Brook trout movement

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Lyco,
It takes awhile.
When operation future went into effect and Segloch Run in Lancaster County was done being stocked, it took a few years but eventually people caught on left and fished somewhere else.

The meat hunters are not really interested in natives if somewhere else has bigger fish.

 

[troutbert]

Stocking over brook trout harms their populations.

The evidence supporting that is very strong.

The evidence from fishing many stocked and unstocked streams. And the evidence from electrofishing reports.

 

[JeffP]

I think there are a lot fewer brookies in the Segloch today than when they stocked. Obviously there are other factors involved including the browns but I think habitat issues make browns more capable of serving there. I really wanted to hit the Segloch this spring to see how the brookies are doing. I know the browns are doing well in the very lower section near the mouth that was restored.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Agree with this angle and I support Troutbert's continued mention of it. Even getting this done on a limited basis is not low hanging fruit (as we all know) but would be the incremental effort that I think is more realistic than aspirational talk about setting aside entire watersheds.

But anyway, back to talking about watersheds... ?

I find this funny.
We as a state have stocked over brook trout for almost entire century. What is so realistic about getting them to stop stocking over top of them? Why suddenly change?

Especially when the discussion is how they ARE IN the main drainages when they are stocked.

This is a discussion, not a sales pitch, about a movement study and what it means for our states native trout. However what i find disturbing is the general consensus in the community that brook trout movement just isnt as important as stocking.

But yeah guess it will just end. For no other reason :lol:

 

[troutbert]

Brook trout move in and out of the larger streams such as the Loyalsock and many others. I think we all agree that's true.

But what are you recommending be done in regard to that? What do you think would actually work to improve the numbers of these travelers in the Loyalsock, or similar streams?

 

[lycoflyfisher]

troutbert wrote:
Brook trout move in and out of the larger streams such as the Loyalsock and many others. I think we all agree that's true.

But what are you recommending be done in regard to that? What do you think would actually work to improve the numbers of these travelers in the Loyalsock, or similar streams?

Troutbert asks the critical question... Yes, we could work to promote the cessation of stocking over Brook trout, several Tribs in the Loyalsock drainage have already been listed. But what needs or can be done further than that? Perhaps C&R for brook trout in the larger creeks? To say that you are going to stop stocking a creek like the Loyalsock or similar waterbody is opening up a major battle. Imo one of the biggest battles our wild trout face are impacts to water quality from development, water use, industrial wastewater etc. Another critical issue is aquatic connectivity. Protecting water quality is a multi agency issue. DEP, county and municipal govt, PFBC, DCNR, SRBC etc all play a critical role. To stop stocking a watershed such as the Loyalsock you will have a lot of public opposition, upset constituents will contact their representatives and local officials, which could provide additional opponents when trying to further protect water quality.

Whether you want to admit it or not, the issue has social and political involvement that could impact wild trout in more ways than one.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Stop stocking brown trout all together.
Stop stocking all nursery waters.
You can stock the Loyalsock but can we move the date and with Rainbows only?
C&R on all brook trout.
All kill on Brown Trout

There are your regs.

Now how about bolstering fish passage and creating bigger thermal refuge habitat where available?

Its not like its that hard to see how that could help.
I would also recommend studies on movement to better understand their needs.

I see none of this happening. Not in yesterday's and today's Pennsylvania fish culture.

 

[silverfox]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
Stop stocking brown trout all together.
Stop stocking all nursery waters.
You can stock the Loyalsock but can we move the date and with Rainbows only?
C&R on all brook trout.
All kill on Brown Trout

There are your regs.

Now how about bolstering fish passage and creating bigger thermal refuge habitat where available?

Its not like its that hard to see how that could help.
I would also recommend studies on movement to better understand their needs.

I see none of this happening. Not in yesterday's and today's Pennsylvania fish culture.

I agree. Keep in mind, we're not saying stop stocking throughout all of pennsylvania. One watershed? Only stock rainbows (ideally triploids) and C&R brook trout. Is that possible? Doesn't seem like that much to ask.

I think it helps that the Loyalsock has been the focus of numerous studies by PSU/Shannon White. "We" probably have a pretty good understanding of the population, genetics, issues etc. in that watershed, so it would be a good subject for change.

I have mixed feelings about the whole water quality conservation approach. I'm not saying it's not important, just that I'm afraid of what happens to specific species while we're focused on water quality. Some of these systems aren't suffering from a water quality standpoint. The limiting factors are non-native species, habitat and harvest.

I think it helps that Maryland and New Jersey are doing these exact things. Maybe the peer pressure of our neighbors all putting brook trout first has some effect on our fish & boat commission.

 

[KenU]

All the things already listed as negatively affecting brook trout are true. But some are certainly more important than others. IMO stocking over wild brook trout populations is the most important of all.. Studies have shown that 3 to 6 times as many brookies are harvested as browns in streams where both are living together {sympatric populations). The harder to catch browns simply live longer. I am suspicious that the supposed vulnerability of brookies to warmer water is a minor factor, especially if cooler water is available in nearby and accessible waters. The difference in lethal temperature is less that 2 degrees F.

 

[Dave_W]

KenU wrote:
Studies have shown that 3 to 6 times as many brookies are harvested as browns in streams where both are living together.

Ken,
Could you provide some more detail on this study (or studies) or perhaps a link?

I don't doubt the claim - it sounds plausible - but I'm curious about how this was arrived at.

Thanks in advance.
DW

 

[KenU]

Dave w,
The seminal work on differences in angling susceptibility was done by the Late Dr. Ed Cooper: “Effects of Exploitation of Eastern Brook Trout and Wild Brown Trout Populations in the Pigeon River, Otsego County, Michigan, Trans. Am. Fisheries Soc., Vol. 1, 1952.”

I also had several conversations about this subject with Dr. Bob Bachman who said the difference was as high as 6X. I always thought that was a little high, but he was a noted fish biologist and I wasn’t going to argue with him. It helped make my case against PA’s “Selective Harvest” regulations. Which was, IMO, at the time, an ill advised policy that established a creel limit of 2 trout, with a size limit of 9 inches for brookies and 12 inches for browns in a few of PA’s streams with sympatric populations of the two species. It didn’t last long and I think I can guess as to why! Namely, brookies were the big time losers. It never ceases to amaze me as to how long ago many of these kinds of works were done and how quickly they slipped into obscurity when they didn’t jibe with preconceived notions.