Challenge to all Trout Camps

[Tom1980]

]

But we are trying to change the current management of stocking over any wild trout populations no matter how small.

I agree that should happen. That was a quote from a PFBC employee, not in the study

 

[Tom1980]

Tom, I saw that article in the Outdoor News. As a reader I was drawn away initially from the subject of stocking over wild trout to the brown trout so much that I began to question if rainbows are a threat.
I am of the opinion that no population of native brook trout is too small to justify stocking over it. The smaller the pop the greater the need for protection. Once a stream is being stocked there is no way to ascertain any guess to the potential of the resource or the wild trout that exist there. I'm walking away. Have a great day.
Fish Stix, The petition was more than protection for brown trout. You don't need to tag them with the word invasive. It's not necessary for this conversation. There was no action on the wild life action plan as you stated then we need to consider other options. The value of the native brook trout is not high enough to warrant not stocking over them and casting shade on the brown trout doesn't elevate that status. It's a waste of time beating that drum. Please provide a better solution than to harp on the brown trout which isn't going anywhere.

See and here is my problem as I stated before, I won't ever support an action to to protect large migratory Brown trout unless protections for brook trout are put in place against these fish.

Everyone knows brown trout aren't going anywhere as far as existing in PA. The problem is the fish you are talking about go everywhere.

I gave my opinion. You want my support? Tell me how you are going to protect brook trout from this fish using large watery highways to spread genes.

 

[pcray1231]

I read the petition.

So the petition made it all about brown trout. IMO, that's a mistake.

But the opposition to it in the conservation community was because it was all about brown trout. IMO, also a mistake.

And I'm just shaking my head. The brown trout people say the smaller, cold water streams are nursery waters. The brook trout people say they are brook trout habitat. Ok. I understand the disagreement. I understand where these "camps" could butt heads in management practice. But in what was actually suggested, you don't butt heads!!!! The waters in discussion have wild trout in them. Browns, brookies, whatever. And the suggestion is to end stocking on them. Are we not in agreement on that point? Should not we shake hands and get that done, and then resume butting heads over what's next?

Brook trout people, instead of shooting it down, how about a suggestion to change the wording? Maybe point out that brookies are our state fish, and the focus of conservation, and ask them to amend it to protect wild trout in general. In the justification make BOTH arguments. It could benefit wild brown trout populations as well as native brook trout populations.

And brown trout people, if the brook trout camp came back with such a suggestion, in exchange for their support, why would there be any opposition to including their purpose as well in your position?

There's a place to disagree. But when both sides want exactly the same thing, to stop stocking on a stream important to wild trout, ummmm.

 

[Tom1980]

I read the petition.

So the petition made it all about brown trout. IMO, that's a mistake.

But the opposition to it in the conservation community was because it was all about brown trout. IMO, also a mistake.

And I'm just shaking my head. The brown trout people say the smaller, cold water streams are nursery waters. The brook trout people say they are brook trout habitat. Ok. I understand the disagreement. I understand where these "camps" could butt heads in management practice. But in what was actually suggested, you don't butt heads!!!! The waters in discussion have wild trout in them. Browns, brookies, whatever. And the suggestion is to end stocking on them. Are we not in agreement on that point? Should not we shake hands and get that done, and then resume butting heads over what's next?

Brook trout people, instead of shooting it down, how about a suggestion to change the wording? Maybe point out that brookies are our state fish, and the focus of conservation, and ask them to amend it to protect wild trout in general. In the justification make BOTH arguments. It could benefit wild brown trout populations as well as native brook trout populations.

And brown trout people, if the brook trout camp came back with such a suggestion, in exchange for their support, why would there be any opposition to including their purpose as well in your position?

There's a place to disagree. But when both sides want exactly the same thing, to stop stocking on a stream important to wild trout, ummmm.

Now hold on.
The reality is they are nursery waters to both species. The larger watersheds grow and spread out genes with larger fish.
Larger brook trout migrate also.

The problem is the petition deals with large migratory Brown trout and protecting those fish. Those fish spread their genes to the nursery waters. It isn't about just not stocking nursery waters.

It would only take one time for them to wonder into a all brook trout stream and begin to wipe them out with their off spring.

Your reply does not deal with that issue.

"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."

"Population planters"

 

[silverfox]

Brook trout people, instead of shooting it down, how about a suggestion to change the wording? Maybe point out that brookies are our state fish, and the focus of conservation, and ask them to amend it to protect wild trout in general. In the justification make BOTH arguments. It could benefit wild brown trout populations as well as native brook trout populations.

And brown trout people, if the brook trout camp came back with such a suggestion, in exchange for their support, why would there be any opposition to including their purpose as well in your position?

There's a place to disagree. But when both sides want exactly the same thing, to stop stocking on a stream important to wild trout, ummmm.

Herein lies the problem. Nobody asked. No brook trout people were given the opportunity to opine. It was either support it as published, or you're an obstructionist. Here we are.

I just want to make sure this is very clear. This is not a situation where we were asked to collaborate on crafting a position statement or the language in a petition, and we declined. It was written and published, and then we were asked to support it. It should be obvious why a native fish centric organization couldn't sign on as worded.

Again, look at the collaboration between NFC and TU on joint statements. We're not the obstructionists we're being painted to be.

 

[Tom1980]

Herein lies the problem. Nobody asked. No brook trout people were given the opportunity to opine. It was either support it as published, or you're an obstructionist. Here we are.

I just want to make sure this is very clear. This is not a situation where we were asked to collaborate on crafting a position statement or the language in a petition, and we declined. It was written and published, and then we were asked to support it. It should be obvious why a native fish centric organization couldn't sign on as worded.

Again, look at the collaboration between NFC and TU on joint statements. We're not the obstructionists we're being painted to be.

Bingo

 

[Tom1980]

Another thing to consider is this.

I was all in, I was on the wild trout network page.

I expressed my concern in a post later that I worry brook trout are getting ignored in this and got ridiculed by 40 members. Some seriously odd stuff to question a persons sanity, intelligence and integrity over the matter.

Eric was silent. I left that page.
The true colors were shown to me that day.

Its NOT about the fish.
In fact, it is breeding a type of angler I have nothing in common with in the conservation world.

 

[pcray1231]

Now hold on.
The reality is they are nursery waters to both species. The larger watersheds grow and spread out genes with larger fish.
Larger brook trout migrate also.

Thank you for making my point. So it would help brook trout.

The problem is the petition deals with large migratory Brown trout and protecting those fish. Those fish spread their genes to the nursery waters.

But you oppose it because it would also help brown trout.

It would only take one time for them to wonder into a all brook trout stream and begin to wipe them out with their off spring.

Your reply does not deal with that issue.

Because I don't really believe it's an issue. I think all of those brook trout streams already have the "doors open" to wondering brown trout. Allopatric brook trout streams are fairly rare to begin with, and those that do exist do so either because of a physical barrier, or a chemical/habitat one, that keeps the browns out. But not because of a lack of browns available to colonize them. To be honest, I'm not 100% sure I know of a single, truly allopatric brookie streams, and I'm a brookie guy! I know of lots where 99% of my catch is brookies. But I've caught 1 brown in enough of them, to know it's possible to catch 1 brown in pretty much all of the rest. The ONLY ones I even suspect could be allopatric are above waterfalls, and there's several that seem to be browns or mixed below the falls and all brookies above. Never have I thought, man, if the stream this runs into had browns, they'd come up here. Because the stream below DOES have browns, and if I'm not above a waterfall, browns could already come up here and probably have.

I have thought, you know, if this stream wasn't stocked it could really be better. I've thought that many times.

Both sides are being fairly pigheaded, IMO. This petition should not have been worded as it was, or stuffed down anyone's throats without allowing input. You don't ask for someone's support but not give them any say or ownership. At the same time, you don't refuse it outright without saying, hey, wait up, there's something to this that we like and could work together on here, lets talk. IT'S BENEFICIAL TO BOTH CAMPS.

 

[BrookieChaser]

The wild brown trout is the vehicle to get protection for native brook trout.

The brook trout is lost. The battle was fought on equal ground and they lost. They should be afforded protection where they remain, but this pipe dream, hatched in college environments where all variables are controlled, time is rewound, and the brook trout is restored to transfer PA into Labrador, is just that a pipe dream. I (like others have mentioned) get tired of the brook trout circle jerk that goes on in every thread once wild trout are mentioned. Those posts make me want to throw a few native brook trout to the raccoons. I just don't read them anymore. They're like a college lecture from a professor that spent their whole life in academia. I bought into the native trout narrative while studying fisheries in college, but soon realized in the real world it's a joke. Most of the public don't even know the definition of the terms "native" or "invasive" let alone care. Look at lanternflies, Japanese stilt grass or Japanese honey suckle. Hell the US don't even care about invasive people, they sure don't care about flora or fauna.

I think Pcray summed up the logical position, and hierarchy, better than I could. The brown trout isn't going anywhere, in fact they're the future if wild reproducing trout are to flourish. Trout stocking is for children and old people, and should be kept and done with triploid fish in water where there is easy access for those two groups with no impact to wild trout of any species.
Cutting stocking is seen by PFBC employees as a threat to their job. No stocking = no license sales = no job. Wild brown trout are the way to keep more license sales. Despite what women tell us, size matters, and trout size (both individual and population) entices fishermen which sells licenses therefore allowing the PFBC to switch to more wild trout centric management.

Thanks for livening up the forum at least.

I've said my peace, I'm going back to catching real fish in saltwater now.

 

[pcray1231]

lol. I won't say they are lost. There are streams going downhill and streams on the mend. But by and large, I think both wild brook trout and wild brown trout is in general getting better with time. It was better 20 years ago than it was 50 years ago, better today than 20 years ago, and will be better in 20 years than it is today.

Improved land use practices, reduction in acid deposition, acid mine reclamation, and improved management are the top "good" trends. There are threats as well, of course.

The acid deposition and acid mine reclamation are interesting for the brookie vs. brown thing. Dead streams become brookie streams first. But brookie streams sometimes turn to browns with improved pH. I've seen both happen in my lifetime.

 

[Tom1980]

lol. I won't say they are lost. There are streams going downhill and streams on the mend. But by and large, I think both wild brook trout and wild brown trout is in general getting better with time. It was better 20 years ago than it was 50 years ago, better today than 20 years ago, and will be better in 20 years than it is today.

Improved land use practices, reduction in acid deposition, acid mine reclamation, and improved management are the top "good" trends. There are threats as well, of course.

The acid deposition and acid mine reclamation are interesting for the brookie vs. brown thing. Dead streams become brookie streams first. But brookie streams sometimes turn to browns with improved pH. I've seen both happen in my lifetime.

And here you proved my point in your last paragraph. I've seen it too and AMD reclamation is a great place to restore brook trout populations.

But if we start enhancing a larger population of "population planter" trout, expect them to swim further, go places they normally didn't and plant populations where they didn't exist before. It's the very definition of being a population planter.

All I was asking is that consideration be given to our state fish to protect them from such invasion.

It isn't like playing God with fisheries has never gone wrong before, right?

It has nothing to do with not wanting to help brown trout. It has everything to do with protecting brook trout from them.

 

[pcray1231]

It has nothing to do with not wanting to help brown trout. It has everything to do with protecting brook trout from them.

You did it by abandoning a proposal for a study. That would explore a management change. That would in my opinion likely have shown to benefit brook trout more than brown trout, but possibly both.

We agree acid reclamation is an excellent source of new brook trout streams. But if brookies colonise them, it is not due to lack of a brown trout source. Whether the brown trout density in the stream below is class A or D. A source is there. If its colonized by brookies its because the habitat favors brookies, or there is a barrier preventing browns from coming up. The number of browns below isn't an issue.

Where barriers exist I am in favor of favoring brookies. But if a fish can swim from a major river to the location under consideration, then there is no lack of population planters. The species most suited to that water will win.

 

[Tom1980]

You did it by abandoning a proposal for a study. That would explore a management change. That would in my opinion likely have shown to benefit brook trout more than brown trout.

What was the end goal of the study again?
I posted it.

There is no mitigation measures mentioned for our native fish. I'm all for helping both species but not a the detriment to help one over the other and certainly not with the mentality it is breeding. Just let look at the comment you responded to from BrookieChaser.

Have you spent time on the wild trout network page and expressed concern for brook trout in this?

 

[Tom1980]

You did it by abandoning a proposal for a study. That would explore a management change. That would in my opinion likely have shown to benefit brook trout more than brown trout, but possibly both.

We agree acid reclamation is an excellent source of new brook trout streams. But if brookies colonise them, it is not due to lack of a brown trout source. Whether the brown trout density in the stream below is class A or D. A source is there. If its colonized by brookies its because the habitat favors brookies, or there is a barrier preventing browns from coming up. The number of browns below isn't an issue.

No it's the pH. Once cleaned up and the pH becomes favorable what are we doing to stop the browns from coming in?
Anything?

Or we just going to let the planter trout come in?

Nevermind your edit answered that question.

 

[silverfox]

You did it by abandoning a proposal for a study. That would explore a management change. That would in my opinion likely have shown to benefit brook trout more than brown trout, but possibly both.

Again, to clarify, no opportunity to have any say in what was proposed was extended. I just want it to be clearly understood that we didn't walk away from an opportunity to collaborate.

 

[pcray1231]

No it's the pH. Once cleaned up and the pH becomes favorable what are we doing to stop the browns from coming in?

IYeah its the pH.

I'm open to stopping them. But we're not stopping them now. Its binary, they either have access or they dont. Its not about how many or how big the ones with access are. I dont know of any way to prevent access except a physical barrier.

If in addition to ending stocking on wild trout streams, you wanna discuss taking the relatively rare allopatric brookie stream and putting up a barrier to keep it that way, then lets talk. I think thats something I could get on board with. Allopatric streams are an extreme minority so lets not miss the forest for the trees. Not denying there's a couple. But most of those already have barriers.

 

[Tom1980]

IYeah its the pH.

I'm open to stopping them. But we're not stopping them now. Its binary, they either have access or they dont. Its not about how many or how big the ones with access are. I dont know of any way to prevent access except a physical barrier.

If in addition to ending stocking on wild trout streams, you wanna discuss taking the relatively rare allopatric brookie stream and putting up a barrier to keep it that way, then lets talk. I think thats something I could get on board with. Allopatric streams are an extreme minority so lets not miss the forest for the trees.

You are the first person to express that in all of this.

Do you see the problem?

The speed at which a higher density of traveling trout will decimate our state fish IS a problem, if we never discuss how to stop it.

I see the forest, the trees aren't blinding me.

 

[pcray1231]

Allopatric brook trout streams are very rare as it is. Almost all of them are due to a natural barrier, most often a waterfall.

Streams which are 99% brookies are very common. Those streams do not lack population planters. The reason the brookies take the drivers seat is habitat, whether acid, or gradient, or a myriad of other reasons.

In neither case would having "more and bigger browns downstream" be a detriment. The concern you are showing doesn't exist in my experience, and I have plenty of experience fishing the small streams all over this state. I am not claiming there isn't an exception, and if you have one, I'd love to discuss it. I love this stuff..

What I do see, commonly, is relatively average streams with truly well mixed populations that also get stocked. IMO the fact that its stocked hurts both species, but the brookies more, because they are easier to catch, and easier to kill accidently, with "stocked fish tactics". Edung the stocking may benefit both species, but it would especially benefit brookies. As far as creel size, it doesnt matter. If you end the stocking, harvest all but ends anyway to the point that its meaningless compared to incidental mortality, and that decreases greatly too when you get the first weekenders and done off the stream. Bait, spin, or fly, those tromping up unstocked streams have far lower incidental mortality too.

 

[troutbert]

If in addition to ending stocking on wild trout streams, you wanna discuss taking the relatively rare allopatric brookie stream and putting up a barrier to keep it that way, then lets talk. I think thats something I could get on board with. Allopatric streams are an extreme minority so lets not miss the forest for the trees. Not denying there's a couple. But most of those already have barriers.

Streams with brook trout only are not rare. I've fished many of them.

The reason on most is low pH because of infertile geology + acid precipitation.

There are areas of PA with infertile geology where such streams are common.

You find similar situations in other states. Shenandoah Park for example.

 

[pcray1231]

The reason on most is low pH because of infertile geology + acid precipitation

I used to think that too. And I know you have lots of experience too.

But on virtually all of them, a brown has turned up, either by me or a reliable source. On a lot of brook trout streams, if we know someones gonna be on it, we ask them to tell us if they turn up a brown. Over the years its amazing that a stream you know of 1000's of brook trout, and then, yep, 1 brown.

The only ones I even suspect may be allopatric anymore, are above waterfalls, or else recently reclaimed from acid. And I will say I dont think there's a single one I'm 100% sure of. Would love to compare notes in PM to see if any of your suspected allopatric streams, or mine, are refuted by the other.