What is WV doing that PA ain’t ?

[The_Sasquatch]

I've never fished Kettle below Oleona either. Not once. A lot of Kettle downstream of Hammersley is borderline frog water anyway. Probably contributing a lot to it's warm temps. I will say, I LOVE fishing the "Fork" though. A very beautiful tributary with some gorgeous wild trout.

I've caught some real hogs of smallies down there though! And like, a LOT of perch!

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Easier to catch might play a part of it, but I've fished that stretch for miles above 44 in all kinds of conditions, including conditions in which on other streams in that region, I've caught MANY browns, and my experience is the same as yours.
I DID, however, catch a native brookie on Kettle below Cross Fork. But, that was in April, rainy and quite cold. I highly doubt I would have caught it in say, June.

This is exactly what silverfox is talking about.
Those fish will use the larger habitat seasonally.

I'd love to see Kettle just be unstocked but that is me.

I doubt it will ever happen.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

What’s the lowest anyone’s caught a wild Trout on Kettle?

For me, it’s about the lower boundary of the FFO. And down there, it’s mostly stockers, with an occasional wild Brown. The lowest I’ve caught a wild Brookie is below Oleona, but above Ole Bull. Above Oleona, I catch far more wild Brookies than wild Browns. Though that could just be because the Brookies are easier to catch, not necessarily because the Browns aren’t there.

I caught more wild brook trout than stocked fish a few years ago on Memorial Day a couple miles below cross fork. Including some quite small 3-5in fish. This was not in close proximity to the mouth of Cross Fork or Hammersley.

 

[silverfox]

This is exactly what silverfox is talking about.
Those fish will use the larger habitat seasonally.

I'd love to see Kettle just be unstocked but that is me.

I doubt it will ever happen.

A more realistic approach would be to establish C&R for brook trout from AB dam upstream and all tributaries. Allow the harvest of nonnative trout throughout the entire system. Cease stocking of brown trout. Cease stocking upstream of the barrier at Ole Bull. Continue stocking rainbow trout only (ideally sterile) from AB to Ole Bull.

 

[Mike]

Easier to catch might play a part of it, but I've fished that stretch for miles above 44 in all kinds of conditions, including conditions in which on other streams in that region, I've caught MANY browns, and my experience is the same as yours.
I DID, however, catch a native brookie on Kettle below Cross Fork. But, that was in April, rainy and quite cold. I highly doubt I would have caught it in say, June.

It is dominated by Browns according to my biologist contacts well up above 44. It eventually shifts to mostly Brooks and then all Brooks. So, the Brooks that you report in robust numbers including fish up to 12 inches in Kettle between 144 and 44 are likely running the Brown Trout gauntlet after spawning. While in my view, brought on by experiences with many other fish migrations and their insatiable desire to move, Brooks should logically be able to run a Brown Trout gauntlet with little difficulty for the purpose previously stated, that is to get to bigger water post-spawn. This is in conflict with a common theme here.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

It is dominated by Browns according to my biologist contacts well up above 44. It eventually shifts to mostly Brooks and then all Brooks. So, the Brooks that you report in robust numbers including fish up to 12 inches in Kettle between 144 and 44 are likely running the Brown Trout gauntlet after spawning. While in my view, brought on by experiences with many other fish migrations and their insatiable desire to move, Brooks should logically be able to run a Brown Trout gauntlet with little difficulty for the purpose previously stated, that is to get to bigger water post-spawn. This is in conflict with a common theme here.

You mean in conflict, by in large with the scientific community.
Brown trout out compete brooks for spawning habitat. They also tend to push them out of areas. It's well established.

There is no possible way to "run that Brown Trout gauntlet" on any significant level.
Many studies show this.

 

[silverfox]

So brown trout have no impact on brook trout spawning? They don't broadly disrupt brook trout behavior? They don't out-compete brook trout for habitat? They have no negative impact on brook trout? Sympatry is good for brook trout? EBTJV's "Status & Threats" list is wrong? USGS's compilation of impacts from brown trout is wrong? All the research is wrong? I just don't get it. Unless the attitude is "More species is better" because it's better for anglers who want to get the trout slam and that's what we should manage for? I don't get it.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Ask yourself, if the browns wouldn't be in Kettle at all, would that habitat they "dominate" be inhabited by Brook Trout? Absolutely.

Why aren't the brook trout there if not for the browns?

Would you have used the word, "dominate" if it wasn't true?

If there were less browns would there be more brook trout?
Only a percentage move, wouldn't more if not for the browns and stockings?
There are studies on this also that show increased migration once browns are removed.

It might be better to say, despite the browns, some Brooks run the gauntlet of brown trout.
With little difficulty isn't reality based.

Those realities of being a fisheries manager might have trickled into real life horse blinders after retirement.
Just saying.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

So brown trout have no impact on brook trout spawning? They don't broadly disrupt brook trout behavior? They don't out-compete brook trout for habitat? They have no negative impact on brook trout? Sympatry is good for brook trout? EBTJV's "Status & Threats" list is wrong? USGS's compilation of impacts from brown trout is wrong? All the research is wrong? I just don't get it. Unless the attitude is "More species is better" because it's better for anglers who want to get the trout slam and that's what we should manage for? I don't get it.

Exactly this.
I'm at a loss right where you are.
Smh

 

[troutbert]

It is dominated by Browns according to my biologist contacts well up above 44. It eventually shifts to mostly Brooks and then all Brooks. So, the Brooks that you report in robust numbers including fish up to 12 inches in Kettle between 144 and 44 are likely running the Brown Trout gauntlet after spawning. While in my view, brought on by experiences with many other fish migrations and their insatiable desire to move, Brooks should logically be able to run a Brown Trout gauntlet with little difficulty for the purpose previously stated, that is to get to bigger water post-spawn. This is in conflict with a common theme here.

That was true in the past, but is it still true? Has anyone seen recent survey data?

I don't doubt that there are still browns way up into the headwaters and tributaries, but from my own fishing, and reports from other fishermen, including a guy who has been going to their family cabin near the headwaters since the 1950s, it seems like the ratio of brookies to browns seems to be increasing in Kettle itself and the tributaries.

It's hard to know if this is true without seeing the survey data, but if it is true, the explanation is probably simply that ending stocking over brook trout benefits their populations.

 

[The_Sasquatch]

Sorry, I didn't mean to say I caught those brookies upstream of 144, but rather, upstream of 44.

 

[Mike]

Sorry, I didn't mean to say I caught those brookies upstream of 144, but rather, upstream of 44.

OK, well then my response above would have been different. In fact, I would not have responded at all.

What I said prior to the correction by Sasquatch would not have been in conflict with anything that Silverfox said in #64 above to and including the question “all the research is wrong?” What I was proposing as an explanation was that post-spawning ST were running the BT gauntlet and that drive to do so must have been greater than the impact of the BT on ST behavior at that specific time of the year.

As for TB’s question whether BT still are predominant for some substantial distance (multiple miles) upstream from Rt 44, I would assume so until someone says not so who has been up there a lot (not just one fishing trip). Sasquatch said “many browns.” Additionally, it would be quite unusual for a ST population to replace a BT population, except perhaps with water quality changes, such as acid precip, although I would not rule out the possibility that predominance could temporarily shift at times in association with relative year class strengths.

“Little difficulty” was a relative term in comparison to the physical barriers that other species face, the energetic challenges of truly long distance migration/upstream migration and starvation, and the physiological changes that species undergo to move from salt water to fresh water and reverse.

 

[caddisflyer]

Easier to catch might play a part of it, but I've fished that stretch for miles above 44 in all kinds of conditions, including conditions in which on other streams in that region, I've caught MANY browns, and my experience is the same as yours.
I DID, however, catch a native brookie on Kettle below Cross Fork. But, that was in April, rainy and quite cold. I highly doubt I would have caught it in say, June.

I was referring to some on here saying make the Brook Trout regs start at Bush Dam. There's quite a few miles from there to Oleana and the lower down tribs of Hammersly and Cross Fork are there. It's small up where you are talking. I thought you guys are looking for a decent sized river.

 

[caddisflyer]

You guys are aware that someone stocks very small Brook Trout in Kettle down by Cross fork and below?

 

[Mike]

I occasionally catch a wild Brown about half way between Hammersley and Cross Fork.

 

[troutbert]

You guys are aware that someone stocks very small Brook Trout in Kettle down by Cross fork and below?

Who is doing that?

 

[silverfox]

You guys are aware that someone stocks very small Brook Trout in Kettle down by Cross fork and below?

I think we went through this a while back. I looked at all of the stocking data on co-op nurseries, state stocking, and club/private stocking. None of those records indicate any brook trout are being stocked anywhere in Kettle Creek or its tributaries. At least currently.

That may not have been the case a few years ago, but based on all the records I've seen, nobody is stocking them currently. LOTS of other species (I think it's 40,000 stocked trout), but no brook trout. So unless this is some private individual stocking "off-the-books", then I don't think the "someone stocks small brook trout in Kettle" is true anymore.

 

[caddisflyer]

I think we went through this a while back. I looked at all of the stocking data on co-op nurseries, state stocking, and club/private stocking. None of those records indicate any brook trout are being stocked anywhere in Kettle Creek or its tributaries. At least currently.

That may not have been the case a few years ago, but based on all the records I've seen, nobody is stocking them currently. LOTS of other species (I think it's 40,000 stocked trout), but no brook trout. So unless this is some private individual stocking "off-the-books", then I don't think the "someone stocks small brook trout in Kettle" is true anymore.

Within past 3-5 years you could catch large numbers of cookie cutter sized Brook Trout that sure looked like stocked fish. I caught them behind Wagon Wheel cabins and at various spots thewhole way down to Leidy bridge. I asked about them in the fly shop and was told "they are stocked for the fly fishermen". That's all I know.

 

[tomgamber]

"Very small brook trout" can be found in nearly every tributary of every part of the W. Branch of the Susky I've fished within 30 miles of our camp in Keating.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I was referring to some on here saying make the Brook Trout regs start at Bush Dam. There's quite a few miles from there to Oleana and the lower down tribs of Hammersly and Cross Fork are there. It's small up where you are talking. I thought you guys are looking for a decent sized river.

I would be looking for no stock from the lake to where kettle starts as a rain drop. If that ole bull dam was taken out and populations from say hammersly and long run reproduced for example you may get a much more fit, fecund, and larger in size product because you’d essentially facilitating a translocation. I think a big research gap currently is how competition effects genetics. And if the 40,000 trout disappear alot of competition disappears. You may see wide spread expansion of brook trout population travel and habitat utilization 3 seasons a year.



you look at what stopping stocking and removing that dam would do, based on Doug Deitermans coolidge creek studies, nathaniel hitts 2017 study, casey thomas weathers study, petty et al 2014, huntsman et al 2022, trego et al. 2019 thise fish would use the main steam more and would travel to mix genes with pops they can’t easily right now. Either directly or by stepping stone fashion. The gene flow would increase. Imagine if trout run could easily mix genes with getmania branch. Thats going inject new diversity into those gene pools and increase adaptive capacity.

My best guess is thatbif you stopped stocking lake and up you would likely see a noteable trophy fishery develop for wild native brook trout 3 seasons a year. Those fish are not going to pass up uninhabited food rich large water habitat when the waters 40-60 degrees. If theres more food, no anchor ice, and deeper pools larger individuals will use it to grow research quoted by david thorne from wv DNR supports this concept. Its just if we want a triphy brook trout fishery or not. Can give consumptive angler all wild invasive browns and make brook trout c and r.