WV Brook Trout

[silverfox]

Swattie posted almost exactly what I was going to mention about WV. There are some unique allopatric streams, some in that condition are due to water quality issues that prevented colonization from rt and bt.

I have also personally fished Seneca and a few other streams in the National forest. Although I caught impressive numbers of 11-13 in native brook trout, I also caught rt, bt or stocked trout in just about every stream I have fished there.

Albeit my overall level of exploration has been somewhat limited in WV.

I understand. I've fished WV as well. I live 42 minutes from WV. I know it's not ST nirvana and they stock a hell of a bunch of trout too.

Still, WV has 5 allopatric watersheds managed exclusively for brook trout. We have zero.

 

[jifigz]

I agree with everything you say. It also doesn't change the fact that PA is lagging far behind almost all of the other states in the EBT native range. Call it culture, marketing, influence, whatever, the problem remains and will remain indefinitely if nobody does anything about it.

I think there's been a conscientious decision to focus on stocking and nonnative trout at the expense of brook trout. Those two bring in money and money is king. I get it. It doesn't change the fact that we're very obviously behind other states on this issue.

And I hear and agree with everything that you guys are saying for the most part, I really do. I am looking at it like this. Stocked trout numbers continue to decline due to various reasons. Waters are slowly being taken off of stocking lists, but at a VERY slow rate. Stocked trout are a problem in and that we pander to a group of people that will largely fish for two weeks and hang up the rod and hip boots till next year. The amount of resources wasted on rearing the trout and then on trucking them to the desired locations is absurd considering we have wild trout in abundance. It just doesn't make sense to me. PFBC might not be implementing favorable brook trout policies or have a great management plan. If they would just stop stocking over the natives that would be a huge step in the right direction. But things are improving for us just due to the PFBC failiures.

However, I largely feel that the majority of brook trout waters see little to no pressure. The only people that care to hike in or fish small mountain streams for 7" fish are only people that care about the resource and will work to protect it. Sometimes I wonder if a "management plan" in regards to brook trout is really anything more than words on paper. We could make brook trout all C&R, encourage harvest of non-native fish, etc, but I don't see the huge impacts that would have. I doubt brook trout are harvested from small, unstocked streams with any regularity or enough to impact populations. I've never even seen another angler when I am fishing unstocked brook trout waters near me. Also, in my neck of the woods I can't think of any "large" streams that could really support brook trout movement. All of my small streams flow directly to the Juniata, the only "larger" systems (such as Kish, Penns) near me are such brown trout strongholds they will remain that way forever. Those streams have no hope of being reclaimed brook trout water.

One example in my area of a stream I fish often that I would like to see stocking reform on is East Licking Creek. I think we should quit stocking above Clearview reservoir. The stream currently gets stocked heavily. The wild brook trout persist in the creek, but there are also wild rainbows and wild browns. The two Class A feeder streams (Spruce and Spectacle) hold excellent populations of brookies but they are small. But with the cessation of the stocking on that creek I could see it producing some nice brookies. I would love to see no more trout planted there, but that won't happen anytime soon.

 

[silverfox]

And I hear and agree with everything that you guys are saying for the most part, I really do. I am looking at it like this. Stocked trout numbers continue to decline due to various reasons. Waters are slowly being taken off of stocking lists, but at a VERY slow rate. Stocked trout are a problem in and that we pander to a group of people that will largely fish for two weeks and hang up the rod and hip boots till next year. The amount of resources wasted on rearing the trout and then on trucking them to the desired locations is absurd considering we have wild trout in abundance. It just doesn't make sense to me. PFBC might not be implementing favorable brook trout policies or have a great management plan. If they would just stop stocking over the natives that would be a huge step in the right direction. But things are improving for us just due to the PFBC failiures.

However, I largely feel that the majority of brook trout waters see little to no pressure. The only people that care to hike in or fish small mountain streams for 7" fish are only people that care about the resource and will work to protect it. Sometimes I wonder if a "management plan" in regards to brook trout is really anything more than words on paper. We could make brook trout all C&R, encourage harvest of non-native fish, etc, but I don't see the huge impacts that would have. I doubt brook trout are harvested from small, unstocked streams with any regularity or enough to impact populations. I've never even seen another angler when I am fishing unstocked brook trout waters near me. Also, in my neck of the woods I can't think of any "large" streams that could really support brook trout movement. All of my small streams flow directly to the Juniata, the only "larger" systems (such as Kish, Penns) near me are such brown trout strongholds they will remain that way forever. Those streams have no hope of being reclaimed brook trout water.

One example in my area of a stream I fish often that I would like to see stocking reform on is East Licking Creek. I think we should quit stocking above Clearview reservoir. The stream currently gets stocked heavily. The wild brook trout persist in the creek, but there are also wild rainbows and wild browns. The two Class A feeder streams (Spruce and Spectacle) hold excellent populations of brookies but they are small. But with the cessation of the stocking on that creek I could see it producing some nice brookies. I would love to see no more trout planted there, but that won't happen anytime soon.

I posted this before and I highly recommend folks listen to the entire presentation from both Dan Goetz and Dave Nihart. This is the timestamp where Dan discusses Maryland's statewide brook trout regulations:

To paraphrase, angling isn't the cause of declining brook trout populations. However, angling regulations tell anglers that the species needs help. I've said this before as well. I don't think angling regulations are necessarily going to result in more, bigger brook trout on their own. Not in the sense that harvest is causing stunting or reductions in numbers. I think the value is that it shows an agency is prioritizing the fish and that anglers should too. In other words, it's the psychological effect that the mere presence of angling regulations, special management zones, or even educating anglers that stocking is being suspended for brook trout has that has the most value.

 

[Fish Sticks]

And I hear and agree with everything that you guys are saying for the most part, I really do. I am looking at it like this. Stocked trout numbers continue to decline due to various reasons. Waters are slowly being taken off of stocking lists, but at a VERY slow rate. Stocked trout are a problem in and that we pander to a group of people that will largely fish for two weeks and hang up the rod and hip boots till next year. The amount of resources wasted on rearing the trout and then on trucking them to the desired locations is absurd considering we have wild trout in abundance. It just doesn't make sense to me. PFBC might not be implementing favorable brook trout policies or have a great management plan. If they would just stop stocking over the natives that would be a huge step in the right direction. But things are improving for us just due to the PFBC failiures.

However, I largely feel that the majority of brook trout waters see little to no pressure. The only people that care to hike in or fish small mountain streams for 7" fish are only people that care about the resource and will work to protect it. Sometimes I wonder if a "management plan" in regards to brook trout is really anything more than words on paper. We could make brook trout all C&R, encourage harvest of non-native fish, etc, but I don't see the huge impacts that would have. I doubt brook trout are harvested from small, unstocked streams with any regularity or enough to impact populations. I've never even seen another angler when I am fishing unstocked brook trout waters near me. Also, in my neck of the woods I can't think of any "large" streams that could really support brook trout movement. All of my small streams flow directly to the Juniata, the only "larger" systems (such as Kish, Penns) near me are such brown trout strongholds they will remain that way forever. Those streams have no hope of being reclaimed brook trout water.

One example in my area of a stream I fish often that I would like to see stocking reform on is East Licking Creek. I think we should quit stocking above Clearview reservoir. The stream currently gets stocked heavily. The wild brook trout persist in the creek, but there are also wild rainbows and wild browns. The two Class A feeder streams (Spruce and Spectacle) hold excellent populations of brookies but they are small. But with the cessation of the stocking on that creek I could see it producing some nice brookies. I would love to see no more trout planted there, but that won't happen anytime soon.

A special brook trout management zone would be much more than just a PDF like anything PA fish and boat has relating to brook trout on their website. In kettle creek this is what you’d get this season if it happened.

1. Between PAFB and coops I counted 60,000 stocked trout in the watershed with the VAST majority being lake and up.

The document stops that

2. Catch and release and incentivized harvest on non natives. First off you get the incidental mortality decrease from the people chasing the white truck to another location. The people still fishing it release their brook trout obviously but the consumptive angler takes out some non natives. So while incentivized harvest is not going to rid the watershed of brown trout, you get 40,50 thousand what ever less invasive species + the amount removed by anglers. That is going to have a big effect. There is some evidence that slightly shifting the ratios of invasive to native trout may enhance the native trouts over all resistance to displacement and even further invasion.

The document does that

Thats where big old fish come from(main-stem use)-what anglers want

Thats where genetically diverse adaptable brookies come from (main stem use) what conservationists want.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The other thing a special brook trout management area is going to do is in theory stop all these extremly deep pool projects or “lunker structures” that we know favor invasive trout over brook trout when present, which kettle/hammersly have in numbers

 

[Fish Sticks]

WV doing alot wrong but they are lightyears head of Pa

1. Special brook trout management areas
2. Brook trout conservation hatchery
3. Ending invasive trout stocking over an imperiled non game species
4. Brook trout specific regulations
5. Removals of invasive trout species
6. Reintroductions(never done successfully in PA)

We have done NONE of this


the bar is set so low here you can still have rampant stocking of invasive species in WV but they look like conservation rock stars compared to us

 

[sarce]

The relatively “large” Brook Trout stream showcased in the video for example is Seneca Creek, and it’s got a ton of wild Rainbows in it. Been there, caught them. Not trying to be a contrarian, and the OP video is great, and delivers a great message. After fishing there personally, I’m just wondering how many Rainbows they caught off camera while filming this. 😜 (I saw the video first outside of the context of this thread, and that’s the first thought I had. No Rainbows hmmmm…)

My personal experience with WV is similar to PA from a wild Trout angling perspective. There’s places where you catch a lot of Brookies, and admittedly they do run on average a little bigger, for whatever reason. But not a lot bigger. And eventually, in every system I’ve fished, you turn up a wild Bow or Brown, or both. And sometimes, a lot of them. FWIW.

Wasn't sure how to quote reply these two paragraphs separately. But while there were some shots from Seneca and it was mentioned at one point, that isn't where they're doing the habitat work that was shown. Nor is it where I suspect those larger fish were found. Seneca is overrun with tiny brookies and rainbows.

My experience in WV outside of Seneca watershed has turned up zero catches of other trout species.

 

[silverfox]

Wasn't sure how to quote reply these two paragraphs separately. But while there were some shots from Seneca and it was mentioned at one point, that isn't where they're doing the habitat work that was shown. Nor is it where I suspect those larger fish were found. Seneca is overrun with tiny brookies and rainbows.

My experience in WV outside of Seneca watershed has turned up zero catches of other trout species.

Yeah, those shots around 3:50 are not Seneca creek. The earlier shots are. I agree also that outside of the notorious rivers that get stocked heavily, most of the backcountry streams I've fished have been 100% brook trout.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Wasn't sure how to quote reply these two paragraphs separately. But while there were some shots from Seneca and it was mentioned at one point, that isn't where they're doing the habitat work that was shown. Nor is it where I suspect those larger fish were found. Seneca is overrun with tiny brookies and rainbows.

My experience in WV outside of Seneca watershed has turned up zero catches of other trout species.

When i fished it I was fishing larger streams with only brook trout averaging larger than they do in Pa. I showed up for 4 days and caught a 10 and two 11” fish and more 7 to 9’s than i could remember. The stream was large enough that there were large may fly hatches and fish rising repetitively just under the surface in the same seam gulping Like you see in Pa brown trout streams. I have also seen 17” brookie pictures taken on obvious mountain freestoners, have not seen that in Pa. Its just the size of the streams they have to themselves in these few areas that are special. You can find plenty of examples where they are screwing up like we are you just can’t find the opposite(where we have mirrored their successes) in PA.

They gave em SOMETHING

 

[Swattie87]

Be interested to hear Squatch’s take, since moving down there.

Someone post a pic of a horny headed Chub or Fallfish in full spawning drab. He loves those things.

 

[Fish Sticks]

those things.

 

[troutbert]

One example in my area of a stream I fish often that I would like to see stocking reform on is East Licking Creek. I think we should quit stocking above Clearview reservoir. The stream currently gets stocked heavily. The wild brook trout persist in the creek, but there are also wild rainbows and wild browns. The two Class A feeder streams (Spruce and Spectacle) hold excellent populations of brookies but they are small. But with the cessation of the stocking on that creek I could see it producing some nice brookies. I would love to see no more trout planted there, but that won't happen anytime soon.

I think ending stocking in the state forest section is an achievable goal. The native brookie numbers are pretty good in there, in spite of the negligent fisheries management.

 

[jifigz]

I think ending stocking in the state forest section is an achievable goal. The native brookie numbers are pretty good in there, in spite of the negligent fisheries management.

I agree Troutbert. That's why I brought it up. I think it makes sense. The reservoir would create a barrier to help keep stockies below. East Licking has good holding water, plenty of brookies still despite stocking, and has two smaller tribs that are both brookie streams. It is pretty heavily stocked though and I really don't see that ending anytime soon.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I agree Troutbert. That's why I brought it up. I think it makes sense. The reservoir would create a barrier to help keep stockies below. East Licking has good holding water, plenty of brookies still despite stocking, and has two smaller tribs that are both brookie streams. It is pretty heavily stocked though and I really don't see that ending anytime soon.

Silver fox and I were talking about east licking because if you look at TU nationals criteria from their brook trout conservation portfolio that is a situation where they might recommend removal if stocking stopped and wild populations of invasive trout persisted. I think we even looked at the human population in the immediate surrounding area and were kinda wondering who the heck is fishing for all these stocked trout? Sounds like its a pellet pig Mecca though?

Looking at TU nationals brook trout conservation portfolio this looks like it fits into the “secure and restore persistent population” strategy pictured below. East licking doesn’t get stronghold because of the connectivity barriers/life history implications of the dam i would think.

https://www.tu.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Eastern-Brook-Trout-Conservation-Portfolio-Range-wide-and-Focal-Area-Assessment-v1_0.pdf

 

[jifigz]

Silver fox and I were talking about east licking because if you look at TU nationals criteria from their brook trout conservation portfolio that is a situation where they might recommend removal if stocking stopped and wild populations of invasive trout persisted. I think we even looked at the human population in the immediate surrounding area and were kinda wondering who the heck is fishing for all these stocked trout? Sounds like its a pellet pig Mecca though?

Looking at TU nationals brook trout conservation portfolio this looks like it fits into the “secure and restore persistent population” strategy pictured below. East licking doesn’t get stronghold because of the connectivity barriers/life history implications of the dam i would think.

View attachment 1641228569

https://www.tu.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Eastern-Brook-Trout-Conservation-Portfolio-Range-wide-and-Focal-Area-Assessment-v1_0.pdf

I wouldn't say it's a "pellet peg mecca" but it gets it's fair share of stockies and it sees it's fair share of angler usage. I fish it pretty often throughout the year, especially cold winter months and I'll still bump into fishermen. There was a couple there with their young kid at an easy access place just a couple weeks ago when I was there. I always enjoy catching the mixture of wild fish with the stockies that hold over.

It does have a lot of potential to be a specially managed brook trout waterway, though. With the cessation of stocking and anglers being encouraged to remove the wild bows and browns it could shine, for sure.

 

[silverfox]

I wouldn't say it's a "pellet peg mecca" but it gets it's fair share of stockies and it sees it's fair share of angler usage. I fish it pretty often throughout the year, especially cold winter months and I'll still bump into fishermen. There was a couple there with their young kid at an easy access place just a couple weeks ago when I was there. I always enjoy catching the mixture of wild fish with the stockies that hold over.

It does have a lot of potential to be a specially managed brook trout waterway, though. With the cessation of stocking and anglers being encouraged to remove the wild bows and browns it could shine, for sure.

The TU Brook Trout conservation portfolio and Range-wide assessment tool identifies East Licking Creek as "Secure and Restore Persistent Population."

The prescription for that conservation strategy includes "nonnative trout eradication," though in lieu of that, you would think cessation of stocking might the closest thing to "eradication."

Instead of any of that, it's stocked with rainbow and brown trout.

I've used East Licking Creek as an example before for this very reason. There are no barriers upstream of the reservoir to remove to satisfy the "or connectivity enhancements" part of the conservation strategy. Habitat isn't the limiting factor in the stream according to the TU assessment. That leaves nonnative trout removal as the primary tool according to the TU assessment.

I don't suspect "eradication" is on the table, but the least they could do is stop adding more nonnative trout. The majority of the stream is on DCNR/SF property. It would be nice if DCNR had some pull with PFBC.

 

[jifigz]

There are not many wild browns in that stream anymore. Why, I don't really know. I notice the TU thing you listed only mentions EBT (Eastern Brook Trout?) and BNT (Brown Trout?) The brookie population is pretty dang good and I think would swell tremendously if all the rainbows were not stocked there. Certainly many brook trout get eaten by the stockie bows and those stockie fish hold over. They do not die. The stream stays cold in the summer, although it will often get down to a trickle. The stockie bows I caught just a couple weeks ago didn't look malnourished. They didn't have those giant heads on their shrinking bodies like happens in some waterways. They looked a little lean, but not unhealthy.

I have made the PFBC area biologist aware of this and the TU thing you supplied doesn't mention it Silverfox, but there is an ever expanding population of wild bows in that creek. That could present a problem to the future of the brookies. I didn't turn any of them up 3, 4, or 5 years ago, but in the last year two years I caught well over a hundred. All small and less that 7 inches, but wild bows none the less.

 

[silverfox]

There are not many wild browns in that stream anymore. Why, I don't really know. I notice the TU thing you listed only mentions EBT (Eastern Brook Trout?) and BNT (Brown Trout?) The brookie population is pretty dang good and I think would swell tremendously if all the rainbows were not stocked there. Certainly many brook trout get eaten by the stockie bows and those stockie fish hold over. They do not die. The stream stays cold in the summer, although it will often get down to a trickle. The stockie bows I caught just a couple weeks ago didn't look malnourished. They didn't have those giant heads on their shrinking bodies like happens in some waterways. They looked a little lean, but not unhealthy.

I have made the PFBC area biologist aware of this and the TU thing you supplied doesn't mention it Silverfox, but there is an ever expanding population of wild bows in that creek. That could present a problem to the future of the brookies. I didn't turn any of them up 3, 4, or 5 years ago, but in the last year two years I caught well over a hundred. All small and less that 7 inches, but wild bows none the less.

I wasn't aware of that. It's been a good 10 years since I fished that stream and to be fair, if memory serves, I only caught brook trout. I was up above Spruce. Almost ran over a bunch of Amish kids on bikes when I came around a bend driving up there. 😬

At least rainbows are the least-liked species, according to that survey posted here a while ago. Maybe removing them wouldn't rustle as many jimmies as other species. If I had to guess, I'd put the odds of anything other than status quo happening there over the next 30 years at about 0%, though.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Be interested to hear Squatch’s take, since moving down there.

Someone post a pic of a horny headed Chub or Fallfish in full spawning drab. He loves those things.

Squatch lives in a trout dead zone. I'm 2-3 hours away from any of this kind of fishing. The best watershed I have relatively close to me is the New River watershed. A few of the tribs hold wild trout, but most are BT/RT. I'm too close to the coal fields. Great smallmouth fishing though.

But in general, what I HAVE seen from this state is not the rosie picture portrayed by some on this site. I get it. They've taken steps that PA hasn't. That's good to hear. But in the majority of places I've fished, both close to home and driving distances, it's the same-old same-old. Truck chasers, stocking over wild and native populations, stocking which is CONSTANT. I mean, every week they're out there dumping stockies in streams, almost 12 months a year. And the local TU here in Charleston seems more interested in fingerling stocking programs than they are with really truly extensive restoration and protection.

 

[silverfox]

Squatch lives in a trout dead zone. I'm 2-3 hours away from any of this kind of fishing. The best watershed I have relatively close to me is the New River watershed. A few of the tribs hold wild trout, but most are BT/RT. I'm too close to the coal fields. Great smallmouth fishing though.

But in general, what I HAVE seen from this state is not the rosie picture portrayed by some on this site. I get it. They've taken steps that PA hasn't. That's good to hear. But in the majority of places I've fished, both close to home and driving distances, it's the same-old same-old. Truck chasers, stocking over wild and native populations, stocking which is CONSTANT. I mean, every week they're out there dumping stockies in streams, almost 12 months a year. And the local TU here in Charleston seems more interested in fingerling stocking programs than they are with really truly extensive restoration and protection.

I tried to caveat what I said about WV so it didn't sound like such a rosy picture. WV has come a long way in a short period of time, but by no means would I suggest they're doing everything right. They stopped stocking brown trout over candy darters but continued stocking tiger trout. Yes, the stocking is incessant too. Nonstop. Not to mention the fever they've tried to create around the lightning trout.

However, as I said before, WV has 5 "large" entire watersheds managed exclusively for brook trout with no stocking and C&R regs. PA has exactly zero. On that one point alone, in my mind, WV has been more progressive with brook trout conservation than PA has.