Brook trout in spring creek

[silverfox]

I recall reading this document several years ago, and while I was researching some other topics this popped up and I reread it again today.

https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/PennsylvaniaFishes/Trout/Documents/fisherySpringCreek.pdf

There are a few things that stood out to me in this read-through. I know from recent discussions here and elsewhere, I've read conflicting theories on "displacement" vs "replacement". Some interesting quotes from the spring creek paper;

Deteriorating water quality and stocking of brown trout in the 1890s probably contributed to the decline of native brook trout in the watershed. Some wild brook trout persisted in the main stem of Spring Creek until the 1950s, but by then brown trout had taken over the main stem and much of the tributaries.

Originally, native brook trout sustained the fishery. In the early 1900s, introduced brown trout established a solid foothold in the stream, and, by the late 1950s, they had completely displaced brook trout in the main stem of Spring Creek.

Historically, native brook trout sustained the fishery, which was apparently good enough to attract the famous angler, Theodore Gordon, who raved about the excellent brook trout fishing near Bellefonte in the early 1870s. In a 1915 letter, Gordon writes about a subsequent fishing trip to Bellefonte and notes that brown trout had “taken possession” of the stream.

It is not clear how quickly brown trout displaced native brook trout. Joseph Humphreys recalls catching brook rout near Benner Spring from the 1930s to the early 1950s before the hatchery was built.

That last quote goes on to note that there were still reproducing populations of brook trout in the mainstem into the 1950s.

What really stood out to me though was pages 33 and 34. These two pages deal with invasive species. I'm not sure if the irony here was on purpose, or maybe we're just not quite there yet in terms of admitting our species' favoritism.

There are other potential invaders, but these will serve to illustrate the possibly devastating effects of invasive species on the current fish and invertebrate communities in Spring Creek.

So we've established that the introduction of one species caused the total displacement/extirpation of a native species (our state fish), but we'll just ignore that and now focus on these other nonnative species as a threat to the "current" fish population. This gets at the foundation of the messaging problem we've got with nonnative species. We caused an extirpation, but now by god we'll do everything we can to prevent these snails from disrupting the population of nonnative fish we introduced which caused the extirpation of our native state fish.

The point here isn't that we should reclaim spring creek. I'm just pointing out the issue of playing favorites with species. It's mixed messaging.

I watched PFBC post on social media on PA's first Native Species day with a post attempting to explain the difference between "native", "invasive", and "naturalized". I don't know why they couldn't have just celebrated our native fish and left it at that. Instead, they tried to distract from the issue of introducing millions of nonnative species every year because they're "naturalized". Stocked nonnative fish aren't "naturalized", and established self-sustaining nonnative fish that have displaced our native brook trout are the very definition of invasive.

This issue isn't lost on everyone. I'm seeing more and more people connect the dots on this. I certainly don't see it going away anytime soon.

 

[Wild_Trouter]

Crazy question, but have you taken notice to Falling Spring Branch being listed as Mixed Rainbow/Brook within the PA Trout Streams Map? There was/is a trout hatchery above the Skelly property. They would lose fish during high-water events and unintentionally stock FSB. I caught escapee brook trout there in the 90's and early 2000's. I have not fished that section (above Skelly property since it was posted) so my question is...Did the PFBC make a mistake with the species designation or is there now a reproducing population of brookies there? If it's the latter, that would be very interesting. From my experience, it was always wild bows and browns.

 

[use2wuz]

I recall reading this document several years ago, and while I was researching some other topics this popped up and I reread it again today.

https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/PennsylvaniaFishes/Trout/Documents/fisherySpringCreek.pdf

There are a few things that stood out to me in this read-through. I know from recent discussions here and elsewhere, I've read conflicting theories on "displacement" vs "replacement". Some interesting quotes from the spring creek paper;





That last quote goes on to note that there were still reproducing populations of brook trout in the mainstem into the 1950s.

What really stood out to me though was pages 33 and 34. These two pages deal with invasive species. I'm not sure if the irony here was on purpose, or maybe we're just not quite there yet in terms of admitting our species' favoritism.


So we've established that the introduction of one species caused the total displacement/extirpation of a native species (our state fish), but we'll just ignore that and now focus on these other nonnative species as a threat to the "current" fish population. This gets at the foundation of the messaging problem we've got with nonnative species. We caused an extirpation, but now by god we'll do everything we can to prevent these snails from disrupting the population of nonnative fish we introduced which caused the extirpation of our native state fish.

The point here isn't that we should reclaim spring creek. I'm just pointing out the issue of playing favorites with species. It's mixed messaging.

I watched PFBC post on social media on PA's first Native Species day with a post attempting to explain the difference between "native", "invasive", and "naturalized". I don't know why they couldn't have just celebrated our native fish and left it at that. Instead, they tried to distract from the issue of introducing millions of nonnative species every year because they're "naturalized". Stocked nonnative fish aren't "naturalized", and established self-sustaining nonnative fish that have displaced our native brook trout are the very definition of invasive.

This issue isn't lost on everyone. I'm seeing more and more people connect the dots on this. I certainly don't see it going away anytime soon.

The photo of the wading angler with the Anglers Paradise caption is especially humorous - a lot has changed since this particular study - but a lot has stayed the same or worsened. Great point on the irony of “invasive species”. All the HTT (holier than thou) Cumberland Valley “conservationists” will be secretly cheering on the Spotted Lantern Fly as it will be good for fly shop business when the trout in the Breeches and other local spring creeks start eating them - read the Japanese Beetle section in Marinaro’s “A Modern Dry Fly Code” for a blueprint of what’s about to happen here in the greater Carlisle area - we’ll all be complaining about the flies in the meantime 🤣 - photo of Spring Creek Brown taken on a Letort Cricket for effect - how’s that for irony - maybe it should have been a Japanese Beetle - prepare for fish pix of with Spotted Lantern Fly artificial piercings soon

 

[silverfox]

Crazy question, but have you taken notice to Falling Spring Branch being listed as Mixed Rainbow/Brook within the PA Trout Streams Map? There was/is a trout hatchery above the Skelly property. They would lose fish during high-water events and unintentionally stock FSB. I caught escapee brook trout there in the 90's and early 2000's. I have not fished that section (above Skelly property since it was posted) so my question is...Did the PFBC make a mistake with the species designation or is there now a reproducing population of brookies there? If it's the latter, that would be very interesting. From my experience, it was always wild bows and browns.

Great question. I've heard tale of these brook trout in FSB for a while now. I don't think the classification was an error. Source of fish is unknown to me.

Coincidentally, Fish Sticks and I are planning on fishing it sometime in the not too distant future. I haven't fished FSB in quite a few years. Maybe 5? I used to fish it a lot in the 90s-2000s and never caught a brook trout there from town up to the source. Always browns and rainbows. I guess I could see how brook trout might hang on up in the meadows if introduced. Who knows where they came from. Escapees sound plausible.

 

[Dave_W]

Crazy question, but have you taken notice to Falling Spring Branch being listed as Mixed Rainbow/Brook within the PA Trout Streams Map? There was/is a trout hatchery above the Skelly property. They would lose fish during high-water events and unintentionally stock FSB. I caught escapee brook trout there in the 90's and early 2000's. I have not fished that section (above Skelly property since it was posted) so my question is...Did the PFBC make a mistake with the species designation or is there now a reproducing population of brookies there? If it's the latter, that would be very interesting. From my experience, it was always wild bows and browns.

Might the map be a typo?

Like many of you, I fished FSB heavily in the 80s/90s and caught many brook trout and some tigers that escaped from the hatchery. As anyone who fished that section in those days knows, there was a lot of escapement, sometimes hundreds of fish and this would draw quite a crowd when word got out as they were suckers for streamers. I had some fun days taking beginners there after these events as the fish were so easy to catch. This hatchery is closed, although the structures are still extant.

In all the years I fished FSB I never caught a wild ST, nor met anyone who claimed to have done so. I think it highly unlikely that there are any in the stream nor have I heard of any turning up in surveys in recent years.
Of course anything is possible and the verification of wild ST in FSB would be exiting and welcome news.

I feel much the same about ST in Spring Creek, although I think it more likely that they could make their way back into Spring Creek easier just due to the larger watershed.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I like the quote that points out Joe Humphreys caught Native Brook Trout until the 1950s before the hatchery was built. Obviously invasive brown trout displaced them but i can’t ignore the effects of the hatcheries. A PA fish and boat hatchery killed the native brook trout population on Big spring. They shut it down and the brook trout returned. Its listed as a “reintroduction” by PA fish and Boat but I suspect it was not a true reintroduction. It would be an interesting right to know request. What I suspect they did is just back the hatchery truck full of stocker brookies up and let her rip, not source wild native brook like your supposed to from somewhere nearby with idea of putting a roughly genetically similar population to what was lost in so there is local adaptations/evolutionary advantages. I think they just realized that stocked brook trout “took” after the hatchery shut down and went with it.

But now its funny that people are saying a hatchery is no longer operating on falling falling springs and I am hearing all these reports of native brook trout showing up. Hopefully not hatchery source stock but its sadly very believable. However, I don’t know if recolonization is possible from an A.O.P stand point because there are other streams connected to FSB just don’t know what barriers they’d have to get up and if they could do it in flood stage or not.

I have been pointing out despite all the nasty treats from nicholas meats in the sugar valley that the tylersville harchery pumps out a lot of filth and there is white scum common of hatcheries(green spring) everywhere.

Ripping out hatcheries seems to be part of the secret sauce for recovering native brook trout. Development/Ag is not gokd for them but I have posted the studies on here about how large ground water input forgives many sins for brook trout and you can have 60% pure Ag -40% riparian buffer and still have native brook trout holding on with springs. The water quality is important for them but its been so overblown as the only factor. I know a mcdonalds parking lot i can catch native brook trout in thats concrete lined and I catch em far downstream from there too. Ph is low and not many wild brown trout. Water quality is absolute crap but its cold. Can catch brook trout downstream of streams where entire town is a concrete culvert for the stream, temps reasonable and theres AmD and very little wild brown trout. Water quality is very important but its only one of 5 major factors in a model many fisheries scientists use and so is biotic impairments(invasive trout) which always gets ignored as silver fox pointed out.

brook trout have declined in the natrows on Big Fishing creek and Pa fish and boat still won’t rip out that tylersville abomination. If anyone fishes there soon please post a photo of the nasty outflow !!! RESOURCE FIRST

I will add, Tim Schaefer’s awkward explanation of “naturalized non natives” on native species day stirs up thoughts of many comically tragic regrettably ironic F.U.B.A.R debacles I will refrain from posting on the internet. couldn’t even mention our native state fish…….pitiful.

Use to wuz said something about the Cumberland valley fly fishing element that jogged my memory. Silverfox, PA fish and boat almost worked up the courage to allow harvest or entertain removable on big spring for those invasive hatchery rainbow decedents . Did tbey cite opposition from a group or does anyone know who specifically came out and said no we don’t want recovery of the last well known large spring creek population of native brook in the state? If you know who it was id like to know.

 

[silverfox]

Use to wuz said something about the Cumberland valley fly fishing element that jogged my memory. Silverfox, PA fish and boat almost worked up the courage to allow harvest or entertain removable on big spring for those invasive hatchery rainbow decedents . Did tbey cite opposition from a group or does anyone know who specifically came out and said no we don’t want recovery of the last well known large spring creek population of native brook in the state? If you know who it was id like to know.

The report simply states: "...the proposal [to allow harvest of rainbows but not brook trout] was met with strong public opposition and subsequently not implemented.".

https://www.wildtroutsymposium.com/proceedings-12.pdf [page 292]

I don't know in what form the opposition was presented, or what the definition of "strong" is in that case. Was it a local club that wrote letters? Made phone calls? Was it 5 people? 50? 500? Public comment process or just through communications w/ local anglers? Regardless, I've wondered whether more people supported than opposed, but simply didn't voice their support. According to the NPS, reclamation efforts have strong public support when they're informed properly and the reason explained correctly, so it's surprising that it was met with "strong" opposition. This is about the simplest form of "reclamation" there is. It's hardly even reclamation at all given it would likely be fairly ineffective. It is possible too that Pennsylvania has developed such a strong culture for support of nonnative fish that anglers here are simply less receptive than in other states.

Regardless, I'm surprised that in this case, public feedback carried more weight than a conservation strategy when I've seen public comment overruled on other issues more recently. There was, what I would consider "strong opposition" to a recent decision that proceeded despite the opposition. I don't see how nonnative rainbow trout are more culturally significant than native brook trout in a stream that was written about in sporting journals in England at the turn of the century as a brook trout fishery.

To be fair, the population of brook trout was probably virtually extirpated before PFBC built the hatchery at the source. That stream has a long storied history of being destroyed by multiple industries over several decades prior to the state hatchery. I think a more accurate description would be that the state hatchery was the final nail in the coffin.

We have a long history of destroying brook trout populations, but a pretty abysmal track record of restoring them.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The report simply states: "...the proposal [to allow harvest of rainbows but not brook trout] was met with strong public opposition and subsequently not implemented.".

https://www.wildtroutsymposium.com/proceedings-12.pdf [page 292]

I don't know in what form the opposition was presented, or what the definition of "strong" is in that case. Was it a local club that wrote letters? Made phone calls? Was it 5 people? 50? 500? Public comment process or just through communications w/ local anglers? Regardless, I've wondered whether more people supported than opposed, but simply didn't voice their support. According to the NPS, reclamation efforts have strong public support when they're informed properly and the reason explained correctly, so it's surprising that it was met with "strong" opposition. This is about the simplest form of "reclamation" there is. It's hardly even reclamation at all given it would likely be fairly ineffective. It is possible too that Pennsylvania has developed such a strong culture for support of nonnative fish that anglers here are simply less receptive than in other states.

Regardless, I'm surprised that in this case, public feedback carried more weight than a conservation strategy when I've seen public comment overruled on other issues more recently. There was, what I would consider "strong opposition" to a recent decision that proceeded despite the opposition. I don't see how nonnative rainbow trout are more culturally significant than native brook trout in a stream that was written about in sporting journals in England at the turn of the century as a brook trout fishery.

To be fair, the population of brook trout was probably virtually extirpated before PFBC built the hatchery at the source. That stream has a long storied history of being destroyed by multiple industries over several decades prior to the state hatchery. I think a more accurate description would be that the state hatchery was the final nail in the coffin.

We have a long history of destroying brook trout populations, but a pretty abysmal track record of restoring them.

its so funny because they were willing to entertain removing invasive rainbows via angling but when a ? Amount of people get to poo poo a great idea like that they just decided well, we will keep stocking hatchery brook trout and risking introgression lol.

Its not like with falling springs, trindle spring run, the yellow breeches, mountain creek and green spring there is some “you can sponsor a fly fishermen for just 89 cents a day” tragic lack of rainbow trout fishing in that area. The Letort, conodoguinet, spring creek in harrisburg, lower big spring, mountain creek theres no shortage of brown trout fishing either.

Just one for our state fish in the name of conservation is too much

 

[Fish Sticks]

Another interesting thing is a few of you probably saw I posted this article on the snake head bounty thread.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/331350352_Invasive_Snakehead_and_Introduced_Sport_Fish_Illustrate_an_Environmental_Health_Paradox_of_Invasive_Species_and_Angler_Demand

Then I saw this below article in the above wild trout symposium link.

Angler Perception of Fishing Experience in a Highly Technical Catch-and-Release Fishery: How Closely does Perception Align with Biological Reality?

I hear a fair amount of chest beating from angling community about how we( I’m a fishermen too) protect the resource and to an extent thats true but fishing is ruining conservation of the actual native fish themselves in many cases because its driving the buss with stocking and all this promotion and protection of invasive species. I can’t imagine how frustrating it must be when you do 4 years of undergrad and then spend 7 years more in the the field and some dreary university lab in the basement/library, write a dissertation through labor of love for a species you plan to study for the rest of your life before getting your PhD.

Then when you get out ready to start working with this at risk native fish you love and dedicated your life too for a tiny pay check someone says, “yea I’m glad you figured out all that crap I don’t understand about how to secure the future of native brook trout but before we do anything you gotta talk to that guy over there with the fly rod and see what he thinks our next move should be”.

So when they tell us that invasive trout species are an extremely underestimated threat to native brook trout and we need to do something about that it just kills me what comes out of anglers mouths after that.

And the fisheries managers are even worse they know better, that wild trout symposium linked above must be so awkward to attend for PA fish and boat. They must fly out there, wake up next morning get the continental breakfast, sign in on a sheet to show that their there to get their education, sit through days of research highlighting that what their doing is fisheries management malpractice practice, exchange some business cards and fly home and change ABSOLUTELY NOTHING.