Challenge to all Trout Camps

[coyoterahn]

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 agree with this. I‘d venture to guess that many, if not most on this forum would support your point Kray. However, there are tons of truck chasers that would be “peeing their pants” if this were to happen.

 

[krayfish2]

I agree with this. I‘d venture to guess that many, if not most on this forum would support your point Kray. However, there are tons of truck chasers that would be “peeing their pants” if this were to happen.

Nah, keep giving them the same amount of fish and just put them in waters where the trout will perish by the end of June. As Mike once to put it, they can catch and keep the limit all they want to "utilize the resource". Also want to make sure the stocked fish are triploid .... unless you are looking to establish a new wild fishery with their 0.001% survival rate 😁

 

[sarce]

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?

As a brook trout fan, personally I'd see that type of action as a MASSIVE win. And yet, there'd still be more to be done to truly secure the existing populations of brook trout in PA. And then more work still to restore a LARGE watershed or two to their full potential as brook trout-only watersheds.

Stocked trout introduced me to this sport, but there were also native brookies in an unnamed creek the next valley over from my neighborhood which I could walk to when I was too young to drive. Guess which fishery still exists and which has disappeared...

 

[coyoterahn]

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

One thing most all of us have in common is the enjoyment we get out of fly fishing. Maybe the challenge of the hunt for that 20“ wild brown or that 9” trophy native brookie. Maybe it’s also the opportunity to be out enjoying the scenery and wildlife just catching a break from a hectic life style.
I guess I belong to both camps.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I agree with this. I‘d venture to guess that many, if not most on this forum would support your point Kray. However, there are tons of truck chasers that would be “peeing their pants” if this were to happen.

Your right. Like silver fox mentioned earlier conservation initiatives like protecting native brook trout from stocked invasive species never win the popularity contest. This is why these designations like species of greatest conservation need, threatened, and endangered are created to prevent popular uninformed lay person sentiment or corporate interests from causing loss of biodiversity and extinctions.

However to make things more palatable for people, from a fishing perspective you can make a case protecting wild invasive trout species from stocked invasive trout species enhances opportunity for wild invasive fisheries for social reasons.

Also offering new access that also happens to be a conservation easement, location for reforestation/projects, and protection from development will soften the blow of losing stocked trout.


However, to your point I think there just needs to be an acknowledgment at the fish commission that no matter what stocking reform is going to go over like a bag of rocks with a lot of kicking and screaming regardless and someone just has to step up, be a real fisheries manager, make a decision, provide previously mentioned new opportunities, and own/defend the decision.

 

[Stenonema]

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.

Bingo

 

[Fish Sticks]

One thing most all of us have in common is the enjoyment we get out of fly fishing. Maybe the challenge of the hunt for that 20“ wild brown or that 9” trophy native brookie. Maybe it’s also the opportunity to be out enjoying the scenery and wildlife just catching a break from a hectic life style.
I guess I belong to both camps.

I think from a fishing standpoint so do i

 

[Fish Sticks]

I agree with this. I‘d venture to guess that many, if not most on this forum would support your point Kray. However, there are tons of truck chasers that would be “peeing their pants” if this were to happen.

Just to put the exclamation point on the above statement, the recent stocking authorization was simply saying “we want to know where you are putting hatchery fish and what diseases they have”. Lol it wasn’t even a “ you can’t do that”!!!

Slate run tackle shop and laurel hill trout farms flipped out for financial self interest reasons and implied to a bunch of anglers an auth would be the end of fishing in PA as we know it essentially.

I don’t think we can ever hope for people profiting off hatchery fish to come around to reform but hey thats what regulation is for.

 

[silverfox]

So how do we all work together effectively to make our desires for change heard? What is the vehicle? Who can we bring to the table, and how?

Something Fishsticks mentioned earlier should be considered. If you separate angling from the equation, the tent can get larger than the stocked trout crowd. Something I've learned over the past few years is that there are likely more environmental conservationists who are sympathetic to the native fish conservation cause than there are anglers of any type in existence. These folks immediately see the issue because they have no species bias.

Something to consider.

 

[troutbert]

However, to your point I think there just needs to be an acknowledgment at the fish commission that no matter what stocking reform is going to go over like a bag of rocks with a lot of kicking and screaming regardless and someone just has to step up, be a real fisheries manager, make a decision, provide previously mentioned new opportunities, and own/defend the decision.

The fisheries managers do not have the power to make these decisions.

They can only SUGGEST such changes. The actual decisions are made by a vote of the Commissioners, who are not biologists.

This has been pointed out many times already.

It's always good to know who the "deciders" are.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The fisheries managers do not have the power to make these decisions.

They can only SUGGEST such changes. The actual decisions are made by a vote of the Commissioners, who are not biologists.

This has been pointed out many times already.

It's always good to know who the "deciders" are.

I think you mis interpret, i am not saying the staff position fisheries manager. I am saying Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission is a fisheries manager.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The fisheries managers do not have the power to make these decisions.

They can only SUGGEST such changes. The actual decisions are made by a vote of the Commissioners, who are not biologists.

This has been pointed out many times already.

It's always good to know who the "deciders"

When I was saying someone has to step up I was eluding to executive director Schaeffer and the commissioners. I think its been discussed many times here that staff wanted to stop stocking class Bs already and it did not haappen.

 

[McSneek]

Stenonema asked for responders to speak to what is common amongst the Wild Trout Camp and the Native Brook Trout Camp. Where in the hell did he even bring up stocked fish?

Did some of you actually read (and comprehend) the original post before you started up with your usual responses condemning stocked trout? That was never part of the discussion.

Stenonema - to try to actually answer your question. I think the brook trout camp (zealots IMO) and the wild trout camp both share the desire for clean, cold water that supports natural reproduction. Can we at least agree on that?

 

[McSneek]

The fisheries managers do not have the power to make these decisions.

They can only SUGGEST such changes. The actual decisions are made by a vote of the Commissioners, who are not biologists.

This has been pointed out many times already.

It's always good to know who the "deciders" are.

Lot of posters on this site aren’t biologists either but they sure think they are.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Stenonema asked for responders to speak to what is common amongst the Wild Trout Camp and the Native Brook Trout Camp. Where in the hell did he even bring up stocked fish?

Did some of you actually read (and comprehend) the original post before you started up with your usual responses in support of native brook trout?

Stenonema - to try to actually answer your question. I think the brook trout camp (zealots IMO) and the wild trout camp have the desire for clean, cold water in common. Can we at least agree on that?

List of Zealots advocating for native brook trout and against invasive trout including doing removals, recommending removals, or stocking reform.

EBTJV

easternbrooktrout.org

Eastern Ecological Science Center | U.S. Geological Survey

www.usgs.gov

Home page

www.iucn.org

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

United States federal agency that manages national wildlife refuges, protects endangered species, manages migratory birds, restores nationally significant fisheries, and enforces federal wildlife laws.

www.fws.gov

NPS.gov Homepage (U.S. National Park Service)

The National Park Service cares for special places saved by the American people so that all may experience our heritage.

www.nps.gov

Native Fish Coalition


List of Non Zealots

People who‘s fishing biasis cloud their conservation (Mcsneek)

The irony is no one is advocating removing any wild invasive brown trout from the places people actually love to fish in most cases unless you can’t het enough 3” brown trout

 

[Fish Sticks]

Lot of posters on this site aren’t biologists either but they sure think they are.

Lol I LITERALLY copy and paste peer reviewed research and the recommendations of various university, non profit, and federal science agencies. Where did it come in that I think i am i biologist?? Because i know how to copy and paste the fisheries science i read?

Please present some evidence, a study, something FACTUAL anything but snarky comments and bias. I have heard you comment alot but never cite a single piece of evidence and then you ironically call vetted conservation initiatives zealotry

 

[Oregon_OwlII]

I think Oregon Owl is right that we don’t want to just stop further loss of native brook trout and other fish but that the goal is to recover them in some areas we have lost them as well. And its accurate to say a large part of that is getting streams reforested, improving ground water discharge/baseflow, and having suitable in-stream habitat.

The only problem we are faced with is where you already have both brook trout and brown trout we know we have a serious risk of invasive trout species using restoration to expand and rid streams of brook trout.

Dr. Brock Huntsman-
“Collectively these results indicate that habitat restoration was only beneficial for native brook trout when non-native trout were absent from the restored sampling area. Proactive approaches to restoration will be integral for supporting resilient ecosystems in response to future anthropogenic threats (e.g. climate change), and we have shown that such actions will only be successful if non-native competitors do not also benefit from the restoration actions.”

So I would agree with what you said Oregon owl that we need to do restoration but as Dr. Brock Huntsman said in above quote the approaches need in regards to accounting for invasive species where we do chose to manage for brook trout need to be “pro-active” for invasive species, not reactive after we have let them over run native brook trout.

As you mentioned, once currently investigational genetic control methods(supermales, gene cassetes, CRISPR) are perfected it might seem like you could then go back and do a lot of removal of invasive trout and reintroduction later on of native brook trout to all the great habitat you restored. However, the reason that would not work is conservation genetics. By allowing the invasive species to further severely contract the range of the native brook trout you are losing genes on the landscape and genetic diversity which gives them the ability to adapt/evolve their genes to climate change and other stressors collectively. Essentially if you take the adaptation out of the fish for that time period what you reintroduce will be so genetically limited/homogeneous that adaptation will not continue at a fast enough rate to prepare the fish for climate change and other things. Think of each gene as a tool for survival. Think of each population of brook trout as a unique reservoir of different tools/genes in the state. Genetic diversity or diversity of tools makes a more adaptable brook trout. If we just have a hammer left in 100 years we can’t rebuild their populations if that makes any sense.

The good news is we have things we can do to be proactive like Dr. Huntsman suggested in the above study of shavers fork of the cheat.

We can stop stocking invasive trout species and from what I heard this has already helped those brook trout better use the habitat studied previously on the shavers fork of the cheat and am waiting to see a publication though.

We can avoid the stream features that observational data tells us favors displacement of brook trout for invasive trout(lunker bunkers, deep overhanging cover ect). Like I said to troutbert, its just observational data but its the best we have to go on and there are alot of examples of the harms of these things out there. Restoring wetlands/ground water function may be the best option we have for now and avoid all the instream structures where both species exist and invasives cannot be removed.

We have anglers- less trout less competition to brook trout. We may not have to eliminate invasive trout in many cases according to Dr. Phaedra Budy. Sometimes a rebalancing may allow the native species to outcompete as we see in the savage with the micro pop of browns that can never take hold. If we stop stocking invasive trout and let white truck anglers do the work for us on invasive trout species. This is what they are doing in Lee’s ferry for invasive brown trout where endangered razorback suckers and humpback chubs are at risk from the invasive brown trout.

We also can do removal projects today in very small streams above a barrier. We know it has worked all over the country and saving golden trout, some rare cutthroats, and apache trout/ Gila trout ect.

So we do not have to wait 100 years to oair these things with our restorations. We can do alot today and brook trout and their genetic ability to adapt depend on us doing it.

You can do all the things you outlined above as 'tweaks' or improvements to the conservation process, but moving forward with rivers restoration has to take place as a continuous process. Personally, I am of the opinion that genetics are not some stasis condition, but they are constantly in flux, adapting to diet, climate, and whatever other influences that improve survivability. Purity doesn't matter. Improvement does. I submit to you that the genes of stocked brown trout in Valley Creek today are not the same as those from the hatchery put in the stream in 1979. Same is true of brook trout in Colorado streams, etc... I'm not sure how many generations it takes for a hatchery fish to improve its genetic structure, but they do, and those fish have adapted quite well, at the expense of natives in the same watersheds. That's why I want to improve streams as the major contributor to restoring natives. Chasing genetic purity takes our eye off the ball, in my humble, poorly informed, but instinctual position. The original post was asking about unanimity of purpose. I submit that watershed restoration is the road we must travel together.

 

[silverfox]

Stenonema asked for responders to speak to what is common amongst the Wild Trout Camp and the Native Brook Trout Camp. Where in the hell did he even bring up stocked fish?

Did some of you actually read (and comprehend) the original post before you started up with your usual responses condemning stocked trout? That was never part of the discussion.

Stenonema - to try to actually answer your question. I think the brook trout camp (zealots IMO) and the wild trout camp both share the desire for clean, cold water that supports natural reproduction. Can we at least agree on that?

It sounds like maybe you're not privy to quite a lot of prior discussions on this issue. Stocking is exactly what Eric is talking about. Let's not devolve this into personal insults.

 

[streamerguy]

Stenonema asked for responders to speak to what is common amongst the Wild Trout Camp and the Native Brook Trout Camp. Where in the hell did he even bring up stocked fish?

Did some of you actually read (and comprehend) the original post before you started up with your usual responses condemning stocked trout? That was never part of the discussion.

Stenonema - to try to actually answer your question. I think the brook trout camp (zealots IMO) and the wild trout camp both share the desire for clean, cold water that supports natural reproduction. Can we at least agree on that?

He asked what is common ground. Condemning stocked trout in wild trout streams is common ground. He didn't bring up the desire for clean, cold water either....but it answers his question, the same as bringing up stocked trout and how harmful they are do wild brook and brown trout fisheries.

 

[Fish Sticks]

You can do all the things you outlined above as 'tweaks' or improvements to the conservation process, but moving forward with rivers restoration has to take place as a continuous process. Personally, I am of the opinion that genetics are not some stasis condition, but they are constantly in flux, adapting to diet, climate, and whatever other influences that improve survivability. Purity doesn't matter. Improvement does. I submit to you that the genes of stocked brown trout in Valley Creek today are not the same as those from the hatchery put in the stream in 1979. Same is true of brook trout in Colorado streams, etc... I'm not sure how many generations it takes for a hatchery fish to improve its genetic structure, but they do, and those fish have adapted quite well, at the expense of natives in the same watersheds. That's why I want to improve streams as the major contributor to restoring natives. Chasing genetic purity takes our eye off the ball, in my humble, poorly informed, but instinctual position. The original post was asking about unanimity of purpose. I submit that watershed restoration is the road we must travel together.

Adaptive potential isn’t genetic purity its simply diversity of genes that have been adapted locally or regionally.

Your right it is a continuous process but if you have homogenous genes adaptation cannot take place because every natural selection event is selecting from the same genes thus no better adapted ones can be selected for.