Brown Trout Eradication.

[Shaner]

I like both but think about only having ST. I bet everyone would be like damn wish we still had brown trout! - Reason why stocking took place to start with.

 

[Cornholio]

Stocking was started because Brook Trout habitat was destroyed, but they probably still would have introduced them at some point anyhow.

Man has an overwhelming desire to try and dominate nature and in the process tends to screw things up.

 

[Reeder]

Man has an overwhelming desire to try and dominate nature and in the process tends to screw things up.

Exactly, which is why the idea in the original post to kill populations of wild brown trout is beyond foolish, it is blasphemy.

 

[Cornholio]

''Exactly, which is why the idea in the original post to kill populations of wild brown trout is beyond foolish, it is blasphemy.''

Not exactly, The of Brook Trout's reduced habitat and the fact that Brown Trout are on this continent is a result of man rearranging nature.

I wouldn't call trying to protect a native species (on a small scale) blasphemy.

 

[Reeder]

So the answer for this screw up by man due to his overwhelming urge to control nature, is for man to attempt to control nature once more, and hope that it is not screwed up, even though that is what tends to happen. Do I have that right?

I wouldn't call trying to protect a native species (on a small scale) blasphemy.

I wouldn't either. There are plenty of other ways to protect brook trout. I was referring to killing wild trout populations in the name of conservation as blasphemy.

 

[krayfish2]

McSneek,

No love for the trout in the pike's mouth? I think that's funnier than the bluegill that's colored like a char.


Cornholio,

Yes, man's intervention definitely impacted the number of watersheds where brook trout were once the king. Others were lost due to floods, changes in the ground water tables, etc. Cougars were also here....until man intervened. Bison ruled the plains.....until man intervened. Do you support killing off all people in the plain states so bison can be restored or importing wild cougars to PA to restore the population?

For the record, I don't agree with the with the extermination of wild browns.

 

[SteveG]

Farmerdave, I disagree. If that were true then why don't you see more mixed streams. But, fwiw, the only way to prove your assertion would be mass elimination, and some way to prevent browns from getting in. Temp difference is negligible, I believe they're more sensitive to pollutants. There would have to be a huge shift in agricultural practices, runoff control, riparian habitat, etc to get brook trout established in watersheds like the Yellow Breeches (and I mean year round resident fish).

 

[Swattie87]

Kray - I liked the Pike picture best. Only thing that coulda been better was if the big fish was a Brown!

 

[steveo27]

Like others have said, I think man power/money/resources could be much better spent protecting what we currently have instead of trying to destroy a whole species of fish.

Spend the time/money restoring habits, educating people, changing stocking programs, ect.

 

[sarce]

FarmerDave- I think browns are much more pollutant tolerant. I think it's a lot more than a few degrees in temperature. I don't know of any brookies in purely urban streams, but I know plenty of brown trout streams like that.

Krayfish seems to think the "gemmie crowd", whatever that is, wants to restore brookies literally everywhere they once were and eliminate all other fish standing in the way. I was just pointing out that no one has proposed that in this thread before those words get put in people's mouths. The OP said in streams "that historically AND STILL COULD" hold brookies...

 

[sarce]

Back on subject, personally I'd like to see AMD recovery be top priority, over removing browns in favor of brookies. AMD impacts all life, the cleanup of those waters has way more benefit than spending money just replacing one trout with another. Ideally, I'd want to see AMD recovery streams repopulated with brookies only, which seems to happen naturally anyway. But the first step is cleaning up the acid drainage source.

 

[rrt]

I hate to disagree with FD on this topic (we had some dandy disagreements about "important" topics, esp one, a few years back on here). Anyhow, I think browns tolerate pollution and higher water temps much better than brook trout do, with a couple streams in my area producing fairly good numbers of browns but no brooks, though brooks were, according to old guys from my long-lost youth, still in the mix up till the 1940s. Over in Bedford Co. a nice little limestoner still had wild brooks up till a few years ago, though it still produces nice numbers of wild browns. I credit farm pollutants, esp liquid manure run-off, for taking care of the brookies while the browns tough it out.

 

[Cornholio]

Well I see this thread is turning into the typical B#tch fight that almost always erupts on this sight. A reminder of why I quit using it for two years.

Anyhow, what Sarce said is correct I was only referring to streams that could still support Brook Trout. I explained this thoroughly in a previous comment, no need to do it again.

Krayfish, comparing some Brook Trout habitat restoration to an attempt at returning America to Pre-Columbian Flora and Fauna is a bit of a stretch.

Reeder, yes human beings have made mistakes, most irreversible, but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to fix those mistakes. I think we can all agree that native species are important and we should always make an effort to preserve them.

 

[krayfish2]

It's a bit of a stretch because nobody has laid out any plan. I'm asking if you want to restore back 50 yrs, 100 years or 1000 years.

Removing an existing and healthy population of browns is probably more hurtful than helpful. Restoring habitat, protecting existing stock and reclamation of lost waters should be the plan instead of tossing the border crossers into the shrubbery. Those browns didn't ask to be here.

Sarce,
Gemmie crowd is the guys that wear hippers, hikes 23 miles into remote area to catch some 3" fish. Upon landing them, the reaction is similar to the double rainbow by on YouTube. The catch is then documented by 30-50 photos showing every distinct marking on the fish so that you can tell if you catch it again in the future. I can also discuss 'boo' guy if you'd like. LOL.

Ok, I've said it before.....yes, they are beautiful fish. They may be a little skittish but they are usually dumb as a stick and not tough to fool. To each his own but if I'm hiking miles and climbing over crap, what I catch better put a big bend in my fly pole. Personally, I don't get it but do what ya do and enjoy it. Just don't expect anglers that don't char fish to be as excited or go along with ethnic cleansing of streams. Thanks and have a blessed evening.

 

[FarmerDave]

Cornholio wrote:
''Exactly, which is why the idea in the original post to kill populations of wild brown trout is beyond foolish, it is blasphemy.''

Not exactly, The of Brook Trout's reduced habitat and the fact that Brown Trout are on this continent is a result of man rearranging nature.

I wouldn't call trying to protect a native species (on a small scale) blasphemy.

How do you know some didn't get here stuck to a duck's foot. LOL!

Seriously though. I love brook trout as much as the next guy, maybe more. But trying to eradicate them on large scale would be a mistake and they would just return.

There is no way that brook trout are ever going to be completely eradicated. They survived the early 20th century through habitat loss and survived the onslaught of the rubber brown trout. They even survived regulations that sometimes favor the Browns.

The reason you still have them in the smaller and more acidic streams is because they out compete the browns in those locations. I can name SEVERAL streams that have brook trout that will likely never have a significant population of browns due to lower PH.

The reason you have the Browns dominating the limestone streams is they out compete the Brook trout.

I would not be opposed to control of the browns in a few streams by regulation. Can harvest the browns but are required to release all brook trout. But it would be a select few streams that currently have a mixed population that might actually favor brook trout. Then again, we all know that most anglers would simply throw all of them back. It has been tried.

Me personally? If I am fishing a stream that is fairly isolated, and that I know is dominated by brook trout and I catch a large brown? I may harvest the brown. I know of a few streams like that but haven't been to them in years. I'm getting too old.

 

[FarmerDave]

SteveG wrote:
Farmerdave, I disagree.

Disagree with what? That all trout are about equally sensitive to pollutants? Or is it the part where I said that brook trout can live anywhere a brown trout can if not for the brown trout?

You are entitled to disagree, but I suggest you do a little bit of research, or talk to a trout expert for which I am not.

If that were true then why don't you see more mixed streams.

Actually, that kind of proves my point. There are some streams that sport both species in good numbers, but not all that common. It's because they are limited by different factors. Brown trout can't tolerate lower PH so the Brook trout dominate in that environment. Browns are larger and dominate the best feeding lanes where both can survive, so Browns dominate. Where you have both it is often a location where the Brown trout are limited by another factor such as PH.

Those are just general rules and there are others..

But, fwiw, the only way to prove your assertion would be mass elimination, and some way to prevent browns from getting in. Temp difference is negligible, I believe they're more sensitive to pollutants. There would have to be a huge shift in agricultural practices, runoff control, riparian habitat, etc to get brook trout established in watersheds like the Yellow Breeches (and I mean year round resident fish).

Yea, that would prove it, but is it the only way, and wouldn't you have to do it both ways for absolute proof? If you cold remove all trout from a brown trout fishery and replace with Brook trout, and somehow keep brown trout from migrating back in. You will have a brook trout fishery. Remove all the trout from a brook trout population and replace with browns? Well, depending on the stream, you may have a decent brown trout fishery, or a decent chub fishery.

Brook trout would survive in most if not all brown trout fisheries if there was a way to keep the brown trout out. (I hate using the word "all" because there are always exceptions) But the browns would not necessarily even survive in a former brook trout fishery.

For example, throw a brown in South Sandy Creek in Venango County it's likely gonna go belly up in less than 30 minutes or simply head downstream for higher PH waters. If it does survive for more than that, give it time. The PH swings will eventually take it out.

Put a Brook trout in Penns, well, we know the story there. As long as it doesn't get eaten, it will survive. However, it would be pushed out of the best feeding lanes. Too warm? Some of it is, but there are always springs, cold spots, and tributaries that can give relief. Temperatures are never uniform in time or space.

Now, do you honestly think Brook trout could not live in Penns if all the brown trout were removed. How about Spring Creek (the famous one). How about Big Spring?

Brook trout are slightly less tolerant to higher temperature compared to browns. That has been proven in laboratories.

Brook trout apparently need cleaner gravel for their spawn to survive. If there is cleaner gravel available, they will find it. They have even been known to reproduce in some lakes and ponds.

Brook trout are LESS susceptible to low PH and streams frequent PH swings.

So, which is more sensitive to pollution? Depends on the pollutant. IMO, it's a wash.

 

[FarmerDave]

sarce wrote:
FarmerDave- I think browns are much more pollutant tolerant. I think it's a lot more than a few degrees in temperature.

Look it up. You might think differently. I know I did.

I don't know of any brookies in purely urban streams,[/quote]

I do, but in general, I don't fish in urban streams.

You need to look at where these "urban" streams are.

There may be certain pollutants that brook trout are more sensitive too, but likely negligible.

If it supports brown trout, it can support brook trout.

 

[FarmerDave]

rrt wrote:
I hate to disagree with FD on this topic (we had some dandy disagreements about "important" topics, esp one, a few years back on here). Anyhow, I think browns tolerate pollution and higher water temps much better than brook trout do, with a couple streams in my area producing fairly good numbers of browns but no brooks, though brooks were, according to old guys from my long-lost youth, still in the mix up till the 1940s. Over in Bedford Co. a nice little limestoner still had wild brooks up till a few years ago, though it still produces nice numbers of wild browns. I credit farm pollutants, esp liquid manure run-off, for taking care of the brookies while the browns tough it out.

Rich, I have absolutely no problem with anyone disagreeing with me, and consider you quite knowledgeable.

As far as your examples, they are anecdotal and don't show a reason for the changes. People assume pollution, but that may not be the case. There has to be scientific reasons. I'd argue that something changed that favored the brown trout. Liquid manure could be the reason, but in general, farming practices have greatly improved over the past 100 years. Increase nutrients increase fertility and often times increases PH. Maybe Chaz can explain to you how that works. So it very well could be that something changes that not necessarily had a DIRECT negative effect on the brook trout, rather an indirect effect. Stream now favors brown trout to the point they can now out compete the brook trout.

Even a decrease in acidity of precip over the past 30 years can swing the balance more towards browns. There are lots of things.

I'd give you an example where brown trout are increasing in a remote brookie stream, but I know how you feel about spot burning.;-) Why is it increasing? Likely the PH is increasing which is a good thing.

 

[Shaner]

The brook trout inhabits large and small lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, and spring ponds. They prefer clear waters of high purity and a narrow pH range and are sensitive to poor oxygenation, pollution, and changes in pH caused by environmental effects such as acid rain. The typical pH range of brook trout waters is 5.0 to 7.5, with pH extremes of 3.5 to 9.8 possible.[18] Water temperatures typically range from 34 to 72 °F (1 to 22 °C). Warm summer temperatures and low flow rates are stressful on brook trout populations—especially larger fish.[19]

brook trout can not live everywhere brown trout do. Brown trout handle pollution better(not PH) and most brown trout streams are not white water-poor oxygenation.

I know a few larger streams where brookies are holding strong and yes few browns but by no means are they taking over.

 

[krayfish2]

Dave,

Just wanted to give you a heads ups. It appears that pcray has hacked into your account and sarted posting under it. Scroll up for proof. LMAO


Shaner wrote: The brook trout inhabits large and small lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, and spring ponds. They prefer clear waters of high purity and a narrow pH range and are sensitive to poor oxygenation, pollution, and changes in pH caused by environmental effects such as acid rain. The typical pH range of brook trout waters is 5.0 to 7.5, with pH extremes of 3.5 to 9.8 possible.[18] Water temperatures typically range from 34 to 72 °F (1 to 22 °C). Warm summer temperatures and low flow rates are stressful on brook trout populations—especially larger fish.[19]

Isn't that statement true for ALL trout and not just the most awesomest trout of all time?