 

[Swattie87]

Thanks Mike, appreciate the help...You repeatedly and deliberately circumvent and undermine the stocking over native ST issue when it's brought up on here. Which if it's your opinion (or yours at the direction of the PFBC) that we SHOULD be stocking over them, or it's ok in certain instances, is fine I guess. Everyone can have their own opinion, including you and the PFBC, but I really don't know what yours is.

I double checked the Lanc Co. stocking list, you're right about Trout Run. As I conceded in my original list, I was going off memory and acknowledged there may be a mistake or two. My bad cap.

Beyond that, the task at hand was to list streams that are stocked that have wild Brook Trout in them. You know, and we know, that the vast majority of the streams we're talking about and have the biggest issues with are the small forested freestoners. As salmonoid explained earlier, these are the low hanging fruit from a resource management perspective. The resource both being the native fish themselves, and PFBC funding.

If you're in support of this concept, can you give us any constructive feedback or advice on how to better approach it? If you're not, that's cool, but let us know that. Because we've had this discussion before...Stocked Sections vs. Streams...Even most PFBC fish come equipped with fins and are capable of swimming.

Edit: In a more constructive tone perhaps from my perspective...I think we'd be willing to punt on streams sections like Kettle Creek below the Alvin Bush Dam, or Pine Creek below Galeton, or perhaps more local to you, Willow Creek or Lower Northkill. But how do we best go about moving an agenda forward to end stocking on the small forested freestoners capable of supporting good wild trout populations on their own?

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

All stocked creeks must get a permit from the PFBC to stock said waters, while you aren't physically dumping the fish in, the PFBC allows it

You play semantics well

 

[ryansheehan]

I'm not going to lie, this thread has me a little confused from a few different angles. Please excuse my ignorance as I live in Virginia and have no first hand knowledge of any of these streams. That being said I have a three questions which might make things a little clearer to me.
1. Are there sections of streams that have established st populations(class A) that get stocked over in that section?
2. If there are brook trout in the higher elevations of a stream would there be cause not to stock a lower warmer section?
3. What is the process in which PA decides what can be stocked(by the state or privately), is it a transparent process?

 

[troutbert]

ryansheehan wrote:
I'm not going to lie, this thread has me a little confused from a few different angles. Please excuse my ignorance as I live in Virginia and have no first hand knowledge of any of these streams. That being said I have a three questions which might make things a little clearer to me.
1. Are there sections of streams that have established st populations(class A) that get stocked over in that section?
2. If there are brook trout in the higher elevations of a stream would there be cause not to stock a lower warmer section?
3. What is the process in which PA decides what can be stocked(by the state or privately), is it a transparent process?

Just read post 28, which explains the whole issue.

We are listing streams where hatchery trout are stocked over populations of native brook trout.

Note that nothing is said or implied about stocking in Class A sections.

And nothing is said about stocking in sections BELOW native brook trout populations.

Just to repeat, we are listing streams where hatchery trout are stocked over populations of native brook trout.

That is all. It's very straightforward.

And what has been listed is a very small sampling of streams where this is being done. We are not going to be able to produce a full list, or anything close to that.

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:

ryansheehan wrote:
I'm not going to lie, this thread has me a little confused from a few different angles. Please excuse my ignorance as I live in Virginia and have no first hand knowledge of any of these streams. That being said I have a three questions which might make things a little clearer to me.
1. Are there sections of streams that have established st populations(class A) that get stocked over in that section?
2. If there are brook trout in the higher elevations of a stream would there be cause not to stock a lower warmer section?
3. What is the process in which PA decides what can be stocked(by the state or privately), is it a transparent process?

Just read post 28, which explains the whole issue.

We are listing streams where hatchery trout are stocked over populations of native brook trout.

Note that nothing is said or implied about stocking in Class A sections.

And nothing is said about stocking in sections BELOW native brook trout populations.

Just to repeat, we are listing streams where hatchery trout are stocked over populations of native brook trout.

That is all. It's very straightforward.

And what has been listed is a very small sampling of streams where this is being done. We are not going to be able to produce a full list, or anything close to that.

Agreed ^

The important points, IMO, are currently there is stocking over wild native brook trout. Troutbert and others have provided streams where they see this happening. As a side note, the size of list and streams on the list are somewhat surprising to me since I don't live near and seldom fish the central and northern counties. When I do, it is most often in the well known streams. Thanks to everyone that listed streams above.

Just to step back a bit and look at how we got where we're at right now concerning wild trout. One reason why stocking is occuring over natives is stream health has improved immensely in many areas. ST are now able to inhabit streams that had marginal water quality in the past. The other reason for the stocking is pressure from anglers that want fish stocked in their local or favorite water.

It's up to the PFBC to reassess the streams that now hold natives and adjust stocking to avoid conflict with our native fish. Given the budget constraints put on the PFBC, the commission will be forced to reassess which streams and stream sections are stocked as well as how many fish are to be stocked.

Protecting wild trout and most especially native trout should be Job1 for the PFBC. One cannot blame them in many cases for stocking certain streams since it's the anglers themselves that demand it. But now, since cuts are eminent, it may the right time to take a stand. I for one cannot see the sense in cutting stocking numbers and/or frequency in streams that offer no trout fishing opportunities at all without stocking while stocking streams that have a fishable population of wild fish or have the potential for one.

Many on here are very active in Trout Unlimited and hopefully some of this info, or just the idea to push for the PFBC to reassess stocking can be put into action.

 

[tomitrout]

Well, looking at Swattie's list, I may have spoken too soon about local south central waters....some of them do have wild brookies in them, just not enough that I personally consider to be 'viable' sport fishery in the sections where they're stocked (Carbaugh, the 'cheague for example). Most of the stocking takes place in sections that are pretty marginal and below where the really good brook populations are, imho. And I'm not really convinced that cessation of stocking in those sections would change that due to other influencing factors such as habitat and low/warm summertime flows.

That said, I would add Mountain Creek in Cumberland County to this list, but only above Laurel Lake where it's stocked up to Pine Grove Furnace/Bendersville Rd. Below the spillway at Laurel you run into thermal issues in the summer and the wild browns take over. Between Laurel and Fuller Lakes it has a lot of potential as a wild ST fishery and they are in there, but it's also a very popular stretch with a lot of folks and very easy access, so taking it off the stocking list would be a big political ask for such a short stretch of stream.

And if you really want to stir things up, you could probably add The Run in Boiling Springs to your list, I'm sure there's one or two wild brookies in there that are stocked over...

 

[afishinado]

tomitrout wrote:
Well, looking at Swattie's list, I may have spoken too soon about local south central waters....some of them do have wild brookies in them, just not enough that I personally consider to be 'viable' sport fishery in the sections where they're stocked (Carbaugh, the 'cheague for example). Most of the stocking takes place in sections that are pretty marginal and below where the really good brook populations are, imho. And I'm not really convinced that cessation of stocking in those sections would change that due to other influencing factors such as habitat and low/warm summertime flows.

That said, I would add Mountain Creek in Cumberland County to this list, but only above Laurel Lake where it's stocked up to Pine Grove Furnace/Bendersville Rd. Below the spillway at Laurel you run into thermal issues in the summer and the wild browns take over. Between Laurel and Fuller Lakes it has a lot of potential as a wild ST fishery and they are in there, but it's also a very popular stretch with a lot of folks and very easy access, so taking it off the stocking list would be a big political ask for such a short stretch of stream.

And if you really want to stir things up, you could probably add The Run in Boiling Springs to your list, I'm sure there's one or two wild brookies in there that are stocked over...

Some good stuff. The streams posted here are in no way the "be all and end all" list of streams. Hopefully it just gets everyone thinking and looking around, and helps move things in a positive direction.

 

[jifigz]

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).

There is no possibly in this. East Licking Creek holds some beautiful native brook trout and where it holds them it gets stocked with a ton of hatchery brook and rainbow trout. I'll second East Licking Creek as it shouldn't be stocked.

 

[jifigz]

That is the East Licking Creek in Mifflin/Juliana County (Tuscarora State Forst) and not the one farther south near the WV and MD line.

 

[troutbert]

jifigz wrote:

East Licking Creek holds some beautiful native brook trout and where it holds them it gets stocked with a ton of hatchery brook and rainbow trout. I'll second East Licking Creek as it shouldn't be stocked.

Strongly agree. East Licking Creek in the state forest sections holds wild brookies and some wild browns and would greatly benefit by ending of stocking.

 

[troutbert]

tomitrout wrote:
And if you really want to stir things up, you could probably add The Run in Boiling Springs to your list, I'm sure there's one or two wild brookies in there that are stocked over...

I doubt that there is a brookie population there. Maybe this meant as a joke.

 

[tomitrout]

We are listing streams where hatchery trout are stocked over populations of native brook trout.

Quote:
tomitrout wrote:
And if you really want to stir things up, you could probably add The Run in Boiling Springs to your list, I'm sure there's one or two wild brookies in there that are stocked over...

I doubt that there is a brookie population there. Maybe this meant as a joke.

No, not really joking, but sort of....why not include it? What then is your definition of a 'brookie population'? Where do you you want to draw the line? From the way some of ya'll talk on here, if only the stocking would cease we'd all be catching 12" unicorn brookies in short order!!!

Maybe Dave W. will chime in since he's much more familiar with the Run's dynamics than I, but I'm pretty sure I've seen reports of spawning happening in The Run, so there must be some resident wild fish that call it home before moving into the Breeches...and then do you also wanna go after the stocking on the Breeches since those spawners are coming from somewhere if not resident to the Run?

Also too, wanna add Big Spring to the list? I'm sure there are some token natives that find their way down into the stocked open water that are technically then also being stocked over.

I guess my point is that there needs to be compromise and the constant harping on PFBC and their stocking policies gets old and tired. Are you looking for a black and white demarcation of no more stocking over wild brookies, period. Or are you looking for a more nuanced approach where Class A & B's are respected and C & D's are looked at on a case by case basis? Take the Conococheague for example, sure, it's stocked below the old reservoir 'headwaters' and there are probably natives there, but there's a great stretch of water with plenty of native brookies to harass above the stocking. Do you really want to cease stocking down thru Caledonia and deal with the uproar from the put and take crowd just so you can have another couple miles of fishing for 7 or 8" natives in a picnic area?

IMHO, PFBC is doing a fine job with the application of their stocking policy....they try to leave class A's alone except in special circumstances that are influenced by local 'political' factors, they're cutting back on stocking Class B's and overall are stocking fewer fish than they have in the past. Meanwhile, groups like TU are working to improve local habitats to enhance the fisheries and improve the quality of the watersheds on the local level and it's pretty evident that there are plenty of fishing opportunities in PA if you want to solely target wild fish.

Nobody is going to roll the clock back 100yrs to the fabled days of yore, environmental factors/modern living alone inhibit that from ever happening...this quest some of ya'll are on to end stocking over any and all 'brookie' populations seems awfully Quixotic, again, in my humble opinion. And take that for what it's worth....

 

[ryansheehan]

troutbert wrote:

ryansheehan wrote:
I'm not going to lie, this thread has me a little confused from a few different angles. Please excuse my ignorance as I live in Virginia and have no first hand knowledge of any of these streams. That being said I have a three questions which might make things a little clearer to me.
1. Are there sections of streams that have established st populations(class A) that get stocked over in that section?
2. If there are brook trout in the higher elevations of a stream would there be cause not to stock a lower warmer section?
3. What is the process in which PA decides what can be stocked(by the state or privately), is it a transparent process?

Just read post 28, which explains the whole issue.

We are listing streams where hatchery trout are stocked over populations of native brook trout.

Note that nothing is said or implied about stocking in Class A sections.

And nothing is said about stocking in sections BELOW native brook trout populations,

Just to repeat, we are listing streams where hatchery trout are stocked over populations of native brook trout.

That is all. It's very straightforward.

And what has been listed is a very small sampling of streams where this is being done. We are not going to be able to produce a full list, or anything close to that.

My confusion lies where folks are saying there are different sections that receive stocking from where st populations may be, post 80.

 

[tomitrout]

My confusion lies where folks are saying there are different sections that receive stocking from where st populations may be, post 80.

Ry, yes, there are streams where a wild population exists in the upper reaches and the stream is stocked below that point. So the wild fish may not be getting stocked over just because the stream shows up on both the stocking and wild repro/Class A list. It would be quite the chore to suss out the exact 'official' overlaps, but the stocking list provides GPS coordinates for the limits of the sections being stocked and the Wild Repro and Class A lists also provide coordinates for the stream sections that are classified as such. Beyond that you need to rely on local knowledge to know what's really happening on the ground...the state stocking list doesn't account for supplemental coop stockings for example. Nor does it account for local landowners who may buy a few buckets of fish from a local hatchery for their backyard stream each year.

 

[jifigz]

A few other streams that receive stockings over wild brook trout, but some of these streams have rather meager populations, I'll admit: Treaster Run, Havice Run/Creek, West Licking Creek, Standing Stone Creek.

 

[KenU]

Stocking over native brook trout is an issue that is finally being discussed seriously here in PA. And it is also a big deal within PATU.

Most fisheries biologists I have ever communicated with agree that stocking hatchery trout over native trout populations is a travesty. The protection and preservation of native species is not just a fishing issue; it is, more importantly, a conservation issue.
The issue is, however, very complex. Many streams that get too warm during the summer are perfectly suitable for trout during the late fall, winter and spring months. Old angling literature describes how brook trout would move in and out of the main stems of big freestones like Kettle Creek, Loyalsock and Sinnemahoning with the seasons. This is how they achieved much larger sizes than they do today. This may still be possible in some big freestones like Kettle Creek above Stephenson Dam. Trout can live there during the spring. We know that because Kettle Creek is stocked in the spring and the hatchery fish do just fine until mid-summer. I have caught sub-legal wild brookies in the riffles just above the swimming hole at Ole Bull Park in the middle of June. Lots of them!

Charlie Wetzel wrote that brook trout grew as big as 20 inches in Kettle Creek around the turn of the 20th century. In “The Vanishing Trout,” Charles Lose describes how brookies would move up out of the mainstem of the Loyalsock late in the spring, summer over in the upstream waters, spawn in the fall and then move back down into the main stem waters in November when early winter rains cooled and raised water levels. Here they were safe from anchor ice and the other perils of winter. The large downstream waters were full of minnows and crayfish on which they could feed. Mayflies and caddiis still thrive in these waters and are abundant until early summer. All this protein is available until the water warms beyond the comfort level for brookies later in the summer. Even though they could not stay there throughout the summer, this offered them a biological advantage over brookies that spent their entire lives in the smaller, upstream waters. Finally, studies are being done which show that these movements still occur. What the “Old-Timers“wrote about was true!

We really do need a long term plan to preserve and protect our natives to the extent possible. The first move would be to stop stocking over them. Other management steps may be needed, but that is by far, the most important step. Picking which streams and where to start is the tough part.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

As previously stated, the issue is much larger in NCPA. I have caught native brookies in Little Pine in the DHALO section in June, I have caught them in the mainstem of Lycoming, Loyalsock and Muncy Creek as well. A good example of what would be a fantastic stream to stop stocking and observe changes in brook trout would be Little Bear. The lower section is stocked heavily, there are youth fishing derbies here, and TU in partner with a grad student (I believe from IUP) recently completed a fish passage study. However, the public uproar from ceasing to stock this stream would be immense. If it's not possible to justify cessation of stocking on lower BFC, where a legitimate sustainable Class A wild trout population exists how are we going to win the battles on smaller bodies of water.

Ideally the first streams to be targeted should probably be streams that face less pressure from the opening day crowd that's there to harvest their 5 trout. If a good candidate stream can be identified without causing a lot of public backlash, it would be a great opportunity for a study, although data would most likely need to be collected for >5 years to get a good understanding of the results from the cessation of stocking.