Brown Trout Eradication.

[Cornholio]

Just out of curiosity how many people on here would support a Brown Trout eradication program in streams that historically and still could support Brook Trout?

This is obviously hypothetical, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. Other states have done this with success and the late great Behnke was always in favor of this type of thing.

I understand the sporting value of Brown Trout, but to be realistic they have no ecological rights, and shouldn't ecological rights be more important than sporting value?

 

[Fishidiot]

I think Chaz may enjoy this thread.

On a serious note, I wouldn't favor this on any sort of widespread basis here in PA. It might be worth trying on a few isolated waterways using natural or man made barriers.

Native species are important but, all things considered, PA sport fishermen have benefitted greatly by the expansion of non-native game fishes.

 

[Swattie87]

This would mean wiping Brown Trout out of nearly every stream they're currently in, except perhaps for the most marginal of larger waters where the Browns slightly higher temperature tolerance allows them to be possibly be somewhere Brookies couldn't be.

I'm not sure I practically really even buy that though. In the end this would be a tremendous waste of resources. Brown Trout are very adaptable and resilient and are nearly everywhere now...Many times in places we didn't think they were capably of living water temp or quality wise. We'd surely miss a few and they'd begin to repopulate. There's many documented cases of this after a fish kill, where the population was allowed to recover itself without supplemental stocking...It usually does, and fairly rapidly.

I think spending our time and dollars protecting the existing Brookie population is a better plan. There's places that Browns aren't because of natural barriers and sometimes because of water PH issues (Brookies are more acid tolerant). Find a way to keep the Browns out of those streams...man made barrier, make a reg for these streams that any rogue Brown caught in them has to be killed as an invasive, whatever. As a stream recovers from acid issues (rain, AMD, poor buffering ability) in theory Brookies should be able to repopulate it before Browns. We should try to capitalize on the Brookie's natural advantage over Browns here. I think this is already being noted by the PFBC in their survey of historically "dead" AMD streams. Many now have Brookies in them...as they continue to improve, you're gonna start to see Browns.

I like catching Browns. They're a different deal than Brookies and I think it's fun to fish for both. Many of my favorite streams have mixed populations. Perhaps if nothing is done though, these will eventually be all Brown streams. That being said, if this could be practically and effectively done, at a reasonable cost I'd consider supporting it. I don't think it can though, and I'd rather keep the Browns in that case, and try to protect the Brookies where the Browns aren't now.

 

[Mike]

It might be good in theory, but it would be bad in practice from the perspectives of manpower/costs (just read a review of such an effort and it was more labor intensive and required more crew returns to the stream than even I expected). In Pa the effectiveness would be questionable. Even with a natural barrier in place, all it would take would be one disgruntled angler to reintroduce the Browns. We still have angler's introducing any number of much more commonly maligned and detrimental species to our lakes, for example.

 

[afishinado]

I agree with all of the above posts.

The best course is to work hard to preserve and enhance what we now have left.

 

[RLeep2]

What are "ecological rights"?

I would generally be against any program to eradicate existing wild brown trout populations and replace them with brook trout if the primary reason for the effort is the brook trout's indigenous status.

I say "generally" because I would have no problem with doing so in a very limited number of mixed population streams where brookies have been historically dominant. But this is as much homage as I think we owe the Brook Trout.

I see no reason to penalize a desirable and successful species like the brown trout simply because it has, for the most part, prevailed in the Darwinian struggle. At the same time, I understand and appreciate the "specialness" of our state fish and think we should always do what we can to preserve what remains. But I simply do not favor what amounts to an Affirmative Action Program for the brookie aimed at returning them to dominance. That contest is over and Nature has declared her winner...

 

[John96]

There are a many good responses already. My personal thoughts, as I have thought about this idea myself, come down to reasonable on paper, but a lot of issues with the execution. I think that if your goal is to protect and enhance wild brook trout populations, there are many better options such as preventing further introductions of browns (although how much farther can we go?), protecting current brookie habitat, and as already mentioned, getting brook trout into streams that are currently dead as they recover. A quick google search threw out the number 3,000 for miles of stream effected by AMD. If even 1/6 of those miles can be restored and brook trout successfully introduced, that's enough water to take you from Philly to Cleveland. Just some thoughts.

 

[John96]

RLeep2 wrote:
What are "ecological rights"?

I would generally be against any program to eradicate existing wild brown trout populations and replace them with brook trout if the primary reason for the effort is the brook trout's indigenous status.

I say "generally" because I would have no problem with doing so in a very limited number of mixed population streams where brookies have been historically dominant. But this is as much homage as I think we owe the Brook Trout.

I see no reason to penalize a desirable and successful species like the brown trout simply because it has, for the most part, prevailed in the Darwinian struggle. At the same time, I understand and appreciate the "specialness" of our state fish and think we should always do what we can to preserve what remains. But I simply do not favor what amounts to an Affirmative Action Program for the brookie aimed at returning them to dominance. That contest is over and Nature has declared her winner...

I think it is less about helping the underdog, and more so trying to reverse some of man's adverse effects on nature.

 

[troutbert]

Hatchery trout, including brown trout, are still being STOCKED on top of native brook trout.

Wouldn't the first step be to end that?

 

[geebee]

i think the problem would be establishing where ST could thrive. as pointed out above BT are the most resilient of trouts.

i'd be for it on a limited basis - limestoners for example should be stocked with ST rather than BT, but then i'm pretty sure there is an argument even there with ST vs BT growth rates and fish size, as there is with RT stockings.

unfortunately, i think its just one of things that man has done that we can't undo practically.

 

[pabrookie94]

I would definitely agree with stopping the STOCKING of brown trout over brookie populations. However, wild brown trout are something that I would be VERY opposed to eliminating. I love fishing for them and do so all summer. It gives myself the opportunity to catch very large wild trout year round and I find that although they do compete with brook trout, many streams hold sustainable populations of both.

Though I am going to be a Fisheries Biologist and am all about "fixing" men's problems....I do not believe that this would be a logical solution at all. Also, in order to remove all brown trout from these streams this would most likely include using piscicides or other forms of removal which could also be harmful to brook trout. Unless electrofishing or something was implemented in which case is not typically a complete survey.

I do see where you are coming from in fixing problem's we have caused but I think in this case we would be doing much more harm than good.

 

[Cornholio]

An ecological right is a native species right to be part of it's native ecology. It is a term used by some ecologist. As far as arguing darwinian evolution for a non native species I don't think that is a very fair description of the situation. I was never implying that this would be a good idea. I am just curious to hear some thoughts on the subject. And a lot of you guys have made some pretty valid points.

 

[BrooksAndHooks]

I can see it on a select few waterways, specifically ones which currently hold a mixed population. Open harvest year round on all brown trout and see what happens. Just change to special regs, no many power required other than a survey after a few years. If it works, it works, if not, then it didn't hurt anything.

If you look at virginia, for instance in the SNP, brown trout have to be taken/killed if caught. if of legal size kept, if not thrown out in the woods or some nonsense. I don't remember the exact specifics from memory.

Overall, wild brown trout have tremendous value here and have come into their own. We will never get back to what we had, but it's possible to try with a small stream system to recover brook trout populations in some of the larger sections. I don't think you could ever clean all the brown trout out though.

 

[krayfish2]

Wouldn't it just be easier to eradicate brook trout?

 

[The_Sasquatch]

krayfish2 wrote:
Wouldn't it just be easier to eradicate brook trout?

LOL!

Apparently not, though. Despite our best efforts over the last century or so, these dudes are still here!

TB-You are correct. That would be the first step, a big step, and the right step.

In some ways, I think the WBTE should have had a mandated kill on all invasive species (brown trout and rainbow trout). However, I'm only really familiar with two of the streams that were on that list. The one that didn't make any sense to me was Lyman Run. Yeah I caught some nice brownies on that stream, whatever. I fish it often, and only ever got a handful of browns in all the years fishing it. To me, the real problem was stocking that freaking lake. I've caught rainbows 2 miles up from the mouth of the lake especially in the Fall. Doesn't make sense to have a brook trout enhancement stream being the major cold water contributor to a lake filled with stockers.

 

[LetortAngler]

Benhke also said

"As "naturalized citizens," brown trout are found in most cold-water habitat throughout the world. Stocked throughout America for 120 years, brown trout are here to stay."

I would not support the eradication of brown trout. I think of all the species introduced to PA, the brown trout has been the most favorable, and well- accepted. Protecting and conserving what brook trout streams we have now should be a top priority, but to the extent of wiping out Browns in the process would not benefit the sport of fly fishing as a whole.

 

[salmo]

I am a Hugh proponent of brook trout. However, as the environment warms the brook trout range will retreat north. With brown trout being more tolerant of higher temperatures the proposal may result in Pennsylvania streams being enrtirely devoid of all trout. That being said I'm in favor of efforts to expand the number of miles of streams that sustain wild populations of brook trout.

 

[krayfish2]

"However, as the environment warms the brook trout range will retreat north."

Please provide information that supports the claim that the environment is warming, will continue this pattern and supporting data on increased water temps on cold water fisheries. Healthy populations of brook trout exist in TN, NC and VA. Wouldn't the warming trend impact those fish first (since they are further south)?

Brookie folk are a different crowd. I fished for browns in Penns above Cherry Run. I caught a brook trout, accidentaly of course. I simply said "how about that?" and returned the fish. Going by the 'gemmie playbook', I should have whipped it into the laurel as I determined it was invasive and a threat to the fish I was targeting. Bash away.

 

[sarce]

No, you should have tossed your browns on the bank to give the native brookie less competition.

I'd support removing browns in a handful of streams (not Penns though lol). We had this discussion before about a Lancaster county stream with a mixed brook/brown population. Despite observations that more browns are showing up there every year, i dont recall any of the regulars wanting to get rid of them.

There's a stream a few minutes from where I grew up where a good population of brookies has been all but eliminated by steady upstream invasion of browns in about a decade. I'd hate to see the same thing happen in other mixed population streams.

As an interesting note, In Shenandoah National Park, you are required to kill all brown trout. However they are only present in one drainage, and the 40-something all brookie streams start to feel monotonous at times, so the browns most people catch just happen to escape right at the angler's feet

 

[SteveG]

The part that too many people overlook on this issue, brook trout are very sensitive to environmental contaminants. If a stream could harbor brook trout, it'd have them in it. Its a fallacy that browns "push" the brook trout out. Due to environmental issues, many streams just aren't suitable for brook trout anymore.

I know of quite a few tribs (which have no barrier preventing fish from moving into) that I catch almost brook trout exclusively, and they feed streams in which I catch primarily browns. Generally the larger streams suffer more from siltation, hydrocarbons, etc. Even if browns were never introduced, many of the waterways which had brook trout, would not have them today.