Challenge to all Trout Camps

[Stenonema]

There have always been different camps concerning interests in Pennsylvania's trout management. I have noticed that the different camps first speak to what divides them. These differences define the walls that separate them. The PFBC needs all the camps to buy licenses. The PFBC becomes the voice of the anglers. The more the voice crosses camps the more unified they become. The more unified our voices the better our chances of achieving change. Communication is the key to breaking down the walls.
A big problem I have noticed is that we start every conversation by speaking first to what divides us.
Our wild trout resources deserve better. With urgency we should search all angles for their benefit.

The Challenge: With your comments speak to what is common amongst the Wild Trout Camp and the Native Brook Trout Camp.
Rule: No negativity

 

[silverfox]

Advocating specifically for native brook trout conservation means advocating that PFBC addresses ALL threats to native brook trout. Agriculture, land use, climate change, sedimentation, stocking nonnative trout, wild nonnative trout, pollution, deforestation, riparian protections, habitat improvement etc. etc. etc.

Explain how someone solely focused on native brook trout conservation is supposed to advocate in support of one of the threats to the species? It would be like me promoting the destruction of riparian habitat to support the forestry industry.

What you're suggesting is that someone like me turns a blind eye to one of the threats to brook trout because someone else likes that threat. Should I turn a blind eye to stocking because people like stocked trout? Should I turn a blind eye to industrial pollution because it's good for the economy?

 

[Fish Sticks]

I think as silver-fox said if your trying to prevent the loss of native brook trout an other sensitive species you have to acknowledge the effects of invasive species like brown and rainbow trout. However, that being said I don’t think that is negativity for a few reasons.

Acknowledging what the problems are where we have native brook trout or other sensitive species is an unavoidable part of conservation.

I don’t want to get to a place where listening to fisheries science gets branded as negativity or “virtue signaling”. If you are having a serious medical issue you want an expert that has devoted their lives to understanding how to treat that issue and often who is doing research themselves on how to advance the field. We have a serious problem facing our native brook trout and if we are serious about intervening we want to follow fisheries science experts who have devoted their lives to issues facing native fish of high conservation need, conduct research to determine the relationships between different factors in play, and make recommendations on how to mitigate the harmful ones.

Now that being said I don’t think the angler who loves wild brown trout and the scientists and people doing volunteer work for native fish conservation have to have some perceived negative or antagonistic relationship. I think we know brown trout have been assigned a very high social value in this state and in many more cases than not their removal is currently not even feasible logistically and their social value combined with that ensures high quality fisheries for them will be abundant in this state for a long time.

I think its wrong to frame it as two camps of people because its really just separating fishing and conservation within the individual person. I can enjoy fishing for brown trout, and i do, and know that when i go to a spring creek or little J thats managed for physical water quality conservation and social purposes/anglers not for species conservation and when I got to a savage river or an otter creek in WV thats managed for both the aquatic ecosystem/native fish and the angler.

Recognizing that brown trout are the third largest threat to native brook trout in Pa doesn’t mean we can or are getting rid of all of them. I don’t view it as negative to brown trout because I don’t want invasive brook trout dumped in Iceland lakes with native brown trout. I just want to preserve as many different trout species as possible on this blue rock and thats what fisheries scientists are trying to do when they list the threats to them.

These trophy brown trout blue ribbon streams aren’t under attack and when we understand that and know our fishing experience is not changing we can look objectively at the facts and help brook trout in a few places with out being negative at all. It should be the division between different disciplines (conservation and fishing) in each of us, not between people.

 

[pcray1231]

I think in general everyone on this board is in agreement on a focus of enhancing wild trout resources over stocked resources, where possible. As such, we are for the most part in agreement over physical stream quality issues. For example, thermal issues, siltation/sedimentation issues, pollution in general, etc. If a cold water stream were harmed by a small impoundment, I think pretty much everyone would jump on board with bypassing said impoundment. I think everyone is in favor of riparian buffers along waterways, reducing runoff, and things of that nature. And I think 100% would be for removing at least some streams from the stocking list. I think virtually all are in favor of having more stream miles designated under special regulations of some sort, such as artificials only and catch and release, especially wild trout stream miles.

Many may take those approaches to different extremes. Where one guy think stocking should be ceased state wide, some want it stopped only on stream sections with wild trout, and some on only stream sections with wild trout above a certain biomass threshold.

And there's a huge argument on whether the focus should be wild trout in general, or specifically, brook trout. Should wild brown trout be protected and cherished, or treated as a problematic invasive species? And plenty of nuanced views will say it depends on the stream, that question has different answers in different situations.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I think in general everyone on this board is in agreement on a focus of enhancing wild trout resources over stocked resources, where possible. As such, we are for the most part in agreement over physical stream quality issues. For example, thermal issues, siltation/sedimentation issues, pollution in general, etc. If a cold water stream were harmed by a small impoundment, I think pretty much everyone would jump on board with bypassing said impoundment. I think everyone is in favor of riparian buffers along waterways, reducing runoff, and things of that nature. And I think 100% would be for removing at least some streams from the stocking list. I think virtually all are in favor of having more stream miles designated under special regulations of some sort, such as artificials only and catch and release, especially wild trout stream miles.

Many may take those approaches to different extremes. Where one guy think stocking should be ceased state wide, some want it stopped only on stream sections with wild trout, and some on only stream sections with wild trout above a certain biomass threshold.

And there's a huge argument on whether the focus should be wild trout in general, or specifically, brook trout. Should wild brown trout be protected and cherished, or treated as a problematic invasive species? And plenty of nuanced views will say it depends on the stream, that question has different answers in different situations.

Yea and I think brown trout can be cherished from a fishing experience standpoint in a place like spring creek by many Pennsylvania anglers while those same anglers understand they are an invasive species and that we can pick some other areas in PA to prioritize for native brook trout with that understanding from a conservation standpoint.

It goes back to separating fishing and conservation and understanding that its not about disliking one species or another. Its about valuing all trout species in their native ranges because thats how we keep all these trout and salmon species around worldwide instead of winding up eventually with 2 or 3 of them and having 25 others go extinct.

“Approximately 42 percent of threatened or endangered species are at risk due to invasive species. Human health and economies are also at risk from invasive species. The impacts of invasive species on our natural ecosystems and economy cost billions of dollars each year.”

Invasive Species | National Wildlife Federation

Invasive species are among the leading threats to native wildlife. Learn about how they spread and how they threaten native wildlife in the United States.

www.nwf.org

That above quote highlights that if we ignore invasive species we are going to be left with a lot less species world wide. So you can see its not about hating any species because its probably experiencing invasive impacts where its native in its range from what its destroying where its not native. In fact there is a whole article about this.

https://www.montana.edu/mcmahon/Paradox%20book%20chapter.pdf

 

[Matt_Geiman]

I think in general everyone on this board is in agreement on a focus of enhancing wild trout resources over stocked resources, where possible. As such, we are for the most part in agreement over physical stream quality issues. For example, thermal issues, siltation/sedimentation issues, pollution in general, etc. If a cold water stream were harmed by a small impoundment, I think pretty much everyone would jump on board with bypassing said impoundment. I think everyone is in favor of riparian buffers along waterways, reducing runoff, and things of that nature. And I think 100% would be for removing at least some streams from the stocking list. I think virtually all are in favor of having more stream miles designated under special regulations of some sort, such as artificials only and catch and release, especially wild trout stream miles.

Many may take those approaches to different extremes. Where one guy think stocking should be ceased state wide, some want it stopped only on stream sections with wild trout, and some on only stream sections with wild trout above a certain biomass threshold.

And there's a huge argument on whether the focus should be wild trout in general, or specifically, brook trout. Should wild brown trout be protected and cherished, or treated as a problematic invasive species? And plenty of nuanced views will say it depends on the stream, that question has different answers in different situations.

Agree. We just need to be careful that the argument of wild vs native doesn't distract from getting done those things that we do agree on.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Agree. We just need to be careful that the argument of wild vs native doesn't distract from getting done those things that we do agree on.

So in some watersheds where invasive trout are mostly stocked I think you could say like you did that we can all focus against stocked trout regardless of the reason and native fish can come out on top.

An example would be the section of restored habitat for brook trout in shavers fork WV where stocking was ceased and that addressed the majority of invasive species found at least in the immediate study area from what I understand.


However, as a counter point here is an example where everyone said lets not worry about wild invasive vs. wild native like you suggested and focused on habitat and water quality instead.

Read the abstract below to see what the result was. Alot of time people think if we just focus on everything else( water temp,habitat, water quality) that native trout will do ok. But as this case study shows wild invasive trout can be the dominant limiting impairment and improving habitat can actually help them displace native brook trout. This stream was 12 deg celcius. All the cold clean water in the world couldn’t save a stream that was 96% brook trout and 4% brown trout for the 3150% increase in brown trout after this project done in the name of brook trout.

“ABSTRACT: In 2007-2011, the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources and the Kiap-TU-Wish Chapter of Trout Unlimited conducted an extensive stream restoration project at Pine Creek, a native brook trout stream in the Driftless Area of Wisconsin. Primary project objectives were to remedy severe stream bank erosion and increase brook trout abundance by 40-50%. The project restored 2.11 stream miles at a cost of $270,000. In 2009, the Pine Creek Restoration Project was recognized by the National Fish Habitat Action Plan as one of 10 national “Waters to Watch”. Key elements of a monitoring program to evaluate project success included physical and biological attributes measured pre- and post-restoration. Physical attributes included stream temperature and habitat (stream width, water depth, water velocity, canopy cover, stream bank height and cover, and stream bed substrate). Biological attributes included macrophytes, macroinvertebrates, and trout. Beneficial project outcomes included: a decrease in stream temperature, a reduction in stream width, greatly reduced stream bank heights and erosion potential, and increases in water depth, stream bank cover, presence of coarse stream bed substrate, and macrophyte presence. Unanticipated project outcomes included: no change in canopy cover, a decrease in water velocity, no significant improvement in macroinvertebrate metrics, and a significant increase in brown trout abundance and decrease in brook trout abundance. Within eight years post-restoration, numbers of brook trout per mile decreased by 70% (3,800 to 1,200), while numbers of brown trout per mile increased by 3,150% (175 to 5,600). A continuation of this trend may lead to the loss of the brook trout fishery. With brook trout being the only native trout species in the Driftless Area, this project highlights the need for appropriate restoration techniques that can protect and enhance brook trout in streams that could be subject to brown trout co-habitation.”

https://www.kiaptuwish.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Pine-Creek-Case-Study_Final-Presentation-Manuscript_Wild-Trout-Symposium_0917.pdf

 

[silverfox]

I think in general everyone on this board is in agreement on a focus of enhancing wild trout resources over stocked resources, where possible. As such, we are for the most part in agreement over physical stream quality issues. For example, thermal issues, siltation/sedimentation issues, pollution in general, etc. If a cold water stream were harmed by a small impoundment, I think pretty much everyone would jump on board with bypassing said impoundment. I think everyone is in favor of riparian buffers along waterways, reducing runoff, and things of that nature. And I think 100% would be for removing at least some streams from the stocking list. I think virtually all are in favor of having more stream miles designated under special regulations of some sort, such as artificials only and catch and release, especially wild trout stream miles.

Many may take those approaches to different extremes. Where one guy think stocking should be ceased state wide, some want it stopped only on stream sections with wild trout, and some on only stream sections with wild trout above a certain biomass threshold.

And there's a huge argument on whether the focus should be wild trout in general, or specifically, brook trout. Should wild brown trout be protected and cherished, or treated as a problematic invasive species? And plenty of nuanced views will say it depends on the stream, that question has different answers in different situations.

I agree that we're all likely on the same page about environmental issues. There are a lot of people, organizations, and state and federal agencies focused on cleaning up the environment.

In my opinion, we lack focused advocacy and action on biotic issues. I can confidently say that I'm not the only one who sees this issue.

The issue isn't a competition between two camps, no matter how hard people try to make it so. Chris Wood attempted to address the problem, and I think he clarified TU's position on native, wild, and stocked trout. TU's priorities are in that order.

Native And Wild - Trout Unlimited

If you want to get normally serene trout anglers wound up, just wade into the “hatchery vs. wild/native” debate. I know of at least three organizations that were formed because of disagreements with Trout Unlimited chapters over hatchery and wild fish

www.tu.org

The state wildlife action plan establishes priorities as well. Brook trout are the only salmonid listed in need of conservation efforts in Pennsylvania. In fact, brown trout are listed as a threat to brook trout right in this plan.

https://www.fishandboat.com/Resource/Documents/SWAP-CHAPTER-1-apx14e-fish.pdf

Pennsylvania is a signatory of the Chesapeake bay goal that establishes brook trout as a species in need of restoration.

Brook Trout - Chesapeake Progress

There are 13,500 square kilometers of streams in the Chesapeake Bay watershed that wild brook trout occupy without having to share habitat with rainbow or brown trout.

www.chesapeakeprogress.com

My only goal is to support these established conservation priorities and bring attention to an important issue that many anglers find difficult to face. I didn't come up with the priorities, and they aren't opinions. They're established plans based on science rather than emotions.

 

[Stenonema]

You failed. The challenge.

Advocating specifically for native brook trout conservation means advocating that PFBC addresses ALL threats to native brook trout. Agriculture, land use, climate change, sedimentation, stocking nonnative trout, wild nonnative trout, pollution, deforestation, riparian protections, habitat improvement etc. etc. etc.

Explain how someone solely focused on native brook trout conservation is supposed to advocate in support of one of the threats to the species? It would be like me promoting the destruction of riparian habitat to support the forestry industry.

What you're suggesting is that someone like me turns a blind eye to one of the threats to brook trout because someone else likes that threat. Should I turn a blind eye to stocking because people like stocked trout? Should I turn a blind eye to industrial pollution because it's good for the economy?

 

[Fish Sticks]

I think PA got to were it is today with the rampant harmful effects of hatchery trout because the fisheries science of why we should not stock over brook trout was not shared with people. I think withholding more fisheries science from people due to concerns that it may cause some argument sets us up for a repeat of history. I don’t think it’s healthy to paint sharing fisheries science= personal attack on a fish or a person.

 

[silverfox]

You failed. The challenge.

Oh darn. Does that mean I don't get a t-shirt?

You failed in your initial post when you divided the "wild trout camp" and "native brook trout camp." Native brook trout are part of the wild trout camp aren't they? Why keep dividing things up into two groups of people? It's not about people, right?

I'm really not clear at all about what you're trying to accomplish or the point of this thread other than to sew further division. TU does outstanding conservation work that supports wild native trout, wild nonnative trout, and water quality in general. TU has been working on getting stocking stopped over wild trout for years. So what exactly is it that you're doing that is unlike what TU has been doing or already does? What initiative is it here that you're suggesting one "camp" doesn't support?

 

[CRB]

I would like to see access as one of the priorities. I feel that if the PAFBC is going to work on habitat that habitat has to be open to fishermen.
If not than TU is the work horse for the habitat work.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I would like to see access as one of the priorities. I feel that if the PAFBC is going to work on habitat that habitat has to be open to fishermen.
If not than TU is the work horse for the habitat work.

Yea i think 12.4 million dollars spent on hatchery fish program as of 2009(probably has increased a sig amount) could buy alot of access but also that access could serve as a conservation easement around the stream corridor as well.

Habitat work for trout isn’t always a good thing. A prime example would be this case study I have linked below. Habitat work actually allowed an invasive trout species to displace native brook trout. This case study is not a lone example, we have examples where this has happened in PA anecdotally but more importantly we have multiple high quality well designed controlled studies done in west virginia establishing the basis for why this happens. Invasive trout displace brook trout from habitat projects and use them to grow and multiply and displace native brook trout. We don’t have a good solution to this yet so we have to be careful where habitat work is done where both species exist. It will be interesting to see what further guidance on this topic comes from Dr. Brock Huntsman, Dr. Cory Trego, and other fisheries scientists advancing the field of restoration for native brook trout.

https://www.kiaptuwish.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Pine-Creek-Case-Study_Final-Presentation-Manuscript_Wild-Trout-Symposium_0917.pdf

 

[troutbert]

Yea i think 12.4 million dollars spent on hatchery fish program as of 2009(probably has increased a sig amount) could buy alot of access but also that access could serve as a conservation easement around the stream corridor as well.

Habitat work for trout isn’t always a good thing. A prime example would be this case study I have linked below. Habitat work actually allowed an invasive trout species to displace native brook trout. This case study is not a lone example, we have examples where this has happened in PA anecdotally but more importantly we have multiple high quality well designed controlled studies done in west virginia establishing the basis for why this happens. Invasive trout displace brook trout from habitat projects and use them to grow and multiply and displace native brook trout. We don’t have a good solution to this yet so we have to be careful where habitat work is done where both species exist. It will be interesting to see what further guidance on this topic comes from Dr. Brock Huntsman, Dr. Cory Trego, and other fisheries scientists advancing the field of restoration for native brook trout.

https://www.kiaptuwish.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Pine-Creek-Case-Study_Final-Presentation-Manuscript_Wild-Trout-Symposium_0917.pdf

The solutions are pretty well known, IMHO. It's real restoration, not habitat structure building.

Putting Lunker structures and rock cross vanes in channelized streams is not real restoration and not close.

What should be done is restoring the stream/floodplain system to something close to what originally existed pre-settlement.

Real restoration of stream/floodplain systems would not eliminate brown trout, but it would be much more favorable to brook trout than adding Lunker structures and cross-vanes to ditches, because you'd have far more diverse habitat.

I used to do slide show presentations on these topics. I haven't done so for awhile, but could again if people are interested.

Real restoration improves populations of trout whether those be all brookie, all brown, or mixed population. So, I think that is relevant to the OP.

It also benefits a huge variety of plants and animals, in addition to trout.

Stream restoration is a huge topic, so exploring it deeper might best be done in another thread.

 

[Stenonema]

Oh darn. Does that mean I don't get a t-shirt?

You failed in your initial post when you divided the "wild trout camp" and "native brook trout camp." Native brook trout are part of the wild trout camp aren't they? Why keep dividing things up into two groups of people? It's not about people, right?

I'm really not clear at all about what you're trying to accomplish or the point of this thread other than to sew further division. TU does outstanding conservation work that supports wild native trout, wild nonnative trout, and water quality in general. TU has been working on getting stocking stopped over wild trout for years. So what exactly is it that you're doing that is unlike what TU has been doing or already does? What initiative is it here that you're suggesting one "camp" doesn't support?

I apologize. I was on the deer stand and after I replied that you had failed the Challenge I thought you might react the way you did. It wasn't my intention. I own that one because I know where I stand with you and why.
I'm looking for common ground. That is my motive.. Look where this went and how quickly. Just speak to the common ground. No negativity.

We are all intelligent adults and well enough adapted to be able to communicate productively.

 

[silverfox]

I apologize. I was on the deer stand and after I replied that you had failed the Challenge I thought you might react the way you did. It wasn't my intention. I own that one because I know where I stand with you and why.
I'm looking for common ground. That is my motive.. Look where this went and how quickly. Just speak to the common ground. No negativity.

We are all intelligent adults and well enough adapted to be able to communicate productively.

Explain what it is you're trying to accomplish.

 

[silverfox]

The solutions are pretty well known, IMHO. It's real restoration, not habitat structure building.

Putting Lunker structures and rock cross vanes in channelized streams is not real restoration and not close.

What should be done is restoring the stream/floodplain system to something close to what originally existed pre-settlement.

Real restoration of stream/floodplain systems would not eliminate brown trout, but it would be much more favorable to brook trout than adding Lunker structures and cross-vanes to ditches, because you'd have far more diverse habitat.

I used to do slide show presentations on these topics. I haven't done so for awhile, but could again if people are interested.

My question is, can biotic issues be solved with habitat alone?

 

[JeffP]

Yea i think 12.4 million dollars spent on hatchery fish program as of 2009(probably has increased a sig amount) could buy alot of access but also that access could serve as a conservation easement around the stream corridor as well.

Habitat work for trout isn’t always a good thing. A prime example would be this case study I have linked below. Habitat work actually allowed an invasive trout species to displace native brook trout. This case study is not a lone example, we have examples where this has happened in PA anecdotally but more importantly we have multiple high quality well designed controlled studies done in west virginia establishing the basis for why this happens. Invasive trout displace brook trout from habitat projects and use them to grow and multiply and displace native brook trout. We don’t have a good solution to this yet so we have to be careful where habitat work is done where both species exist. It will be interesting to see what further guidance on this topic comes from Dr. Brock Huntsman, Dr. Cory Trego, and other fisheries scientists advancing the field of restoration for native brook trout.

https://www.kiaptuwish.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Pine-Creek-Case-Study_Final-Presentation-Manuscript_Wild-Trout-Symposium_0917.pdf

Studies like this certainly seem to suggest that stream improvement does help the brown. But what about streams without improvement projects? Streams like Hammer and the Segloch survived for years with mainly brookies and a few browns. What made them suddenly (kind of) become almost exclusively brown trout streams? My guess would be siltation but its not like these streams haven't had that for decades. I know the Segloch just looks different than it did when I fished it as a kid. Brookie streams just have a look about them. Interestingly as well is the fact that back then there were stream improvement devices. Half the brookies I caught were from the jack dams.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The solutions are pretty well known, IMHO. It's real restoration, not habitat structure building.

Putting Lunker structures and rock cross vanes in channelized streams is not real restoration and not close.

What should be done is restoring the stream/floodplain system to something close to what originally existed pre-settlement.

Real restoration of stream/floodplain systems would not eliminate brown trout, but it would be much more favorable to brook trout than adding Lunker structures and cross-vanes to ditches, because you'd have far more diverse habitat.

I used to do slide show presentations on these topics. I haven't done so for awhile, but could again if people are interested.

Real restoration improves populations of trout whether those be all brookie, all brown, or mixed population. So, I think that is relevant to the OP.

It also benefits a huge variety of plants and animals, in addition to trout.

Stream restoration is a huge topic, so exploring it deeper might best be done in another thread.

I think that we have some observations on presence of larger brown trout based on certain depths and types if cover from the drift-less region that show these deep overhead structures like lunker bunkers are bad when both species are present as tou mentioned. I would tens to agree with you that flood pain connection by itself is good for all fish in the stream most likely and macro-invertebrates. It seems like with no definitive way to go figured out at this point yet that this is the safest way to go(otherwise I would not be doing it on hammer creek) but just to be clear there is not yet data that I am aware of that confirms this without the usual habitat structures. The other problems are your the volunteer not the consultant in this equation and many feel
Strongly about putting these structures in a rdesigned channel within a restored flood plain. So while this may be the safest way to proceed for now we can’t take it to the bank yet and its actually a current research gap I have discussed with a few different brook trout ecology PhD’s. As to silver foxes point, it may not be as harmful as a lunker bunker armor up the banks strategy but it won’t address the biotic issues of invasive species and we don’t havebhard data yet to even be sure that it will mitigate invasive species. Its just the best thing we can currently come up with based on observational data from diftless region.

 

[silverfox]

Studies like this certainly seem to suggest that stream improvement does help the brown. But what about streams without improvement projects? Streams like Hammer and the Segloch survived for years with mainly brookies and a few browns. What made them suddenly (kind of) become almost exclusively brown trout streams? My guess would be siltation but its not like these streams haven't had that for decades. I know the Segloch just looks different than it did when I fished it as a kid. Brookie streams just have a look about them. Interestingly as well is the fact that back then there were stream improvement devices. Half the brookies I caught were from the jack dams.

One thing that's severely lacking in PA is actual documented surveys on species composition. PFBC is aware of this, as it was one of the main components of the most recent trout management plan.

I hear a lot of anecdotal reports from anglers, and I'm guilty of perceiving shifts in species biomass based on angling too. There may be cases where the shift is so obvious that it's a correct assumption that something has happened based on angling experiences. In other cases, maybe our rose-colored glasses looking back through time, are a bit deceiving. Regardless, there is a significant difference between historical survey data and angler recollection. Things like "well, brown trout and brook trout are both in the stream and have been my entire life" doesn't mean that everything is fine. I'm not suggesting that's what you're saying here, but I've heard that exact line used as "justification" that brown trout and brook trout "coexist."

In the one study Fishsticks has posted (I don't recall which one), the researchers theorized that a few bad years of recruitment (or maybe even one) can tip the balance to where the species can't recover, and the other takes over. Once they're gone, or reduced significantly enough, it's tough or impossible for them to come back on their own without help. A severe flood at the wrong time, a bad drought, ice, etc. etc. etc. that might nearly wipe out a cohort or two could diminish populations to so low of a level that they can't recover in a marginal stream.

To really understand what might have happened in Segloch, someone should have been monitoring species composition. Without that, it's just a WAG.