Fishing Creek Columbia county (upper stretches)

fishjake

fishjake

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2022
Messages
33
Location
Wilkes Barre
I have spent some time in the last year exploring fishing creek Columbia county, and especially the west branch of the fishing creek on game lands 13. The stream is really gorgeous and has a pretty great population of brook trout, with multiple class tributaries flowing in. I know from other streams and the area that there is a large issue with dry acid deposition, a few people have told me that a large amount of liming has been completed both on and off the books in the watershed helping to improve the wild fish in the stream. Now PF@B still stocks a large amount of the stream on the game lands right up until it becomes CLASS A. The stream does not have perfect habitat but it is quite good, and the protection of the stream is great on SGL 13 (the largest in the state). I wanted to see what info people had about the issues with the stream/ see if anyone else would be interested in trying to get PF@B to cease stocking the stream to protect the native fish populations there.
 
I support stopping any stocking on streams that have natives.
 
Right to know requesting survey data might be a good place to start. Sometimes streams meet the Kg/hectare and still are bot made class A for unknown reasons. That would be a way within their system to argue it shouldn’t be stocked. The other thing you could do is look for hellbenders downstream but even our state hellbender expert Dr. Peter Petokas sent a letter to the fish comission begging them not to stock over a singular population in potter and the comission ignored his written concerns for larval and juvenile hellbender predation by invasive stocked trout and stocked it anyway. I know FWS is reviewing Chesapeake log perch for possible ESA listing and the feds are aware of stocking over them and I’d guess not happy about it. So if there is any low hanging fruit like species of greatest conservation need or threatened or endangered species that might be a good place to start a conversation with the commission about the harms of their stocked invasive trout. West virginia stopped stocking invasive browns over endangered guyandotte crayfish and endangered candy darters because of demonstrated harm so maybe 2-3 decades later than surrounding states, right in schedule, pa will evaluate the non brook trout harms of their stocked invasive species.
 
I have spent some time in the last year exploring fishing creek Columbia county, and especially the west branch of the fishing creek on game lands 13. The stream is really gorgeous and has a pretty great population of brook trout, with multiple class tributaries flowing in. I know from other streams and the area that there is a large issue with dry acid deposition, a few people have told me that a large amount of liming has been completed both on and off the books in the watershed helping to improve the wild fish in the stream. Now PF@B still stocks a large amount of the stream on the game lands right up until it becomes CLASS A. The stream does not have perfect habitat but it is quite good, and the protection of the stream is great on SGL 13 (the largest in the state). I wanted to see what info people had about the issues with the stream/ see if anyone else would be interested in trying to get PF@B to cease stocking the stream to protect the native fish populations there.

I've fished this area some over the years.

I just checked the PFBC stocking info, and they still stock the West Branch way up into the State Gamelands. This is the upper stocking point:

41°19'04.6"N 76°30'23.7"W​

If you copy and paste that into AcmeMapper or Google Maps you can see that's it at a tributary called Hemlock Run, which is up quite a ways from the SGL boundary.

Here you have a classic brook trout stream running through a forested watershed in a State Gamelands, and they're stocking hatchery trout right on top of the brookies. It's a travesty.

If anyone wants to do a letter writing campaign to the PFBC, the Commissioners, and the Game Commission, I'm in.
 
I fished the West Branch of Fishing Creek extensively in the early 2000's. I'd stay at Fishing Creek Lodge and fish for two or three days up in the Game Lands. I'd have breakfast at The Brass Pelican (Elk Grove), which is closed now, then go fishing. I'm guessing Covid was it's demise. The WB isn't the stream that it used to be, but there's other streams in that area that are still very good.

I used to park at the locked gate at Emmons, then ride my mountain bike up Shingle Mill Road until I got to Shingle Mill Run, then I'd start fishing the WB upstream. I always did well with wild trout and NEVER saw another fisherman. I saw one of the biggest natives I've ever seen on the WB. I also caught one of my best wild browns on the WB, it was 17"! I agree, that stream shouldn't be stocked at all.

I still fish up there, and just love that area generally.
 
Last edited:
I know from other streams and the area that there is a large issue with dry acid deposition, a few people have told me that a large amount of liming has been completed both on and off the books in the watershed helping to improve the wild fish in the stream.
I know there has been liming on the East Branch.

But I have not heard about liming on the West Branch. Has that been happening?
 
I've fished this area some over the years.

I just checked the PFBC stocking info, and they still stock the West Branch way up into the State Gamelands. This is the upper stocking point:

41°19'04.6"N 76°30'23.7"W​

If you copy and paste that into AcmeMapper or Google Maps you can see that's it at a tributary called Hemlock Run, which is up quite a ways from the SGL boundary.

Here you have a classic brook trout stream running through a forested watershed in a State Gamelands, and they're stocking hatchery trout right on top of the brookies. It's a travesty.

If anyone wants to do a letter writing campaign to the PFBC, the Commissioners, and the Game Commission, I'm in.
I think a letter would be a good idea to basically say “hey we see what your doing there despite mountains of research and EBTJV recommendations” but also as someone who has been a part of extensive engagement with PA the fish commission on advocating for stocking reforms through phone calls, petitions, public speaking to anglers, articles in media, they are immune to all of this it mostly serves as public education and awarness to create more accountability from the general public. We all know based on what happened to comissioner Arway that alot of elected representatives are behind the scenes and have a huge interest in keeping the stockers flowing because its free political capital to them that doesn’t come out of the general fund. What we REALLY need too is a large scale petition to the house and senate game committee’s, the governor, DCNR, National forest service(for Allegheny), DEP, and I would argue the sate auditor general because of borderline was fraud and abuse of counter spending against brook trout conservation dollars.

I dont think national forest service or DEP or DCNR are to blame here but its happening on their property or in DEP’s case stocked trout function as added impairment/pollution even if jot technically listed as such.

All such a large petition would do is tell the collective group above Pa fish and boat that we are making you aware of fisheries malpractice, resource mismanagement/waste, the truth about invasive trout species passed along from academics/EBTJV being kept from the public, the agencies devotion of the majority of their financial resources has impaired their conservation capacity, and we have for years tried to get reform but that discussions are not productive and we need those responsible the oversight of the commission to step in.

I personally feel like that would take this issue much more broad stage to general public non anglers and with enough signatures would get media coverage in one form or another, ESPECIALLY as the comission recently ignored a stocking reform petition for native brook trout done by a conservation non profit.


Just a thought because while I am a fan of proposed stocking auth and reducing brook trout stockings we need so much MORE than they are willing to give and despite many individuals and entities trying, negotiating with them for any meaningful reform has always been fruitless and likely will be. We need to speak to their overseers and say “hey this ignoring fisheries science and squandering of resources is happening on your watch, we are watching to see what you will do to reform the comission”
 
PM sent
I've fished this area some over the years.

I just checked the PFBC stocking info, and they still stock the West Branch way up into the State Gamelands. This is the upper stocking point:

41°19'04.6"N 76°30'23.7"W​

If you copy and paste that into AcmeMapper or Google Maps you can see that's it at a tributary called Hemlock Run, which is up quite a ways from the SGL boundary.

Here you have a classic brook trout stream running through a forested watershed in a State Gamelands, and they're stocking hatchery trout right on top of the brookies. It's a travesty.

If anyone wants to do a letter writing campaign to the PFBC, the Commissioners, and the Game Commission, I'm in.
Kudos in that you’re at least on the right track with the technique employed to bring attention to an issue. Letters, form letters excluded, are more effective than petitions.
 
PM sent

Kudos in that you’re at least on the right track with the technique employed to bring attention to an issue. Letters, form letters excluded, are more effective than petitions.
Id like to see a case where a letter wad “effective” in brining about stocking reform on a small or large scale at PA fish and boat
 
I know there has been liming on the East Branch.

But I have not heard about liming on the West Branch. Has that been happening?
I am not sure where, i am speculating from what I was told by my friend who works at the luzerne county conservation district.
 
I think a letter would be a good idea to basically say “hey we see what your doing there despite mountains of research and EBTJV recommendations” but also as someone who has been a part of extensive engagement with PA the fish commission on advocating for stocking reforms through phone calls, petitions, public speaking to anglers, articles in media, they are immune to all of this it mostly serves as public education and awarness to create more accountability from the general public. We all know based on what happened to comissioner Arway that alot of elected representatives are behind the scenes and have a huge interest in keeping the stockers flowing because its free political capital to them that doesn’t come out of the general fund. What we REALLY need too is a large scale petition to the house and senate game committee’s, the governor, DCNR, National forest service(for Allegheny), DEP, and I would argue the sate auditor general because of borderline was fraud and abuse of counter spending against brook trout conservation dollars.

I dont think national forest service or DEP or DCNR are to blame here but its happening on their property or in DEP’s case stocked trout function as added impairment/pollution even if jot technically listed as such.

All such a large petition would do is tell the collective group above Pa fish and boat that we are making you aware of fisheries malpractice, resource mismanagement/waste, the truth about invasive trout species passed along from academics/EBTJV being kept from the public, the agencies devotion of the majority of their financial resources has impaired their conservation capacity, and we have for years tried to get reform but that discussions are not productive and we need those responsible the oversight of the commission to step in.

I personally feel like that would take this issue much more broad stage to general public non anglers and with enough signatures would get media coverage in one form or another, ESPECIALLY as the comission recently ignored a stocking reform petition for native brook trout done by a conservation non profit.


Just a thought because while I am a fan of proposed stocking auth and reducing brook trout stockings we need so much MORE than they are willing to give and despite many individuals and entities trying, negotiating with them for any meaningful reform has always been fruitless and likely will be. We need to speak to their overseers and say “hey this ignoring fisheries science and squandering of resources is happening on your watch, we are watching to see what you will do to reform the comission”
Unfortunately, DCNR has no say in what PFBC does to the water running through the property they manage. Which doesn't give me a lot of hope that much will change anytime soon. If a sister agency can't get them to stop stocking non-native species where they don't belong, then I'm not sure how successful a bunch of organized anglers will be.

Apparently, the only thing that works is somehow convincing them that you represent a plurality of anglers in a particular region. For some reason, this whole thing seems to have devolved into a popularity contest to see which angler group whines the loudest to get what they want. Right now, it's yellow trout, and as long as PFBC promotes yellow trout over anything else, not much is likely to change anytime soon. The whole MO is to irritate the smallest group of anglers in the state. That's native fish advocates, and despite what the wildlife action plan says, it's all about selling fishing licenses, not what's best for SGCN's.
 
Unfortunately, DCNR has no say in what PFBC does to the water running through the property they manage. Which doesn't give me a lot of hope that much will change anytime soon. If a sister agency can't get them to stop stocking non-native species where they don't belong, then I'm not sure how successful a bunch of organized anglers will be.

Apparently, the only thing that works is somehow convincing them that you represent a plurality of anglers in a particular region. For some reason, this whole thing seems to have devolved into a popularity contest to see which angler group whines the loudest to get what they want. Right now, it's yellow trout, and as long as PFBC promotes yellow trout over anything else, not much is likely to change anytime soon. The whole MO is to irritate the smallest group of anglers in the state. That's native fish advocates, and despite what the wildlife action plan says, it's all about selling fishing licenses, not what's best for SGCN's.
Lol second that. There is a whole general public out there with many against poaching rare terrestrial species, invasive plants, development of ecologically sensitive areas, loss of species and just generally bird watchers, hikers, bikers outdoor enthusiasts who would probably take some time to let their elected officials know they don’t like harming our wild native state fish if they had a little education/awareness and could do so with a few simple clicks. I think PA fish and boats unofficial handler (elected officials that canned Arway), may or may not be aware of how bad stocking is but one thing is for sure that they see these stocked trout as free politcal pork and as a campaign tool.


WHY IS IT A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A STOCKING VIDEO TO BE A STATE REP OR SENATOR?!?!?!?

“Yea come come and get it!!! And when yall go to the polls you just remember who associated them selves with dumping your fish in without spending any political capital, passing a bill or appropriating anythjng!!”

PAFBC basically there to make them look good and they have some real control they don’t want to admit to but it was unmistakable when they canned Arway.

I want to call them out because this is also on house and senate fish and game committee. If this wasn’t how they wanted things they would have changed it and these officials would not have made the below videos.









 
Last edited:
For streams that are especially vulnerable, how about a targeted harvest by a small group of anglers early in the season or immediately after stocking? 10 anglers fishing for 3 days could legally kill 150 stocked fish. For some small streams such a significant harvest would at least help to minimize the harm from stocking. If a small list of such streams were agreed on by a group of like-minded anglers, could such action be used as a means to convince PFBC to drop stocking on those streams? Certainly this could only work in a limited number of cases, so it's not a general solution. And it could only work if it were publicized as such, so there might be some public heat around it. But it might get some attention to the issue that is lacking now.
 
For streams that are especially vulnerable, how about a targeted harvest by a small group of anglers early in the season or immediately after stocking? 10 anglers fishing for 3 days could legally kill 150 stocked fish. For some small streams such a significant harvest would at least help to minimize the harm from stocking. If a small list of such streams were agreed on by a group of like-minded anglers, could such action be used as a means to convince PFBC to drop stocking on those streams? Certainly this could only work in a limited number of cases, so it's not a general solution. And it could only work if it were publicized as such, so there might be some public heat around it. But it might get some attention to the issue that is lacking now.
Thats a really interesting question, if no one went over their legal limit I don’t see how trying to depopulate a stream section of stocked invasive trout with a group of 10 to 20 anglers taking turns rotating through each pool atlantic salmon fishing style would be against the regulations.

I mean really what your talking about is not that different than if 20 or 30 people getting trash bags and doing a stream clean up. Its just that there is a limit on how much of the litter each individual can remove.
 
For streams that are especially vulnerable, how about a targeted harvest by a small group of anglers early in the season or immediately after stocking? 10 anglers fishing for 3 days could legally kill 150 stocked fish. For some small streams such a significant harvest would at least help to minimize the harm from stocking. If a small list of such streams were agreed on by a group of like-minded anglers, could such action be used as a means to convince PFBC to drop stocking on those streams? Certainly this could only work in a limited number of cases, so it's not a general solution. And it could only work if it were publicized as such, so there might be some public heat around it. But it might get some attention to the issue that is lacking now.
Not to mention there are some shelters and organizations that work with homeless veterans that served our country that would be happy to receive fillets of legally harvested stocked invasive species in those numbers for a good cause like protecting wild native brook trout. There would be a great educational value in that if it was covered by media.
 
just a bit of a update, talked to the local biologist for F@B Aaron Frey, 2018 studies done after years of stocking showed 11 kg/ hectare wild trout prominently brook trout, just imagine those numbers if it was not stocked. I will keep collecting info and data to see but this would be a great watershed in this section to manage as a wilderness trout stream as multiple tribs are listed, I know it does not meet the specs due to road access but it is a start.
 
For streams that are especially vulnerable, how about a targeted harvest by a small group of anglers early in the season or immediately after stocking? 10 anglers fishing for 3 days could legally kill 150 stocked fish. For some small streams such a significant harvest would at least help to minimize the harm from stocking. If a small list of such streams were agreed on by a group of like-minded anglers, could such action be used as a means to convince PFBC to drop stocking on those streams? Certainly this could only work in a limited number of cases, so it's not a general solution. And it could only work if it were publicized as such, so there might be some public heat around it. But it might get some attention to the issue that is lacking now.
Hold a PAFlyfish Jamboree in one of those places.
 
In some cases of wt streams being stocked, there may be bigger impact from exceptionally high angling pressure as opposed to the short term presence of extra fish. A prime example of this is Little Bear Creek in the Loyalsock watershed. Thus is a small brook trout stream you can all but jump across, but it gets hit by hundreds of anglers. Stocked Trout are short lived as it is easy to fish them out of such a small stream.
 
In some cases of wt streams being stocked, there may be bigger impact from exceptionally high angling pressure as opposed to the short term presence of extra fish. A prime example of this is Little Bear Creek in the Loyalsock watershed. Thus is a small brook trout stream you can all but jump across, but it gets hit by hundreds of anglers. Stocked Trout are short lived as it is easy to fish them out of such a small stream.
Why does such a native brook trout stream get hit by so many anglers if you can jump across it?? That seems really small
 
Why does such a native brook trout stream get hit by so many anglers if you can jump across it?? That seems really small
There's a tiny brook trout stream in Somerset county like that. Cub Run is all of about 3 feet wide in most places and gets stocked. The "fishable" water is only about 1/2 - 3/4 mile long, if that. The upper end is Class A brook trout. I would bet that they surveyed Cub Run in late summer when all the fish were jammed up in the very top end of the stream. The rest of the year they're distributed throughout the stream/watershed. So you've got a stream that is about 3 miles long (on paper), half of which is Class A, and the other half is stocked. This doesn't count toward the "stocking over Class A brook trout" though because technically they aren't stocking directly IN the Class A section.

They stock that tiny stream with brown trout. Now, there are wild brown trout there. Here's one I caught there a while back. Not exactly the trophy brown trout people are interested in catching. This fish isn't the direct descendent of some "straight-off-the-boat" german import stocked in Centre County 200 years ago that migrated to Somerset. It's the direct result of continually stocking a stream that supports brook trout. So we're just going to exchange small brook trout for small brown trout. Makes no sense.

20190106 124731


There are three other streams in that immediate area that all get stocked and are all wild native brook trout streams. I'm sure the biomass isn't considered "significant" by PFBC measures, so essentially the brook trout there have been deemed "insignificant." Piney run is where I found a bunch of dead 4-5 inch wild brook trout several years ago from anglers targeting stocked trout mishandling sub-legal brook trout. These streams get hammered because they're stocked. If they weren't stocked, very few would fish them, and there wouldn't be the incidental mortality that there is today.

These streams all have chemistry issues. Either natural due to the geology in the area, or from industrial activity up there. They aren't great habitats generally. However, Cub's headwaters are Class A. Piney's headwaters are a WTS and frankly should be Class A but they wont re-survey up there because there are no historical stations established in that section. Clear Shade down where Cub and Piney dump in is pretty terrible for a lot of reasons, but, CSC is important for fish moving between the tributaries. Rather than leave that all alone as a brook trout system, they just stock it and are trying their damnedest to convert it to a brown trout fishery.
 
Back
Top