Challenge to all Trout Camps

[silverfox]

Your asking me to define the differences. The point I was making is that is where we start. I see that as a problem. What do you and I have in common. You know me, we have talked.

The differences are critical, though. You're suggesting that I abandon my principles in order to support yours. That's what this comes down to.

The common ground is the general disdain for stocking over "wild trout." That's the answer you've been looking for since your OP, and it's not lost on me.

Now that that's out of the way, what's the plan? If it involves myself or our organization supporting efforts to increase or proliferate nonnative trout, then it's never going to happen. That's what I've been trying to get at since my first response. Your post is an effort to get two factions to cooperate, and while that's commendable, as I said, the differences are critical. I've told you repeatedly that it makes no sense whatsoever for a native-centric organization to support any efforts to improve wild non-native trout. We're not TU. If you want a juggernaut in the fish conservation world to support whatever it is you're suggesting, I suggest you talk to TU.

It's not like I'm unwilling to work with a "wild trout" generalist. Heck, I was driving rebar through logs with a power hammer a few weeks ago on a TU project in a mixed population tributary. I'm a card-carrying TU member, and I'm a fan of all of TU's leadership that I've spoken with and worked with in the past. NFC works with TU routinely, but it's only on issues that directly impact brook trout or other native fish species specifically. Most recently we partnered and co-wrote a letter of support for the proposed stocking authorization with TU. Where it makes sense to partner on issues or projects we'll do so. So we are willing to work with anyone as long as the task is native fish centric.

Again, the differences mean everything, so to suggest that I should ignore them is only to attempt to paint me/us as being obstinant and uncooperative when in reality you're asking us to deviate from our mission to support yours. Assuming I've correctly deciphered what it is you're suggesting since you seem unwilling to actually say it.

 

[silverfox]

You’re right. It’s really not that hard to understand what the OP is after.

Except what the OP is after is disingenuous. It's an attempt to force the most important issues out of the discussion. That benefits one "camp" and disadvantages the other.

The common issues between both "camps" are obvious. Habitat and stocking. There are a tremendous amount of people working toward fixing environmental issues that all coldwater and warmwater species face. Habitat, water quality, land use, pollution remediation, agricultural reform, and on and on and on. Those initiatives are easy to support because they are all common enemies to all aquatic life. Then you've got the biggest fish conservation organization in the country advocating against stocking over "wild trout." So the common issues between the two "camps" are already being addressed by both "camps." So this isn't really about focusing on the common issues threatening native fish and nonnative fish. It's about trying to stop the conversation about one of the most significant threats to native fish.

What I feel is severely lacking is people willing to recognize the importance of biotic interactions between native and introduced species. We're facing a reckoning all over the country with this issue of invasive species and trying to differentiate between "good" invasive and "bad" invasive species. As everyone ramps up education on the issue of invasive species and their impact on the environment, it naturally leads to confusion about which species belong and which ones don't. For decades people have been led to believe that nonnative trout are good. Now you've got state and federal agencies trying to educate the public about why invasive species are bad. It causes confusion among trout anglers because of the mountain of evidence supporting the concept that introduced nonnative trout fit the definition of "invasive" while they've been taught for decades to appreciate those species.

One of the most interesting aspects of my involvement in native fish conservation all over the east coast is the difference in attitude based on geographic location and historical trout stocking activities. In the south (Alabama specifically), everyone understands the issue and fully supports initiatives to improve conditions for native redeye bass and nongame species. There are no wild trout fans in Alabama and so everyone there almost immediately understands the issues and supports native fish conservation.

Then in the Northeast and into New England where there has been overa a century of deliberate introductions of nonnative salmonids, we have this conflicting attitude because people have been trained to appreciate and accept nonnative species. Government agencies and NGOs alike have been promoting these species for decades in order to sell licenses or raise funds for the improvement of the environment. Now many of those same organizations are forced to address the issue of invasive species because some of the undesirable invasive species are becoming significant problems. It's impossible to espouse the issues of invasive species while simultaneously promoting them.

So again, the differences between these "camps" are critically important to the conversation.

 

[silverfox]

Operation Future surveys began in the 1970s, so they have info going back at least that far for a large number of streams. I think in the 1970s that they surveyed all of the stream mileage that was stocked at that time. These reports are broken down by species.

Before the 1970s the amount of trout stream survey info is more limited, but it's not zero. Dr. Cooper at Penn State did some surveys, and there was a well known survey of Kettle Creek and tribs in the 1940s.

If we already know the answer to this question, then why is this part of the trout management plan?

Issue 6: The PFBC currently does not have a formal monitoring program to annually track the status and trends of wild trout populations across Pennsylvania. As a result, the rate of population loss or growth, overall population condition, and the comprehensive status of wild trout resources are unknown.

Strategy: • Between 2020 and 2024, work with the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit to develop an appropriate monitoring design to systematically assess the status and trends of wild trout populations across Pennsylvania and at a minimum, implement on a pilot basis. The survey design will include a fish health component as a means of establishing baseline fish health data for our wild trout fisheries.

and:

Issue 10: Climate change will negatively affect all species of wild trout in Pennsylvania, but Brook Trout are likely to be the most impacted. Wild trout require cold, clean water and optimal instream habitat to survive and flourish. Brook Trout are the only trout species native to the Commonwealth’s inland waters and are especially vulnerable to increased water temperature, siltation, and habitat degradation

Between 2020 and 2024, the PFBC will assess the density and occurrence of wild Brook Trout and Brown Trout between historic and contemporary surveys to determine if changes have occurred in the distribution and ratios of these species. Results of this project will inform management actions and may identify issues such as impacts of increasing water temperature, habitat degradation, among others, along with areas of greater wild Brook Trout resiliency

https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Fisheries/TroutPlan/Documents/TroutPlan2020.pdf

More importantly, if we already know the gain/loss trends, what is being done about it?

 

[Stenonema]

There are many camps scattered all over PA that remain in favor of traditional stocked Trout angling.

They far outnumber both of the camps in this thread.

If we’re talking “camps”. 🤯

Yes Swattie. Traditionally the Spin and Fly camps argued and there is still scars remaining . The stocked camp and wild camp is the fight that I has been around. Because the traditional stocked trout camp is most prominent the PFBC must consider them in any plan to engage change. For the management of Wild Trout including Native we must respectfully consider crossing lines to speak to other interested parties.. Look at this thread. It is very telling.

 

[Stenonema]

Wild trout camp = supports wild trout populations regardless of species and protection for those wild fisheries.



Brook trout camp = support of native brook trout and only interested in brook trout restoration to all historically inhabited waters



That's how I'm reading what Eric is saying but I could be wrong.

Exactly. It was posed as a challenge to only speak to what common ground these two arguing factions might have without negativity.
Look what has happened to that challenge. This is amazing. And now I'm being called disingenuous. As sincere as I can be I am looking for a mature intelligent and positive conversation around trout management. We do still all share our resources correct?

 

[Stenonema]

Let me rephrase this. In order for anyone, myself included, to speak about what the common ground is between these perceived "camps," I think it's important to understand what it is you're suggesting. Your initial post was all about different camps and differences and negativity, and division. So I'm not sure what your proposal is here that we're supposed to find common ground on.

Define what it is you hope to accomplish. Explain your mission.

To challenge as it reads.

 

[Stenonema]

Silverfox..... "Except what the OP is after is disingenuous"

This hurt............Honestly.

 

[silverfox]

Silverfox..... "Except what the OP is after is disingenuous"

This hurt............Honestly.

I used a poor choice of words, Eric.

To directly answer the question you posted in the original post, stocking and other environmental anthropogenic impacts.

 

[Stenonema]

I would say the difference between wild invasive and native is clear as you point out. Whats unclear is are these “camps” fishing or something else.

Because one could consider me in the “wild trout camp” i suppose because I fish for wild invasive and wild native trout.

But in reality if we are talking about conservation there can be no conservation of an invasive species by definition and in practice so the only “camps” would be the “conservation camp” and “or against conservation camp”. There is no “Eastern Brown Trout Venture” scientists know that promoting and protecting an invasive species means trashing our state fish.

So from a conservation perspective its just yes or no. There are no “different kinds” or different camps”. You either protect biodiversity, functioning ecosystems on planet earth, and individual species from going extinct or you don’t.

Thats the part about this people don’t get alot of the time

We always speak to our differences first........ Your defining for others what they don't get. The post is about common ground. If anglers and conservationists are ever to work together to protect what we all share it would be helpful if we can work together. I thought it might be a good idea to start with what we share and what is common as a conversation. Can you do that? That was the challenge.
No one needed to tae the challenge by responding to the post.

 

[streamerguy]

I present this hypothetical scenario:
Say there was a motion to completely end stockings on streams that have wild trout. Regardless of species composition, and to keep things simple....regardless of biomass (set any love for catching hatchery fish aside for a moment) of either or all species. Also..... regardless of who or what organization started or is pushing for this motion.

Would the brook trout fans be against this motion because it means that brown trout-exclusive streams will no longer get stocked as well, thus benefitting brown trout in those streams, and they would rather see the motion not be successful for that reason, which would result in native brook trout-exclusive streams continuing to get stocked?

Would the brown trout fans be against this motion because it means brook trout-exclusive streams would no longer get stocked, and that would make the native fish fans happy?

Yes...acknowledging differences is important. Introduced species are an issue, whether it's round gobies, iguanas, or dare I say brown trout. Or that hatchery steelbow in my profile. Getting on the same page about ONE thing doesn't require us to ignore our differences.

I'm not saying established organizations need to team up, but us as individuals definitely need to on topics that we each can agree on. Trout Unlimited can't be the only ones advocating against stocking. And what all have they accomplished on the matter? Unless I have been out of the loop for too long, I haven't noticed any significant progress. Tons of native brookie streams (and wild brown streams alike) still get stocked. Occasionally the PFBC will knock a newly added Class A off the stocking list, but even that has been a struggle as we all saw with the Freeman Run case.

I don't know about you all, but I'd like to see this stocking reform happen in my lifetime.

Over the years there has been a few movements to stop stocking over wild trout, including multiple online petitions.....but they went nowhere. Fairly recently there was one geared towards ending stocking over brook trout. A simple way to show the PFBC that people don't want hatchery fish stocked in brookie streams, but even some "brookie fans" weren't in support of it which was disappointing. Many of us also submit comments to the PFBC, letters, talk to staff, etc. but how much change have we been seeing in the form of stocking practices? Little to none.

What is even more disappointing is that PFBC staff don't seem to be energetic towards stopping stockings on native/wild streams, and in some cases they defend the stocking. We don't see any significant rulemakings/policies being initiated from within the PFBC. At least not significantly, in modern times. They're still dumping trout everywhere. Unless biologists are afraid to speak out in fear of losing their jobs?? Guess we kinda sorta did see that happen not too long ago.....

I honestly don't know the best way to go about making these changes. How can we get stocking to end on Class D streams where populations of the State Fish are barely hanging on, when certain high-biomass Class A's can't even get removed from the stocking list. But one thing I do know is that the more of us (as individuals, not necessarily the organizations we may be affiliated with) that work together.....the better.

 

[Stenonema]

I used a poor choice of words, Eric.

To directly answer the question you posted in the original post, stocking and other environmental anthropogenic impacts.

Those are common concerns sure. Is it enough to work together on making change or is that not an option Phil.

 

[silverfox]

Those are common concerns sure. Is it enough to work together on making change or is that not an option Phil.

Well, that's the real question. Let's say we all sing kumbaya and launch a big collaborative initiative aimed at stocking reform. What is the likelihood that effort is effective? What could we do that TU has been unable to do over the past decade or so? You realize we all (wild trout fans) are outnumbered by stocked trout supporters? IF that's how decisions get made, unfortunately, we'll never be able to get anything done.

This is why I don't focus on popularity contests and rely on science to defend my position. Frankly Eric, you should come over to the native only camp because this is all a whole lot easier when you have a mountain of scientific evidences, scientists, and government officials arguing your same points.

Brown trout aren't going anywhere. They're gonna be just fine. We've got some of the best trophy brown trout water in the country. That isn't going away. In fact, it's likely to only get better. Brook trout? I think another thing we can agree on is that they're trending the opposite way.

 

[Stenonema]

The differences are critical, though. You're suggesting that I abandon my principles in order to support yours. That's what this comes down to.

The common ground is the general disdain for stocking over "wild trout." That's the answer you've been looking for since your OP, and it's not lost on me.

Now that that's out of the way, what's the plan? If it involves myself or our organization supporting efforts to increase or proliferate nonnative trout, then it's never going to happen. That's what I've been trying to get at since my first response. Your post is an effort to get two factions to cooperate, and while that's commendable, as I said, the differences are critical. I've told you repeatedly that it makes no sense whatsoever for a native-centric organization to support any efforts to improve wild non-native trout. We're not TU. If you want a juggernaut in the fish conservation world to support whatever it is you're suggesting, I suggest you talk to TU.

It's not like I'm unwilling to work with a "wild trout" generalist. Heck, I was driving rebar through logs with a power hammer a few weeks ago on a TU project in a mixed population tributary. I'm a card-carrying TU member, and I'm a fan of all of TU's leadership that I've spoken with and worked with in the past. NFC works with TU routinely, but it's only on issues that directly impact brook trout or other native fish species specifically. Most recently we partnered and co-wrote a letter of support for the proposed stocking authorization with TU. Where it makes sense to partner on issues or projects we'll do so. So we are willing to work with anyone as long as the task is native fish centric.

Again, the differences mean everything, so to suggest that I should ignore them is only to attempt to paint me/us as being obstinant and uncooperative when in reality you're asking us to deviate from our mission to support yours. Assuming I've correctly deciphered what it is you're suggesting since you seem unwilling to actually say it.

I didn't ask you to abandon principles. I'm not sure how you heard that. I wasn't looking for a particular answer either. I am a very genuine person. I mean what I say and say what I mean unless I'm being funny. I don't joke about our wild trout resources. Neither do you. We are all very serious and passionate. Those are things we have in common. See how easy that was? Look how much time out of our day we devoted to this thread. We care deeply. My friend Henry says, "We all have the same weirdness."
I take absolutely no pleasure in this at all. It's hunting season and when it's done raining I'm going out. I prefer the company of the wild things around me in nature. I am happy and grateful and have a clearer sense of my place on this planet and the role I am to play on it if it is to be the most natural. I am clearly out of my comfort zone with all of this but as you do, I feel strongly I must do something.
My goal is not to debate and fight with you or the NFC. You know I will do what I must to speak to what I care so deeply about.
Doesn't mean I take pleasure in it. I'm genuine and all those who know me personally, know. I understand you and the NFC very well. I would think that you and Bob Mallard would both know that I understand exactly where we differ since I reached out to you both early on looking for help to achieve the goal of amending the extended season reg which no commissioner could find a reason to not support. You also know that I targeted the Brown trout because I believe that it would most demonstrably show the impacts of stocking if studied.
I'm considering changing my own approach. That is where I intended to go with this post. In a positive and productive direction.
We can achieve the goal of no longer intentionally introducing non-native trout into our streams with compromise. I aim to explore a compromise to support a mutual goal or is our relationships irreparable?
Do you want me as an enemy? Do you want me to speak to our differences?

 

[Stenonema]

Well, that's the real question. Let's say we all sing kumbaya and launch a big collaborative initiative aimed at stocking reform. What is the likelihood that effort is effective? What could we do that TU has been unable to do over the past decade or so? You realize we all (wild trout fans) are outnumbered by stocked trout supporters? IF that's how decisions get made, unfortunately, we'll never be able to get anything done.

This is why I don't focus on popularity contests and rely on science to defend my position. Frankly Eric, you should come over to the native only camp because this is all a whole lot easier when you have a mountain of scientific evidences, scientists, and government officials arguing your same points.

Brown trout aren't going anywhere. They're gonna be just fine. We've got some of the best trophy brown trout water in the country. That isn't going away. In fact, it's likely to only get better. Brook trout? I think another thing we can agree on is that they're trending the opposite way.

Since I have successfully worked to accomplish what so many in TU told me wasn't possible for over twenty years it should be apparent that I am unwilling to accept that we'll never be able to get anything done. I have been at this a long time and like you have been created by it. It's a damn fight and we are fighters. I respect you and your tenacity. The Brook trout are fortunate to have you behind them. I have an idea on how we can change the management practice. I recognized yesterday that I need to keep that my goal and be flexible to accomplish it.

 

[Fish Sticks]

whats missing is the general public/non-anglers. The people who outnumber people seeking stocking reform for one reason or another is anglers. The people that outnumber them collectively are hikers/bikers/kayakers/rafters/bird watchers/naturalists/water quakity volunteers/ audubon societies/ environmental science majors-professionals/ and volunteer conservationists.

To achieve this we need to continue educating anglers through angling media sources but also expand to grass roots education of the general public on the dangers of stocking hatchery raised invasive and native species(wild invasive species has to be part of that because that interaction is a huge part/reason of how hatchery fish mostly harm native brook trout in Pa today, but as silver fox said brown trout are not going anywhere so there should not be brown trout angler(includes me) fear of loss) . We also need to expand to non angling media source coverage which is the biggest hurdle. This topic of stocking reform is currently viewed as too esoteric by some editors and journalists but that will change as the coverage grows in the angling community.

Anyone can help with this grass roots effort by reading the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture site and referring others to it. Pa fish and boat is about to accept a projected apportionment of over 10 million dollars a year if Recovering America’s Wild Life Act is passed to help the species of greatest conservation need their harming with their hatchery program that costs 1.5x that annually from license sales. Their own wild life action plan details “objective: Reduce competition with brown trout” for native brook trout….but they still stock them. Its waste fraud and abuse hidden in plain site.

So while many have pointed out that nothing has changed with stocking. We need to bring the general public into this and highlight multiple things to them. The disregard for fisheries science’s recommendations aimed at preventing species loss or extinction at a state level. The fiscal mismanagement and unsustainable use of financial resources while selling that millions of dollars a year could be going to conservation easement/access purchases instead of hatcheries in a state with no national parks and comparatively less public land than others.

 

[krayfish2]

Why can't the state systematically survey streams? If the stream carries x amount of biomass it is deemed to be a wild stream and managed accordingly by not stocking on top of wild fish.

The surveys and evidence will support reclamation of certain watersheds to native brookies.

Stock trout can be put in marginal waters or streams with low biomass. The guys who want to fill their freezers with mushy white meat can do it in April, May and early June on the marginal streams or continue fishing for trout in low wild biomass streams.

100% in support of wild fisheries being under different harvest regulations or having closed seasons to help protect the resource.

Rather than a bulk of the money going to raising a caricature of a trout, it should go to stream improvement, habitat reclamation, law enforcement and acquiring access. It's more likely that everybody wins in that type of scenario.

 

[Stenonema]

Well, that's the real question. Let's say we all sing kumbaya and launch a big collaborative initiative aimed at stocking reform. What is the likelihood that effort is effective? What could we do that TU has been unable to do over the past decade or so? You realize we all (wild trout fans) are outnumbered by stocked trout supporters? IF that's how decisions get made, unfortunately, we'll never be able to get anything done.

This is why I don't focus on popularity contests and rely on science to defend my position. Frankly Eric, you should come over to the native only camp because this is all a whole lot easier when you have a mountain of scientific evidences, scientists, and government officials arguing your same points.

Brown trout aren't going anywhere. They're gonna be just fine. We've got some of the best trophy brown trout water in the country. That isn't going away. In fact, it's likely to only get better. Brook trout? I think another thing we can agree on is that they're trending the opposite way.

Absolutely agree......

 

[Fish Sticks]

Why can't the state systematically survey streams? If the stream carries x amount of biomass it is deemed to be a wild stream and managed accordingly by not stocking on top of wild fish.

The surveys and evidence will support reclamation of certain watersheds to native brookies.

Stock trout can be put in marginal waters or streams with low biomass. The guys who want to fill their freezers with mushy white meat can do it in April, May and early June on the marginal streams or continue fishing for trout in low wild biomass streams.

100% in support of wild fisheries being under different harvest regulations or having closed seasons to help protect the resource.

Rather than a bulk of the money going to raising a caricature of a trout, it should go to stream improvement, habitat reclamation, law enforcement and acquiring access. It's more likely that everybody wins in that type of scenario.

I think there are alot of people questioning just this. Why can’t hatchery funds be cut in half at a minimum and be used to fund other initiatives that give anglers opportunities in other ways like publicly open conservation access easements/cold water conservation ect.

The answer is they can do it but they are currently using the money and personnel for the hatchery program and the poor biologists can’t even come close to covering their huge regions with surveys due to lack of support staff and time. Its just that the priority is the hatchery program. Correct me after pensions i think its the comissions biggest expense and its growing. The house and senate fish and game committees need to reign in PA fish and boat they have the power but unfortunately with the current public understanding they see stocked fish as political pork they don’t have to dip into the general fund to hand out. Ever notice tons of elected officials have personal trout stocking videos online? “I’m out here today stocking your trout” don’t forget to vote lol. We saw what happened when John Arway Was going to cut some trout in districts that didn’t support a license increase, he was canned with stroke of a pen. Anglers need to tell the house and senate fish and game committee its time to stop playing dumb and saying “oh yea I don’t know about that talk to tim Schaeffer” when you call.

 

[silverfox]

Rather than a bulk of the money going to raising a caricature of a trout, it should go to stream improvement, habitat reclamation, law enforcement and acquiring access. It's more likely that everybody wins in that type of scenario.

Absolutely!

 

[coyoterahn]

But one thing I do know is that the more of us (as individuals, not necessarily the organizations we may be affiliated with) that work together.....the better.

streamerguy,

I’ll 2nd this point that you made. I think that may have been part the intention of the Op. Unfortunately, it seems it may have been lost.