Fishing Creek Columbia county (upper stretches)

“that the first ever acknowledgement of harm of hatchery fish on wild populations by the fish commission is in regards to wild invasive brown trout.”

No, it’s not. There was a specific instance when a club was cautioned that stocking too many trout in a CRFFO area was likely the cause for the paucity of forage fish in comparison to the more traditionally stocked statewide reg section upstream and was, therefore, contradictory to their goal of establishing more “wild”- like trout through the use of egg incubators. There was also natural reproduction of BT so the implication was the same for those fish; YOY would be subject to the same predation. The club took the message seriously and reduced the numbers stocked. Bear in mind, however, this occurred because of a stocking rate that was exceptionally high and it was a C&R area so harvest was not going to quickly reduce the stocked fish density. I would add that it was not the first time that clubs received recommendations (not requirements) to reduce their stocking rates in CRFFO areas, but it may have been the first time that the recommendation was accompanied by a concern about the forage base and trout fry/fingerlings.
I'm still curious to which stream this was.
 
So i heard back from the commission biologist, and boy lets just say that we are going to have some major problems with the management across the state.
According to PF@B employees

Eliminating the stocking of hatchery trout in all waters where wild Brook Trout are present is not needed and would not improve the quality of the wild Brook Trout population present in these sections.

this thinking is something that I cannot believe especially with all the science supporting otherwise.
 
So i heard back from the commission biologist, and boy lets just say that we are going to have some major problems with the management across the state.
According to PF@B employees

Eliminating the stocking of hatchery trout in all waters where wild Brook Trout are present is not needed and would not improve the quality of the wild Brook Trout population present in these sections.

this thinking is something that I cannot believe especially with all the science supporting otherwise.
I am going to go make some popcorn for when Fish Sticks replies.
 
PA Fish and Boat
1668920579989

Stocked invasive trout are not harming our native brook trout.


153F6E24 570A 44C8 8413 004F0F728853
EC6491C2 1F82 49FE 81DE B76060B51CF1







CCED3882 F73B 460C BAF7 9F58934B90D1
 
I am going to go make some popcorn for when Fish Sticks replies.
Fact that brown trout ranked by EBTJV as third largest disturbance in PA AHEAD of sedimentation and urbanization and a new journal article gets published every few months on the dangers of invasive trout to native trout gives them no pause. PA fish and boat must think we are illiterate if biologists are e-mailing responses like the one fish jake received when people ask about potential harms of the hatchery program.

Pa fish and boat just keeps on stocking in the name of almighty license sales(ironically financially unsustainable hatchery program driving up cost of license). Theres no amount of fisheries scientists, anglers, wild trout symposiums, regionaly meeting with EAstern Brook Trout Joint Venture or conservationists they can’t ignore for the politics that enable this train all us Pennsylvanians can’t get off. No amount of shame and dereliction of duty is going to cause them to change anything.

He** lets designate another watershed with only brown trout catch and release and not allow stocking in it and just shift the fish to kettle creek. Whats 100,000 stockers when your already hitting it with 60k. Lets make sure we put C and R where the stocked trout go too.

Other graph above shows multiple non native trout species(brown and rainbows) as 4th largest threat range wide. Notice
Brown trout 7th(on there twice) range wide. Hmm wonder why brown trout in the first PA specific disturbance graph seem to be a larger problem(ranked 3rd) in PA than range wide comparatively as a disturbance?????

CA0C6EA2 011D 4D81 88A7 807039839CD1


Someone get the hardy brothers because its a GD mystery.
 
Last edited:
So i heard back from the commission biologist, and boy lets just say that we are going to have some major problems with the management across the state.
According to PF@B employees

Eliminating the stocking of hatchery trout in all waters where wild Brook Trout are present is not needed and would not improve the quality of the wild Brook Trout population present in these sections.

this thinking is something that I cannot believe especially with all the science supporting otherwise.
At the end of the day thats a biologist appearing to ignore science and using credentials to protect the Pfbc hatchery program which is down right fraudulent. I’m at the point now where even if they are planning on procrastinating into the next century on stocking reform just admit the commission views our states natice brook trout as an acceptable collateral damage baked into the current stocking practices they feel they must maintain at all costs.
 
The state wildlife action plan states:
Reduce impacts of Brown Trout in areas managed for native Eastern Brook Trout.
Screen Shot 2022 11 21 at 73902 AM

The TU/EBTJV Brook Trout roadmap to restoration states:
Remove and prevent exotic fish
Screen Shot 2022 11 21 at 74054 AM

The TU/EBTJV "Eastern Brook Trout Conservation Portfolio, Range-wide Habitat Integrity and Future Security Assessment, and Focal Area Risk and Opportunity Analysis" has multiple "treatment" approaches that recommend:
These patches meet our criteria as persistent and have relatively few stressors present – restoration of populations through nonnative trout eradication or connectivity enhancements to provide more available habitat for allopatric populations, combined with limited habitat restoration effort could shift these populations to the resilient, stronghold category.

So I'd love to have someone explain how stocking brown trout (and rainbow trout) in brook trout waters (regardless of perceived population size) and applying no species-specific angling regulations anywhere in the state is working toward these goals.

The negative impacts of stocking/nonnative fish can be argued, but one thing is for certain, adding nonnative fish is not removing nonnative fish, and no matter what, these actions cannot be misconstrued as a positive for EBT.
 
So i heard back from the commission biologist, and boy lets just say that we are going to have some major problems with the management across the state.
According to PF@B employees

Eliminating the stocking of hatchery trout in all waters where wild Brook Trout are present is not needed and would not improve the quality of the wild Brook Trout population present in these sections.

this thinking is something that I cannot believe especially with all the science supporting otherwise.
That is a statement from one person. It's not the consensus of PFBC staff (biologists/managers).

The hang up is not staff (biologists/managers).

The hang up is the Commissioners, who are the "deciders." They have to vote to approve any major change in fisheries management. And they are heavily pressured by the sportsmens clubs who lobby the PFBC directly, and via their state legislators.

Our side can try to influence things. Or just chat on the internet. Th
Fact that brown trout ranked by EBTJV as third largest disturbance in PA AHEAD of sedimentation and urbanization and a new journal article gets published every few months on the dangers of invasive trout to native trout gives them no pause. PA fish and boat must think we are illiterate if biologists are e-mailing responses like the one fish jake received when people ask about potential harms of the hatchery program.

Pa fish and boat just keeps on stocking in the name of almighty license sales(ironically financially unsustainable hatchery program driving up cost of license). Theres no amount of fisheries scientists, anglers, wild trout symposiums, regionaly meeting with EAstern Brook Trout Joint Venture or conservationists they can’t ignore for the politics that enable this train all us Pennsylvanians can’t get off. No amount of shame and dereliction of duty is going to cause them to change anything.

He** lets designate another watershed with only brown trout catch and release and not allow stocking in it and just shift the fish to kettle creek. Whats 100,000 stockers when your already hitting it with 60k. Lets make sure we put C and R where the stocked trout go too.

Other graph above shows multiple non native trout species(brown and rainbows) as 4th largest threat range wide. Notice
Brown trout 7th(on there twice) range wide. Hmm wonder why brown trout in the first PA specific disturbance graph seem to be a larger problem(ranked 3rd) in PA than range wide comparatively as a disturbance?????

View attachment 1641227738

Someone get the hardy brothers because its a GD mystery.
What does this map show?
 
That map just shows the 3.2 million adult trout, does not. Include the larger amount of coop trout or fingerlings.
 
That is a statement from one person. It's not the consensus of PFBC staff (biologists/managers).

The hang up is not staff (biologists/managers).

The hang up is the Commissioners, who are the "deciders." They have to vote to approve any major change in fisheries management. And they are heavily pressured by the sportsmens clubs who lobby the PFBC directly, and via their state legislators.

Our side can try to influence things. Or just chat on the internet. Th

What does this map show?
Except the exact line that fishjake posted is the exact same line I've gotten from multiple biologists as well. It's why I posted what I posted in my last post. It's also the same quoted response PFBC staff have repeated in news articles (we initiated) about the issue. The argument of "stocking isn't limiting the population" ignores that stocking isn't helping the population either.

Discussing this on a forum doesn't mean nothing else is being done. Letter writing, public comment coordination, petitions, news articles, podcasts, emails, etc. etc. etc. all saying the same thing.

The difference is, this subject isn't just about one group of anglers wanting something. It's echoing scientists and large regional conservation collaboratives, universities, peer-reviewed publications, large NGOs, small NGOs, federal agencies, and other state fisheries agencies' calls to change approach. Posting on PAFF is blowing off steam since all of this seems to have no effect, and frankly because the public should hear these arguments in addition to advocacy directly to PFBC.
 
That is a statement from one person. It's not the consensus of PFBC staff (biologists/managers).

The hang up is not staff (biologists/managers).

The hang up is the Commissioners, who are the "deciders." They have to vote to approve any major change in fisheries management. And they are heavily pressured by the sportsmens clubs who lobby the PFBC directly, and via their state legislators.

Our side can try to influence things. Or just chat on the internet. Th

What does this map show?
Yea Troutbert, this is the pre-prepared statement I have gotten from over 5 PFBC employees. Silverfox and I frequently speak with various PFBC employees for our actual advocacy work with native fish. What we talk about on here is by far smallest fraction time wise of what we do for native brook trout sci-com/advocacy.

I spoke to the individual at PA fish and boat who is their representative to the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture. There are videos online on the EBTJV website of their meetings presenting data on the harms if invasive trout and recommending removal in some cases that this individual has been in attendance for. He has heard all of it. At one point one of the other members says “so if you need a reason not to stock brown trout” heres another one. They have made it clear as day. The. A seprate meeting, the STAC Chesapeake bay brook trout conservation genetics conference, same individual attended as did I. Heard world experts on native brook trout conservation genetics and ecology state many dangers of invasive trout species including that they are a barrier to gene flow/movement among them. Then called this individual and was told “where water is cold enough native brook trout don’t have a problem with brown trout”. So this PFBC employee heard presenters over and over again mention that invasive trout are a threat to native brook trout and I was knowingly lied to because I know this individual has seen and heard the same presentations I have.
This is systemic at PA fish and boat unfortunately and have heard the same from others.

Not to mention if I wanted to expose how much of a lie it is that “brook trout don’t have trouble with brown trout trout when the waters cold enough”

I could pick from any of the below studies to show that is obviously BS to imply the water is just to warm for them in ALL cases where there are brown trout. Their 7 day thermal lethal max temps are <1 deg celcius apart!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

7DB43C77 85E0 4C0F A538 53B4D18374FF












all these articles show the problem is often not the temperature of the water directly or at all. So often when temperature is blamed its that the native brook trout just can’t use the cold micro habitat that exists in free stone and especially in limestone streams because of invasive trout species and are just forced into warmer water. And often times water temp doesn’t factor in at all. Pay special attention to the Kiap-Tu- pine creek Wisconsin case study showing near complete loss of brook trout from brown trout as a result of brown trout using stream restoration projects to push the brook trout out in a stream that averages 12 deg celcius !!!
 
Last edited:
update,

i have recieved all data on the stream and have been exploring most tributaries and main stem, it seems that the stream has an extremely low alkalinity (almost 0) and is subject to acid dep from local power plants.

Good news is the likely source is being converted to LNG in the next few months. Bad news is it seems the damage to the east branch is substantial, while I did see a few fish, I saw almost no bug life on rocks, I was unable to kicknet so that is the next step.

I believe that this will continue as there is a good chance this will become my senior project for 2024 graduation.

With this being said I want to thank all who chimed in on the issue, I wanted to make known to the masses the sheer mismanagement of brook trout in our state, no wonder a stream like this is struggling, local sportsmen groups get large browns downstream, no need for brook trout when we can fish for the lunkers down low, or better yet stock some more fish!

I am really disappointed in the way that PF@B blatantly lied to me about how stocking has no effect on wild trout, I am still trying to find a scientific article that shows this as a possibility, the truth is it is not there.

I am hoping to partner with the local watershed group to find out more information about the liming that is being done in the stream and also to see if we can petition commissioner Charlesworth to remove the stream from the stocking list.
 
update,

i have recieved all data on the stream and have been exploring most tributaries and main stem, it seems that the stream has an extremely low alkalinity (almost 0) and is subject to acid dep from local power plants.

Good news is the likely source is being converted to LNG in the next few months. Bad news is it seems the damage to the east branch is substantial, while I did see a few fish, I saw almost no bug life on rocks, I was unable to kicknet so that is the next step.

I believe that this will continue as there is a good chance this will become my senior project for 2024 graduation.

With this being said I want to thank all who chimed in on the issue, I wanted to make known to the masses the sheer mismanagement of brook trout in our state, no wonder a stream like this is struggling, local sportsmen groups get large browns downstream, no need for brook trout when we can fish for the lunkers down low, or better yet stock some more fish!

I am really disappointed in the way that PF@B blatantly lied to me about how stocking has no effect on wild trout, I am still trying to find a scientific article that shows this as a possibility, the truth is it is not there.

I am hoping to partner with the local watershed group to find out more information about the liming that is being done in the stream and also to see if we can petition commissioner Charlesworth to remove the stream from the stocking list.

Thanks for the update and good luck!
 
update,

i have recieved all data on the stream and have been exploring most tributaries and main stem, it seems that the stream has an extremely low alkalinity (almost 0) and is subject to acid dep from local power plants.

Good news is the likely source is being converted to LNG in the next few months. Bad news is it seems the damage to the east branch is substantial, while I did see a few fish, I saw almost no bug life on rocks, I was unable to kicknet so that is the next step.

I believe that this will continue as there is a good chance this will become my senior project for 2024 graduation.

With this being said I want to thank all who chimed in on the issue, I wanted to make known to the masses the sheer mismanagement of brook trout in our state, no wonder a stream like this is struggling, local sportsmen groups get large browns downstream, no need for brook trout when we can fish for the lunkers down low, or better yet stock some more fish!

I am really disappointed in the way that PF@B blatantly lied to me about how stocking has no effect on wild trout, I am still trying to find a scientific article that shows this as a possibility, the truth is it is not there.

I am hoping to partner with the local watershed group to find out more information about the liming that is being done in the stream and also to see if we can petition commissioner Charlesworth to remove the stream from the stocking list.
Great potential project!

That's the MO with the justification for stocking over low biomass brook trout streams. If there is ANY anthropogenic impact at all, then they can say that stocking isn't the limiting factor. My question is if we correct all the environmental impacts, does that mean they'll stop stocking? Remediating the other impacts would mean that stocking is the only remaining impact. At least that's the way I understand it.
 
You can't lump these streams together. The East Branch, the West Branch, and the tributaries, are all different.

Trout populations on the East Branch are probably being limited by acidity.

But on the West Branch, and many of the tribs, that is not the limiting factor. There are wild browns in the West Branch, and in its tributary that runs along the road. Where there are wild browns, that is not severely acidified water. It also has other tribs with decent brook trout populations. Poor physical habitat from historical stream alterations affects all these streams. And on the West Branch, stocking of hatchery trout limits wild trout populations. Stocking takes place way up into the SGLs.

The East Branch, which is where the liming is occurring, is a curious case. It's been described as an acidity victim for decades. But the two major tributaries that form it, Heberly Run and Sullivan Run, both have native brook trout in their lower reaches. They join to form the East Branch, and the East Branch is considered an acidity victim. That doesn't add up.

But Lead Run is a tributary that comes into the upper end of the East Branch and Lead Run is a dead creek. But why is it a dead stream? Its name could suggest mining in the past, so it could be dead from mine drainage, not acid rain plus infertile geology. Sullivan Run has a tributary called Ore Run, which is also a dead stream. Its name also suggests mining history.
 
You can't lump these streams together. The East Branch, the West Branch, and the tributaries, are all different.

Trout populations on the East Branch are probably being limited by acidity.

But on the West Branch, and many of the tribs, that is not the limiting factor. There are wild browns in the West Branch, and in its tributary that runs along the road. Where there are wild browns, that is not severely acidified water. It also has other tribs with decent brook trout populations. Poor physical habitat from historical stream alterations affects all these streams. And on the West Branch, stocking of hatchery trout limits wild trout populations. Stocking takes place way up into the SGLs.

The East Branch, which is where the liming is occurring, is a curious case. It's been described as an acidity victim for decades. But the two major tributaries that form it, Heberly Run and Sullivan Run, both have native brook trout in their lower reaches. They join to form the East Branch, and the East Branch is considered an acidity victim. That doesn't add up.

But Lead Run is a tributary that comes into the upper end of the East Branch and Lead Run is a dead creek. But why is it a dead stream? Its name could suggest mining in the past, so it could be dead from mine drainage, not acid rain plus infertile geology. Sullivan Run has a tributary called Ore Run, which is also a dead stream. Its name also suggests mining history.

Agree. Once wild Browns are present, which require roughly a 0.5 (or more) higher PH to live and reproduce than Brookies, I too no longer consider acidic conditions, regardless of their origins, to be the limiting factor. The presence of wild Browns is the cut off in my mind.

WB has wild Browns. In fact, if surveyed today, I’d suggest it’s mostly wild Browns, well up into the SGL. I’ve caught Browns in most, but not all of the tribs too. My guess is there’s Browns present, at least to a token degree in all of them, as they don’t have the natural barriers that are present in many of the EB tribs. Acidic water isn’t the issue in the WB. It’s a pretty good stream as it is from a wild Trout angling perspective. Heck, it may even be Class A if surveyed today. I know plenty of listed Class A’s that fish far worse, and seem to have less wild Trout than that stream. Obviously, I agree it shouldn’t be stocked, but it’s pretty good as it is.

EB is a different deal. I’ve never caught a Brown anywhere in the EB watershed, and its geology is worse from a buffering perspective. Nonetheless if there are any legacy mining impacts as tb’s post possibly suggests. I’ve had some localized good fishing for Brookies in the EB watershed, but it’s hit and miss based on location, whereas there are wild Trout present in essentially all of the WB. Some of the EB tribs that do have Brookies also have natural impassable barriers on them. They’re good candidates to ensure Browns never get above those barriers by stocking or bucket biologists. As the effects of acid precipitation continue to diminish, my guess is you’ll eventually find Browns in the EB watershed, below said barriers.
 
Back in 2009, when I first started fishing SGL13, which all of the mentioned streams are in, I fished the Sullivan BRANCH. I caught mostly natives, but I did catch a few small wild browns below Sullivan Falls as well. I left after seeing some young locals jumping off the cliff into the pool below. I don't know if it still holds browns, since I focus on more productive streams in the area.
 
Good to know they’re already there in the EB. Shows you that it too probably isn’t limited by acidic water, or if so, only marginally. There’s definitely less Browns over there than the WB though, where they are very common. Good thing Sullivan and Heberly have those barriers.
 
Back in 2009, when I first started fishing SGL13, which all of the mentioned streams are in, I fished the Sullivan BRANCH. I caught mostly natives, but I did catch a few small wild browns below Sullivan Falls as well. I left after seeing some young locals jumping off the cliff into the pool below. I don't know if it still holds browns, since I focus on more productive streams in the area.
I'm very surprised that you caught browns in Sullivan Branch. That seems like a very infertile stream. I've caught brookies from the mouth up to Sullivan Falls.

Above Sullivan Falls, I tried a few times, and never caught or saw a fish. Has anyone caught fish above Sullivan Falls?
 
Back
Top