Brown Trout Petition

[lycoflyfisher]

https://www.ipetitions.com/petition/anglers-urgent-help-protect-large-brown-trout?fbclid=IwAR3_1rn5y6Rcs_DgPxpLAuOGK2e7GXC0dulTAqKKOTkzuqh5_mQwTBZJU5o

Text from the link

"Would you, as a Pennsylvania trout angler, like to see our trout and waters achieve their greatest potential? Would you like to have the opportunity to pursue large wild brown trout year-round? Would you like to see our valley floor cold-water streams and our larger streams, which are now considered warm-water bass streams, become trout streams during the colder months of the year? Read on!

The purpose of this petition is to ask your support in proposing a study for consideration to Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission that would lead to a change in the Extended Season Regulation and the harvest limits from 3 over 7 inches to 3 under 14 inches. The end goal is to protect and manage the sizeable Brown trout ‘population planters’ both in cold-water and warm-water streams.

Outline of our proposed study:

Select a cold-water stocked stream that is considered a nursery stream
Do a baseline survey noting young of the year and age class structure on the selected stocked stream
Stop further stocking
Survey twice annually, pre-spawn and post-spawn, noting age class and size.
Include genetic sampling for identification and to distinguish between migratory (movers) and other resident Brown trout"


End text from link.


I am sure some of you may have seen this floating around on Facebook and thought it may drive some interesting discussion here. I think there are good intentions, but I find their approach interesting. Based on other posts by the prominent supporters I believe there is confusion on whether they are proposing regulatory changes ie 3>7" or 3

 

[silverfox]

I agree with the summary that there isn't a clearly defined desired outcome of the petition. As a brook trout and native fish fanatic, I've also got an issue with the entire premise of protecting brown trout in general, but that's a topic for another discussion.

I think Eric is thinking along the right lines though. I'm not sure that it's being articulated effectively. Eric is arguing something that I've said ad nauseam and it illuminates a deficiency in how PFBC manages water in the state. That is that fish populations, especially trout, move great distances regularly and utilize water that is not considered trout water.

Currently, there are no regulations on trout below the lower boundary of the stocking limits on streams listed in the regional stocking list that have boundaries. I guess it would theoretically expand to larger rivers at the confluence of the lower limit of an entire stream where there is no lower boundary listed. i.e. from the mouth of a stocked stream on a larger river not listed as STW.

The thing is like you say, this would be applicable most in the winter, BUT, it's also important in the early spring when stocking/trout season opens. i.e., those migratory fish are likely still down in the lower sections of rivers in the spring or moving through stocked waters on their way back upriver/stream to their summer holds.

This is the issue I'm always arguing with brook trout too. The state takes a piece of water that gets 90°F in August and says; "that's not trout water, so we should stock it". The problem is, as has been proven on the Loyalsock by Shannon White and Tyler Wagner's studies, brook trout are down in those stocked waters in the spring when stocking/trout season opens. So there are no protections for migratory fish in those stocked waters and most anglers don't know the difference between a stocked fish and a wild fish.

Shannon's most recent study found that the fish in the population that move the most are also the ones most likely to survive. So I'd argue that those migratory brook trout that end up in downriver sections are the most important individuals in the entire population due to their likelihood of survival and the genetics they carry that cause them to move. Those fish are the ones responsible for genetic diversity in the species population through the entire watershed.

Eric is arguing the same concept, but he's doing it with a non-native species and one that is much more genetically impure. He also has the issue of current and likely stocking of the species he's most concerned with.

Maryland just approved their final regulation change process and brook trout are now catch and release in ALL waters east of I81 and all stocked waters west of I81. The stocked waters west of I81 part is a nod to what I'm talking about here. MD DNR understands that brook trout may end up in stocked waters and they're too important to be harvested along with stocked rainbows. MD has the good fortune of not stocking brook trout, so it makes that regulation easy to implement. If you catch a brook trout in MD, it's wild.

This is where PA should be headed IMO. The first step would be to cease stocking brook trout statewide. That's alluded to in the current Trout Management Plan. Co-Op nurseries will cease to get brook trout eggs/fry sometime soon (if not this year). Ideally, the state hatcheries would be next in dropping ST from stocking. Then the state could implement statewide angling or harvest regulations on brook trout at the species/statewide level.

The biggest hurdle Eric et. al. have is that they're on the wrong side of science. Federally, the movement and money are behind native species. I think it was shared here when AZ instituted a bounty on brown trout in the Colorado River. That was an NPS initiative. Throughout the country, the NPS and other federal agencies are making strides to remove non-native fish from the landscape. It's not about whether you like catching the species. It's about what is naturally appropriate and that's backed by science.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Excellent points Silverfox. If this petition was focused on further study and protection of "migratory" brook trout I think they would get tremendous support.

I believe we are headed in a good direction with phasing out stocking of brook trout. This should provide the opportunity to perhaps similar regulatory protection that is being implemented in Md.

Also, Eric and a young youtuber are putting out a video series. One of the first videos compares two fish and calls one migratory and one a resident fish. I think we can all agree that some trout move great distances, but one can really play with the definition of migratory. IMO you would need a fairly comprehensive genetic study and/ or long term tracking studies to prove that a particular fish is in fact migratory and returning to the same stream or watershed to spawn. I struggle to consider a fish migratory based on visual observation of coloration....

Overall, I am supportive of any effort to protect wild trout in PA. However, I am much more supportive and would participate in action to protect native brook trout populations first and foremost.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

The above conversation is exactly why i tried to get the ball rolling and have conversations with those guys.
I know of a few more than a handful of migratory brook trout populations.

At this point when the survey got set to me, i just shook my head and said good luck.

 

[troutbert]

lycoflyfisher wrote:


I believe we are headed in a good direction with phasing out stocking of brook trout..

Stocking over native brook trout is extremely common in PA. I wish it was being phased out, but unfortunately it is not.

The people who favor stocking these streams are organized and politically active.

The people who favor ending stocking over native brook are not organized and not active.

The PFBC, DCNR, PGC, DEP seem unwilling or unable to end stocking over native brook trout.

I'm glad people are doing studies on native brook trout. They are doing studies on possible effects of wooly adelgids killing hemlocks to brook trout populations, and effects of climate warming etc.

Meanwhile, ye olde put and take hatchery trout thing is being done right in the streams with native brookies.

And now people are talking about ending stocking in the big streams to protect the migratory trout.

It would be "interesting" if a big stream like the Loyalsock had stocking ended to protect the migratory trout, while its wild trout tributaries were still being stocked.

That won't happen of course. If any mileage in the Loyalsock watershed is taken off the stocking list, it will be mileage that is on the wild trout reproduction list, not on the big water on the Sock, which isn't on the list.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Troutbert

Notice I said stocking [of] brook trout. PFBC is phasing out brook trout from co-op and state fish hatcheries. We will not see change overnight due to the organized groups you mentioned and past precedent. There are some significant baby steps in the most recent trout management plan. I think we may be on the verge of seeing an improvement in brook trout management, but we will see.

You make some good points on the Loyalsock watershed. I think there are a few challenges beyond the cessation of stocking. The primary one being large brown trout that move into tributaries to spawn or seek thermal refuge and consume numerous brook trout along the way. Alot of what follows is anecdotal evidence but it is observation over time from folks that I trust. Even as recent as 20-30 years ago many of the larger trips to the sock had fantastic brook trout populations, including larger individuals. Now many of these streams closer to the sock consist of almost entirely brown trout. I could name some streams but I would rather not spot burn. Whether these browns are holdovers from stocking or of natural reproduction may be debatable in some cases the fact is if you snorkel in many of the deep holes on the sock in the summer you will see some very large fish.

Where I think you could benefit brook trout in the Loualsock watershed would be to stop stocking streams like Little Bear, Hoagland Branch, etc; stop stocking brook trout and make all brook trout catch and release. Then see what happens for a few years.

 

[silverfox]

troutbert wrote:

lycoflyfisher wrote:


I believe we are headed in a good direction with phasing out stocking of brook trout..

troutbert wrote:
Stocking over native brook trout is extremely common in PA. I wish it was being phased out, but unfortunately it is not.

It is being phased out. From the current TMP:


Issue 7: Gill lice (Salmincola edwardsii and S. californiensis) are parasites that can negatively impact
Pennsylvania’s wild Brook Trout (S. edwardsii) and wild Rainbow Trout (S. californiensis) populations.
This is of great concern, given the recent documentation of gill lice (S. edwardsii) in watersheds where
wild Brook Trout reside.
Strategies:
• Between 2020 and 2024, continue to require all Special Activity Permit applicants to obtain
gill lice-free trout via the PFBC Gill Lice-Free Certification Program for events that request
to stock trout.
• Between 2020 and 2024, continue monitoring gill lice-infected wild Brook Trout populations
along with uninfected reference streams. As more information is learned, the gill lice
monitoring program will be refined and expanded upon as needed.
• Between 2020 and 2024, continue to implement strategies to eliminate the spread of gill lice
from stocked trout into watersheds where wild trout populations exist. This will include the
continuance of PFBC’s no-tolerance policy of gill lice in PFBC cooperative nurseries.
• Between 2020 and 2024, the Division of Fisheries Management (DFM) will work with the
Bureau of Hatcheries to substantially reduce the production of Brook Trout at all PFBC state
fish hatcheries and cooperative nurseries. See Issue 33 for more information.

troutbert wrote:
The people who favor stocking these streams are organized and politically active.

The people who favor ending stocking over native brook are not organized and not active.

"We" are organizing. "We" just need to do a better job of publicizing what we're doing.

troutbert wrote:
The PFBC, DCNR, PGC, DEP seem unwilling or unable to end stocking over native brook trout.

Again, this is not true. See TMP section 34.

Issue 34: Stocking hatchery Brook Trout into watersheds where wild Brook Trout are present can
potentially have a negative impact on wild Brook Trout populations. Potential negative impacts include
introgression of hatchery genes into wild trout populations, increased angling mortality of wild Brook
Trout, spread of diseases and pathogens, and displacement of wild Brook Trout.
Strategies:
• By 2020, cease distribution of Brook Trout fingerlings to the 22 cooperative nurseries located
in and/or stock fish into watersheds where wild Brook Trout reside.
19
• Between 2020 and 2022, Area Fisheries Managers will eliminate the stocking of Brook Trout
in watersheds where wild Brook Trout reside. Rainbow Trout will primarily be stocked in
place of Brook Trout.
• Between 2020 and 2024, the DFM will work with Bureau of Hatcheries to substantially
reduce the production of Brook Trout at all PFBC state fish hatcheries and cooperative
nurseries. Additional Rainbow Trout, golden Rainbow Trout, and/or Brown Trout will be
produced to replace the Brook Trout. No reduction in total number of trout produced at state
fish hatcheries is planned.
• Through 2024, as needed, update the trout stocking fact sheet and outreach plan to explain
the benefits of reduced Brook Trout production and increased use of Rainbow Trout and/or
Brown Trout in the catchable trout program.

troutbert wrote:
I'm glad people are doing studies on native brook trout. They are doing studies on possible effects of wooly adelgids killing hemlocks to brook trout populations, and effects of climate warming etc.

Meanwhile, ye olde put and take hatchery trout thing is being done right in the streams with native brookies.

And now people are talking about ending stocking in the big streams to protect the migratory trout.

I think you meant to say; "And now people are talking about ending stocking in the big streams to protect the migratory [BROWN] trout."

Yes, and it's not based on sound science, national initiatives involving native species or even widely accepted as necessary.

troutbert wrote:
It would be "interesting" if a big stream like the Loyalsock had stocking ended to protect the migratory trout, while its wild trout tributaries were still being stocked.

That won't happen of course. If any mileage in the Loyalsock watershed is taken off the stocking list, it will be mileage that is on the wild trout reproduction list, not on the big water on the Sock, which isn't on the list.

That's what needs to change. According to the TMP, PFBC is aware of this and claims to want to more toward that solution. Whether that's lip service or an actual plan is yet to be seen.

 

[troutbert]

Ending stocking of hatchery brook trout is a good thing, to prevent spreading gill lice.

But if a stream with a native brook trout population has been stocked with hatchery brook trout for years, and now it will be stocked with an equal number of rainbow and/or brown trout, that will not increase the native brook trout population at all.

You still have the same problems as before: The stocking attracts lots of anglers, many of whom harvest a lot of trout, and they take the native brookies as well as the stockies. And you have the "agonistic behavior" problem, i.e. the stocked trout drive out the native brook trout and take over the best habitat spots.

Stocking of trout, regardless of species, over native brook trout, suppresses the native brook trout population.

 

[troutbert]

"Include genetic sampling for identification and to distinguish between migratory (movers) and other resident Brown trout"

It's unlikely that there is any detectable genetic differences between the two.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Actually there likely is.
More and more studies are being conducted on migratory fish vs resident.
More and more are finding genetic differences.

 

[silverfox]

troutbert wrote:
Ending stocking of hatchery brook trout is a good thing, to prevent spreading gill lice.

But if a stream with a native brook trout population has been stocked with hatchery brook trout for years, and now it will be stocked with an equal number of rainbow and/or brown trout, that will not increase the native brook trout population at all.

You still have the same problems as before: The stocking attracts lots of anglers, many of whom harvest a lot of trout, and they take the native brookies as well as the stockies. And you have the "agonistic behavior" problem, i.e. the stocked trout drive out the native brook trout and take over the best habitat spots.

Stocking of trout, regardless of species, over native brook trout, suppresses the native brook trout population.

I agree though PFBC does state specifically that only rainbows will be used where brook trout occur. It's not ideal, but it's a start.

You're absolutely right about incidental mortality from increased angling pressure due to stocking. That's one of my biggest gripes about stocking ANYTHING over wild brook trout regardless of population size or biomass classification.

I think you have to start somewhere though, and as I mentioned, you can't really institute statewide regs on a species if you're also stocking that species. So the first step is to stop stocking them.

As much as I hate to accept it, there is some research out of MD that indicates the rainbows likely have a pretty limited impact on wild brook trout beyond the increased angling pressure. The caveat here is that not all streams are the same. I think it's irresponsible to say that rainbows don't have "much" of an impact biologically to justify stocking.

The premise of the limited impact is that they don't survive long enough to cause any problems. That may be true in some places and not at all in others.

Regardless, you're absolutely right about the effects of angling pressure due to stocking. There are all kinds of science to back up the biological impact of stocking, but I think angling pressure and incidental mortality is underrepresented/addressed.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Phillip,

Sounds to me like MD isnt talking or reading about NC.

The smokies and rainbows have been disastrous.

 

[GeneBeam]

I would like to know who stated this petition. Reading the background narrative they are using Trout Unlimited's name, but are Trout Unlimited the ones who started this petition or just someone using Trout Unlimited name?

To me that is what’s wrong with online petitions you don’t know what started them and what is their agenda.

Silverfox
I agree with the summary that there isn't a clearly defined desired outcome of the petition. As a brook trout and native fish fanatic, I've also got an issue with the entire premise of protecting brown trout in general, but that's a topic for another discussion.

I did disagree, you can’t push for managing brown trout without address what that would do to wild/native brook trout.

 

[silverfox]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
Phillip,

Sounds to me like MD isnt talking or reading about NC.

The smokies and rainbows have been disastrous.

I agree. I personally don't condone or support stocking any species over wild brook trout of any population size, but I've been convinced by MD DNR that it's not having a major impact at the moment.

They've also not closed the book on that chapter from what I understand, and they are continuously monitoring for any signs of long term survival/spawning. I'd imagine the moment they see a potential problem they'll drop the stocking entirely. That's my speculation only.

 

[silverfox]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
Phillip,

Sounds to me like MD isnt talking or reading about NC.

The smokies and rainbows have been disastrous.

I agree. I personally don't condone or support stocking any species over wild brook trout of any population size, but I've been convinced by MD DNR that it's not having a major impact at the moment.

They've also not closed the book on that chapter from what I understand, and they are continuously monitoring for impact.

GeneBeam wrote:
I would like to know who stated this petition. Reading the background narrative they are using Trout Unlimited's name, but are Trout Unlimited the ones who started this petition or just someone using Trout Unlimited name?

To me that is what’s wrong with online petitions you don’t know what started them and what is their agenda.

I don't know exactly who the author of the "Petition Background" document is but I'm pretty sure I have a good idea. I agree that it's represented as a "Trout Unlimited" document pretty strongly by the opening line. I don't think TU is sponsoring this initiative, but I could be wrong.

GeneBeam wrote:
I did disagree, you can’t push for managing brown trout without address what that would do to wild/native brook trout.

Sorry for any confusion here. I'm not saying that you don't need to address the impact on brook trout. I'm saying I don't support the idea of protecting brown trout in Pennsylvania in any way shape or form. That's my personal opinion and it's because of more than just brook trout.

Again, not to get too off-topic, but I generally don't support non-native/invasive species period. From common carp to brown trout. At the same time, I'm not necessarily advocating for the widespread removal of those species or even native species from other drainages within the state. I simply won't support any efforts to protect or expand their population beyond what they're capable of on their own.

 

[troutbert]

GeneBeam wrote:
I would like to know who stated this petition. Reading the background narrative they are using Trout Unlimited's name, but are Trout Unlimited the ones who started this petition or just someone using Trout Unlimited name?

To me that is what’s wrong with online petitions you don’t know what started them and what is their agenda.

Good point.

They should not have mentioned Trout Unlimited.

That could create the impression that the petition is coming from TU, when surely it is not.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

https://m.facebook.com/story/graphql_permalink/?graphql_id=UzpfSTEwMDAwNDI2OTU1MjEwNzpWSzozNDM1NTI5NDkzMTkxNzY2

 

[lycoflyfisher]

If the founders of the study want to propose a study that would be great. However, proposing a study with the stated purpose of an already identified regulatory change is not objective science. They really should be trying to partner with a college/ university with established fisheries or aquatics research and help provide a funding source for the study. As many have already mentioned, finding a funding source to study a non native species is challenging to say the least.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

That was my very suggestion too lyco.
This whole thing is infuriating to me to say the least.

I tried and even wanted to hand out my info on migratory brook trout to these guys. They are right in what they say and are thinking but the forest for the trees blah blah blah.

Good luck. It is never going to happen like this.

 

[GeneBeam]

salvelinusfontinalis

The Facebook link you supplied is broken, states Content Not Found. Facebook states that it could be broken or removed. I would like to know what they were stating but if they removed it, then why did they take it down?