One of my favorite trout streams is in the middle of a controversy that may well determine the future of trout fishing in Pennsylvania.

Cross Fork Creek flows into Kettle Creek just downstream from the village of Cross Fork in Potter County. It's a good sized mountain stream slightly larger than White Deer Creek. Much of the stream has always been under special regulations, the latest of which are catch-and-release, artificials only.

We started fishing Cross Fork creek many years ago when we built a cabin near there. We liked it because it was bigger water than many of the other wild trout streams in the area. We also liked the fact that since the stream wasn't stocked, there was less fishing pressure than you'd find on the heavily stocked streams like Kettle and Young Woman's creeks. We usually did pretty well as far as numbers of wild brook and brown trout and the chance of catching a really nice fish were better than they were on some of the smaller wild trout streams in the area. My buddy, Ron Bowman, of Lewisburg, caught a wild brookie there one afternoon that, if my recollection is correct, was better than 13 inches long. That's a nice brook trout in anybody's book.

Cross Fork Creek has been the subject of controversy for as long as I can remember. You had some folks who said the wild trout population was in decline and the stream should be stocked in order to supplement the wild population. Others argued that the stream should be left in a wild state with no supplemental stocking. A few years ago the pro-stocking crowd won the day and the stream was stocked with rainbows both pre- and in-season. Fortunately, for those of us who love wild trout fishing, the stocking was only done in the lower section of the stream leaving a lot of good wild trout water upstream. That should have satisfied everyone, except for one thing. The fact that the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission was stocking the stream meant that a local sportsmen's group could also stock fish from their cooperative hatchery. They, apparently, didn't adhere to the Commission's policy of only stocking the lower regions of the creek, because we were catching stocked fish some miles above where the Commission stopped stocking. Compounding the problem was the fact that, although the PFBC was only stocking rainbows, the club was stocking some large brook trout, which are, in my opinion, highly cannibalistic. I was fishing a pool one day and caught three or four stocked brookies which exceeded a foot in length. Even worse, one of them had a slightly digested five-inch wild brook trout sticking out of its mouth. So, not only were the stocked fish competing for food and cover, they were also feeding on the wild trout population.

This whole controversy has come to the forefront during the past three years or so because the local Trout Unlimited Chapter performed some stream improvements on part of the stream and the PFBC subsequently gave the stream class A wild trout status. The Commission stopped the stocking, but apparently the local sportsmen's club didn't get the memo. They continued to stock.

There is now pressure being put on the PFBC to remove the stream from the class A list.

There are probably arguments for, and against, removal. It would seem that it would be a simple matter. If the stream meets the criteria for a class A listing, it should be on the class A list, if not, it should be removed, however, I'm sure the Trout Unlimited folks will argue that their stream improvements would result in the stream eventually qualifying for class A status, given some time. They'll also argue that stocking trout now will assure that the wild trout population will never grow to the level that's required to make this a class A stream. The Commission does say that Cross Fork Creek is one of the streams that it will continue to study. How they manage this stream may end up being a real test of their new emphasis on "resource first."

-- E-mail comments to jdsteese@yahoo.net.