Brown Trout Eradication.

Shaner, I don't see where you conclusion can be derived from what you copied and pasting from wikipedia. I am not disputing the numbers, but what about Brown trout. To make such a conclusion, don't you need to present both sides?

I'm guessing that the reason you didn't provide wikipedia info for the brown trout is it says this.

"... prefers well-oxygenated water in the temperature range of 60 to 65 °F (16 to 18 °C)."

Clearly that is just the preferred temperature, and not what they are cable of surviving in.

And for comparison, Brook trout comfort zone is several degrees lower. Maybe that is what some of you are thinking about. But as far as survival, there isn't much difference between the two when it comes to temperature.

It's actually not about temperature, but about dissolved O2, and warmer water cannot hold as much O2.

I did a quick search to support what I said. Here is the abstract for a study.

From the abstract: "We found no difference in the upper thermal tolerance limit for brook and brown trout. "

As I said, I have read the same or similar results in other studies.

It's fine for everyone to say I am wrong, but prove it.
 
Now, you are telling me that brookies would flourish from Poe Paddy to Weikert? Conditions would definitely say no.

Disclaimer: I'm not suggesting we should.

But I'm not so sure. I've caught a number of brookies in that stretch, mostly wild, and a few stockers as well. Not enough to say they have a population "IN" Penns itself, rather, that a fair number come down out of streams like Big Poe, Swift Run, Cherry Run, and Weikert Run and live life in the big water.

They certainly can live and thrive in there. I'm not sure about breed.

Anyway, my take on the OP is no, we shouldn't eradicate browns in favor of brookies. Though I would not have a problem with it in isolated circumstances. Just not as a widespread policy.
 
troutbert wrote:
Hatchery trout, including brown trout, are still being STOCKED on top of native brook trout.

Wouldn't the first step be to end that?

Absolutely. It's idiotic we stock streams with wild populations.

http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/articles/2004/****Vincent.htm
 
Farmerdave is this better from USGS study-

"There is great potential for brown trout stocking to reduce native brook trout populations," said James McKenna, USGS scientist and lead author of the study. "But brown trout aren't necessarily causing the current brook trout declines, and managers may be able to develop sustainable scenarios to support both fisheries."

The USGS study found that human-induced degradation (from dams and roads, among other causes) of the habitats of both species could affect the populations of either. However, because brook trout do better in forested watersheds, whereas brown trout can thrive in more agricultural environments, degraded watersheds and/or the elimination of forests may affect brook more than brown trout.
 
I copied and pasted the final part of the article linked above for all to read since it deals with "studies done in Pennsylvania":


Follow up

(The following follow-up question was posed to **** Vincent by Ken Hamlin, retired FWP research biologist, in 2015 and was published in The Gallatin History Museum Quarterly. Used with permission.)

****, I know you did not specifically study this, but do you have an explanation for why trout numbers per mile of river were lower in areas of hatchery stocking and why wild trout numbers doubled or tripled when stocking was discontinued?

Based on my observations over the years and the results of studies done in Pennsylvania, I believe that hatchery fish disrupted the natural behavior and feeding territories of wild trout. Wild trout have feeding territories and a social hierarchy based on size and behavior that efficiently makes use of available food and makes the fish less vulnerable to predation while feeding. Fish reared in hatcheries don’t worry about predation while feeding and swarm to food fed at concentrated locations with regular timing. Those who get to the food first survive.

Thus, when hatchery fish are dumped in with wild trout, they are not used to finding their own food, and their nutrition and survival suffers at the same time that they are disrupting the feeding territories of wild trout. The behavior of hatchery trout also makes them more vulnerable to predation. The disruption of the behavior and territories of the wild trout both reduces their feeding efficiency and nutritional level and also makes them more vulnerable to predation than they previously were. Thus, both wild and hatchery fish have a lower survival rate when in the same stream area.

One example of stress changes due to stocking that we observed during our study was anincrease in detectable movement of the resident wild trout after hatchery rainbow trout were stocked. Normally, wild trout in these streams show very little detectable movement (less than 5 percent), with most movement being very localized around feeding sites and cover. Release of hatchery trout in O’Dell Creek increased detectable movement by over 1,000 percent, which left the wild trout more vulnerable to predation (including by anglers) and reduced nutrition due to poor feeding sites.
 
Shaner wrote:
Farmerdave is this better from USGS study-

"There is great potential for brown trout stocking to reduce native brook trout populations," said James McKenna, USGS scientist and lead author of the study. "But brown trout aren't necessarily causing the current brook trout declines, and managers may be able to develop sustainable scenarios to support both fisheries."

The USGS study found that human-induced degradation (from dams and roads, among other causes) of the habitats of both species could affect the populations of either. However, because brook trout do better in forested watersheds, whereas brown trout can thrive in more agricultural environments, degraded watersheds and/or the elimination of forests may affect brook more than brown trout.

Any reason you didn't provide a link? Oh way, I know why.

link

Tough to pass that title by me.;-)

I don't see anything in there that proves that brook trout can't live everywhere that brown trout live, if not for the brown trout.

Furthermore, that isn't even the study. It appears to be an opinion based on the study. Here is the abstract from the actual study.

I especially liked this part.

"Simulation results indicated that direct interactions and habitat conditions were relatively minor factors compared with the effects of repeated stocking of Brown Trout into Brook Trout habitat. "

Please remind me, are you saying I was right, or wrong?
 
I seen that hatchery trout hurt the wild trout populations-my article said same thing-I left that part out because this was I thought about wild browns not stocked.
 
You are right. It is. But nowhere does it say brook trout can't survive where brown trout currently are. It just states that those environments favor one or the other.

To answer your question, it was better but supports my premise rather than rejecting it.
 
And then PAFB designates ALL waters as FLYFISHING only! And we each get a pony. Everyone loves pony.
 
Im not saying you or I were right or wrong just posting info.

Brookies would still be caught in these bigger waters regularly if they would hold brookies year round. Plenty of brookie water leading into LJ/Spring and hardly ever brookie caught. Yes I know browns eat fish but they eat themselves just as much also. Bigger brookies would still make it regularly- Not hardly ever caught in these waters(never by most people) I have got a few in Penns tho
 
Study: Wild brook trout do suffer from stocking
BY JEFF MULHOLLEM EDITOR
Posted on January 2, 2014
Finding confirms PF&BC’s program

Harrisburg — Recent research conducted by the U.S. Geologic Survey in New York shows that stocking brown trout into streams harboring wild brook trout is harmful to the native trout populations.

The finding, which confirmed the beliefs of fisheries biologists and other officials in the Keystone State and beyond, mostly validates stocking practices employed in recent years by the Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission.

USGS researchers found that direct interactions between brown trout and brook trout – such as competition for food – over time diminish brook trout populations.

Repeated stocking of brown trout in brook trout habitats can drastically decrease brook trout numbers, noted James McKenna, USGS scientist and lead author of the study

“There is great potential for brown trout stocking to reduce native brook trout populations,” he said.

Improper brown trout management could threaten vulnerable brook trout populations, according to the study, which is published in the North American Journal of Fisheries Management and available online.

The Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission, which has been stocking trout for more than a century, in recent years has been trying to protect vulnerable wild brook trout populations from interference from stocked browns, pointed out Dave Miko, the agency’s chief of fisheries management.

“Our approach has evolved over time, and we now take into account the species mix of what we stock and the wild fish that are present in systems,” he said.

“Actually, beginning in 1983 with Operation Future, the commission began to take a close look at the effects of stocking trout on top of wild trout, taking wild trout populations into account when developing stocking allocations.”

Of the 1,200 stream sections the commission now stocks, only nine of them have brook trout-only wild populations, and in seven of those, the agency stocks brook trout only.

Only in Double Run in Sullivan County and Moose Creek in Clearfield County are fish stocked over brook trout-only wild populations.

Double Run, a small Class B water, gets just 300 rainbows preseason. Moose Creek, which is a Class C water, is stocked both preseason and inseason with both brooks and brown trout.

There are many stream sections that have both brooks and browns reproducing in them, Miko explained. All of the wild brown trout streams at one time would’ve been native brook trout streams.

“Wild trout populations in streams can differ significantly,” he said. “A stream can have just a handful of wild trout or it can have 3,000 wild fish.

“So we are definitely going to continue to stock streams that have just a handful of wild fish in them to continue to provide opportunities for fishermen.”

Pennsylvania differentiates between wild trout stream sections: Class A waters are “the best of the best” having the most wild fish and water chemistry and are never stocked; Class B stream sections have thriving wild trout populations, but some are stocked; Class C and Class D wild trout waters have some wild trout and are usually stocked.

“We stock the lower classes of wild trout streams because they do not offer enough opportunities to anglers,” Miko said.

However several Fish & Boat commissioners the last few years have advocated not stocking Class B streams to see whether their wild trout populations might improve and expand and become Class As.

“We do know that stocking trout over wild fish can suppress wild trout populations,” Miko said.

“What this new study does is add some additional support to the belief that stocking of brown trout in general can displace wild brook trout,” Miko said, adding that brown trout tend to outcompete brook trout whenever the stream habitat is beneficial to both species.

“In higher elevations and headwaters streams, brook trout tend to have strongholds there and brown trout don’t infiltrate,” he said.

“That could be because of the acidic water chemistry of the headwaters and water temperatures are also a big factor. Some headwaters, in general, are colder than brown trout prefer.”

Brown trout can withstand temperatures up to 78 degrees; 72 degrees is the top temperature for brook trout.

“To me the USGS report confirms that we’ve been doing the right thing because we only have those two stream sections that are wild brook trout only that we have been stocking,” Miko said.

“We are always trying to balance providing opportunities for anglers with a resource that we are charged to protect, and we are very careful.

“I think we do a pretty good job of that – we stock 3.2 million adult fish.”

Link to source: http://www.outdoornews.com/January-2014/Study-Wild-brook-trout-do-suffer-from-stocking/
 
Shaner wrote:
Im not saying you or I were right or wrong just posting info.

Brookies would still be caught in these bigger waters regularly if they would hold brookies year round [color=990000]... and there were no browns. [/color]

Plenty of brookie water leading into LJ/Spring and hardly ever brookie caught. Yes I know browns eat fish but they eat themselves just as much also. Bigger brookies would still make it regularly- Not hardly ever caught in these waters(never by most people) I have got a few in Penns tho

OK. Let me ask you a short series of quesitons.

Which fish dominate, the bitter ones, or smaller ones?

A bigger brookie in those tribs is how big?

A bigger brown in Penns, LJ, etc, is how big?
 
JackM wrote:
I had a pony!

I once had a jackass, but I let him go for giving bad legal advice.
 
afishinado wrote:
I copied and pasted the final part of the article linked above for all to read since it deals with "studies done in Pennsylvania":

Vincent's was actually done in Montana and he only refers to Pennsylvania through a PhD thesis by Bachman that was done on Spruce Creek. Vincent's study is not bad but there are lots of little devils in the details. I can't remember Bachman's thesis that well but have a feeling I wasn't that impressed with it.

The McKenna paper is a large scale modeling effort. It's good but as in all models it has to make some assumptions. For example from the methods in the paper...

"However, field collections were not frequent enough to
reveal any response of Brook Trout to repeated stocking of
Brown Trout into the same stream."

..so the authors modeled it. Which is fine but to be clear it is model outputs (not experimental data) that show declines in brook trout when brown trout are stocked over the top and some of the assumptions driving the model are derived from old studies.

And just as an afterthought from afish's long last post - why is it any better to stock brook trout over wild brook trout. The impact comes from domesticated strains and the way they behave not as much (though possibly some) form the particular species stocked. Brook trout on top of brook trout is just as bad as brown trout on top of brook trout. No?
 
I suggest framing the question this way: "What are the best ways of improving brook trout populations?

Without any prior assumptions about what is the best way, or focusing on one particular approach (suppressing brown trout populations)

But simply looking at which methods are most likely to succeed, most practical from a cost/benefit approach, etc.

And listing these in a rough rank order, putting the most likely to succeed, most practical, etc. at the top, and continuing down the list.

(But that may not be as much fun as arguing about eradicating brown trout, gemmie remarks, and all that.)
 
brown trout tend to outcompete brook trout whenever the stream habitat is beneficial to both species.

We have a bingo.

That is why you don't have brook trout in places where habitat benefits both species.

The reason you have locations that are predominantly brook trout, is it is browns can't live there, or simply haven't been put there yet.
 
With info I read brookies dominate higher cold water steams while browns do better lower. I was just stating that a 10"+ brookie would less likely to get eaten. Yes browns on these waters are big but these browns also eat baby browns. I was just stating that multiple brookie tribs with no brookies in the main waters seems like not brookie holding water-no studies to prove it just assumption.
 
Eccles wrote:


And just as an afterthought from afish's long last post - why is it any better to stock brook trout over wild brook trout. The impact comes from domesticated strains and the way they behave not as much (though possibly some) form the particular species stocked. Brook trout on top of brook trout is just as bad as brown trout on top of brook trout. No?

If not as bad, then damned close. IMHO of course.
 
FarmerDave wrote:
Eccles wrote:


And just as an afterthought from afish's long last post - why is it any better to stock brook trout over wild brook trout. The impact comes from domesticated strains and the way they behave not as much (though possibly some) form the particular species stocked. Brook trout on top of brook trout is just as bad as brown trout on top of brook trout. No?

If not as bad, then damned close. IMHO of course.

If I were the PA Fish Czar and could make policy without oversight, I would ban the stocking of brook trout completely. Stocking brook trout can directly impact the gene pool of the native trout. A horrible thing.

No stocking over wild trout would be best, but stocked browns or rainbows may displace brook trout, but never destroy / scramble the genetics of the native species forever, like the stocking of brook trout over wild brook trout.
 
Back
Top