anf brookies

[silverfox]

I simply am not that big a believer in the intrinsic or assumed value of brook trout due to their indigenous status.

This gets at where I'm at with regard to native species in general. It's not that I value the species more, or that I like fishing for them, or claim they have more value. It's a concern for the proper function of the ecosystem that comes with an assemblage of species that have had millions of years to work out their differences.

A good example is Yellowstone lake and the lake trout there. It's not necessarily that humans value the cutthroat more, though I'm sure a lot of people prefer cutthroat over stunted lake trout. It's what the lake trout population is, or was trending toward, and all the other wildlife in the area that were impacted by the displacement of cutthroat (eagles, bears, raccoons, copepods etc.).

An argument could be made for hellbenders and anything else in these environments. It's not necessarily that the brook trout has some intrinsic value because it's indigenous, it's that indigenous assemblages in ecosystems are more secure than fractured assemblages.

All that said, I agree that a watershed is more palpable, especially given the culture here, than 500,000 acres worth of land.

 

[troutbert]

Right. ANF is managed by USFS not NPS. I wish it was NPS. USFS doesn't have the same mission as NPS unfortunately.

The land in the ANF is managed by the Forest Service.

But I don't think the fisheries in the ANF are managed by the Forest Service. I think they are managed by the PFBC.

But I'm not sure. I hope someone can clarify this for us.

 

[troutbert]

USFS is USDA and hence more geared towards utilization and commercial usage than NPS which is a portion of Interior. It hasn't been that long (in elephant years anyway) since the Feds were mainly responsible for day to day fisheries management in the ANF as well as the majority of stocking decisions. Maybe as recently as the 60's. although I am not certain.

But now the PFBC is totally responsible for managing the fisheries in the ANF?

Does the Forest Service have any decision-making power at all in fisheries management in the ANF?

 

[silverfox]

The land in the ANF is managed by the Forest Service.

But I don't think the fisheries in the ANF are managed by the Forest Service. I think they are managed by the PFBC.

But I'm not sure. I hope someone can clarify this for us.

I believe the management of the water falls under USFS, but PFBC is obviously the one stocking the streams, and I'm sure that's in cooperation with USFS. So regardless of who's "in charge", the decision to stock is jointly made. Other management decisions on water might fall solely under USFS, or they work together (likely).

As a sidenote, Gifford Pinchot founded the USFS. He was later governor of Pennsylvania. Pinchot was instrumental in moving brown trout around. In those days, it was considered "conservation". Neither here nor there, but I just thought it was an interesting sidebar.

 

[troutbert]

I believe the management of the water falls under USFS, but PFBC is obviously the one stocking the streams, and I'm sure that's in cooperation with USFS. So regardless of who's "in charge", the decision to stock is jointly made. Other management decisions on water might fall solely under USFS, or they work together (likely).

Do we know that the decision is jointly made? Jointly made implies that the Forest Service has some power to make decisions on what streams are stocked and which ones are not, and that they actually exercise such power.

I don't think that we know that. Maybe someone who does know can clarify if for us.

If the Forest Service actually does have power to decide about stocking or not stocking over brook trout, that could change the whole situation in the ANF.

 

[silverfox]

Do we know that the decision is jointly made? Jointly made implies that the Forest Service has some power to make decisions on what streams are stocked and which ones are not, and that they actually exercise such power.

I don't think that we know that. Maybe someone who does know can clarify if for us.

If the Forest Service actually does have power to decide about stocking or not stocking over brook trout, that could change the whole situation in the ANF.

I never went far enough down this road to fully understand the relationship there. I have done homework on it, and it's been on my radar for some time. I've spoken with others who have gone down this road (outside of PA) and didn't get a sense of much of a chance for success.

I put this together a while ago for this very purpose.

Another important graphic. The green patches are high-priority brook trout conservation patches from the EBTJV range-wide assessment. We have very few green patches in the state and ANF has a big contiguous one.

 

[Fish Sticks]

USFS is USDA and hence more geared towards utilization and commercial usage than NPS which is a portion of Interior. It hasn't been that long (in elephant years anyway) since the Feds were mainly responsible for day to day fisheries management in the ANF as well as the majority of stocking decisions. Maybe as recently as the 60's. although I am not certain. My view on proactively working to tilt the species mix in ANF streams towards brook trout is positive for one or two models or showcase streams or situations, but negative so far as trying such a thing in a more widespread manner or area wide. I simply am not that big a believer in the intrinsic or assumed value of brook trout due to their indigenous status.

I can understand your perspective because of the following: If your not reading peer reviewed journal articles everyday or essentially part of the fisheries science where some of this stuff is common knowledge, your getting your information about conservation from PA fish and Boat and other anglers volunteering to do conservation. And from PAFB and anglers volunteering in conservation the messaging about wild trout often sounds like this “ if we clean it they will come”. Its water quality/temp/habitat and thats it. Yet we see these projects around the country in pristine watersheds where they shift the stream towards invasive brown trout. So your thinking, great! Their fun to catch, they are beautiful fish, they slam flies, they are being born in the stream whats not to love, feels “natural”.

If your with me up until this part, heres where it goes to absolute s***. So we picked the invasive species and a bunch if people came around telling is we should “protect native species”. Sounds like some kind of hippie virtue statement to you. We got these fish that people enjoy flyfishing for so much and we are going to let our fishing bias us and we will label things that protect a top 100 worlds most harmful invasive species as “conservation”.

details

GISD

description

www.iucngisd.org

https://www.usu.edu/fel/publications/pdf/Budy&Gaeta2017BrownToutinNAChapter20.pdf

Well lets be honest to a lot of people they really don’t care if we loose native brook trout in Pa if there are big brown trout everywhere. Now we have left conservation at the bus stop 100 miles back but whatever a lot of fly fishermen don’t actually care about conservation. They don’t have to, its not required for the sport.

Right when i’m about to loose you on my long diatribe that sounds like a virtue statement, theres this. You don’t get to keep your invasive brown trout fishery JUST because you pick it. “What did he say?”

See we just wanted to screw up the aquatic ecosystem…..a little bit, just till we got it how we liked it. We didn’t know what a “trophic casacde” was(silver foxes example of lake trout causing cutthroat declines causing grizzly and iconic American predatory birds to decline. We didn’t know that we could crash the whole ecosystem.

Ok i get it, i get it, screw grizzly bears, eagles and those furry organisms that don’t crush streamers. I’m with ya screw em, as ling as the one creature I like to get to eat my dry flies is there and the streams got water we are good.

But wait!

Montana has its brown trout disappearing at an alarming rate disproportionately to native cutthroat trout all of a sudden its making the news, there are calls in the media I saw this month for the governor to make an invasive brown trout protection council by the endless guides that built their business on invasive species! Looks like what ever is causing the declines, the folks that bet on the invasive species may not get to keep it and the native fosh evolved for where it lives looks to be doing not as bad. The great lakes had invasive alewives that put lake trout and atlantic salmon on birth control due to enzyme thiaminase that degrades vitamin B 1 in natives gut and impairs DNA synthesis. We had to act quickly…..and stock more invasive species. Enter the pacific salmon and rainbow trout people call steelhead. They tug pretty good huh, problem solved. They eat the alweives good a multi billion dollar sport foshery is created and built on multiple invasive species. The pacifics est the alweives a little too good actually, now their crashing their own food supply and the salmon fishery is imploding becaus eof the instability from the invasive species introductions. Alweives actually predicted to be gone but their likely going to take kings and cohos with them and entires towns up there going to feel the pain. The people that picked the invasive species introduced instability and didnt get to keep em.

See a theme?

Ok ok ok “this guy needs to STF**

So maybe your invasive species will or won’t survive its own ecosystem toppling effects, thank god it somehow survived all that( still crushing streamers too). Life is good.

Then finally someone else who shares your same ideals about how we whould treat our ecosystem to the T comes along. Except….they like another invasive species and it eats your invasive species or carries a disease that infects your invasive species. What ever it is, blue cats, flatheads, snakeheads, brown trout, rainbow trout, wells catfish, mekong catfish, egg/nest raiders like round gobies.

Now your lost with overwhelming loss of biodiversity, non functioning ecosystem, and despite all that the streamers not getting crushed now.

Your species is the one! It somehow survived ALL that and right when your favorite species is finally the last one standing and people have somehow completely stopped dumping in competing invasive species. Well now it has destabilized the prey base and is forced to compete with only itself due to loss of all other biodiversity and its high numbers and tough competition stunt out its own population size at the individual level. We have seen this with multiple invasive species(blue cats for example, lake trout as sulver fox mentioned). Your brown trout is now the size of a brook trout.

Invasive species introduce instability to the ecosystem and take decades to centuries to longer in many cases to really cause harm. Its not anyones fault who fishes for them, i do and will. Its not your fault you didn’t know any of this its a messaging problem from our failing fisheries managers afraid of some akward wild trout summits.

 

[FarmerDave]

USFS is USDA and hence more geared towards utilization and commercial usage than NPS which is a portion of Interior. It hasn't been that long (in elephant years anyway) since the Feds were mainly responsible for day to day fisheries management in the ANF as well as the majority of stocking decisions. Maybe as recently as the 60's. although I am not certain. My view on proactively working to tilt the species mix in ANF streams towards brook trout is positive for one or two models or showcase streams or situations, but negative so far as trying such a thing in a more widespread manner or area wide. I simply am not that big a believer in the intrinsic or assumed value of brook trout due to their indigenous status.

Bob, the "beauty" of the streams in that region is that one does not have to tilt anything. Just stop stocking, and the brook trout will prevail in most of the wild streams up there.

Brook trout are the most adaptable of the three. I am not a biologist who likes to use words that most of us have to google. Nor am I a fanatic. But I did stay at a Holliday Inn Express more than once.

Many, if not most of the streams in the ANF are so low in PH that they don't even stock brown trout. Take Salmon Creek and The Branch for example. Bluejay as well, I think. Unless things have changed recently, they only stock brook trout in Salmon and The Branch. Why? Too acidic for Brown and RainbowTrout. Oh sure, you might find the occasional big brown that moved up from Tionesta Creek, but they aren't likely wild or not hatched in that crick. In fact, there were some years where they didn't stock Salmon Creek at all because of low PH. Many of the trout dumped in there head right for Tionesta Creek because of the ph. Even many of the streams where they do stock browns, the brook trout have an advantage.

I'm a numbers guy, and here are a few.

Lethal low ph limit for brown trout and rainbow trout is about 5. Lethal low ph limit for brook trout is actually about 4. I've read that some can withstand 3.5 at least for a while. They do require ph higher than 5 or 5.5 for reproduction.

According to a NY Times article on Jan 3, 1989, UNPOLLUTED rain averages about 5.6 ph. PA had the lowest rain PH in the country at least back then according to the article and was measured at 4.08 in central PA. It's probably improved since then, but still likely still below 5.6. We already discussed the poor buffering in the area. Do the math.

Bottom line: Brook trout can live anywhere that brown trout and rainbow trout can live, the opposite is not true.

There you go Fishsticks and silverfox. That region used to be my wheelhouse and all you have to do is stop stocking the wild streams and let nature sort it out. No uglyassed stream "improvements" or special regulations needed. Simpler is usually better. Most will be decent brook trout fisheries. Not necessarily Class A, but decent. You all know I have no class.

 

[RLeep2]

Fishsticks: I find post #27 a bit insulting, condescending and certainly not a very effective way to go about winning hearts and minds to your POV. I'll thank you not to assume to tell me what I'm thinking and why. My views on this matter do not come out of a cracker jack box or from a PFBC press release or over beers at a TU get together. They are the result of long observation and a lot of years and miles spent chasing wild trout over much of Pennsylvania and other states. I am always learning and always ready to adjust my thinking on this stuff. I support some of what I've heard out of you and am lukewarm at best about much of the rest. But I'm always willing to listen. It's just that my ability to hear suffers somewhat when I feel I am being patronized or talked down to.



Thanks...

**Original text edited somewhat after consultation with my better angels... **

 

[Prospector]

My camp property borders the ANF in Forest Co. I fish 2-6 unstocked ANF wild trout streams each year. I repeat the better ones but I like try new streams every year. I have never caught a brown trout (wild or stocked) in an unstocked ANF stream. All have been brook. I have a long list of new streams to explore.

I have caught wild browns in unstocked streams 20 minutes outside of the ANF.

 

[RLeep2]

Prospector: If you're unstocked ANF stream experiences have been primarily in Forest County, it follows somewhat that your catch would be primarily or solely ST. This at least has been my experience. Mixed pops have always seemed to me to be much more common elsewhere in the Forest.

 

[Prospector]

Prospector: If you're unstocked ANF stream experiences have been primarily in Forest County, it follows somewhat that your catch would be primarily or solely ST. This at least has been my experience. Mixed pops have always seemed to me to be much more common elsewhere in the Forest.

Yes, that’s true. In the ANF footprint the only unstocked streams I’ve fished have been in Forest Co

 

[silverfox]

What I'd be curious about, and this probably gets at k-bob's original question, and is typical of most of PA, is whether the blue lines in ANF are as productive as the Class A's? From my experience, and I've heard others echo a similar sentiment, "blue lines" tend to fish better than Class A's depending on the time of year.

More importantly, I'm curious about the number of brook trout caught in the stocked streams.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Fishsticks: I find post #27 a bit insulting, condescending and certainly not a very effective way to go about winning hearts and minds to your POV. I'll thank you not to assume to tell me what I'm thinking and why. My views on this matter do not come out of a cracker jack box or from a PFBC press release or over beers at a TU get together. They are the result of long observation and a lot of years and miles spent chasing wild trout over much of Pennsylvania and other states. I am always learning and always ready to adjust my thinking on this stuff. I support some of what I've heard out of you and am lukewarm at best about much of the rest. But I'm always willing to listen. It's just that my ability to hear suffers somewhat when I feel I am being patronized or talked down to.



Thanks...

**Original text edited somewhat after consultation with my better angels... **

Thats fair, should not have assumed and projected past experiences/conversations with others onto you. My apologies.

 

[k-bob]

on class a vs not. I look at the map in post 2, with only the bedrock areas and class a streams shown, and note that the green shenango bedrock area had basically all of the class a streams in that area. (both the purple pottsville and green shenango have many natural reproduction listed streams.)

I would not be surprised if a non class a in the shenango fished as well as one of the class a ones in the same bedrock... they were surveyed in different years, so one survey may have followed a few recent years of good spawning and post spawn survival conditions (for ex, helpful fall flows and no winter floods after spawn). another stream's survey year may have followed a few years of worse conditions. populations may not be smooth in one stream across years w our weather, probably not even close to it.

with so many pottsville streams on natural repro list, also surveyed across different years, but no class a ones, I would start w the shenango area. other issues of course. sediment, if I see that its a bad sign. If there are low summer flows, I might look for a steeper one to try first. I am lazy, would consider access. is there rhodo? etc...

 

[Tups]

Each National Forest, including ANF, is required by law to prepare a Land and Resource Management Plan every 10 to 15 years with supplements as needed. The current management plan was prepared in 2007 and can be found at fs.usda.gov. Development of the plan is a public process, so individuals and organizations can participate in the development of the plan. The current plan allows for the protection of native and desirable non-native species. If the EBTJV takes the position that non-native trout species are no longer desirable, they will have an opportunity to voice their position during the public review process associated with the next Management Plan development effort. Having worked for the Federal government in resource management for 36 years I can assure you that understanding and using the “process” is key to making management plan changes.

 

[RLeep2]

Thank You, Fishsticks (re: #34). No harm done, Kumbaya, etc...

 

[RLeep2]

Bob, the "beauty" of the streams in that region is that one does not have to tilt anything. Just stop stocking, and the brook trout will prevail in most of the wild streams up there.

Brook trout are the most adaptable of the three. I am not a biologist who likes to use words that most of us have to google. Nor am I a fanatic. But I did stay at a Holliday Inn Express more than once.

Many, if not most of the streams in the ANF are so low in PH that they don't even stock brown trout. Take Salmon Creek and The Branch for example. Bluejay as well, I think. Unless things have changed recently, they only stock brook trout in Salmon and The Branch. Why? Too acidic for Brown and RainbowTrout. Oh sure, you might find the occasional big brown that moved up from Tionesta Creek, but they aren't likely wild or not hatched in that crick. In fact, there were some years where they didn't stock Salmon Creek at all because of low PH. Many of the trout dumped in there head right for Tionesta Creek because of the ph. Even many of the streams where they do stock browns, the brook trout have an advantage.

I'm a numbers guy, and here are a few.

Lethal low ph limit for brown trout and rainbow trout is about 5. Lethal low ph limit for brook trout is actually about 4. I've read that some can withstand 3.5 at least for a while. They do require ph higher than 5 or 5.5 for reproduction.

According to a NY Times article on Jan 3, 1989, UNPOLLUTED rain averages about 5.6 ph. PA had the lowest rain PH in the country at least back then according to the article and was measured at 4.08 in central PA. It's probably improved since then, but still likely still below 5.6. We already discussed the poor buffering in the area. Do the math.

Bottom line: Brook trout can live anywhere that brown trout and rainbow trout can live, the opposite is not true.

There you go Fishsticks and silverfox. That region used to be my wheelhouse and all you have to do is stop stocking the wild streams and let nature sort it out. No uglyassed stream "improvements" or special regulations needed. Simpler is usually better. Most will be decent brook trout fisheries. Not necessarily Class A, but decent. You all know I have no class.

Hi Dave.. As one crusty old pfart to another, I hope all is well w/you.... I agree with much of what you say here, but would note that evidently in keeping with PFBC's current direction on reducing the stocking of catchable ST, more BT and RT are being stocked in waters that previously received only ST. Among these are Blue Jay, Queen, The Branch and a portion of Salmon Creek. They are still though, stocking a significant number of ST in comparison with other regions of the state, a situation I am sure is related to low baseline Ph's as you suggest.


I also agree, as you suggest, that left alone, many of the currently stocked ANF stream sections, particularly in Forest and Elk Counties would be dominated by wild ST. The thing though, as I see it, is that in a lot of these cases, the result would not be a wild ST fishery that has improved much if at all from where it was when the stream was stocked. I knows this runs counter to the current orthodoxy here about the primary nature of the suppressive effects of stocking on wild ST pops. My belief though is that, due to geology and the resulting fertility issues as well as disturbance from extration activities, etc., a significant number of the wild ST pops in currently stocked ANF stream sections are more incidental than viable and would be unlikely to improve enough to notice in the event stocking were curtailed.

 

[FarmerDave]

Each National Forest, including ANF, is required by law to prepare a Land and Resource Management Plan every 10 to 15 years with supplements as needed. The current management plan was prepared in 2007 and can be found at fs.usda.gov. Development of the plan is a public process, so individuals and organizations can participate in the development of the plan. The current plan allows for the protection of native and desirable non-native species. If the EBTJV takes the position that non-native trout species are no longer desirable, they will have an opportunity to voice their position during the public review process associated with the next Management Plan development effort. Having worked for the Federal government in resource management for 36 years I can assure you that understanding and using the “process” is key to making management plan changes.

Thanks Tups.

Disclaimer: What I wrote below is my opinion.

About trying to convince the forestry service that invasive species of trout are no longer desirable... I
realize the mission of EBTJV, but I think it is a mistake to try to convince the forestry service that this is the way to go right now. I don't oppose the idea, but not everybody is as open minder as me. I just think that trying to convince management of a government agency tasked with managing the forest in the national forest would be similar to trying to teach a pig to sing. Or if you perfer baseball analogies, which has a better chance of succeeding. Swinging to get on base, or swinging for the fence.

Although change is often good, most people still don't like it, and this is doubly true when it comes to management who are experts on something other than fish. How would targeting one species of trout (positively or negatively) benefit the trees? Sure they manage the entire forest which includes the streams, but it is my opinion that it is easier to make small changes over time than one big abrupt change. Remember, those streams have been stocked for over 100 years, and the brook trout are still there.

Stop stocking anything in the streams of the ANF, and the Brook trout will benefit the most. It might benefit brown trout somewhat in the larger streams, but where do they spawn? it is clear to me that the biggest winners would be the Brook Trout. If they insist on continuing stocking the thermal marginal streams like Tionesta Creek, concede that. Once they see that the smaller streams are doing much better and reproducing on their own, then work on others. But don't expect a whole lot of Class A streams as a result. As I have said until I became blue in the hair face, those streams cannot handle the same biomass as the ones in Central PA. But they can still provide excellent fishing experience.

IMO People rely too heavily on class rating to determine best fishing experience. Or maybe I am just low class. ;-)

 

[silverfox]

Each National Forest, including ANF, is required by law to prepare a Land and Resource Management Plan every 10 to 15 years with supplements as needed. The current management plan was prepared in 2007 and can be found at fs.usda.gov. Development of the plan is a public process, so individuals and organizations can participate in the development of the plan. The current plan allows for the protection of native and desirable non-native species. If the EBTJV takes the position that non-native trout species are no longer desirable, they will have an opportunity to voice their position during the public review process associated with the next Management Plan development effort. Having worked for the Federal government in resource management for 36 years I can assure you that understanding and using the “process” is key to making management plan changes.

I just looked through all the management plans I could find and did some quick searches for "trout". The plans mention wilderness trout streams (PFBC classification) and "remote trout streams" (a USFS classification). I found 1 mention of "stocked trout" and it simply says: "Protected trout stocking areas on streams within the ANF should be maintained and comply with Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission’s policy and directives.". Which seems to kick stocking management, or management of stocked streams back to the state.

Most of the language relating to "trout" is about road crossings, riparian work, and generally how the lands around the stream are managed.

Just clarifying that I don't speak for EBTJV other than to convey information that is publicly available on their website and that I generally agree with the mission and support the existence of the coalition.

My question is whether there's a framework to address nonnative species stocking within FS managed lands. Again, this news release from yesterday makes me think there might be an opening here.

Gone fishing? Biologists share how anglers can support healthy native fish populations | US Forest Service

www.fs.usda.gov