Penn's Creek 4/15-16/22

[Fish Sticks]

A number of the tribs sink and end up more brown trout water. I'm not sure what Pine/Elk looks like these days for brooks. They are a pretty long way from Poe Paddy. Some of the more recent survey on lower tribs like Weikert and Cherry were kind of disappointing. I'm not that familiar with this area or the upper areas. Tribs like Panther and Swift can't offer the easiest access but I guess they do move.

Can vouch pine still has a lot of brookies in it in the bald eagle but yea there is big time displacement of brook trout going on everywhere in the state region wise from brown trout to one extent or another.

 

[JeffP]

What's odd is that we never caught brookies in the earlier days. That includes both stocked and wilds. Last few years more of both.

 

[JeffP]

Actually more like the last 5-10.

 

[Fish Sticks]

What's odd is that we never caught brookies in the earlier days. That includes both stocked and wilds. Last few years more of both.

they stopped stocking a certain section of penns I don’t know if that had anything to do with it. Also the brown trout in penns seem to be seeing a lot of summertime pressure from anglers don’t know if incidental mortality up at all or not? I don’t know why more brookies, completely clueless. Can obviously be cyclical especially with the hydrograph but I’ve heard progressively more reports of wild native brook trout in the main stem over past 4 years. I’d love to know why that is.

 

[KeviR]

It is not treble hooks per se, it is the hook size that causes the problem ST. Certain lure brands that are produced in sizes appropriate for most Pa brook trout streams have stock treble hooks that are too small for the sublegal trout that are around 4.5-6 inches long give or take. They are aggressive and with some frequency take all three of the hook tines of a single treble hook into their small mouths. All three tines can get caught in the jaws (upper and lower at the same time), effectively tying them together, and because of the remaining very small space to maneuver the tines, it makes the hook difficult to remove from their mouths without damaging the jaws. To avoid this, I break one of the tines off of the treble configuration when fishing a ST stream. The remaining double hook is easy to remove from smaller fish. Alternatively, larger hooks can be utilized and the problem goes away as well because the smaller fish that were engulfing the smaller trebles can’t do so with the next larger size. You don’t catch many of those small fish either with the larger hooks, so that’s good.

Published research testing treble vs single hooks shows that single hook lures are often taken too deeply into vital areas of the rear mouth, such as the vascular rear of the tongue or gill arches, producing significantly higher mortality than trebles, which normally aren’t taken as deeply. Other than what I have described from my experiences with respect to some sub-legal ST and the hook size mismatch, which I have never found addressed in the scientific studies, treble hooks are the way to go. The treble vs single hook argument from anglers typically is based on their logic and not based on the scientific testing, to which they may have little access. In fact, the single hook solution that anglers often propose would have worse outcomes based on the the science.

Did the research address ST specifically with regards to treble hooks? I've had your experience (not lately) where the hooks sink into both jaws and are exceedingly hard to remove without harming the fish too much. Certainly barbless would help a lot in terms of making the hooks easier to extract when this does happen. The single/treble finding is counter-intuitive. Can you provide the reference? I'd like to read it to understand the methodology of the study.

 

[Mike]

OK so let me get this straight…wild ST from various tribs are getting out into and mixing with Penns Ck’s very substantial Class A wild BT population, moving about, and having the capability of “transporting” genes to that system’s other tribs, yet when a wild BT population, no matter the biomass, or a temporarily stocked population of trout is located within a downstream section of a stream that has ST in the headwaters, somehow the wild ST from upstream or downstream can’t run that “gauntlet” in either direction. As one of my old time fishing mentors used to say; “there is logic here somewhere, but there is no time for a scavenger hunt.”

 

[Fish Sticks]

OK so let me get this straight…wild ST from various tribs are getting out into and mixing with Penns Ck’s very substantial Class A wild BT population, moving about, and having the capability of “transporting” genes to that system’s other tribs, yet when a wild BT population, no matter the biomass, or a temporarily stocked population of trout is located within a downstream section of a stream that has ST in the headwaters, somehow the wild ST from upstream or downstream can’t run that “gauntlet” in either direction. As one of my old time fishing mentors used to say; “there is logic here somewhere, but there is no time for a scavenger hunt.”

Nice attempt at shifting baseline Mike.

Unfortunately that red line going upward will never take place in our state because statements like that display lack of the key needed ingredients bolded in red above.


It’s like saying that just because there is some laughable fraction of the life histories and brook trout that used to exist in Penns creek that the stocked/non native trout must be completely benign. Or are you saying brook trout are at their 17th century size and levels current in penns creek?

 

[silverfox]

Nice attempt at shifting baseline Mike.
View attachment 1641224911

Unfortunately that red line going upward will never take place in our state because statements like that display lack of the key needed ingredients bolded in red above.


It’s like saying that just because there is some laughable fraction of the life histories and brook trout that used to exist in Penns creek that the stocked/non native trout must be completely benign. Or are you saying brook trout are at their 17th century size and levels current in penns creek?

Everything is fine. Brookies are just fine. PA is just different that's all.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Everything is fine. Brookies are just fine. PA is just different that's all.

Yea those people at Md, WVU, nj, Va DNR doing special brook trout management areas just shrugging their shoulders at pa are just lunatics and zealots

 

[Mike]

KeviR, unfortunately I can’t provide the reference, as it is in a scientific literature review of special reg use in trout management that I wrote for the agency years ago. That paper is in my old office and not accessible. If I recall correctly, there is more than one reference to that topic and a number of papers have cited that and other similar studies to the extent that I would say those results are well-accepted within the fisheries community.

If you fish trebles or have done so in the past with substantial frequency, you must have noted how infrequently they are lodged in the rear of the mouth or in the tongue, particularly the portion of the tongue where much bleeding occurs. I can only assume,that it is easier for a trout to more fully engulf a spinner with a single hook than one with a treble. That’s one part of taking a hook deeply.

The other part of “deeply” is how deeply the hook penetrates the mouth parts. Single hooks of the sizes typically used on lures on avg penetrate the flesh deeper than trebles, causing more bleeding or injury. For a given amount of force, that force is often divided across multiple tines with a treble hook. One tine being blocked by bony material or cartilaginous material in the mouth may prevent the second or third tine from sinking in. With single hooks, all of the force is delivered to one hook point all of the time, enhancing penetration.

Nice attempt at shifting baseline Mike.
View attachment 1641224911

Unfortunately that red line going upward will never take place in our state because statements like that display lack of the key needed ingredients bolded in red above.


It’s like saying that just because there is some laughable fraction of the life histories and brook trout that used to exist in Penns creek that the stocked/non native trout must be completely benign. Or are you saying brook trout are at their 17th century size and levels current in penns creek?

Not at all…re-read what I said. In summary, I said that despite a large BT pop in Penns, the ST from the tribs being found in Penns can then obviously still move about using Penns as a transport route to enhance genetic diversity in other tribs’ ST populations. I said nothing nor did I come close to suggesting that a historical ST population would or could be established in Penns. I just don’t see those BT preventing the ST exchange of genetic material among tribs over time.

I would add that given how similar the ST genetics are from one trib population to another in the Loyalsock basin despite all of the stocking there and despite tribs with wild BT pops, successful genetic exchange among tribs must be occurring there as well.

Finally, per your own reference within the list of 38, it only took 5 males and five females, 40 in all, introduced into four tribs to substantially enhance genetic diversity within those tribs’ ST populations. This doesn’t have to happen annually or occur 10 fish at a time to have a positive genetic effect. A persistent trickle of immigrants over time should be enough, especially since that trickle likely gets out into the larger stream system on an annual basis and even more-so, or more than a trickle, when year classes produced every two to three years.

ST do this (move out from the tribs) in the Little Schuylkill too during cooler parts of the year and it gets warmer and has lower flow than much of Penns in Centre and part of Union Co. Furthermore, wild ST quickly move into sections of Willow Ck, Berks Co that have gone completely dry in drought years, resulting in total fish kills in the summer. Essentially, as soon as temps are cooler and water starts flowing again in Sept or Oct. the ST are on the move and back in that section. The point is that given the physical and thermal opportunities to move, ST will do so. Having worked with a number of migratory species and species that most people don’t recognize as being migratory on a seasonal basis, I can assure anglers that the urge to migrate and overcome obstacles, physical, chemical, and biological, is quite strong.

 

[silverfox]

KeviR, unfortunately I can’t provide the reference, as it is in a scientific literature review of special reg use in trout management that I wrote for the agency years ago. That paper is in my old office and not accessible. If I recall correctly, there is more than one reference to that topic and a number of papers have cited that and other similar studies to the extent that I would say those results are well-accepted within the fisheries community.

If you fish trebles or have done so in the past with substantial frequency, you must have noted how infrequently they are lodged in the rear of the mouth or in the tongue, particularly the portion of the tongue where much bleeding occurs. I can only assume,that it is easier for a trout to more fully engulf a spinner with a single hook than one with a treble. That’s one part of taking a hook deeply.

The other part of “deeply” is how deeply the hook penetrates the mouth parts. Single hooks of the sizes typically used on lures on avg penetrate the flesh deeper than trebles, causing more bleeding or injury. For a given amount of force, that force is often divided across multiple tines with a treble hook. One tine being blocked by bony material or cartilaginous material in the mouth may prevent the second or third tine from sinking in. With single hooks, all of the force is delivered to one hook point all of the time, enhancing penetration.

Not at all…re-read what I said. In summary, I said that despite a large BT pop in Penns, the ST from the tribs being found in Penns can then obviously still move about using Penns as a transport route to enhance genetic diversity in other tribs’ ST populations. I said nothing nor did I come close to suggesting that a historical ST population would or could be established in Penns.

I would add that given how similar the ST genetics are from one trib population to another in the Loyalsock basin despite all of the stocking there and despite tribs with wild BT pops, successful genetic exchange among tribs must be occurring there as well.

Finally, per your own reference within the list of 38, it only took 5 males and five females, 40 in all, introduced into four tribs to substantially enhance genetic diversity within those tribs’ ST populations. This doesn’t have to happen annually or occur 10 fish at a time to have a positive genetic effect. A persistent trickle of immigrants over time should be enough, especially since that trickle likely gets out into the larger stream system on an annual basis and even more-so, or more than a trickle, when year classes produced every two to three years.

They do this (move out from the tribs) in the Little Schuylkill too during cooler parts of the year and it gets warmer and has lower flow than much of Penns in Centre and part of Union Co.

I'm personally more concerned that we're developing angling regulations that essentially encourage harvest of all age/size classes of ST while protecting larger BT than I am about predation or competition in larger streams. At least you're agreeing that ST use these STW and should therefore be afforded some angling protections. Given the species is listed as a SGCN while BT aren't. You'd think we'd put that species first when designing regs.

On the nonnative fish as barriers issue, I think that depends on the system. I personally doubt it plays much if any of a role on a river as large as Penns. Where I think it matters more is on some 30 foot wide 3rd order valley stream that links several 1st/2nd order ST tributaries. In theory that the nonnative/stocked fish density is higher in a smaller stream near tributary mouths.

Again, I've always suggested angling regs in STW to exclude ST from harvest because of the gene flow issue, not suggested removal or anything else of nonnative species on larger waters. 2 different issues IMO.

 

[Fish Sticks]

KeviR, unfortunately I can’t provide the reference, as it is in a scientific literature review of special reg use in trout management that I wrote for the agency years ago. That paper is in my old office and not accessible. If I recall correctly, there is more than one reference to that topic and a number of papers have cited that and other similar studies to the extent that I would say those results are well-accepted within the fisheries community.

If you fish trebles or have done so in the past with substantial frequency, you must have noted how infrequently they are lodged in the rear of the mouth or in the tongue, particularly the portion of the tongue where much bleeding occurs. I can only assume,that it is easier for a trout to more fully engulf a spinner with a single hook than one with a treble. That’s one part of taking a hook deeply.

The other part of “deeply” is how deeply the hook penetrates the mouth parts. Single hooks of the sizes typically used on lures on avg penetrate the flesh deeper than trebles, causing more bleeding or injury. For a given amount of force, that force is often divided across multiple tines with a treble hook. One tine being blocked by bony material or cartilaginous material in the mouth may prevent the second or third tine from sinking in. With single hooks, all of the force is delivered to one hook point all of the time, enhancing penetration.

Not at all…re-read what I said. In summary, I said that despite a large BT pop in Penns, the ST from the tribs being found in Penns can then obviously still move about using Penns as a transport route to enhance genetic diversity in other tribs’ ST populations. I said nothing nor did I come close to suggesting that a historical ST population would or could be established in Penns.

I would add that given how similar the ST genetics are from one trib population to another in the Loyalsock basin despite all of the stocking there and despite tribs with wild BT pops, successful genetic exchange among tribs must be occurring there as well.

Finally, per your own reference within the list of 38, it only took 5 males and five females, 40 in all, introduced into four tribs to substantially enhance genetic diversity within those tribs’ ST populations. This doesn’t have to happen annually or occur 10 fish at a time to have a positive genetic effect. A persistent trickle of immigrants over time should be enough, especially since that trickle likely gets out into the larger stream system on an annual basis and even more-so, or more than a trickle, when year classes produced every two to three years.

They do this (move out from the tribs) in the Little Schuylkill too during cooler parts of the year and it gets warmer and has lower flow than much of Penns in Centre and part of Union Co.

That’s a GROSS over simplification and I never said they weren’t moving, an some no doubt make it. But what this ignores is that how many more would be traveling or making it when they travel if they were not hitting a biotic Barrier. You can’t tell me that:

1. We or or are at an optimum rate of gene flow. This is significant because just because there is some mixing it doesn’t mean it’s enough to keep high enough adaptive potential genetically for climate change and all other stressors in the watershed.

2. So genes are mixing yes, but how do you know there is not a valuable gene that influences an important survival trait or life history that is absent from those profiles. For example, that biotic barrier is selecting against a certain type of genotype, you will see a mix of genes and have no idea an important one is missing. Mixing of genes doesn’t mean mixing of the best genes for adaptive potential.

3. This movement is also not just relevant for genetics but it’s also relevant for growth. So the whole idea that this travel only needs to happen every few years and it’s ok for a minimum to survive it is fakes.

4. Pa has done next to nothing with conservation genetics for brook trout and their management ignores this whole field based on managing tiny sections based on density alone. How do you know if these wild reproduction non class A streams or downstream waters weren’t stocked you wouldn’t have more mixture? those fish had elements of each others populations but there was still a lot of variability. Look at the gene map.

 

[silverfox]

That’s a GROSS over simplification and I never said they weren’t moving, an some no doubt make it. But what this ignores is that how many more would be traveling or making it when they travel if they were not hitting a biotic Barrier. You can’t tell me that:

1. We or or are at an optimum rate of gene flow. This is significant because just because there is some mixing it doesn’t mean it’s enough to keep high enough adaptive potential genetically for climate change and all other stressors in the watershed.

2. So genes are mixing yes, but how do you know there is not a valuable gene that influences an important survival trait or life history that is absent from those profiles. For example, that biotic barrier is selecting against a certain type of genotype, you will see a mix of genes and have no idea an important one is missing. Mixing of genes doesn’t mean mixing of the best genes for adaptive potential.

3. This movement is also not just relevant for genetics but it’s also relevant for growth. So the whole idea that this travel only needs to happen every few years and it’s ok for a minimum to survive it is fakes.

4. Pa has done next to nothing with conservation genetics for brook trout and their management ignores this whole field based on managing tiny sections based on density alone. How do you know if these wild reproduction non class A streams or downstream waters weren’t stocked you wouldn’t have more mixture? those fish had elements of each others populations but there was still a lot of variability. Look at the gene map.

This is the same as the argument, "well, it became a Class A in the presence of stocking, so therefore stocking has no negative impact on wild fish".

 

[JeffP]

OK so let me get this straight…wild ST from various tribs are getting out into and mixing with Penns Ck’s very substantial Class A wild BT population, moving about, and having the capability of “transporting” genes to that system’s other tribs, yet when a wild BT population, no matter the biomass, or a temporarily stocked population of trout is located within a downstream section of a stream that has ST in the headwaters, somehow the wild ST from upstream or downstream can’t run that “gauntlet” in either direction. As one of my old time fishing mentors used to say; “there is logic here somewhere, but there is no time for a scavenger hunt.”

I know Penns has been surveyed a lot. I can't remember if Brookies showed up. I seem to remember the Fish Commission caught some heat for surveying pretty late in the season. I'm guessing those fish probably moved back into the tribs. I am honestly not thinking the numbers are that great. Obviously putting some time in Penns would add some size.

 

[JeffP]

Can vouch pine still has a lot of brookies in it in the bald eagle but yea there is big time displacement of brook trout going on everywhere in the state region wise from brown trout to one extent or another.

Pine in the headwaters or Pine in the limestone lower section.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Pine in the headwaters or Pine in the limestone lower section.

Headwaters

 

[Mike]

This is the same as the argument, "well, it became a Class A in the presence of stocking, so therefore stocking has no negative impact on wild fish.

The abstract provided indicated only 10 ST (5 male, 5 female) were needed in transfers from stream to stream to increase genetic diversity at levels that I would consider to be quite substantial, surprisingly so. That does not suggest that optimum movement by ST from stream to stream is a high number, especially when it occurs a little at a time year after year, as I previously suggested. It is certainly not a requisite on an evolutionary time scale.

As for genetic diversity and ST size, it’s a rare Pa freestone ST population in my experience where the length distribution does not match the habitat unless 1). you go back to the time period pre Operation Future when there was extensive stocking (high stocking rates and high frequencies) over some wild ST populations and high harvest and 2) when major floods occurred completely changing fish habitat and temporarily reducing existing ST populations, one time to a depauperate level. You may find that to be a precursor to what will occur if storms increase in frequency and intensity due to climate change. Where are these isolated allopatric ST populations in Pa where the habitat is good for larger fish, the forage base is adequate (terrestrial or aquatic), but they are consistently absent across the years? Note: I don’t want to hear about the isolated popular pools that the hole jumping anglers always hit or the locally popular bridge holes.

Furthermore, I am not a splitter; I’m a grouper. Splitters will find even more comfort in reviewing the WVa paper that found within stream genetic differences among groups of ST over relatively short distances than they might in slight differences from stream to stream within the same basin. I just find it interesting.

As for the growth of wild Brown Trout populations to Class A status while being stocked with RT, the results indicated that despite any undetermined negative impacts that may or may not have occurred due to stocking, they must have been temporary since population growth was substantial. The use of RT was intentional, as they are generally quickly harvested, and they were used at less than maximum stocking frequencies, resulting in less total fishing pressure. Additionally, given the cold water temps that typify the opening few days of trout season and given the expected limited catch of BT vs RT, which are much more likely to bite in cold water, BT in all probability gained additional protection from their inherent behavior.

Since this has touched on a ST management issue, back in the 2002 trout symposium I stated after presenting limited results of special regs applied to wild ST populations in Pa vs the results of stopping stocking over wild ST populations in streams where there was suitable habitat to support substantially more ST, the best way to enhance those populations was to terminate stocking over those populations.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The abstract provided indicated only 10 ST (5 male, 5 female) were needed in transfers from stream to stream to increase genetic diversity at levels that I would consider to be quite substantial, surprisingly so. That does not suggest that optimum movement by ST from stream to stream is a high number, especially when it occurs a little at a time year after year, as I previously suggested. It is certainly not a requisite on an evolutionary time scale.

As for genetic diversity and ST size, it’s a rare Pa freestone ST population in my experience where the length distribution does not match the habitat unless 1). you go back to the time period pre Operation Future when there was extensive stocking (high stocking rates and high frequencies) over some wild ST populations and high harvest and 2) when major floods occurred completely changing fish habitat and temporarily reducing existing ST populations, one time to a depauperate level. You may find that to be a precursor to what will occur if storms increase in frequency and intensity due to climate change. Where are these isolated allopatric ST populations in Pa where the habitat is good for larger fish, the forage base is adequate (terrestrial or aquatic), but they are consistently absent across the years? Note: I don’t want to hear about the isolated popular pools that the hole jumping anglers always hit or the locally popular bridge holes.

Furthermore, I am not a splitter; I’m a grouper. Splitters will find even more comfort in reviewing the WVa paper that found within stream genetic differences among groups of ST over relatively short distances. I just found it to be interesting.

As for the growth of wild Brown Trout populations to Class A status while being stocked with RT, the results indicated that despite any undetermined negative impacts that may or may not have occurred due to stocking, they must have been temporary since population growth was substantial. The use of RT was intentional, as they are generally quickly harvested, and they were used at less than maximum stocking frequencies, resulting in less total fishing pressure. Additionally, given the cold water temps that typify the opening few days of trout season and given the expected limited catch of BT vs RT, which are much more likely to bite in cold water, BT in all probability gained additional protection from their inherent behavior.

Since this has touched on a ST management issue, back in the 2002 trout symposium I stated after presenting limited results of special regs applied to wild ST populations in Pa vs the results of stopping stocking over wild ST populations in streams where I meant that there was suitable habitat to support substantially more ST, the best way to enhance those populations was to terminate stocking over those populations.

Only problem is I would point out that if they had instead used 1 male and 1 female transplanted, which would have also increased genetic diversity to an extent right. Would those results also suggest to you that movement is not suboptimal because they became some small non measurable “more diverse”? The problem with saying current movement is optimum from that example all comes back to the shifting base line syndrome where progressively the bar gets lowered and lowered and what is billed as a “win” moves south with it. If increasing connectivity is as inimoortant as you make it out to be why replace a culvert that’s 40% passable right?

Only a couple brook trout need to wander up there every few years in a high water event when it’s passable rebased on what your saying right? Why are those getting ripped out and replaced like hotcakes in our state. Why is connectivity one of the most important thing EBTJV is harping on. Why is David kayzak presenting slides to advise managers like Pa fish and boat at regional conferences that have a picture of brown trout rainbow trout and perched culverts all on the same slide with the title BARRIERS. I won’t claim to know better than Dr. David Kayzak, will you?

The real truth here is that connectivity is inhibited by more than just concrete and corrugated metal. You tend to really down play biotic impairments in trout streams like stocked/invasive species. If they are as insignificant as you would have me believe why are chief scientists of NGO’s, federal science fisheries science labs, and academics saying the total opposite?

As for genetic diversity and size, the study brookies got significantly bigger in the F1 generation post genetic rescue that increased genetic diversity in the NC trial. There’s not much to argue with there. Inbreeding is not good for many things in nature, growth being one of them.

And as for your question about where are these areas where allopatric brook trout have adequate habitat for larger fish and forage base, that’s EAXCTLY my point. That area you speak of like it doesn’t exist is just what ever downstream body of water their allopatric stream drains into for 3 colder months a year but they are not using it like they should due to invasive species. When deiterman and hoxmeir removed browns in the Midwest the brook trout came downstream and reclaimed that excellent forage and habitat.

And as for the effect of Stocking rainbows over browns that’s totally different than brook trout.

 

[moon1284]

This is the stream reports forum right?

 

[silverfox]

The abstract provided indicated only 10 ST (5 male, 5 female) were needed in transfers from stream to stream to increase genetic diversity at levels that I would consider to be quite substantial, surprisingly so. That does not suggest that optimum movement by ST from stream to stream is a high number, especially when it occurs a little at a time year after year, as I previously suggested. It is certainly not a requisite on an evolutionary time scale.

As for genetic diversity and ST size, it’s a rare Pa freestone ST population in my experience where the length distribution does not match the habitat unless 1). you go back to the time period pre Operation Future when there was extensive stocking (high stocking rates and high frequencies) over some wild ST populations and high harvest and 2) when major floods occurred completely changing fish habitat and temporarily reducing existing ST populations, one time to a depauperate level. You may find that to be a precursor to what will occur if storms increase in frequency and intensity due to climate change. Where are these isolated allopatric ST populations in Pa where the habitat is good for larger fish, the forage base is adequate (terrestrial or aquatic), but they are consistently absent across the years? Note: I don’t want to hear about the isolated popular pools that the hole jumping anglers always hit or the locally popular bridge holes.

Furthermore, I am not a splitter; I’m a grouper. Splitters will find even more comfort in reviewing the WVa paper that found within stream genetic differences among groups of ST over relatively short distances. I just found it to be interesting.

As for the growth of wild Brown Trout populations to Class A status while being stocked with RT, the results indicated that despite any undetermined negative impacts that may or may not have occurred due to stocking, they must have been temporary since population growth was substantial. The use of RT was intentional, as they are generally quickly harvested, and they were used at less than maximum stocking frequencies, resulting in less total fishing pressure. Additionally, given the cold water temps that typify the opening few days of trout season and given the expected limited catch of BT vs RT, which are much more likely to bite in cold water, BT in all probability gained additional protection from their inherent behavior.

Since this has touched on a ST management issue, back in the 2002 trout symposium I stated after presenting limited results of special regs applied to wild ST populations in Pa vs the results of stopping stocking over wild ST populations in streams where I meant that there was suitable habitat to support substantially more ST, the best way to enhance those populations was to terminate stocking over those populations.

I don't believe it happens in large numbers. I haven't seen that in any data and that's backed up in a few studies (low number of movers). I agree there completely. I also think the mechanism is extremely important for repopulation and for fitness. So it's a very important trait, population diversity aside.

I personally don't think size is necessarily linked to, or dependent on genetics. I'm no geneticist though and I've wondered whether adaptation has had an impact on average size (i.e. is it beneficial to be small now?). My understanding is that year-round access to ideal conditions dictates trout size (i.e. New Zealand), which is why I never understood the "brook trout enhancement program" or its stated goal. I also, as I've said ad nauseam, hate that it's used as justification for why ANY regulations are pointless. I also hate that fish size has to be a criterion.

The very few isolated allopatric populations I know of in PA that tick those boxes (including access to large bodies of water) actually do routinely turn out larger fish. I really hate to say this because I know I sound like a zealot, but there is one common denominator that seems to have an impact. It's the same in MD, WV, VA, and even ME. Allopatric. Allopatric+winter access to a large body of water = large brook trout (assuming fertile or even somewhat fertile). If you look at our large flowing bodies of water, the allopatric component is missing in almost every single case. Where it is a single species environment, one of the other components is usually missing.

I also read in a paper from MD that there was some significant variation in two populations that were connected with no barrier.

I think with the whole "they achieved Class A biomass in the presence of stocking", what I've always wondered is how fast might it have achieved class a biomass in the absence of stocking? Or, would the 45kg/ha class a be 65kg/ha in the absence of stocking? Would the 12kg/ha brook trout stream reach 30kg/ha in the absence of stocking? I know you try to determine carrying capacity based on other measures, but is that a guarantee? There are plenty of class a brook trout streams in highly infertile waters with poor habitat, poor KH etc..

Again, to me, the slot limit for example would've been a very easy place to slide in a ST reg. It will be on limited waters, probably few actually have any form of ST presence at all, so it likely wouldn't have even had an impact. However, it shows that the agency is thinking about the fish. It tells anglers that might catch a ST in a slot limit stream that they need to release it. My advocacy for C&R in stocked trout waters is exactly why MD made ST C&R on all STW west of i81. When I walked a stream hanging signs w/ MD DNR, that's exactly what they confirmed it was for. They've found ST in those streams in April when the season opens. They're important. Certainly more important than the orange trout. Why not protect them. Especially when some 80+% of MD anglers agreed it was the right thing to do.

In that case, you can appease the anglers by continuing stocking, which I personally believe when it's done with orange and vanilla RT, likely has little to no negative impact on wild ST, and still protect some important wild ST.