How many hatcheries in PA

[Fish Sticks]

On East Licking Creek, the stocking is not below the brookies, but right on top of them.

Again, "First Things First."

Which are you going to be able to fix first? Stocking right on top of brookie populations? Or stocking downstream of brookie populations?

I agree with Silverfox that East Licking Creek should be high priority.

That's on DCNR land. If you all actually get to the point of advocating changes, I recommend advocating to both DCNR and the PFBC.

If the public land agencies (DCNR, the Game Commission, Allegheny National Forest) could be convinced that brook trout populations are important enough that hatchery trout should not be stocked over them, that could be a game changer.

The PFBC has the primary responsibility for managing fisheries in PA. But that doesn't mean that the land agencies can't talk to the PFBC about fisheries management.

Also, land agencies can have influence on trout stocking via which forest road gates are open at what times of year. Just sayin.

Your right ya do have to take what ya can get. I just wish they could pick one watershed. Even just one like upper kettle. And manage it as an actual watershed for native brook trout like the savage in MD. But yea in most cases I agree with what you said just simply because we are more likely to get it and stocking right on top of the is the most egregious despite downstream not being insignificant by any means.

 

[silverfox]

On East Licking Creek, the stocking is not below the brookies, but right on top of them.

Again, "First Things First."

Which are you going to be able to fix first? Stocking right on top of brookie populations? Or stocking downstream of brookie populations?

I agree with Silverfox that East Licking Creek should be high priority.

That's on DCNR land. If you all actually get to the point of advocating changes, I recommend advocating to both DCNR and the PFBC.

If the public land agencies (DCNR, the Game Commission, Allegheny National Forest) could be convinced that brook trout populations are important enough that hatchery trout should not be stocked over them, that could be a game changer.

The PFBC has the primary responsibility for managing fisheries in PA. But that doesn't mean that the land agencies can't talk to the PFBC about fisheries management.

Also, land agencies can have influence on trout stocking via which forest road gates are open at what times of year. Just sayin.

I had put together a map of ANF. Thought I'd share since you mentioned it.

 

[Peyton]

A creek near me apparently can't support trout, but someone stocks it full of big browns and rainbows that survive in it for years, further downstream my friend has caught little brook trout about 4-6in long. There were water pennies in there, and many darters and other native fish, but since the big brown has been there, most are gone. Now it's all suckers, fallfish, and a few massive trout. I haven't seen many darters for a long time in there. I want to stock it full of brookies, but no hatcheries are around me that sell trout.

 

[sarce]

Airing a personal gripe here.

Always nice to see SE PA/unique Piedmont brook trout getting zero priority. The climate change/stronghold focus is nice and all but what is being done to stop development from wiping them out of an entire geographic region of their range? Guarantee you the places they still survive in this region have significant spring influence or they'd be gone already.

Half the streams in this region have lost their populations in the past 35 years and there is no reason why that trajectory will change, since no action is being taken to protect their habitat.

 

[Fish Sticks]

A creek near me apparently can't support trout, but someone stocks it full of big browns and rainbows that survive in it for years, further downstream my friend has caught little brook trout about 4-6in long. There were water pennies in there, and many darters and other native fish, but since the big brown has been there, most are gone. Now it's all suckers, fallfish, and a few massive trout. I haven't seen many darters for a long time in there. I want to stock it full of brookies, but no hatcheries are around me that sell trout.

Talking to your regional biologist or even state ichthyologist might give you a good idea of if it has been surveyed recently, what’s in there and any management plans for it. Often you will find out there is a watershed group you may not even have known about working on it or a watershed implementation plan you didn’t even know about. Those are the best places to start generally. Also your local conservation district/ DEP will know major impairments. If there are native darters in there maybe that individual stocking the invasive trout could be educated or swayed.

 

[silverfox]

Always nice to see SE PA/unique Piedmont brook trout getting zero priority. The climate change/stronghold focus is nice and all but what is being done to stop development from wiping them out of an entire geographic region of their range? Guarantee you the places they still survive in this region have significant spring influence or they'd be gone already.

View attachment 1641224794

Yeah, basically that whole area is written off as a lost cause. Or, technically, "restore other populations".

I think there's a lack of consideration for groundwater refugia in all the EBTJV data. That's actually one of the points I think Fish Sticks was getting at by posting this thread. A lot of those springs are dammed up w/ hatcheries and/or ponds of some other intended purpose. So we're wasting important groundwater refuge, often in order to grow the very thing that's contributing to the native fish's decline.

To be fair though, outside of easy, non-controversial tasks, I'm not sure there's much "prioritization" going on at all frankly. I know TU is working on that though. I suspect some of the more difficult decisions will be avoided indefinitely. The sacred cow and all that.

A well-known coldwater refuge just to the West would be a good place to start. Heck, biologists suggested that removal of RT would be necessary to meet "agency goals" for brook trout.

However;

Likewise, in 2012, agency biologists proposed a selective harvest regulation that would continue to restrict gear to fly-fishing tackle, but permit the harvest of Rainbow Trout and Brown Trout while no-harvest regulations for Brook Trout would remain in effect. This regulation was crafted to provide fly-fishing anglers the opportunity to harvest fish and further aide in maintaining and promoting a wild trout community dominated by Brook Trout; however, the proposal was met with strong public opposition and subsequently not implemented. Angler reluctance to harvest nonnative trout in this instance may preclude long-term achievement of management objectives. This situation illustrates the importance of the value society may place on nonnative fisheries. To effectively advocate for native species management efforts such as those described here, biologists must bridge the gap among science, societal values, and economics so that anglers and policy makers can make informed decisions regarding native species conservation techniques such as selective harvest of nonnative species.

https://www.wildtroutsymposium.com/proceedings-12.pdf

Ironically, the same outfit that published the guidelines calling for the removal of nonnative salmonids in some EBT patches also apparently advocated heavily enough against brook trout protections on Big Spring that PFBC abandoned the idea.

Here again, let's throw science out the window if a few locals break out the pitchforks I guess.

Of course, some of the language in that report makes me question how serious/committed the agency was to see it through anyway.

As such, replacement of a portion of Brook Trout fishery with nonnative Rainbow Trout may have only a slight negative effect or even a positive effect on the recreational fishery.

At the end of the day, the agency has to do what's right, even if it upsets some people. Spare me the "elected officials losing votes" nonsense. To think that any elected representative would lose a single vote in this day and age over angling regulations is absurd.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Always nice to see SE PA/unique Piedmont brook trout getting zero priority. The climate change/stronghold focus is nice and all but what is being done to stop development from wiping them out of an entire geographic region of their range? Guarantee you the places they still survive in this region have significant spring influence or they'd be gone already.

View attachment 1641224794

I don’t know if you meant to point that out on purpose or not but your very very right that ground water was not factored into Hudy et Al. 2008 population productive modeling assessment that generated a lot of the stronghold patches. Here is an article pointing mentioning those very concerns you mention.

Resource Use By Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in a Thermally Complex Environment

Climate change is a pervasive threat to coldwater fish populations, and there r...

afs.confex.com

This is why I often say we have mischaracterized what can and can’t be a brook trout stream because these ground water sources, especially on a fine scale, are extremely hard to factor in and can’t currently be put in a GIS layer.

This poor ability to map out springs on fine scale is the reason why I always laugh when some one says “this stream couldn’t support brook trout” or “only browns can live here”. Even if you temp it at on spot at 75 deg F in July, there are pockets, sometimes of very significant size in this state, of ground water upwelling’s. These fish have been using thermal refuge for a long long long time.

A case study I posted recently on the wild trout stamp discussion shows that super coldwater is not a panacea for brook trout when invasive trout species are present. This below study is relevant to this discussion because it shows brown trou actually stop brook trout from using thermal refuge as effectively and points out if removal occurred in many streams occurred brook trout would likely expand their range back downstream and use the better habitat/forage the brown trout took from them.

USGS Study Reveals Interactive Effects of Climate Change, Invasive Species on Native Fish | U.S. Geological Survey

A new USGS study shows non-native Brown Trout can place a burden on native Brook Trout under the increased water temperatures climate change can cause.

www.usgs.gov

The other thing relevant to your point scarce is that this discussion was actually started to point out that some of our best thermal refuge/spawning groundwater rich habitat in this state has been perverted by hatcheries and can no longer be used in many cases. Think of big spring, Tylersville, Benner, huntsdale, and many many others private and state run.

In summation there are more than a few places we should be fighting hard to conserve native brook trout not on that stronghold map and everyone in the conservation community is generally aware of this limitation for the most part.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I don’t know if you meant to point that out on purpose or not but your very very right that ground water was not factored into Hudy et Al. 2008 population productive modeling assessment that generated a lot of the stronghold patches. Here is an article pointing mentioning those very concerns you mention.

Resource Use By Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in a Thermally Complex Environment

Climate change is a pervasive threat to coldwater fish populations, and there r...

afs.confex.com

This is why I often say we have mischaracterized what can and can’t be a brook trout stream because these ground water sources, especially on a fine scale, are extremely hard to factor in and can’t currently be put in a GIS layer.

This poor ability to map out springs on fine scale is the reason why I always laugh when some one says “this stream couldn’t support brook trout” or “only browns can live here”. Even if you temp it at on spot at 75 deg F in July, there are pockets, sometimes of very significant size in this state, of ground water upwelling’s. These fish have been using thermal refuge for a long long long time.

A case study I posted recently on the wild trout stamp discussion shows that super coldwater is not a panacea for brook trout when invasive trout species are present. This below study is relevant to this discussion because it shows brown trou actually stop brook trout from using thermal refuge as effectively and points out if removal occurred in many streams occurred brook trout would likely expand their range back downstream and use the better habitat/forage the brown trout took from them.

USGS Study Reveals Interactive Effects of Climate Change, Invasive Species on Native Fish | U.S. Geological Survey

A new USGS study shows non-native Brown Trout can place a burden on native Brook Trout under the increased water temperatures climate change can cause.

www.usgs.gov

The other thing relevant to your point scarce is that this discussion was actually started to point out that some of our best thermal refuge/spawning groundwater rich habitat in this state has been perverted by hatcheries and can no longer be used in many cases. Think of big spring, Tylersville, Benner, huntsdale, and many many others private and state run.

In summation there are more than a few places we should be fighting hard to conserve native brook trout not on that stronghold map and everyone in the conservation community is generally aware of this limitation for the most part.

And I know big spring no longer has the hatchery I just wanted to point out that it did and the damage still afflicts the stream to this day with invasive rainbows that need to be removed.

 

[sarce]

The prioritization efforts definitely suffer from a lack of data. I've seen some noticeable improvements in recent years and GIS is a game changer for prioritization.

There are several different massive challenges to tackle just to protect current brook trout populations in PA and it is disheartening that collectively we make little progress on addressing any of them. Most of the challenges have already been pointed out, and I guess my point is don't forget about development. The solution to that one is less clear to me. People need places to live. If our stormwater regs were sufficient at protecting the environment, we wouldn't lose a brook trout population every time a neighborhood gets built in its watershed, so I suppose start there for those SE PA populations. The land use changes have an effect on groundwater too.

What good is looking at projected water temps 100 years from now if a neighborhood is going to be built and wipe out a population 5 years from now?

Which challenge needs the most immediate attention varies tremendously based the exact location and details of the watershed.

I'm in complete agreement about the studies not adequately accounting for refugia...but given the limited funding they get, how could they know those details?

I saw several studies saying global warming will wipe out all wild trout (not just brook trout) from the Catoctin Mountain region of MD by 2100. Well, I organized a study of 5 brook trout watersheds there and we found 6 locations inhabited by abundant brook trout where the water temp never exceeded 68F - during the second-hottest summer on record. So in order for those studies to be true, the water temps would need to increase by about 10 degrees or more to reach a level that would make the streams uninhabitable to trout on the basis of summer water temps. Other threats are going to arise long before that happens. One of those sites is still stocked over, btw, MD isn't perfect, but they definitely make PA look bad.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The prioritization efforts definitely suffer from a lack of data. I've seen some noticeable improvements in recent years and GIS is a game changer for prioritization.

There are several different massive challenges to tackle just to protect current brook trout populations in PA and it is disheartening that collectively we make little progress on addressing any of them. Most of the challenges have already been pointed out, and I guess my point is don't forget about development. The solution to that one is less clear to me. People need places to live. If our stormwater regs were sufficient at protecting the environment, we wouldn't lose a brook trout population every time a neighborhood gets built in its watershed, so I suppose start there for those SE PA populations. The land use changes have an effect on groundwater too.

What good is looking at projected water temps 100 years from now if a neighborhood is going to be built and wipe out a population 5 years from now?

Which challenge needs the most immediate attention varies tremendously based the exact location and details of the watershed.

I'm in complete agreement about the studies not adequately accounting for refugia...but given the limited funding they get, how could they know those details?

I saw several studies saying global warming will wipe out all wild trout (not just brook trout) from the Catoctin Mountain region of MD by 2100. Well, I organized a study of 5 brook trout watersheds there and we found 6 locations inhabited by abundant brook trout where the water temp never exceeded 68F - during the second-hottest summer on record. So in order for those studies to be true, the water temps would need to increase by about 10 degrees or more to reach a level that would make the streams uninhabitable to trout on the basis of summer water temps. Other threats are going to arise long before that happens. One of those sites is still stocked over, btw, MD isn't perfect, but they definitely make PA look bad.

Agreed MD not perfect but the bar just set sooooo low here in PA that it really doesn’t take much to put us to shame like you mentioned. Development is a huge issue for sure not to mention people literally built ontop of streams in this state, now their lawns up to the stream and are grandfathered in to allow a lot of these cringe worthy stream side activities/conditions as far as existing homes.

Oddly enough the game comission saw this coming a long long time ago and purchased state game lands. PAFB bought us all 12.4 million a year in government inbred deformed trout instead (as of 2009 report)that no one who fishes over 10 days a year really wants in these wild trout streams anyway. It’s not too late for them to buy up some of this remaining undeveloped land for angling/conservation easements. They have done it before. Game commission has definitely done more for native brook trout than pa fish and boat to date id say.

 

[troutbert]

Talking to your regional biologist or even state ichthyologist might give you a good idea of if it has been surveyed recently, what’s in there and any management plans for it. Often you will find out there is a watershed group you may not even have known about working on it or a watershed implementation plan you didn’t even know about. Those are the best places to start generally. Also your local conservation district/ DEP will know major impairments. If there are native darters in there maybe that individual stocking the invasive trout could be educated or swayed.

"State ichthyologist?" Is there such a position, and if so what agency do they work for?

 

[Fish Sticks]

"State ichthyologist?" Is there such a position, and if so what agency do they work for?

Doug Fisher, great guy works for PAFB

 

[wildtrout2]

Game commission has definitely done more for native brook trout than pa fish and boat to date id say.

I'd agree. All of the native streams I fish are on either SGL, or SF land.

 

[Mike]

And I know big spring no longer has the hatchery I just wanted to point out that it did and the damage still afflicts the stream to this day with invasive rainbows that need to be removed.

Even when Big Spring Hatchery was operating there was no loss of ST “thermal refuge.” Water temps were not the issue. I would add that the large limestone springs often, if not always, are not suitable for direct habitation by trout. Agitation is required to drive off nitrogen and aerate the water. Without man-made aeration devices, the circulation of water downstream from a large spring quickly allows habitation by trout and other fish. Natural blending of spring water with that of an existing stream also can quickly or immediately provide habitat for trout.

As for Slate Run there has been a very substantial wild brown trout population in the lower regions of the stream since at least the mid-1970’s.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I'd agree. All of the native streams I fish are on either SGL, or SF land.

I wish there was a way to opt out of stocked trout waters because I’m either fishing small streams on SGL or SF or water that’s not even supposed to have trout in it most of the time. It Erks me my license dollars/ trout stamp purchase supports the stocking machine.

 

[moon1284]

I wish there was a way to opt out of stocked trout waters because I’m either fishing small streams on SGL or SF or water that’s not even supposed to have trout in it most of the time. It Erks me my license dollars/ trout stamp purchase supports the stocking machine.

Don't buy a license or trout stamp then. Chances are you won't get caught. Screw the man. Or only fish the upper savage drainahe.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Even when Big Spring Hatchery was operating there was no loss of ST “thermal refuge.” Water temps were not the issue. I would add that the large limestone springs often, if not always, are not suitable for direct habitation by trout. Agitation is required to drive off nitrogen and aerate the water. Without man-made aeration devices, the circulation of water downstream from a large spring quickly allows habitation by trout and other fish. Natural blending of spring water with that of an existing stream also can quickly or immediately provide habitat for trout.

As for Slate Run there has been a very substantial wild brown trout population in the lower regions of the stream since at least the mid-1970’s.

I realize that the downstream thermal profile was not greatly altered but what I’m saying was that place had tons of hatchery escapees and raising a more aggressive invasive species where brook trout could be living actually is in fact a loss of habitat. And with the brown trout you mentioned, they didn’t swim there from loch Leven in Scotland Mike, still a result of state sponsored or amateur bucket biology. Stocking ontop of those wild browns is just even more to the detriment of those brook trout and they move I’ve caught em in other creeks in the area.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Don't buy a license or trout stamp then. Chances are you won't get caught. Screw the man. Or only fish the upper savage drainahe.

I want to see moons origins story in theaters

 

[silverfox]

The prioritization efforts definitely suffer from a lack of data. I've seen some noticeable improvements in recent years and GIS is a game changer for prioritization.

There are several different massive challenges to tackle just to protect current brook trout populations in PA and it is disheartening that collectively we make little progress on addressing any of them. Most of the challenges have already been pointed out, and I guess my point is don't forget about development. The solution to that one is less clear to me. People need places to live. If our stormwater regs were sufficient at protecting the environment, we wouldn't lose a brook trout population every time a neighborhood gets built in its watershed, so I suppose start there for those SE PA populations. The land use changes have an effect on groundwater too.

What good is looking at projected water temps 100 years from now if a neighborhood is going to be built and wipe out a population 5 years from now?

Which challenge needs the most immediate attention varies tremendously based the exact location and details of the watershed.

I'm in complete agreement about the studies not adequately accounting for refugia...but given the limited funding they get, how could they know those details?

I saw several studies saying global warming will wipe out all wild trout (not just brook trout) from the Catoctin Mountain region of MD by 2100. Well, I organized a study of 5 brook trout watersheds there and we found 6 locations inhabited by abundant brook trout where the water temp never exceeded 68F - during the second-hottest summer on record. So in order for those studies to be true, the water temps would need to increase by about 10 degrees or more to reach a level that would make the streams uninhabitable to trout on the basis of summer water temps. Other threats are going to arise long before that happens. One of those sites is still stocked over, btw, MD isn't perfect, but they definitely make PA look bad.

I'm having a hard time finding it at the moment, but there's an interactive map that shows the loss of brook trout in the Catoctin range as temperatures increase. It didn't take a huge increase in average temps to wipe out that population.

Relevant: https://www.usgs.gov/news/national-...ctive-effects-climate-change-invasive-species

Big Hunting Creek is the stream in MD that they're manually eradicating BT on. I wish we could normalize this kind of discussion without people assuming you want to dump the green juice in every BT stream in the state. "Reclamation" is a 4 letter word around these parts.

Obviously, there is a whole host of other issues like impervious surfaces due to urban expansion. I don't think any of them are very controversial (habitat, pollution, connectivity, etc.), and I'm sure would easily garner overwhelming support from anglers, environmentalists, and everyone in between. The biotic issue is the one that concerns me the most though because if we don't address it, we're just making really good nonnative fish habitat. The biotic problem is one that anglers don't like to hear about, and I think is probably the most challenging to address. Everything else can be fixed (sort of) with enough money and labor.

It's a little harder to fix psychology. Especially once it's drifted too far off course.

 

[Mike]

I realize that the downstream thermal profile was not greatly altered but what I’m saying was that place had tons of hatchery escapees and raising a more aggressive invasive species where brook trout could be living actually is in fact a loss of habitat. And with the brown trout you mentioned, they didn’t swim there from loch Leven in Scotland Mike, still a result of state sponsored or amateur bucket biology. Stocking ontop of those wild browns is just even more to the detriment of those brook trout and they move I’ve caught em in other creeks in the area.