Brown Trout Eradication.

[FarmerDave]

Shaner wrote:
With info I read brookies dominate higher cold water steams while browns do better lower.

Yes, Higher gradient and low temperatures do favor brook trout. There is no doubt in that. Heavier forestation also favors brook trout. In addition to keeping the temperatures cooler, this could also be due to forested streams tend to be lower PH. Hemlock thrive on it.

Being colder also favors brook trout. They are more active in colder temps than browns and will feed more.

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.

Understood, but irrelevant. I apologize for steering it that way a few messages ago. They do exist. The occasional wild brook trout can even be found in Penns (ask pcray). I catch lots of wild Brook trout in streams that are known as freestone that favor browns. But given the brown trouts ability to out-compete the brook trout where conditions are favorable to both... Hows that 10 inch brook trout going to fair against numerous browns that are 12+"?

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.

Seems that way, but is it REALLY that way?

 

[FarmerDave]

afishinado wrote:

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.

I tend to agree with that.

 

[Shaner]

I agree no stocking on wild fish. Not only does it hurt fish the way mentioned above it also draws tons of truck chasers which hurts the stream more.

However if brookies where everywhere would they still be considered "Gems" ? People travel to hit steelhead all the time, how many would travel to hit browns if they were gone from just PA?

 

[McSneek]

Cornholio wrote:
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.

So after a two year hiatus you reintroduce yourself by starting a thread that states brown trout have no "ecological rights" and suggest it would be beneficial to eradicate them from brook trout waters and in another thread you tell a bizzare tale of beating a wild brown trout to death with your bare hands.

And you wonder why a "B#tch fight" erupted?

 

[Shaner]

Were just talking only one getting mad seems to be you?

 

[McSneek]

Shaner wrote:
Were just talking only one getting mad seems to be you?

No - not mad at all. Quite amused by this thread actually.

 

[Shaner]

Not really saying you- you quoted people take the internet too seriously

 

[geebee]

I'm pretty sure that brown trout can live anywhere a brook trout can in the USA - look at their natal range - pretty much up to the article circle before it comes all char & Salmon.

 

[FarmerDave]

The last I checked, fish can't read maps.;-)

Nobody is arguing that they can't each live in the same range.

 

[krayfish2]

"However if brookies where everywhere would they still be considered "Gems" ? People travel to hit steelhead all the time, how many would travel to hit browns if they were gone from just PA?"

Well, PA has plenty of wild brown streams and they still drive 2-3 hours one way to fish these little know waters (Penns, Letort, Spring, Delaware, etc.). Odds are....these people would even further to be able to fish for wild browns.

McSneek,
Thank you for that post. Pointing out what nobody else was going to touch and it's a valid point. Made me laugh.

 

[FarmerDave]

krayfish2 wrote:
"However if brookies where everywhere would they still be considered "Gems" ? People travel to hit steelhead all the time, how many would travel to hit browns if they were gone from just PA?"

Well, PA has plenty of wild brown streams and they still drive 2-3 hours one way to fish these little know waters (Penns, Letort, Spring, Delaware, etc.). Odds are....these people would even further to be able to fish for wild browns.

McSneek,
Thank you for that post. Pointing out what nobody else was going to touch and it's a valid point. Made me laugh.

Yea, you kind of confused me with that one Shaner.

Two things on my bucket list.

1. Catch a native brook trout over 1 lb. I may have to travel quite a ways for that one, but I'm in long term negotiations with the wife for a vacation trip way north and slightly east.

2. Catch a brown trout over 10 lbs. May have to drive to upstate NY for that, but there is a chance I might luck into one in an Erie trib less than a half hour away.

Those aren't the only things left on the bucket list, but they are in order of preference.

 

[mcwillja]

I can't even believe this is a thread lol. It is never going to be done and frankly is a dumb idea to begin with. Maybe the OP can take another two years off the site to think about how we might eradicate tiger trout.

 

[Shaner]

:hammer: If you got rid of brown trout you would take care of the tigers-2 things at once :-D

 

[McSneek]

mcwillja wrote:
I can't even believe this is a thread lol. It is never going to be done and frankly is a dumb idea to begin with. Maybe the OP can take another two years off the site to think about how we might eradicate tiger trout.

Just relieved no one is suggesting we eradicate Lightning Troot.

 

[FarmerDave]

mcwillja wrote:
I can't even believe this is a thread lol. It is never going to be done and frankly is a dumb idea to begin with.

Come on guys, pay attention. That was settled pages ago. The thread morphed into something else.

 

[McSneek]

FarmerDave wrote:

mcwillja wrote:
I can't even believe this is a thread lol. It is never going to be done and frankly is a dumb idea to begin with.

Come on guys, pay attention. That was settled pages ago. The thread morphed into something else.

Cabin Fever 2016 thread what with the storm of the century headed our way.

 

[Shaner]

Cabin fever? your not fishing Saturday?

 

[FarmerDave]

McSneek wrote:

FarmerDave wrote:

mcwillja wrote:
I can't even believe this is a thread lol. It is never going to be done and frankly is a dumb idea to begin with.

Come on guys, pay attention. That was settled pages ago. The thread morphed into something else.

Cabin Fever 2016 thread what with the storm of the century headed our way.

Probably.

I'll shut up now. ... in this thread.

 

[JackM]

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?

And considering this prior thought of someone, "... brown trout tend to outcompete brook trout whenever the stream habitat is beneficial to both species...."

I would say this:

Any stocking will reduce native populations for a period of time. Whether brown, rainbows or hatchery char, not to mention maybe pickerel, or walleye, and uhm, chubs, yeah, chubs.

So, the real squeal of brookie lovers is that brown trout can actually take hold of a good majority of brookie habitats. And, in this they are correct.

So is there anything that can be done to stop or slow this process, or do we abandon ourselves to the inevitable?

 

[krayfish2]

If we are talking getting rid of lighting trouts, count me in. Someone get something in kickstarter.....I'll donate.