wild or Stocked

[JeffP]

It is fun to speculate as the catcher or the viewer. Here is some info on this fish and location. It is on the natural reproduction list but is not class A. It is stocked with brook trout which some stated would heavily sway their opinion. We fished it after a huge flood. Seeing where the stream had been outside its banks and the twisted trees and debris left behind from earlier in the week, it was hard to believe there wasn't a serious fish kill. That fact that it was not class A, led me to believe that it wouldn't be a good day. This stream was basically a chute of whitewater the day we fished it. It was almost impossible to get out of the stream due to vegetation and fairly steep banks on both sides.The stream is extremely rocky except in a few places where the flood had scoured out areas of clay. If you look behind me, you can see this fish was caught in one of these deep gouges with no stone and just a plain clay bottom. I really did not think anything would be in that hole but there were a few overhanging bushes but still not really any cover to speak of. The reason I brought this up, was because I showed a friend who I hadn't seen for a while. He is really knowledgeable and his first reaction was to question whether the fish was a native.
Some reasons to think it's not wild is that it is stocked with brook trout. The back certainly has the look of a stocker. Overall it had a pretty washed out look. However, I am virtually sure it's a native. The sharp fins and deep red on the underbody and tail make me think native. The most compelling reason I believe it's a native is because we caught a number of other trout that looked exactly like this one, but they were much smaller than stocker size. I probably caught 6-8 other brookies about 5-7 inches and missed probably 20 more. It's hard to believe we moved so many trout considering the flood damage, the fact that it's not class A, and also that the creek was up so high and the fish obviously were not concentrated and easy to find fishy holes.

 

[salmonoid]

JeffP wrote:
It is fun to speculate as the catcher or the viewer. Here is some info on this fish and location. It is on the natural reproduction list but is not class A. It is stocked with brook trout which some stated would heavily sway their opinion. We fished it after a huge flood. Seeing where the stream had been outside its banks and the twisted trees and debris left behind from earlier in the week, it was hard to believe there wasn't a serious fish kill. That fact that it was not class A, led me to believe that it wouldn't be a good day. This stream was basically a chute of whitewater the day we fished it. It was almost impossible to get out of the stream due to vegetation and fairly steep banks on both sides.The stream is extremely rocky except in a few places where the flood had scoured out areas of clay. If you look behind me, you can see this fish was caught in one of these deep gouges with no stone and just a plain clay bottom. I really did not think anything would be in that hole but there were a few overhanging bushes but still not really any cover to speak of. The reason I brought this up, was because I showed a friend who I hadn't seen for a while. He is really knowledgeable and his first reaction was to question whether the fish was a native.
Some reasons to think it's not wild is that it is stocked with brook trout. The back certainly has the look of a stocker. Overall it had a pretty washed out look. However, I am virtually sure it's a native. The sharp fins and deep red on the underbody and tail make me think native. The most compelling reason I believe it's a native is because we caught a number of other trout that looked exactly like this one, but they were much smaller than stocker size. I probably caught 6-8 other brookies about 5-7 inches and missed probably 20 more. It's hard to believe we moved so many trout considering the flood damage, the fact that it's not class A, and also that the creek was up so high and the fish obviously were not concentrated and easy to find fishy holes.

Fish have survived floods for many moons. That doesn't mean that floods can't have a detrimental effect on fish populations, but for the most part, it's a temporary downturn. If a stream can support a good population of wild fish, it probably will continue to do the same twenty years from now (which is but a blip in the scale of time).

The fact that it was not Class A could just mean that it wasn't surveyed when it had a Class A population. Or that it was surveyed and someone was sitting on the data. There's some streams on the current survey list that have survey dates from decades ago, and some have the Class A box checked..

 

[riverwhy]

Jeff, you forgot to mention that it was very pink inside and tasted wild.

 

[poopdeck]

PennKev wrote:

poopdeck wrote:
Only a fly fishermen would care if it's stocked, wild or native.

I think that anyone who cares about the health of our fisheries, and is passionate about trout fishing wants to be catching wild fish and thus the desire to know the difference. A certain few well known catch-counting spin fisherman target wild fish for the same reasons fly anglers do. Likewise for many of the spin guys who have adopted their techniques

I spend most of my time catching wild/native SMB, walleye, striper, pickerel, pannies and other non trout species that make up the majority of our fisheries compared to just a few trout fishing trips. Not because I hate trout, I like all fishing including trout, fly and spin fishing, but because the wild shad and stripers are muscling their way up the river at the same time trout fishing is opening. The fact that I live within 15 minutes of potentially 50" fish and hours away from decent trout fishing also plays a part. Who cares the most is a ridicules notion often spouted by dyed in the wool trout aficionados. Can't we all just get along?

I'm now thinking its a spinning rod because of the conditions it was caught in. Regardless of stocked or wild, spinning or fly, it's a pretty fish and catching it would have thrilled me. The answers to either of these questions wont make the fish any more or less spectacular, will in no way effect the health of our fisheries, or make the angler any more or less caring.

My final answer is it's a wild fish caught on a spinning rod and a good time was had by all.

 

[JeffP]

It was caught on a fly rod. You can see the bugger in his mouth. It was a great day until we really weren't sure where we were and couldn't get a signal on our cell phone. We really didn't know whether there was a bridge below or it ended on a secluded part of the Susquehanna. We ended up walking downstream and not fishing for fear we wouldn't get out before dark. It turned out there was a bridge and the total distance was about 3 miles. We were beat to hell by the time we got out. It's scary not knowing where you are ending up. My brother went upstream but we thought he was heading back down to catch up. He knew the creek but we didn't. A mile and a half in it would have been a nightmare going back upstream.

 

[JeffP]

FYI it wasn't a trib of the Susquehanna.

 

[riverwhy]

It is a trib of a trib of the Susky. I did catch an obvious stocker brookie about 10 inches upstream fromJeff. All the fish in this stream are very pale as there is a ton of white sand in the stream. We didn't eat Jeff's fish but I should have eaten the stocker! I am almost positive the fish is wild. Could have been a stocker from a year ago but the recent statistics seem to indicate this is not that common.

Does it matter if a fish is wild or not? Of course, not because it is a greater feat but because it is a signal that some of our native trout streams are holding on and in a few cases even improving. Good to know in these days when all we hear about the environment and just about everything else is negative.

 

[Acristickid]

Does the stream get a brookie stocking?

If yes- it’s definitely stocked.

If no, than it’s probably wild.

 

[jifigz]

acristickid wrote:
Does the stream get a brookie stocking?

If yes- it’s definitely stocked.

If no, than it’s probably wild.

It does. He stated that in an earlier post. Floods can be both damaging and good for a trout stream. They generally will not greatly reduce numbers of fish. Fish know how to find current breaks and move into slack water during floods.

 

[Swattie87]

jifigz wrote:
Floods can be both damaging and good for a trout stream. They generally will not greatly reduce numbers of fish. Fish know how to find current breaks and move into slack water during floods.

Agree. In most cases, Trout handle floods far better than droughts. Exceptions perhaps being very high gradient streams or those that have large expanses of bedrock exposure.

I remember that after the floods during the early Fall of 2011, I had very good small stream fishing in the weeks and months following. One area in particular with a significant amount of red sandstone in its streams fished very well for a couple of years afterward thanks to the flood scouring the sand fill from the deeper holes and temporarily improving habitat.