Question regarding Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Program

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:
There are many historical references of 20 inch brookies in PA, MD, WV. And these were in freestone streams.

How big they got in limestoners like the Letort or Big Spring or Little Juniata, nobody knows.

The limestone valleys were settled much earlier than the big freestone drainages.

I've never seen any record of how big the trout were in those limestone streams when the first settlers arrived. I think those early settlers just caught the fish and ate them, and never thought it was something worth writing about. It wasn't sport fishing, it was just putting food on the table.

But if brookies reached 20 inches in the freestone drainages, it's likely they got bigger than that in the limestoners.

So the genetics have changed?!?

The question is, again: Big browns and rainbows regularly grow to 20+++ inches in Big Spring. Not brookies. Why not in such a fertile stream?

 

[troutbert]

afishinado wrote:

So the genetics have changed?!?

They probably have changed. The numbers of wild brookies was reduced to very low levels in Big Spring. Wiping out a large percentage of a population causes genetic losses.

And hatchery trout have been stocked for a long time, and there was a PFBC hatchery there, and a private hatchery before that, so there was likely inter-breeding with different strains.

So it's not only possible the genetics changed, but almost certain.

And other things have changed too. In Big Spring they are now competing with rainbows. In the past they would have been the only salmonid there. The same with all the other limestoners and freestoners.

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:

afishinado wrote:

So the genetics have changed?!?

They probably have changed. The numbers of wild brookies was reduced to very low levels in Big Spring. Wiping out a large percentage of a population causes genetic losses.

And hatchery trout have been stocked for a long time, and there was a PFBC hatchery there, and a private hatchery before that, so there was likely inter-breeding with different strains.

So it's not only possible the genetics changed, but almost certain.

And other things have changed too. In Big Spring they are now competing with rainbows. In the past they would have been the only salmonid there. The same with all the other limestoners and freestoners.

While I agree the genetics of the BS brookies may have changed; the one thing that is puzzling, almost without exception, hatchery strain of fish are bred for quick growth usually grow to a large size. The opposite seems to be the reality in BS.

Make no mistake; there is a thriving population of brook trout in BS. All age classes and many thousands of fish. They seem to have claimed the ditch area and downstream a bit. Also, the higher population density seems to be shifting downstream by all accounts.

 

[Maurice]

Maybe brookies don't grow to the same lengths as browns and rainbows in limestone streams because of the big fish/big prey deficiency.

Its been clearly stated that fish over 12" need to eat other fish. Where the brookies are dominant (in the ditch at Big Spring) perhaps the lack of sufficient numbers of forage fish (ie;other brookie fry and fingerlings) keeps them from growing longer.

Where the pops are more mixed, the other species may out compete for those forage fish.

But my experience in raising trout (browns mostly) tells me that length is related to age (with sufficient diet) and weight is related to diet alone. Fish will get fat if overfed but will not grow longer. There seems to be a variation in length of a few inches within the same age class over the first few years Some fish (a very small percentage) will exceed the mean length and conversely a very small percentage will be smaller. But I would go so far as to say that 90% remain within an inch or so of each other up to the 15" mark after the second year.

Brook trout seem to lag behind in the length while rainbows lead the race.

Now these are cultured trout with hatchery parents but the same core observations seem to be true in streams.

So it stands to reason that if brook trout have shorter lifespans thatn browns and rainbows that they are less likely to reach 20". Sure its possible to have those genetic anomaly fish (top 5%) reach trophy size but in infertile streams where competition for food is fierce and baitfish supply weak, the ones that do reach the end of their lifespan are likely thinning the age class potential to produce trophy brook trout.

Also consider that if a fish at sexual maturity is small it produces fewer eggs and fewer forage fish once the eggs hatch.

So maybe the explanation of small brook trout lies in the lack of suitable sized forage (stream fertility) and perhaps streams that we deem as fertile like Big Spring/LeTort are not fertile because their forage fish base is so weak. The big trout needed to migrate to the larger /warmer more species diverse streams to bulk up.

The limestone streams resemble hatchery environments with limited big fish forage.

 

[afishinado]

Maurice wrote:
Maybe brookies don't grow to the same lengths as browns and rainbows in limestone streams because of the big fish/big prey deficiency.

Its been clearly stated that fish over 12" need to eat other fish. Where the brookies are dominant (in the ditch at Big Spring) perhaps the lack of sufficient numbers of forage fish (ie;other brookie fry and fingerlings) keeps them from growing longer.

Where the pops are more mixed, the other species may out compete for those forage fish.

But my experience in raising trout (browns mostly) tells me that length is related to age (with sufficient diet) and weight is related to diet alone. Fish will get fat if overfed but will not grow longer. There seems to be a variation in length of a few inches within the same age class over the first few years Some fish (a very small percentage) will exceed the mean length and conversely a very small percentage will be smaller. But I would go so far as to say that 90% remain within an inch or so of each other up to the 15" mark after the second year.

Brook trout seem to lag behind in the length while rainbows lead the race.

Now these are cultured trout with hatchery parents but the same core observations seem to be true in streams.

So it stands to reason that if brook trout have shorter lifespans thatn browns and rainbows that they are less likely to reach 20". Sure its possible to have those genetic anomaly fish (top 5%) reach trophy size but in infertile streams where competition for food is fierce and baitfish supply weak, the ones that do reach the end of their lifespan are likely thinning the age class potential to produce trophy brook trout.

Also consider that if a fish at sexual maturity is small it produces fewer eggs and fewer forage fish once the eggs hatch.

So maybe the explanation of small brook trout lies in the lack of suitable sized forage (stream fertility) and perhaps streams that we deem as fertile like Big Spring/LeTort are not fertile because their forage fish base is so weak. The big trout needed to migrate to the larger /warmer more species diverse streams to bulk up.

The limestone streams resemble hatchery environments with limited big fish forage.

Interesting theory.

So maybe the explanation of small brook trout lies in the lack of suitable sized forage (stream fertility) and perhaps streams that we deem as fertile like Big Spring/LeTort are not fertile because their forage fish base is so weak.

FI had no problem seining out dace from the Letort two weeks ago when we fished there, same for sculpins at the Letort and BS.

Next fishin' trip Mo, we'll have a "seine-out" to see how "weak" the forage base is at the Letort and BS.

Also, given both streams have a class AAAA population of trout; and big fish make little fishies, lotsa um. I've had to watch my step in the stream margins as not to step on the little fishies in there in the spring.

 

[Chaz]

Afishinado wrote:
Big Spring is about as fertile as any stream anywhere. Brook trout grow to about 15-16" maybe, but has anyone caught any approaching 20" or even greater there? If so, they are extremely rare.

A brown in the 18-20" gets a "nice fish" nod, but is hardly a head turner.

^ No one answered this question.

Big browns and rainbows regularly grow to 20+++ inches in Big Spring. Not brookies. Why not in such a fertile stream?

All signs point to genetics. Has it always been that way, or has the genetic make-up of these fish been altered. Do brook trout max out in size at the mid teens in length in PA and has it always been that way? My guess is yes.[/quote]

The original strain, according to PFBC, is no long resident to Big Spring, in other words extirpated. Since there are brookies elsewhere in the Conodoguinet, we may be able to figure out if they still exist, but only if someone wants to know. Clearly PFBC doesn't want to know or they would have investigated it before making the decision to allow nature to take it's course.

Now I've been told that the original strain at BS was used as hatchery stock, again PFBC dropped the ball, if anyone knew they would. Anyway there have been brookies captured in surveys that were up to 20 inches, but we don't know what the origin of those brookies were.

I've seen 18 inch brookies in a couple of places I fish and have seen 17 inch fish caught that were wild fish in SE PA so they can be found.

We know brookies prey on other fish, I've seen them taking other fish in the wild. In the TIC tanks the bigger fingerlings take the small ones, I've seen that and the kids see it too. The large prey large fish theory doesn't apply, because it appears from an early age they eat prey at least half their size.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I know for a fact of a few Brookies in the 17" range in BS.
It was rumored that during one of the recent electro shocking results produced one in the 18"/19" range.

 

[afishinado]

Back from an earlier post:

Chaz wrote:
Limestone streams have the ability to produce brookies that would rival the browns in size, if the browns didn't push them out. If you were to ask me the 2 species in the same watershed are incompatible.

Afishanado wrote:
Big Spring is about as fertile as any stream anywhere. Brook trout grow to about 15-16" maybe, but has anyone caught any approaching 20" or even greater there? If so, they are extremely rare.

A brown in the 18-20" gets a "nice fish" nod, but is hardly a head turner.

What were mature PA brook trout like back in the day?

 

[Chaz]

There is a Berks County stream with a good population of brookies, One day a friend of mine and I went there to fish, slightly overcast and showers. Between us we caught 2 brookies under 8 inches, the other 150 trout were from 9 to 17 inches, the 17 inch fish was the only one that size, but there were quite a few that were 15 inches.
I figure the reason there weren't a lot of little fish is because the little fish were gathered near springs in quiet water where the big boys couldn't get to them or they were eaten by the big boys. That fall there were whole sections of the stream torn up from spawning activity and I saw a lot of 15 to 17 inch brookies spawning. Spawning beds up 2 feet in diameter with large stones turned over. There are no browns in this stream that I know of.

 

[afishinado]

^ good stuff.

I find it very difficult to believe that the brook trout cousins up north are so much bigger than our PA brook trout were many years ago.

The sad fact is the natives remaining here in PA are relegated to the tiny infertile headwaters of the streams where the invasives can't live or can't reach.

Not that a lot can be done to change this, but one can only imagine what once was...

 

[Eccles]

Afishinado,

In you post #128 where was the top photo taken?

 

[afishinado]

Eccles wrote:
Afishinado,

In you post #128 where was the top photo taken?

Labrador, I believe. Labrador and some places in Maine are fairly untouched by man and the brookie remains king.

BYW, None of the photos I posted are of me or by me. I just pulled some random photos to show that big brookie exist somewhere.

 

[Chaz]

There are no records of brookies as far as I know of fish that were ever as big as those in Maine or Labrador. The Blueback Trout of the Rangley Lakes region were the reason the brook trout in Maine got as large as they did, the Blueback Trout, a form of Arctic Charr no longer exists in the Rangley Lakes, they were extirpated in the 18090's because Land-locked Salmon were introduced to the lakes. There is no other place the Bluebacks exist as far as I know except Floods Pond.
Other places where brookies get large in Maine are closely held secrets. Through careful study there are over 400 strains of brookies in lakes and stream populations in Maine, that gives an idea of how many strains might have been in PA Pre-Columbian invasion.
In Labrador the brookies dine on bugs, other fish and lemmings, and co-evolved with Salmon or Arctic Charr or both, as well as Northern Pike and Lake Trout. So they weren't the top predator. Only strict limits maintain the populations that are there. In Labrador and Maine there are lake forms, stream and river forms and anadromous forms of Brook Charr.
For those wondering about the spelling of Charr vs. Char, Charr means red, Char means to make things black as in blackened red fish. All Charr have a lot of red on them.

 

[PennKev]

Yeah they were probably all 3-4lb+ at one time. No doubt.

Just like if we just adopt all of Montana's regs we will have just as many fish and they all will be bigger.

Comparing our fish populations to those hundreds, or even thousands of miles away is...


...of questionable value.