Lancaster County Brook Trout

The Lancaster County Conservancy maintains several preserves with public access, most of which allow fishing. They have some information about brook trout on their website if you dig around.

One stream in the Pequea headwaters has fished pretty consistently well for me within the last few years. Typically catch a handful of fish, but had one great day in prime spring conditions. Mostly smaller brookies, but have hooked into some up to the 9-10” range.

Interestingly, the stream in question has a strong population of creek chubs in addition to brook trout. Summer temps get warm, so the trout likely seek thermal refuge in a cooler feeder stream.
 
There are some brook trout streams that are very sandy here in central PA. Now, they aren't all 100% sand, but they have large stretches composed of lots and lots of sandy substrate.
 
nd1001 said:
Typically catch a handful of fish, but had one great day in prime spring conditions. Mostly smaller brookies, but have hooked into some up to the 9-10” range.

Interestingly, the stream in question has a strong population of creek chubs in addition to brook trout. Summer temps get warm, so the trout likely seek thermal refuge in a cooler feeder stream.
Click to expand...
This is the typical piedmont brook trout experience in my opinion. Not many fish, but a few nice ones, and plenty of chubs and dace. And usually a relatively cold refuge somewhere. Occasionally, good spring flows and conditions overlap with a good year class of adult 8-10" fish and you can have an impressive outing. Rarely does it continue for consecutive years.
 
I just recently read a scientific paper in which creek chubs were mentioned as being effective or substantial predators on trout fry and fingerlings, which then made me think back to a failed BT fingerling stocking program in a relatively small stream with acceptable BT temps but with a very substantial creek chub (much larger than most creek chub streams) population throughout comprised of various size fish. Even worse, where a low head dam was removed, the remaining deep channel held schools of moderate to larger size chubs. This now makes me wonder whether chubs were contributors to the failed fingerling stockings (plus fingerling size could have been on the smaller side of possibilities at times).
 
Last edited:
Creek chubs are common catches in the Furnace Hills streams. Can’t say I’ve caught them in the super tiny ones (Kettle/Walnut/Elders), but in the Segloch or bigger sized ones, they’re common. Especially in the frog water.
 
Swattie, looking through an earlier thread you stated you caught a couple Brookies in Furnace in 2023. I wonder if they are basically the same population as the Seglock? I think I remember Mike saying something rather cryptic about Brookies being somewhere surprising at a certain time of the year. I wonder if it’s possible for the Brookies to migrate and use both streams when conditions permit. Maybe one stream or stretch is better than another for temperature and spawning. Which is better for temps? Spawning? A real concerted effort should be taken to study these fish maybe with telemetry. Unfortunately Furnace has seen a lot of vegetation removed along it back in the tree farm lands. I think this might be to make it more “bucolic” to visitors?
 
They’re similar streams. Furnace has a much shorter stretch on public land, which is the only section I’ve fished. It’s similar in size, geology, and habitat to Segloch, at least in the stretch I’ve fished. I’m sure their populations overlap, or overlapped, to the extent Brookies are still present in them. One is a trib to the other. I forget which retains the name down to the confluence with Middle, Furnace, I think.

FWIW, they always fished similarly to me. When things were good (2012-2016ish), they both fished well. Outside of that a couple fish per outing, at best, was the norm for me on both of them. The ratio of Brookies to Browns was consistently higher on Furnace, if that means anything. I preferred fishing Segloch, for no other reason than that there was more of it to fish on public land, and most times I ended up on Furnace was because someone was already on Segloch. You kinda gotta road hike 501 a little bit and hop over the guard rail and get down through a multiflora rose thicket to legally get down to the SGL stretch of Furnace, which I never enjoyed doing all that much. I do remember a day, 2014ish probably, where I caught Furnace up and off color during a fairly warm stretch in May, and had a really good day. Definitely was mostly Bookies that I caught that day.

Shearers (all Browns coincidentally), was my favorite of the group.
 
I think they were stockies. Now that I think of it I think there may have been some small natives in there. That would have been 30-35 years ago.
 
Last edited:
IMG_2495.JPEG

For a point of reference, the red sandstone substrate that is so ubiquitous with Furnace Hills streams. In this instance, Segloch Run.

IMG_2501.JPEG

Evidence of bank scouring and strainers/deadfall created from high water events along Segloch. Some of these areas get precariously close to the road, as mentioned.
 
Last edited:
When I moved to N. Lanco in the late '80s, Segloch was one of my favorites. I even built a small stream 3 wt. rod, dubbed the "Segloch Special" for throwing small streamers in tight quarters. I watched the transition to a predominantly brown trout fishery happen in real time beginning in the 90s. Same with most other brookie waters in Lanco. It was a slow death. Sadly, it's nothing like it used to be, though there are a couple of spots where there's a reasonable chance to catch them, as some have mentioned. Based on what I've witnessed, it's likely that those spots will disappear, too.

In cases like Segloch, you could argue the causes: siltation, erosion, droughts, floods, invasives, warming, and harvest. But in other Lanco waters, not all of those conditions exist, yet they have still suffered a dramatic decline since I've been fishing them. I still visit them regularly while hiking, but rarely fish them now.

But enough with the trip down memory lane. My bigger concern is how many other Segloch's are out there throughout the state - brook trout streams on the brink of being taken over by invasives? And more importantly, what can be done about it? Protective regs? selective harvest? stocking reform? Doing nothing is not an option if we want to avoid the tragedy of Lanco spreading to other waters throughout the state.
 
TimB said:
My bigger concern is how many other Segloch's are out there throughout the state - brook trout streams on the brink of being taken over by invasives? And more importantly, what can be done about it? Protective regs? selective harvest? stocking reform? Doing nothing is not an option if we want to avoid the tragedy of Lanco spreading to other waters throughout the state.
Click to expand...
Keeping legal size browns would probably be a step in the right direction.
 
In my view, stocking reform, selective harvest of brown trout, and protective regs can all be beneficial strategies to protect our brook trout.

Shenandoah National Park does not stock over their brook trout streams, and mandates anglers kill wild brown and rainbow trout where they are outcompeting the brook trout.

I think it would be interesting to try this selective harvest approach on a stream/watershed in PA. Large scale implementation of this would not be practical or desirable, but testing it on a select stream or group of streams would be interesting.
 
nd1001 said:
In my view, stocking reform, selective harvest of brown trout, and protective regs can all be beneficial strategies to protect our brook trout.

Shenandoah National Park does not stock over their brook trout streams, and mandates anglers kill wild brown and rainbow trout where they are outcompeting the brook trout.

I think it would be interesting to try this selective harvest approach on a stream/watershed in PA. Large scale implementation of this would not be practical or desirable, but testing it on a select stream or group of streams would be interesting.
Click to expand...
Not surprisingly, my best brookie of 2025 came from a Shenandoah NP stream where native fish are valued and protected.

I employ my own (legal) selective harvest measures in PA streams that have wild brookies. It's the only reason I buy a trout stamp.
 
TimB said:
Not surprisingly, my best brookie of 2025 came from a Shenandoah NP stream where native fish are valued and protected.

I employ my own (legal) selective harvest measures in PA streams that have wild brookies. It's the only reason I buy a trout stamp.
Click to expand...
So the only reason you buy a trout stamp is so you can selectively harvest brown trout in brook trout streams? Are you implying that if you weren't on a crusade to remove brown trout from brook trout streams you wouldn't fish in PA at all?

Otherwise, legally you need the trout stamp to fish in any waters containing salmonids, regardless of your agenda and goal.
 
To your first question, yes, and also stocked rainbows, in streams that have a viable population of brookies. I harvest only where and when it's legal. That's the only reason I buy the stamp.

To your second question, no. I fish in PA quite a bit. You seem to conflate trout fishing with all fishing. I have a senior lifetime license and flyfish for warmwater species in PA. I do most of my trout fishing these days in other states/provinces where they value brookies and manage them better.

An agenda, yes, but crusade? No.
 
TimB said:
To your first question, yes, and also stocked rainbows, in streams that have a viable population of brookies. I harvest only where and when it's legal. That's the only reason I buy the stamp.

To your second question, no. I fish in PA quite a bit. You seem to conflate trout fishing with all fishing. I have a senior lifetime license and flyfish for warmwater species in PA. I do most of my trout fishing these days in other states/provinces where they value brookies and manage them better.

An agenda, yes, but crusade? No.
Click to expand...
I guess I should have specified that I meant are you implying that you wouldn't trout fish in PA at all if it wasn't for your desire to remove browns and rainbows? I 100% do not conflate fishing with trout fishing. I fish for all fish species, and I use all tactics, not just fly fishing. You never take a fishing trip to a brown trout only stream to enjoy fishing for brown trout?
 
jifigz said:
I guess I should have specified that I meant are you implying that you wouldn't trout fish in PA at all if it wasn't for your desire to remove browns and rainbows? I 100% do not conflate fishing with trout fishing. I fish for all fish species, and I use all tactics, not just fly fishing. You never take a fishing trip to a brown trout only stream to enjoy fishing for brown trout?
Click to expand...
I think he’s saying he wouldn’t need a trout stamp if he’s not keeping anything (assuming he isn’t fishing stocked trout or special regulation trout waters). Not sure what the actual ruling is on that but I remember there being a big debate about that same topic last year
 
Mikey2006 said:
I think he’s saying he wouldn’t need a trout stamp if he’s not keeping anything (assuming he isn’t fishing stocked trout or special regulation trout waters). Not sure what the actual ruling is on that but I remember there being a big debate about that same topic last year
Click to expand...

The trout permit is required for any trout fishing in PA regardless of C&R or keeping your limit.

www.pa.gov

Buy a Fishing Permit

Buy a Fishing Permit
www.pa.gov www.pa.gov
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages

Share this page

Back
Top