brown trout selective harvest?

[k-bob]

Behnke About Trout, page 205:

"Several studies on small stream populations of brook trout in Wisconsin and Michigan in the 1950s and 60s showed that population abundance and age-size structure were unaffected by any type of regulation that limited or even eliminated the kill. Reducing mortality due to angling during the fishing season only resulted in a proportionate increase in natural mortality, especially during the winter, so that the total annual mortality remained unchanged." (emphasis added w italics)

3 Pages later he notes that brook trout are "short-lived and slow-growing" ... imho a good explanation for relatively small fish sizes.

On page 121 he expresses very clear skepticism that angler cropping would ever change the size of wild trout populations through genetics, because the larger cropped fish have already spawned.

So imho anglers may overestimate their impact on wild trout populations.

 

[glamcaster]

Wow, blown away by the amount conversation this post is spurring.
Thanks for sharing--regardless of where your opinions/ideals for wild trout management.

To an extent, some of you furthered my understanding of our wild trout waters. Exchanges like these are more important than ever, and too seldom in Harrisburg..

I agree, my original post is controversial in some ways. I just didn't expect the influx of judgement mixed in with the informative. To those entertaining NATIVE Brook Trout harvest in retaliation..ew. This question stems from genuine concern for our brook trout populations alongside browns. I wouldn't ask for advice on harvesting legal, non-native brown trout if I didn't see the joy in any wild trout biome. When imparting wisdom or word vomit, please reevaluate your intent sometimes. Larkmark, what's with the fan behavior trolling my old stream reports? :roll:

I'm biased towards native brook trout because of my generation I would say, which is my bad. I lived through the brook trout extirpation in Crabby Creek, and it bums me out not knowing what they would have looked like. Dark color? Peppermint anal fins? I will say that brook trout only-range there was quite confined. Sarce shared some fascinating info with me on Chester Co's vanishing brook trout populations. That's just my experience on the frontline of their range here. There are probably a good deal of forum members with closer geography or teeth-cutting with robust populations. I thought some anglers were apathetic about future Pa Brookie stocks in exchange for sportier browns at first. I was wrong--we all just seem to feel differently about the undisputed stronghold of Brown trout populations i

Regardless, I appreciate the advice and wince as I type this

 

[Mike]

There is a lot more to producing large fish than just limiting exploitation. Just one example from the stream trout world, which happens to be a major factor in Pa....if you don’t have suitable habitat for larger fish in a given stream, you will not have larger fish. Exploitation will have nothing to do with it. A fine example is the Spring Ck and Logan Branches of old. Logan Branch is a Spring Ck trib . Both were stocked and had high exploitation, yet Spring Ck, as today, had very limited numbers of trophy size fish. In contrast, Logan Branch was loaded. In electrofishing from Axeman to Pleasant Gap, which I think is about 1.5 mi, prior to that year’s spring stocking one electrofishing pass produced 270 browns 14 inches and longer. Twenty-seven of those fish were 20 inches to 27 inches. Logan Branch had great big fish habitat, tremendous forage, good temperatures, and heavy fishing pressure/harvest for stocked trout to the extent that the vast majority were harvested, leaving little competition for the big browns that thrived year after year. As an aside, this was a good example of how hard it is to overharvest large brown trout, and especially if the forage base is good.

 

[glamcaster]

k-bob wrote:

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

Thanks for sharing

This has been a major source of confusion for me since I've transitioned to a kick of smaller brook trout streams. The age classes are so confusing to me, particularly as I've seen a variety of populations. I simply forget that 5 inches is sexually mature on a lot of creeks. At least when it boils down to it, they have some biological edge on browns hence their headwater strongholds

 

[troutbert]

glamcaster wrote:

k-bob wrote:

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

Thanks for sharing

This has been a major source of confusion for me since I've transitioned to a kick of smaller brook trout streams. The age classes are so confusing to me, particularly as I've seen a variety of populations. I simply forget that 5 inches is sexually mature on a lot of creeks. At least when it boils down to it, they have some biological edge on browns hence their headwater strongholds

Are brook trout doing much spawning at 5 inches? Where does this info come from?

Some years ago, the PFBC raised the size limit from 6 inches to 7 inches, so that more brook trout would have a chance to spawn.

Even if some 5 inch brookies do spawn, the amount of eggs produced by a 5 inch brookie is surely very small compared to that of an 8 inch brookie.

 

[Mike]

K-bob,
You’re right about short lived and slow growing.

It is a different ball game when fish are LONG-LIVED, slow growing, and low (I assume) density, such as lake trout in some Canadian lakes. There over-exploitation is guarded against with regulations of various types because the slow growth makes fish that are removed and get quite large with enough time difficult to replace in short order.

 

[Susquehanna]

Glam,

Dont wince and share or ask as you see fit.
Some people just have nothing better to do but poo poo on things or be fanboys.

I see nothing wrong with your question. I dont agree with it being effective but see nothing wrong in what you are legally doing

 

[afishinado]

I always discourage any of us becoming "bucket biologists." But if a few brown trout show up in "pure" brookie stream, keeping a few brownies, harvested legally, is not the worst thing for the stream. While I agree it likely won't help in the long run, I guess it can't really hurt.

My point in my past post is brown trout fishing is here to stay and I too like fishing for wild brownies. We are lucky to have thousands of miles of wild brown trout streams to fish in PA. But we should draw the line in the sand and set aside some wild brook trout streams, and do all that we can to keep them wild brook trout streams before they disappear.

 

[k-bob]

"Are brook trout doing much spawning at 5 inches? Where does this info come from?"

don't see why not...

https://www.patroutintheclassroom.org/brook-trout.html
"At maturity, wild Brook Trout may be from five inches to 18 inches long, according to the availability of food in the home stream."

https://dnr.state.md.us/education/Documents/BrookTrout.pdf
"On average, brook trout reach sexual maturity around the age of 2 and spawn each year."

https://researchrepository.wvu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5377&context=etd
"Depending on juvenile rates of growth, brook trout mature at age-1 or-2 (Jonsson and Jonsson 1993), and have been observed to live up to 4 years of age within Appalachian systems (Whitworth and Strange 1983, Hining et al. 2000)."

http://www2.dnr.cornell.edu/cek7/nyfish/Salmonidae/brook_trout.html
"Their relatively short lifespan (typically five years maximum) and slow growth rates contribute to their generally small size."

https://easternbrooktrout.org/groups/whitewater-to-bluewater/species-spotlight/brook-trout-salvelinus-fontinalis#:~:text=Spawning%3A%20Spawning%20occurs%20sometime%20between,due%20to%20the%20available%20habitat.
"Spawning: Spawning occurs sometime between September and October and is dependent on water temperature. Maturity is usually attained at age 2 but can occur at age 1 in small streams where the trout tend to remain small due to the available habitat."

 

[k-bob]

forgive the geeking out on this, but here's a nice one: a UWV thesis "Factors influencing brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis ) abundance in forested headwater streams with emphasis on fine sediment". It measured brookies at maturity and 100mm is about 4 inches.

https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/230476523.pdf
"Mature brook trout were generally 100 mm in length and 1+ in age by the fall spawning period."

So imho anglers selectively keeping some relatively large brookies in a small stream wont stunt the population via genetics cause those fish have already spawned. Similarly, I doubt that an angler selectively keeping some BT caught in a place known for ST is going to do a lot. We just dont change things that much imho.

 

[jifigz]

Glamcaster, I think most people are joking around. I don't think anyone really has the intent of going out and keeping brookies out of spite....it was a joke, methinks.

This thread is a little ridiculous. I like it, but some people are acting a little crazy.

The main points and my take....1) Be thankful we have amazing fishing opportunities for wild brown trout. 2) Brookies are never coming back like they were in the past. 3) harvesting a few wild fish will have little overall impact on the stream or fishery. 4) referring to stocking numbers and the carrying capacity, in some cases lots of fish are stocked in particular streams for POLITICAL REASONS. 5) enjoy what we have, because we have it pretty dang good.

Now, as for conservation of the brookie. It will be fine I'm areas far from population. But population will never stop growing. Regardless of how much people love and care for the environment, money and places for more people to live will always win out. It's all the same.

Let's say we figured out that crows had a propensity to be hit by moving vehicles. For some reason, they just always seemed to get in the way, and their population was decreasing every year. We could identify the problem, we can make rational solutions, but do you think we'd stop traveling by motorized vehicles? No, because we are reliant upon it and basically we would willingly make crows extinct.

This same logic applies to species all over the world, right now..

 

[glamcaster]

afishinado wrote:
I always discourage any of us becoming "bucket biologists." But if a few brown trout show up in "pure" brookie stream, keeping a few brownies, harvested legally, is not the worst thing for the stream. While I agree it likely won't help in the long run, I guess it can't really hurt.

My point in my past post is brown trout fishing is here to stay and I too like fishing for wild brownies. We are lucky to have thousands of miles of wild brown trout streams to fish in PA. But we should draw the line in the sand and set aside some wild brook trout streams, and do all that we can to keep them wild brook trout streams before they disappear.

Well put! I love your coinage of "bucket biologist," lol. Perfectly describes some of the ambitious instincts I've been suffering. Yes, you're smart to caution against this mentality. Hopefully others take away these general sentiments from the forum at large.

For me, Hawk run was the "ahah" stream. My first fish in the "Class A brook" section, was an 8 inch brown. Not sure how he ascended a culvert--and hopefully he hasn't outwit the dam since. In the mixed section, I've landed 5 brooks to 25 browns. It's a uniquely somber thing, driving 90 miles and encountering human conquest where I didn't expect it. Anyone feel this, time-to-time?

(Pa)Brown trout are a marvelous species, sculpted to perfection by European evolution & 100+ years colonial isolation. Let's not lose sight that brook trout are CHAR. Protecting brook trout from non-native trout encroachment is the least we can do, IMO. As we've established, locally extirpating brown trout is impossible much of the time.

Everyone here has some agency in the future of our fisheries. Some of you have lots of influence in decisions being made TODAY, that WILL impact tomorrow. Please consider the fisheries younger anglers will "inherit" in 10, 20, 50 years... While some view hand-sized brookies as undesirable, many of us go to great lengths for them. Future Pennsylvanians deserve accessible, well-managed native populations. Some of the pessimism here seems selfish to me, and those to come

 

[jifigz]

I don't think there is pessimism here, only realism. Our brookies are not going anywhere. There are certain streams where they will remain the dominant fish due to the nature and characteristics of the watershed. Brown trout are now the top dog. There is no changing that.

We will continue to have both..brookies will be isolated and remain in infertile mountain streams and browns will dominate nearly everything else..

 

[troutbert]

glamcaster wrote:

Everyone here has some agency in the future of our fisheries. Some of you have lots of influence in decisions being made TODAY, that WILL impact tomorrow. Please consider the fisheries younger anglers will "inherit" in 10, 20, 50 years... While some view hand-sized brookies as undesirable, many of us go to great lengths for them. Future Pennsylvanians deserve accessible, well-managed native populations. Some of the pessimism here seems selfish to me, and those to come

I think there are many things that can be done to improve brook trout populations.

Ending stocking over brook trout populations would help a great deal. I have seen brook trout populations improve when stocking was ended. And I've fished brook trout streams before they were stocked, and saw how the brookie populations went down after stocking began.

Stocking over brook trout is very widespread in PA, both by the PFBC and the coop hatcheries.

There is a petition to end stocking over brook trout in the General Forums. Please sign it, if you haven't already.

There are also things that can be done on the physical habitat side. Many streams with brook trout populations have poor habitat from channelization, channel straightening, constraints from logging railroad grades, walls, berms, road grades, removal of large woody debris, suppression of riparian vegetation, logging right up the stream banks, etc.,

There are many opportunities to improve the physical habitat, which will improve brookie populations.

 

[silverfox]

Just wanted to mention that the whole "brook trout are short-lived" may be old news. I know some folks think the Mason Dixon prevents anything that happens in MD from being applicable in PA, but...

https://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/USR_Brook_Trout_Summary_2017.pdf

It's interesting that when you make brook trout C&R in 100+ miles of connected waterways including a fairly large one that they live 7+ years and reach larger sizes than are found pretty much anywhere in the entire waterlogged state of PA.

One other interesting note is that MD DNR is manually removing brown trout from Big Hunting Creek right now. Must be something to manual removal of BT or they wouldn't be doing it.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Good stuff Siverfox, one of the keys to their work seems to include the presence of the dam to prevent additional upstream movement of brown trout. I need to do more research on the population level of browns in the project area prior to the implementation of these regs.

 

[silverfox]

lycoflyfisher wrote:
Good stuff Siverfox, one of the keys to their work seems to include the presence of the dam to prevent additional upstream movement of brown trout. I need to do more research on the population level of browns in the project area prior to the implementation of these regs.

Interestingly, at one point there were browns up above the dam. At least that's what I've been told by DNR. Essentially, harvest regs (and possibly some electro fishing removal) eliminated them from the watershed. They currently still stock rainbows above the lake and are monitoring the impacts to this day. So far there has been little impact from the rainbows.

One other interesting note about the USR is that up until this year, you COULD harvest brook trout from the lake to popular lick and people did harvest them. With the new statewide regs implemented in January however, all brook trout in the entire watershed must be released now.

The other huge piece of information from the USR is that the mainstem is the fish size driver. They grow large because they use the mainstem over winter. Much like Shannon White found in the Loyalsock recently.

IF brook trout could use the lower mainstem all year around, they would likely get even bigger than they do now. There are thermal issues lower in the river though, so the use of the mainstem is limited to over-winter periods.

 

[glamcaster]

silverfox wrote:
Just wanted to mention that the whole "brook trout are short-lived" may be old news. I know some folks think the Mason Dixon prevents anything that happens in MD from being applicable in PA, but...

https://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/USR_Brook_Trout_Summary_2017.pdf

It's interesting that when you make brook trout C&R in 100+ miles of connected waterways including a fairly large one that they live 7+ years and reach larger sizes than are found pretty much anywhere in the entire waterlogged state of PA.

One other interesting note is that MD DNR is manually removing brown trout from Big Hunting Creek right now. Must be something to manual removal of BT or they wouldn't be doing it.

LOLLLLL to your first point, thanks for sharing some "southern" wisdom. South of the Mason Dixon, it seems brook trout management is more innovative as their range dwindles with the Appalachians. There is SO much missed opportunity in Pennsylvania for reconnecting and regulating ENTIRE watersheds of special value.