Brook trout movement

[Baron]

How do the desires of the hungry get satiated? When I fish I eat small portions of my catch. If we don't stock will people like me deplete the native areas in a few years? To protect the wild areas will they make them entirely catch and release. Initially I used to think fishing was akin to torture. Why hook (injure) something over and over if you aren't going to harvest it. These thoughts originated from my farming and hunting heritage. I noticed that in the Green in UT they slot their trout. U can keep one under 12 and one over some much larger size and that greatly limits the harvest while letting a couple of us eat our catch.
I used to fish till I caught a few and go home with them. Now what I see is scary. On opening day the guy in front of me caught 30 +/- per day and released them. This fellow did this day after day for many days at the same spot. I even reclaimed a couple of his lost flies when I fished after him. These were of course stockies but still.......I guess the humanity in me cries foul. There-in lies my problem with catch and release but I see no alternative but to employ it if we go to all wild or native trout and eliminate stocking.

 

[silverfox]

Swattie87 wrote:
I've said it before, but one of the keys to this equation (growing large, 12"+ Brook Trout with any consistency) is the absence of wild Brown Trout. This becomes especially hard to do when you're talking about watersheds big enough to allow movement of fish from a larger main stem to smaller tributaries like we're talking about here.

Look at a watershed that used to this, not all that long ago relatively speaking, but was, and still is, stocked with Browns. And although it has Brook Trout still, they are of your typical size curve for PA waters. The big fish are all wild Browns now. (Admittedly, it produces some very nice Browns, but the point is they could have been Brookies.) Let's hope the same mistake is not made with one of its neighbors, though I fear it will be. Mike/sal - I'm certain you know which two I'm talking about.

Exactly correct, and the way that's handled in MD is that there are no brown trout above the dam and it's 100% impossible for fish to migrate up through the Savage reservoir. The upstream section of a larger stream with a permanent physical barrier like a large reservoir is the best option.

Dave_W wrote:
This is a good watershed analogy and, I agree, might serve as a model for a similar experiment somewhere up in the PA Wilds region.

With the lackluster results of the old Brook Trout Enhancement project, combined with local resistance, I'd guess it could be a tough sell... but at the very least pulling together some sort of multi-year watershed plan for ST management along these lines - maybe Kettle like you suggest - would be an intriguing project.

Might be a good start to get the state TU council on board as I think they'd be a more receptive audience than some other stakeholders.

That brook trout enhancement project is a shame (sham?) as it created "results" that were based on a half-hearted (at best) attempt to increase average fish size. We know now that the key to large brook trout is winter access to larger water (MD data results), not C&R regs on tiny tributaries and with no other changes to management (stocking browns/wild browns).

I'm not going to elaborate, but there's the same naysayer attitude at state TU. It's the same argument over and over again; "there's too much political pressure on the commissioners and public opinion doesn't support ceasing stocking". I'm amazed that somehow, stocked trout fishermen are better organized than conservationists and C&R advocates, but apparently that's the case. Or so I'm told.

 

[Swattie87]

Baron - I don't think anyone here is advocating for no stocking. Just being more selective, and strategic from a conservation of the natural resource perspective, about where you stock, and what you stock.

Also, generally speaking, it's my observation that your typical opening weekend stocked Trout anglers are not very adept at catching wild Trout with any regularity. Not meant to be a dig on that kind of angler or fishing, just an objective observation. Sitting in the same hole for several hours, drifting the same bait, lure, or fly through won't catch you very many wild Trout. Though I'm sure some do get harvested this way early season, I don't see it being the biggest of the issues wild Trout are facing.

I have no problem with an angler who fishes for wild Trout keeping a reasonable meal for the table once in a while either. No reason the harvest limit needs to be five fish/day in most wild Trout waters in PA, but my hunch is a responsible wild Trout angler doesn't keep five for the table when they choose to do it anyway. I maybe do it once or twice a year...I try to catch and keep one 10-12" range fish, or two 7-9"ers for a meal. Anything over 13" or so gets released. Truth be told, most of the fish I choose to harvest in a given year are stocked Trout from small, wild Trout streams. Once it's about Memorial Day or so, and they've been on a natural diet for a little while, they're fair game for the grill if I happen to catch one. (I usually carry a gallon Ziploc bag in my pack over the Summer months for this reason, just in case.)

On my last outing, I caught about 30 wild Browns, and one stocker Brown from a small, unstocked wild Trout stream. Not sure where the stocker came from, but he was lucky I didn't pack a gallon Ziploc since I wasn't expecting to find any stockers there. :-o

 

[Baron]

I'm careful about giving any approval to native or natural movements as these things usually mean less for the masses.

 

[Baron]

The very few Native I've eaten appear to be much firmer and smaller. As you mention I only need a few to be happy.

 

[Swattie87]

Baron wrote:
I'm careful about giving any approval to native or natural movements as these things usually mean less for the masses.

Yes. But that doesn't HAVE to be the case. The same amount of stocked Trout, stocked in places that won't negatively affect wild Trout, will yield a total increase in the amount of Trout in PA...

(Same amount of stocked Trout + More wild Trout = More total Trout)

Added bonus...stocking more stocked Trout in places they will be more likely to be utilized by stocked Trout anglers (popular STW's and Special Regs sections), as opposed to wild Trout waters will likely mean MORE Trout for the masses...If by masses it's assumed we mean stocked Trout anglers.

 

[Baron]

I'll be watching. These things usually lead to more government over-reach. The kind that hurts.
PA has a pretty good record on stewardship, to be fair.

 

[troutbert]

Ending of stocking on large streams like Loyalsock Creek is not going to happen as long as the hatchery system exists.

You should concentrate your efforts on places where you can actually make progress and improve brookie populations.

There is a large mileage of small streams where they are stocking over year around populations of brook trout.

Ending of stocking in those places would lead to significant increases of brook trout populations. And many in the PFBC would love to end stocking on these streams, and would welcome political support to do so.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Awesome!
Silverfox and troutbert are exactly correct on this usual topic. However so is Swattie.

I can name a few limited competition streams that are larger that would be perfect fits!
In two some very small populations of browns exist. On those streams should be a unlimited amount of browns per day and C&R brook trout.
I bet after 10 years of no stocking and the already limited population of browns getting culled you would be suprised what you see.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Ymmv of course

 

[larkmark]

The biggest Brook Trout I have caught were in Big Fishing Creek and Big Springs (which looks terrible right now). Also some decent ones in a few other places. These were in the 12" range. Maybe slightly bigger. Would love to see some real management of our native, state trout.

 

[KenU]

Questions: Do we have some brook trout fisheries that could provide “large” brookies and what do I mean by large?

First of all, to answer Mike’s question, I define a 10-inch or larger brookie as a big one. The biggest I have ever caught were a few 11-inchers (by actual measure). In small freestone streams brook trout grow, on average, about 1.5 inches/year; two inches/year is about the best we can expect. I know of one caught in a small impoundment on a tiny tributary that measured 12.5 inches. We (TU) aged it at 3 to 4 years. Given another 2 years of life it could have easily gained another 4 to 6 inches. So, yes, they can still get to historical sizes.

We have been selectively harvesting 7-inch and larger brookies for most of my life. Before that the minimum size was 6 inches. So we have been selecting out of the gene pool fish that grow faster and live longer than about 5 or 6 years. The tendency to migrate may also be important. I hope that we have not taken out so many of the larger and faster growing fish that they we have lost the genetics to get as big as 20 inches; I doubt it. But we have probably thinned out these “superior” brookies long enough that there aren’t many individuals with the genetics to live long enough to reach 20 inches. They are probably still present, but it would take a while to restore these “superior“ fish to the gene pool. I keep hearing stories about people taking fingerling brookies from small streams and raising them in pools until they reached about 16 inches. Maybe that would be an interesting study for the PFBC to conduct. How long can typical small stream brookies live and how big can they get in if they have the time and food resources? The occasional wild brown trout living in small but fertile freestone streams can reach at least 17 inches. Why couldn’t brookies? Both species grow at about the same rate according to a study done long ago in Michigan by the late Dr.Ed Cooper.

You folks answered most of the other questions. But feel free to fire away. However, the only way to answer the question: How big could they get? We will never know until we protect brookies from stocking and harvesting in a watershed where the potential exists for them to grow to historical size. Because brown trout are much less susceptible to harvesting pressure, if present they should be harvested to level the playing field. I can’t imagine a better stream than Kettle Creek for such a study.

 

[Wild_Trouter]

1000% agree Sal. I have some streams in mind as well that would be excellent candidates for such an experiment. Let me know when y'all want to compile a list to send to the PFBC when presenting such a proposal, and I'll contribute my information for the good of the order. We have some members on this board that have been in the wild trout game a long time. I'm sure that collective input would lead to a very viable list for consideration.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

A candidate watershed imo would involve largely public owned land, a large enough stream to allow for ample movement and either have a barrier such as a dam to block brown trout from migrating in or a minimal bt population that could be suppressed by anglers. I can think of a Class A stream in Lycoming Co that has a long section above a water authority dam that is mostly on gamelands until its extreme headwaters. I am not aware of any stocking occurring above the dam, but there is an established bt population.

Any study area would require significant public support.

 

[silverfox]

lycoflyfisher wrote:
A candidate watershed imo would involve largely public owned land, a large enough stream to allow for ample movement and either have a barrier such as a dam to block brown trout from migrating in or a minimal bt population that could be suppressed by anglers. I can think of a Class A stream in Lycoming Co that has a long section above a water authority dam that is mostly on gamelands until its extreme headwaters. I am not aware of any stocking occurring above the dam, but there is an established bt population.

Any study area would require significant public support.

It really shouldn't be up to the public to decide what system in the state could provide the best potential for such a project. It should really be driven by the Fish & Boat biologists based on a lot of very important criteria. That decision should be made based on communication with other biologists from other states who already know how to pull it off.

Next part isn't directed at you lyco...

I really don't get the excuse about political pressure etc. etc. etc.

The agencies set the rules and the public follows those rules. Period. Public input can help identify directions and give an idea of popularity of a concept, but decisions shouldn't be made based on public opinion. The public doesn't always have the natural resource's best interests in mind. Usually just selfish want, vs consideration for what is best for the environment, wildlife and ecosystems.

 

[Swattie87]

lycoflyfisher wrote:
I can think of a Class A stream in Lycoming Co that has a long section above a water authority dam that is mostly on gamelands until its extreme headwaters. I am not aware of any stocking occurring above the dam, but there is an established bt population.

A very well established BT population in the case of that stream. (There's more Browns than Brookies there, from my experience.) Harvesting Browns there isn't going to stop or slow them, so we might as well protect them. I'd lean toward looking at streams with only marginal or emerging BT populations, but good ST populations...In short, streams, preferably larger ones, that are mostly or all Brookies at the present.

The Upper Kettle watershed, above Long Run or so, would largely fit this bill. It's mostly Brookies, but there are some Browns up there, often times fairly large and occupying the best lies. The hole at the GB confluence always seems to have a hard to catch mid-teens Brown in it at the head under the overhanging bushes on the left. Make it legal to harvest him, but not the Brookies, and in theory the Brookies should benefit.

 

[JeffP]

The 2 biggest Brookies I've caught have been out of Hammer and Elk Creek. Elk is posted heavily now. I doubt there is a ton of movement from Pine and Elk into Penns due to the limestone nature and food available. Hammer has a dam and very questionable water in its lower reaches anyway. Honestly the Sock seems like the place most likely to fit the requirement but again, massive stocking with no end in site. I would bet Little J has some tribs but such well-established brown trout streams like that may not work either.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Ken i totally agree .
One of the streams that would be good for this study produces a good number of 8-10 inch fish already.
According to the Savage river study this is the size in which the movers, really start moving around.
So now all we need is a river to grow fish that big with limited competition.

If you can regulate and protect it from brown trout..
Walla you could find even bigger brookies.

Sounds possible to me.

 

[salmonoid]

Some thoughts on the subject matter:

1) What was the affect of having no creel limit before 1924, on the culling of wild fish? Or starting with a creel limit of 5 times the current creel limit (25 fish) in 1924? If the belief today is that wild trout are being slaughtered by the opening day hordes, what happened when there was no limit?

2) Does anyone know what quantity of fish were stocked in the late 18th and early 19th century? The stocking method was different - anyone could request eggs be shipped to them and fingerlings were also stocked. I'm curious how these numbers compare to current day stockings. And if those numbers are much lower than today's stocking, then the culling of wild fish was much higher in the past than it is today, because the majority of fish being harvested were wild. I have some old fish commission reports which include totals to individuals/streams - I may see if there is an easy way to tally up everything for a respective year.

3) What kind of angling pressure did some drainages actually receive? For instance, the Kettle Creek drainage above the Alvin Bush dam is all rated EV, so the water quality is there to grow fish. What was the angling pressure like 100 years ago compared to today? Surely it was more difficult to get there then than it is now. Did it see more, less or the same pressure as today? And how did/does that variable actually affect fish density and size?

4) Is there any verifiable evidence of 20" brookies that does NOT come from angling literature/lore? Anglers are notorious liars and big fish make for good stories and myths and legends. Is anyone aware of large brook trout that are in the collections of universities or colleges in PA? Or that show up in catalogs of field expeditions to collect PA flora and fauna? Or fish bones that were excavated from Native American campsites? Or any verifiable source for that matter?

5) I think it's optimistic at best to believe that anglers can keep brown trout at bay. I don't think you can remove them from a stream once they begin reproducing in a stream or drainage. You need a natural or man-made barrier to prevent them from moving upstream, and a way to ensure that us peeps don't stock them (either via the state or co-op nursery, or the rogue angler transporting a fish or two for their springhouse at the cabin) above the barrier.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

To just answer number 1)
They same thing. Its why they went to a creel limit.
Ask yourself if our population is five times higher and i think you will have your answer.

To address number 5)
There are waters im discussing with very limited brown trout numbers. Harvest would certainly help the brookies keep an advantage .