Brown Trout Petition

[maxima12]

I wonder, remembering back, 55 years ago, i was 9, fishing the Sock and the feeders with dad and friends. Cried when i missed one! Knuckled up for another day! Was there for years and years!

A few years later, while being a Boy Scout, we had a paper drive. I kept all the outdoor magazines. "Wish i had them now"! Most likely I was 11. Look for it in archives. I think field and stream or outdoor life.

Top 10 streams in country Loyalsock was in. In a period of 5 years Loyalsock was out! I try to think, mining was the deal!

Seems the Sock has always seen the "Deal". Timber too! I do believe, Timber is still a deal, but being overcome by "Water". I would think, Lewis Lumber and Nestle have a big beat. That is just being the fool i am!

Just some history on the re-development of Sock. It runs from Headwaters to Montoursville dump to Susquehanna!

Damn good thing, Pa. Fish Commission is "Loved and Cherrished". Good thing good people on the Sock exist! Could be like the Delaware. "STAY OUT!"

You know i like you guys, sometimes a good thing is good till ruined!

Many a nice people can afford to live on the Sock and many offer a place to park, many are tired of being abused! Think , is what we have to save us. God bless my good friends on the Sock.

I am coming and Yep ,I brought leaders for all! Gift of line, fish for no challenge. I like it!

Walk down your steps, sit under your tree, Shake your hand, park in your lot! Johnny's coming!

For those that would like to imballance my friends in any way, please think. I do not like the alter screw. When i talk, it is face to face.

Stories about the Sock! You bet then more! Should have been there, but many have left it there! A tribute , to a tribe of Good People!

That's it! Maxima12

 

[maxima12]

Now to the theory of not stocking Brook trout. O k who cares!

Not fishing some Brook Trout Streams for a season or 2! Maybe, i might be a little more cool! You never want to see Maxima12 uncool!


I do have one more fight! Jail, big deal, been there lots! Counseling, did it for a long time, then i counseled the counsel!

Theory! funny, not proven! Just poked in your eye, till you had enough but were afraid to poke back

25 years ago, would have given you a Poke you did not forget, Now, a Poke is on paper!

Hey, remember that Poke. I see you still have the scar!

Maxima12

 

[silverfox]

lycoflyfisher wrote:
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.

Right on all points. They have a "solution" and now they're trying to identify the problem.

They'd probably have an easier time lobbying for slot limits on certain waters than the broad scope they're chasing. At least PFBC has data on the results of slot limits from Penns. I'm just not convinced PFBC is the one who needs lobbying. They know this stuff. I think it's more a matter of factions within PFBC, money invested in the "hatchery machine" and political pressure.

 

[silverfox]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
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.

I was approached about this perceived synergy too, and while I appreciate their interest in lumping native fish into their "study", I can't support what they're proposing with browns.

It's two separate and very different issues. The desired regulatory solutions are similar, but the approach and result is vastly different.

 

[silverfox]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
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.

We've talked about this. Probably several of us aware of those fish. I think the important thing is to get proper science to back it up so it's not just anecdotal evidence from some random anglers.

Shannon/Tyler's study in the sock was May-November. I wish it was 12 months, but even with the 6-month chunk, there is telemetry data that proves their movement from tribs to mainstem post-spawn.

I personally think the most valuable approach here is funding either a continuation of the Loyalsock study for either a 12-month span or filling in the Nov-May gap in the existing study. The latter isn't ideal because the original study was 2016 and by the time a "fill-in" version could get off the ground the timespan between study A and B isn't great science.

So that's what I'm interested in most. Getting a broader study based on Shannon/Tyler's study off the ground. Whether it's an extended version in the sock or multiple versions across the state (my preference) or some combination that would result in hard factual evidence of movement with a focus on the Nov-May timeframe. That would prove their presence during stocking/trout season. Ideally, that would result in regulatory change at some point in the future.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Phillip,

I think you know by now that in our conversations i agree with you more than not however Id like to think both sides could have cake.

I know of at least 3 stream run migratory populations of wild brook trout. A few viable lake run ones too. With all my heart i agree that bolstering migratory brown trout that interfere with brook trout is a bad idea.

However the tide has turned in many mid size PA warm water rivers that brown trout will use them and brook trout cannot. In these areas where interaction is minimal between browns and brook trout i see no reason not to make a better brown trout fishery.

That said, be careful. In these areas it is conceding that brook trout are lost but focus as conversationalists should never be lost on them.

There are things to do in my eyes.

One lake run population of brook trout has a deteriorating stream. Substrate needs fixed and it is channelized.


One stream run population of brook trout is getting wild browns in it.
I have some radical ideas that i think could help 2 separate migratory species of trout in the same watershed that are separated by barriers.

In the case of the connie there are multiple things you could do to bolster those browns. Almost no interaction with brook trout. Big spring brookies will never use the Connie anytime soon in any good numbers.

I also still believe the Tioga River is not lost. Yet.

Studies.
We need studies.

Lots of them but in the meantime there are things that could be done.


We should fish sometime. Id talk in more detail.

 

[larkmark]

Can someone please provide some exact locations where I might find these migratory fish? I don't care if Browns or Brook. They both eat good.

 

[silverfox]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
Phillip,

I think you know by now that in our conversations i agree with you more than not however Id like to think both sides could have cake.

I know of at least 3 stream run migratory populations of wild brook trout. A few viable lake run ones too. With all my heart i agree that bolstering migratory brown trout that interfere with brook trout is a bad idea.

However the tide has turned in many mid size PA warm water rivers that brown trout will use them and brook trout cannot. In these areas where interaction is minimal between browns and brook trout i see no reason not to make a better brown trout fishery.

That said, be careful. In these areas it is conceding that brook trout are lost but focus as conversationalists should never be lost on them.

There are things to do in my eyes.

One lake run population of brook trout has a deteriorating stream. Substrate needs fixed and it is channelized.


One stream run population of brook trout is getting wild browns in it.
I have some radical ideas that i think could help 2 separate migratory species of trout in the same watershed that are separated by barriers.

In the case of the connie there are multiple things you could do to bolster those browns. Almost no interaction with brook trout. Big spring brookies will never use the Connie anytime soon in any good numbers.

I also still believe the Tioga River is not lost. Yet.

Studies.
We need studies.

Lots of them but in the meantime there are things that could be done.


We should fish sometime. Id talk in more detail.

I get it. I really do. At the moment, my alliance is with native fish (not just brookies), so the brown thing is counter to that mission. I know that's not everyone's cup of tea though.

My take on the "warmwater" brown trout is that they're doing just swell on their own with no protections, so I frankly don't see the point. On the brookie side though, their "warmwater" winter/spring habitat is stocked 3rd/4th etc. order streams and the stocking thing is detrimental there.

 

[troutbert]

As long as classic brookie streams only 15 feet wide are being stocked, you don't have a chance of getting stocking ended on the large warmwater streams they flow into, to protect the "travelers."

Actually, as long as a hatchery program still exists, you have no chance of getting those big streams taken off the stocking list.

The big water on the Loyalsock, Pine Creek, Driftwood Branch etc. is not even on the wild trout reproduction list.

Focusing on that is counter-productive. It diverts attention from the much more serious problem of stocking over the smaller streams that hold native brookies year around.

And politically it's disastrous. It helps the other side. They can say "These radicals want to end stocking on Pine, Loyalsock, Kettle etc.

And even though stocking will not end on those streams. No chance at all. You are giving the other side ammunition.

 

[troutbert]

Here's an example of a classic brookie stream that is being stocked.

N 41.34415 W 78.79086

You can copy and paste that into Google Earth or Acmemapper and take a look.

It's a typical forested freestone stream flowing through a SGL. It has wild brookies its whole length.

But it's also heavily stocked, by a coop hatchery. Or at least it was when a friend and I fished it.

On the maps you can see a bridge. There were hatchery trout from about 100 yards above that bridge, down to the mouth.

 

[silverfox]

troutbert wrote:
As long as classic brookie streams only 15 feet wide are being stocked, you don't have a chance of getting stocking ended on the large warmwater streams they flow into, to protect the "travelers."

Actually, as long as a hatchery program still exists, you have no chance of getting those big streams taken off the stocking list.

The big water on the Loyalsock, Pine Creek, Driftwood Branch etc. is not even on the wild trout reproduction list.

Focusing on that is counter-productive. It diverts attention from the much more serious problem of stocking over the smaller streams that hold native brookies year around.

And politically it's disastrous. It helps the other side. They can say "These radicals want to end stocking on Pine, Loyalsock, Kettle etc.

And even though stocking will not end on those streams. No chance at all. You are giving the other side ammunition.

Well, certainly not with that attitude.

Believe me, I'm well aware of the problem on smaller streams. I frankly don't care about people's feelings or what they "want". I'm only interested in what's best for the fish. Call me a native zealot or whatever you want. I really don't care. My only interest is promoting what's best for the fish.

Human feelings shouldn't play a role in regulatory decision making and certainly not the argument of "we've always done it that way".

For what it's worth, to be clear, I'm not advocating for stopping stocking the sock or kettle or others. I'm advocating for C&R regs for brook trout in those stocked sections and limiting stocking to rainbows. Ideally triploid.

I personally wish they wouldn't stock those areas where brookies reside in the winter/early spring either, but I fully understand that I'm in the minority here.

 

[silverfox]

Sorry. I know I'm verbose. There's a lot to unpack here...

Whether it's the sock or anywhere else, the problem is in the classifications and how PFBC arrives at those classifications. The streams don't have static biomass. I'm generalizing here and I understand the streams in the suburbs of Philly behave differently than the ones in the center or north of the state.

Using the sock since we've been talking about it, say they sampled a trib to the sock and the sock mainstem in June. 2 stations on the trib and 2 stations on the sock. The trib stations result in class b biomass and the mainstem stations result in d or e class.

Then the following December the same 4 stations were sampled. The results might be class c or d in the mainstem and c or d in the trib. The protections based on PFBC and DEP classification aren't lost on me here, so it's kind of like opening pandora's box. It really does raise the question of classification protections and how they're assessed.

The same could be said for brown trout. Tribs on the Frankie might have shown class A in June and Class C in December. The Frankie then loses any protection and you get a situation like the Apvion spill. Less impact because the Frankie isn't trout water even though we all know it is in the winter.

Going a step further, I'm pretty sure the sampling occurs at historic stations. i.e., if you sampled a Class A in 2002 in 3 stations, the sample sites and time of year would be the same in 2021. So the class doesn't change and there's no way to reclass a downstream section or even another stream further down the system even though during certain times of the year it would likely warrant a higher class.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I put a picture i was saving in the photos section of a migratory brook trout caught this year.

Phillip i hope you put your faith in the right people.
IMO as far as brook trout go in PA, a ton at stake.

 

[Paraleptalata]

I think everyone should go fishing.....

 

[JeffP]

That is one heck of a fish.

 

[marcq]

Here’s a video of the guy who made the petition.

https://youtu.be/2dacjgApxS4

 

[larkmark]

Only a matter of time until a lot of these very rare and special streams become known and exploited. In fact it's already happening. Not much could be worse for those unique fish than what these internet stars are doing by talking about protection that likely won't happen while also telling people publicly where and how to catch the vulnerable big spawners.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

IMO it comes down to this, if you want a petition to be meaningful you need to have a specific request. You can't propose a regulation change and 15 different variables to study and expect to get anywhere. They would be much better off trying to work with a fisheries research college and try to get a study off the ground that way, or just petition for their requested regulation change.

If anything we should all be supporting the commission's stated goals to reduce hatchery production and stocking of brook trout and further limitations on stocking over brook trout populations.

 

[silverfox]

lycoflyfisher wrote:
IMO it comes down to this, if you want a petition to be meaningful you need to have a specific request. You can't propose a regulation change and 15 different variables to study and expect to get anywhere. They would be much better off trying to work with a fisheries research college and try to get a study off the ground that way, or just petition for their requested regulation change.

If anything we should all be supporting the commission's stated goals to reduce hatchery production and stocking of brook trout and further limitations on stocking over brook trout populations.

Exactly. Ignoring the legitimacy of anything they're suggesting, it's not a solid approach to achieve any of it.

If you want a scientific research study, find a university and funding who will execute the study (good luck finding someone to help protect nonnative/invasive species). You don't need a petition for that.

Petitioning F&B may have some minor impact, but again, it's likely not necessarily F&B who needs convincing. There have been "wild trout" petitions in the past that gained far more signatures and arguably resulted in nothing.

The one thing I think this petition illustrates is the growing choir of voices begging for more to be done for wild trout. PFBC takes the brunt of this complaining because of their lack of focus on wild trout. Wild trout fans are burned out from the stocking messaging coming out of PFBC. PFBC has created an image of themselves as almost exclusively a trout hatchery/stocking agency.

I get the pandering to the largest license buying demographic argument, but for people who focus on the natural environment, that human-centric focus is pretty appalling.

 

[Dave_W]

Troutbert is right.
We should focus on moving the needle in small, incremental ways (perhaps closing to stocking, harvest or angling on a specific stretch of sensitive water). Aspirational regulation changes that are impractical and would never be accepted by the majority of PA anglers are pie in the sky.

With that said...

I do agree with the need for more movement study (and not just for wild trout).
As many of you know - Juniata College biologists partnered with the LJRA for their ongoing telemetry study of wild BT in the LJ watershed. I've followed this study and regard it as a piece of the picture of migratory wild trout populations. Perhaps this could be expanded? This study relied in part on angler caught fish over 15". I think some of the large fish we're interested in would need to be electrofished due to their elusive nature and large size. Here in the CV we see these fish in routine surveys and if this could be coordinated with the college crew, it might be a possible study.

Keep in mind, of course, that if you need funds you'll need to publicize the study and this always collides with the angst some have for keeping these streams and trout secret. Tough to reconcile.