brown trout selective harvest?

[troutbert]

lycoflyfisher wrote:

afishinado wrote:
Job 1 is to preserve all our streams and rivers for all creatures great and small. If we don't at least do that, all is lost.

Job1A is to do what we can to preserve the native creatures like brook trout.

There is no way to turn the clock back and undo the damage done a hundred or hundreds of years ago by logging and mining in PA, and now development and other sources of pollution. Nonnative species were introduced to replace what was lost. But at a certain point, this point IMHO, we should think about preserving the native creatures that are left, and do all we can to stop them from disappearing altogether.

There are thousands of miles of great streams for brown trout. Keep those streams healthy and fish on. I too love fishing for brown trout and err maybe rainbows. But I believe we should identify the remaining[color=CCFF00] viable populations of brook trout[/color] and do what we can to preserve, protect and possibly enhance those streams and populations. Stop stocking them and set them aside as native streams to be protected from all nonnative species as well protecting them from development and pollution.

My2

They key discussion here is what is a viable brook trout population? is it a certain biomass, adult fish per mile estimate, or 1 pair of reproducing adults?

I think there are far more streams than any of us realize that support brook trout reproduction at some level.

Do you have a suggested "cutoff" level?

 

[lycoflyfisher]

I don't, but I do believe it needs to be more than a handful of adult fish present in a stream. Given the natural fluctuation of trout populations it is difficult to assign a specific threshold. Given the recent trend of PFBC removing streams from their stocking list after surveys identify a Class A brook trout or mixed wild trout population, perhaps there are some streams that further monitoring could provide insight into the benefits of cessation of stocking. ie Rapid Run and Asaph Run.

Perhaps some of the remaining brook trout streams that are stocked have borderline Class A populations?

 

[Susquehanna]

IMO this is the easy part

Class A is defined as:
Streams that support a population of wild (natural reproduction) trout of sufficient size and abundance to support a long-term and rewarding sport fishery.

Ever is a Class B that felt class A? I have many times

Why not start at anything class B and above?

Yes i know, stocking can keep access. That is a valuable discussion to have too. I am strictly speaking biologically and in respects to a rewarding wild trout fishing experience.

 

[Bamboozle]

I don’t keep any fish, stocked or wild not just for personal reasons, but because it is more of a hassle than I am willing to endure for a fish dinner.

I do not object to the practice however, as long as all regulations are met and the fish kept are consumed by the person catching those fish AND they are not routinely given away to justify some ulterior motive.

That being said, I find the “intolerant” ;-) anglers promoting eradication of non-native species as if things will go back to the way they were 300 years ago so annoying that if I decide to change my ways, I think I’ll keep only wild brook trout…

In the meantime, I urge ALL advocates of wild "native” brook trout to the exclusion of all non-indigenous wild trout to STOP purchasing a “Wild Trout and Enhanced Waters” permit if you are doing so. As this permit also funds the protection and enhancement of non-indigenous wild trout, you are being a hypocrite if you buy one, especially if you are killing wild brown trout!!

Perhaps another thread, protest and a petition to the PFBC is in order to get a “Native” Trout ONLY and Enhanced Waters” permit created so those nasty wild brownies and wild rainbows don’t benefit from your donation…

I also urge the "brookie bullies" to purchase the new Bell & Howell Tactical Bionic Streamside DNA kit I saw on an infomercial so you can accurately compare the DNA of the brook trout you catch with the known DNA strains of the Pocahontas brookies…

…lest you inadvertently release some brookie with a Huntsdale heredity.


Bamboozle, founder and President of BTM – Brown Trout Matter ;-)

 

[jifigz]

Bamboozle..I've said it before. I want in the BTM movement. Brown Trout provide my idea of what ideal wild trout fishing is and I am so thankful that they are here and I live where I do..

 

[McSneek]

Bamboozle wrote:

That being said, I find the “intolerant” ;-) anglers promoting eradication of non-native species as if things will go back to the way they were 300 years ago so annoying that if I decide to change my ways, I think I’ll keep only wild brook .

Bamboozle, founder and President of BTM – Brown Trout Matter ;-)

I endorse this message.

 

[jifigz]

McSneek wrote:

Bamboozle wrote:

That being said, I find the “intolerant” ;-) anglers promoting eradication of non-native species as if things will go back to the way they were 300 years ago so annoying that if I decide to change my ways, I think I’ll keep only wild brook .

Bamboozle, founder and President of BTM – Brown Trout Matter ;-)

I endorse this message.

I'll endorse your endorsement.

 

[Bamboozle]

Whoo hoo!! We got three BTM members!!

Jifigz: Since you were first you are Vice President!!

McSneak: You are Chairman of the Board of Directors.

I'll buy the beer for the first meeting where will will be serving Wild Brook Trout Amandine, streamside... ;-)

 

[Susquehanna]

Of all things to be polarized about.
It is a head scratcher.

Removing established wild brown trout from a stream as a wild brook trout conservation tool is laughable. It wont do to much because they are established in numbers greater than you can catch likely.

Removing wild brook trout for spite to get under someones skin because the are removing wild brown trout is laughable too.

All trout matter.
There i said it
:lol:

 

[hemlock53]

I hear two narratives around here, if you remove brown trout to help brook trout "you will never have any impact" but then I hear "if guys keep their limit of 5 fish everyday they can have serious effect on trout populations". So if a person legally harvests 5 brown trout everyday that they are legally able to from a mixed brook/brown stream can that person realistically see a change in biomass of the trout species present in said stream?

What if five people do it?

What if everyone did it?

I would think on a typical PA mixed brook/brown stream if the general angling public selectively harvested brown trout you would see a change in biomass distribution.

 

[Susquehanna]

You cant harvest 6 inch and under fish that make up most the population.

 

[hemlock53]

So when someone says "keeping five fish a day everyday will have negative effects" we shouldn't worry because the majority of the fish are under 7"?

 

[lycoflyfisher]

*All wild trout matter!*

 

[Susquehanna]

Did i suggest as much?

Think about it.

You cant remove them legally and make a significant impact for the brook trout but you can remove them legally and mess up your fishing.

Especially since brook trout reach sexual majority before they are even 6" . Browns will out compete them everytime for spawning areas.

 

[sarce]

Although I favor enhancing brook trout populations at the expense of brown trout, the idea of individual anglers trying to mess with fish populations is a slippery slope and best left to biologists who can make a concerted effort to correct a real problem when one arises. It takes a lot of study to know if brook trout will actually succeed in a given stream if browns are removed. I consider myself a small stream wild trout fanatic and conservationist but I would not be able to look at a stream and tell you how much the brook trout population will expand if another species is removed. That is for biologists to determine.

I also fear that if we encourage vigilante efforts to fix the ratios of brown and brook trout some folks will take up the cause who can't tell the difference between the two species. It is a separate issue from whether someone would be within their rights to do so, assuming all fish are of legal size, and it's also separate from how one angler's fishing experience is going to be impacted by another person choosing to harvest fish. It's whether or not it's a good idea for individuals to take population management into their own hands.

 

[Susquehanna]

Well said.

 

[Mike]

It is likely that anglers underestimate how much fishing pressure and harvest it REALLY takes to have an impact on a trout population and its size structure. It’s the kind of pressure that usually only intense stocking generates in Pa. Average annual mortality in Pa trout populations is 60-65 percent. We know that harvest is light, about 1% of the legal population for BT and 9% for ST. Nearly all of the rest of the total mortality is natural mortality (except delayed C&R mortality). It is estimated that about a 50% trout exploitation rate is needed for special regs, such as C&R, to have a population impact on the legal size fish or whatever segment of the legal population you wish to enhance. Good luck with that (getting a 50% exploitation), especially with BT.

It has been a long time since I pointed this out, but this is a good time to mention it. In my 42 years of fieldwork, I only saw three clearly overharvested BT populations or segments thereof. One was Codorus Ck, York Co, which was fully overharvested, and I established a special reg there. Another was overharvested in a single long pool where locals felt that a state record BT had been caught (Fishing Ck). The other was the segment of the BT population that exceeded roughly 14-15 in. (Ltl Lehigh). In two cases, the streams were being stocked very heavily at the time and received heavy fishing pressure. It was when the state was stocking 5.2 or so million trout vs 3.2 million today. The third case (Ltl Lehigh) was more contemporary.

This is not to say that all other populations were at full carrying capacity at all times. Natural variation certainly played an important role as did stocking at times. At the same time, however, most streams (trout) or other water bodies (most other freshwater and marine species) do not have to be at full capacity to have good fishing. We don’t say that about bass, crappie, walleye, catfish, stripers, etc Think about it: Why is it that only trout anglers, probably exclusively a vocal C&R minority, seem to think so?

 

[Susquehanna]

Great post Mike and I happen to agree with it but i want to try and answer your question.

This is not to say that all other populations were at full carrying capacity at all times. Natural variation certainly played an important role as did stocking at times. At the same time, however, most streams (trout) or other water bodies (most other freshwater and marine species) do not have to be at full capacity to have good fishing. We don’t say that about bass, crappie, walleye, catfish, stripers, etc Think about it: Why is it that only trout anglers, probably exclusively a vocal C&R minority, seem to think so?

It isnt just the C&R anglers, it is all trout anglers.
The PFBC angler use and creel survey indicates a large majority of trout anglers are C&R now correct?
The majority of vocal C&R anglers did not start out as C&R and also grew up fishing stocked trout waters.

The PFBC also did a trout residency study to determine what times to stock and species to stock to get most of those fish to stay closer to stocking points.
Why?

Is it to have the most fish in an area to increase the possiblity of angler success?

If streams do not need to be near carrying capacity to have a rewarding fishing experience, why stock half the streams in the state beyond that capacity?

Is it possible the PFBC policies have created two types of trout anglers?
Food for thought.

 

[k-bob]

Great post mike. Seems anglers overestimate the effect of angling on trout populations. Fishermen trying to influence the spread of browns probably would not make much of a difference.

Similarly, in Behnkes About Trout book, published by TU, he notes that given the high natural annual mortality of brook trout in small streams, well over 50%, cropping by anglers doesn't really explain small fish sizes, because released fish probably would not live too long anyhow.

He also notes that while genetics can influence fish size, cropping of larger fish by anglers doesn't really explain small fish sizes via genetics, because the larger/older fish have already spawned, so their influence is already in the population

Rather than angler-driven cropping and genetic impacts explaining small ST in small streams, he just calls these fish "short lived and slow growing"... guess that is high natural annual mortality, well over 50%, in infertile waters.

Thanks again

I am 100% catch and release of all trout btw, more as a habit but dont want to believe it is more important than it really is

 

[troutbert]

Unexploited fisheries have more large fish than other fisheries.

This is true for trout and other species.