"wild" rainbows

jason8709

jason8709

Member
Joined
Apr 7, 2009
Messages
46
Today being Father's Day, my Dad and I went decided to meet up and do some fishing. Well, this morning didn't look promising, all of the creeks we checked were blown out from the rain over the past few days. Chocolate milk and out of the banks. So we went small. Turned into a great day, I caught ~10 fish, all wild rainbows (I don't normally count that closely). All but one fish was in the 6-8" range, very healthy. The watershed is not stocked, they fought like hell and had vibrant markings.

So that led me to thinking about wild rainbows, what with all the wild/native debates.

So: are naturally reproducing rainbow trout native to Pennsylvania (my gut instinct says no) and if not, are they descendants of hatchery fish?

Attached is a picture of one of the fish. What markings indicate the rainbow is wild? I noticed the parr marks were still very visible on each of the fish, even up to my final fish a 10 incher. Also, all of the fish had a white marked tip of their anal fin. I don't have much experience catching wild rainbows, so I'm curious if anyone knows more about them.

Up until today, I had only caught 'dink' rainbows and nothing as big as these guys. I was really impressed with the fishing. Wild browns and native brookies have always been my favorite PA fish (I can't decide which I like more) mainly because I typically only catch stocker bows.

Any insight?
 

Attachments

  • healthy wild rainbow.jpg
    healthy wild rainbow.jpg
    808.2 KB · Views: 19
Jason,
Rainbows are not native to PA so the ones we have are indeed descendants of hatchery (or transplanted) fish. Rainbows do however reproduce naturally here in PA. While it is not common, I think it may be more common than is readily recognized. Some waterways are known for their wild 'bows, such as the Delaware and Falling Springs but isolated populations of wild rainbows are not that unusual in many of our streams, esp limestoners.

The fish in your photo does look wild to me.
 
Looks wild, could be a fingerling that ate the local forage and got colored nicely.
 
You could check your stream against this list to rule out fingerling stocking...

http://www.fishandboat.com/stock_fingerling.htm
 
thanks guys. Its not a stocked fingerling, according to the list. Also not a limestone creek, so I'd guess its a rare gem that I'm going to have to explore a little further.
 
Fishidiot,

I'm willing to bet that more freestoners hold wild bows than limestoners. I know of at least 7 freestone streams that hold wild bows just off the top of my head.

Jason,

As was said, rainbow trout are not native to PA. For that matter, neither are browns. Both reproduce naturally in the state, though browns are much more common. Both are descendents of stocked fish. Brookies, of course, are native to the state. But when you encounter a brookie population, there is some debate on whether they are native to the watershed, transplanted from a different watershed, or descended from stockies; all three situations most certainly occur. Remember, most of our wild trout streams were partially or completely wiped out at one point in history.
 
At the risk of recieving a withering rebuke, I would like to add that there is essentially no evidence of an original-strain brook trout population in Pennsylvania. It is safe to say that all of our brook trout are descended from hatchery strains, just like our "wild" browns and rainbows.
 
Tups wrote:
.... there is essentially no evidence of an original-strain brook trout population in Pennsylvania. It is safe to say that all of our brook trout are descended from hatchery strains....

Are you saying that there is evidence that all of the present brook trout populations are descended from hatchery stock? I find this highly suspect.
 
JackM: I am saying that you shall search in vain for any scientific evidence of a pure-strain native brook trout in PA. The PAFBC, the most obvious potential source, has no such data. Nor can I find any academic research touching on the matter. To further support my view, I note that this forum has not yet exposed any data or study to support a native-strain phenomenon. I strongly suspect that if the evidence were available, this forum would be the first to bring it to light. On the contrary, the anecdotal evidence, and that is all we have, strongly suggests that, like browns and rainbows, all of our brookies are descended from hatchery strains. I base this on the natural resource history of PA and the long history of stocking in the state.
 
I remember reading about many of the streams all over Pa. being jammed with native trout-before the logging boom[NPI] around civil war time-then they warmed up and of course locals ate fish all year around-and the mining-so the brown was brought in because it was more tolerant.Unfortunately that was around the time "Dry fly" fishing became popular.
 
A lot may well be hybrids,pure probably if you look in Allegheny NF for streams with big waterfalls.I'd bet Potter county has a few near Keating Summit.
Lots of research being done in Souther Applachians on brook trout.I believe that some years back I caught what might be pure strain Brookies in a tiny brook in South Carolina aptly name Bad Creek.
Most likely some one is doing genetic research on this .
 
Tups...that would make sense, since I think we determined on this board in some other thread that brookies are fragile. :cool: ;-)

Honestly, I have no clue either way.
 
Tups, on the one hand you claim there is no evidence of a native strain and on the other hand that "it is safe to say" that there is not any such native strain. These aren't equivalent statements. Many wild brook trout streams have never been stocked by the PFBC in their entire history, so unless there is evidence of private plantings, these trout would be presumed native-strain if I had to rely on conjecture as you are doing.
 
No question the brook[not a trout] was native to Pa. but how are we going to prove it?
A challenge for the less challenged-I can't even figure out how to put cartoons on here.
 
There are many remote streams that hold brookies that have never been stocked and aren’t physically connected to any stocked streams that I am aware of. How did these brookies get there? Did birds ingest fertilized eggs from descendents at other streams and poop these eggs into these streams and they actually hatched and naturally populated the stream?

Using your own argument I would say there is no proof that all “native” brookies are the descendents of hatchery fish so therefore they must be native.

BTW, there is documented proof (except the PFBC won’t admit it) that the strain of brookies on Big Spring Creek up until the mid 70’s was a native strain of brookies unique to Big Spring. Of course the PFBC wiped out this strain with operation of the major hatchery.
 
Maybe brook trout are fragile becasue they are all decendents of weak stocked fish.
 
Last I knew, the brook trout question was a jump ball. But that's been a pretty fair number of years ago, before it became all holy to strive to restore native species and there was a lot less focus on the question at the time.

Here's what I recall though:

Long time ago, I did a piece for the Angler on "Our State Fish, The Brook Trout" and in the course of the needed interviews for the piece, I asked the PFBC Cold Water Unit Leader at the time (I think it was Tom Greene, but it may have been long ago enough that it was his predecessor, Marty Marcinko. Time slips away and memories all sort of blend together and I really don't remember who I talked to) whether there were still any of the original strain brook trout in PA streams. The answer I got was that they thought it likely, but did not really know. Another thing that sticks in my memory from the same or another conversation for the same piece was that in the aftermath of the logging era, there was a major infusion of brook trout obtained from Vermont and placed in PA streams to the extent that a lot of the fish we may assume are PA originals are actually the progeny of these VT fish.

At least that's what I think I remember. Been a while..

Personally, I think it pretty likely that some original strain fish remain, but I'd be reluctant to venture a guess as to where they are.
 
GreenWeenie wrote:
There are many remote streams that hold brookies that have never been stocked and aren’t physically connected to any stocked streams that I am aware of. How did these brookies get there? Did birds ingest fertilized eggs from descendents at other streams and poop these eggs into these streams and they actually hatched and naturally populated the stream?

Using your own argument I would say there is no proof that all “native” brookies are the descendents of hatchery fish so therefore they must be native.

Well put. I mean really, how does one come to find native brookies in a tiny stream that starts as a spring on the top of some mountain litterly in the middle of nowhere? Where it takes miles of walking to access it! No "original natives" left in Pa? SPARE ME. :-D
 
I think RLeeP is on the money.

GreenWeenie, there aren't any streams in PA that I'm aware of that aren't physically connected to stocked streams. I've caught native brookies in the Allegheny not far from Pittsburgh. Extremely rare, but it only takes one (well two) to populate a new stream, or entire watershed for that matter. Fish swim, both upstream and down. Heck, the PFBC's own "movement" study showed fish traveling upwards of 20 miles, and through several different streams, in a week! What happens when you give them 80 years? People also plant fish just about everywhere on their own. Also, a much greater number of our streams were once stocked than are today, you wouldn't believe some of the streams generations before us stocked. There are 6 watersheds in PA (Ohio, Susquehanna, Delaware, Potomac, Erie, and Genesee). Only 1 stream in each needs to be stocked, at any point in history, to theoretically populate the entire watershed, and I'm fairly certain that has happened. The only exception is if there is a natural barrier, like a big waterfall. I know of one stream where there's fish below the fall, and not above.....

I think there were probably multiple original strains. Not all may exist today, and we may have hybrids of some of those strains, or hybrids of those strains with stocked ancestry, to the point where we may not have a truly original strain. It is true that during the logging boom most of our streams were basically dead, the entire state was basically one big clearcut. But if one, just one, of the original streams retained its fish, those fish could repopulate a whole drainage. Of course there were new, introduced strains to compete with. Either strain may have won the battle for control, or they may have "hybridized", and the answer is probably different in different streams/watersheds. Yes, I feel fairly certain there is some original ancestry left, but the extent of which and where they exist I have no idea, and I actually doubt there's a purebred original strain left (Big Spring maybe?)

And the bottom line is, does it really matter?
 
pcray1231 wrote:
.... It is true that during the logging boom most of our streams were basically dead, the entire state was basically one big clearcut....

Once again, my skepticism is aroused.
 
Back
Top