Challenge to all Trout Camps

[streamerguy]

The answer I've always gotten is that stocking over brook trout doesn't negatively impact brook trout. More specifically, that stocking over brook trout isn't limiting the brook trout biomass of the stream.

So not only are we up against the people wanting stocked trout everywhere, we are also up against the PFBC... wanting stocked trout everywhere. And the PFBC is against the science indicating that hatchery fish are detrimental to wild populations.

Why does this not surprise me...

 

[silverfox]

So not only are we up against the people wanting stocked trout everywhere, we are also up against the PFBC... wanting stocked trout everywhere. And the PFBC is against the science indicating that hatchery fish are detrimental to wild populations.

Why does this not surprise me...

There's another thread on the forum right now where the OP posted verbatim what he was told when he asked this exact question. It's the same thing I posted. Unfortunately.

 

[pcray1231]

From my experiences and from what I've heard from others, the response is always "oh well there needs to be a culture shift blah blah blah."

Yeah. My advocating would be that the PFBC should lead said culture change.

They don't have to actually make the stocking change and upset the crowd. But stop seeing themselves as a purely reactive entity. They could keep the stocking as it is today, no actual management change, and still make a big PR push to highlight wild trout resources and put all the stocking PR crap on the back burner. The front page of the website's background picture could be the natural reproduction map. The pictures they put in the booklet and everywhere could be picture of wild fish, never show a stocking truck or a bucket. Add links to conservation organizations. In newspapers and such when there's an opening day article, and the normal snippet from a WCO, he can acknowledge they stock but throw in a plug for the wild trout opportunities in that area. Basically make all the front page stuff about wild trout, wild trout, wild trout. Steer people in that direction!!!! And the STW list hidden in small print on the back pages. They can do all that WITHOUT actually ending stocking. It's just information. It's just a PR change. It says these are our values we believe in, but hey opening day types, we didn't change the law, you have nothing to argue about, you can still do that.

The culture change is happening without them, whether they like it or not. They can't reverse it. But if they jump on board, they can control it, steer it how they want, and accelerate it. Want a focus on big fish, native fish, tackle preferences? Hey PFBC, now's your chance to add the flavor you want to the culture that's forming. It's the cancel culture world, you can demonize something without making it illegal, let the fishermen shame the noncomformers, lol. You can saint something without requiring it. I made the point earlier, in the hunting world, look at the difference in cultures in different areas around baiting, crossbows, high fence, QDM, driving game, etc. It's stark, because the various organizations in different states took different stands on those things, and that ended up as part of the cultures in those areas, so when a northwoods Pennsylvania hunter talks to a Kansas hunter, they don't see eye to eye at all. The PA guy looks down on the Kansas hunter hunting with a compound over a corn pile, and the Canadian bear hunter sitting over a barrel of expired donuts. Thinks baiting is unsporting, but thinks absolutely nothing bad of using attractant scents or calls for game. It's ok to use sex scents, hunt over scrapes, and grunt a rutting buck in, but the exact same guy will turn around and scream "don't fish over spawning trout!" The Kansas hunter looks down on the PA guys putting on 20 person deer drives using rifles, and calls that unsporting. The management organizations absolutely have an influence on the flavor of the culture change, but not sole influence, they can steer it, not stop it from happening.

Help change the culture before you change the management. And then in 10 or 20 years the people will demand a management change to reflect the new culture you just created.

 

[silverfox]

Yeah. My advocating would be that the PFBC should lead said culture change.

They don't have to actually make the stocking change and upset the crowd. But stop seeing themselves as a purely reactive entity. They could keep the stocking as it is today, no actual management change, and still make a big PR push to highlight wild trout resources and put all the stocking PR crap on the back burner. The front page of the website's background picture could be the natural reproduction map. The pictures they put in the booklet and everywhere could be picture of wild fish, never show a stocking truck or a bucket. Add links to conservation organizations. In newspapers and such when there's an opening day article, and the normal snippet from a WCO, he can acknowledge they stock but throw in a plug for the wild trout opportunities in that area. Basically make all the front page stuff about wild trout, wild trout, wild trout. And the STW list hidden in small print on the back pages. They can do all that WITHOUT actually ending stocking. It's just information. It's just a PR change.

The culture change is happening without them, whether they like it or not. But if they jump on board, they can control it, steer it how they want, and accelerate it. I made the point earlier, in the hunting world, there are states that allow baiting and states that don't. What do you know, in non baiting states, the hunters view baiting as an unsporting, disgusting practice wherever it's done, and visit other states requesting NOT to do that. In baiting states, they don't see any problem with it, and will break the law when hunting in non baiting states without thinking it's unsporting to do so. Crossbows used to be looked down upon, now they are widely accepted. Yes, the management organizations DO affect the culture of what is considered sporting and what is not.

Help change the culture before you change the management. And then in 10 or 20 years the people will demand a management change to reflect the new culture.

Taking this a step further. The propagation and introduction of trout isn't economically sustainable. Your points about managing for the future are really important here. There will be a point in the future where it's simply unfeasible to continue as they are. They would have to raise license fees to an unacceptable level in order to support the propagation method. Production costs will continue to increase while the appetite for license cost increases will plateau.

They should start changing the narrative about stocking now so that it's not so much of a culture shock when they're forced to cut back due to economic forces.

 

[Stenonema]

Has anybody straight up asked a PFBC biologist, fisheries manager, etc. "What do we need to do to stop stocking over wild trout/native brook trout?" and got a punctual response laying out the tasks needed to accomplish said goal?

From my experiences and from what I've heard from others, the response is always "oh well there needs to be a culture shift blah blah blah."

I'm curious if anybody has ever been given a roadmap laying out the steps needed to reach the goal. I feel like the answer is no.

The studies are out there showing the effects of hatchery trout on wild trout. The PFBC obviously knows about them, but action on their part on any significant scale hasn't been happening.

So not only are we up against the people wanting stocked trout everywhere, we are also up against the PFBC... wanting stocked trout everywhere. And the PFBC is against the science indicating that hatchery fish are detrimental to wild populations.

Why does this not surprise me...

They need a selling point to move in that direction. They know it has a detrimental effect. Some still deny it. What sells better than large wild brown trout today. It's the fish that sells itself. People buy plane tickets for them. Many of the petition signers are the average angler type who wants stocking. They are an easy sell. The toughest sell is .... well.... you're seeing it.

 

[Fish Sticks]

This question is posed in 100% seriousness....

You have 12 high quality streams that contain a mix of 75% heritage strain brook trout and 25% invasive brown trout. These 12 streams flows into a much much larger stream that is stocked for the opening day enjoyment of everyone. With stocking of the larger river for the last 50 years, there have been a few holdovers that started to spawn. For sake of argument, they are browns. These fish have evolved to use the larger river to forage and move great distance to find food, spawn and seek thermal refuge.

If you make those 12 into brook trout only habitats by removing all the browns, how do you plan on keeping stocked fish or the population of roaming browns from invading or reestablishing in the brook trout stream again?

Are you going to shock it every 6 months and to the browns? Are you going to have policy of brown trout harvest no size minimum? Are you going to install a barrier to keep other fish from entering that stream? I just don't see how it is possible to restrict the movement of other fish. Mother Nature and Father Time are both undefeated.

Yea Kray you don’t have to worry about anyone shooting for eradication in a situation like that.

The savage river for example has a micropopulation of brown trout that can never take hold. This is probably due in some capacity to biotic resistance all though its not known why for sure in that specific instance. But there is data from the Logan river in Utah with cutthroats and brown trout that high density of native trout is a deterrent to invasion(biotic resistance to invasion). So what you might see is lets say someone said lets take kettle creek above the lake and make 200+ mile wild native brook trout management area in UKC watershed, when stocking stops and that periodic reproduction you mentioned stops that ratio of invasive trout to native trout will shift some potentially providing some biotic resistance and the browns will have to try to overwhelm the brook trout on their own without hatchery reinforcements. Each less brown stocked is one more “seat at the table” as bob bachman would say in the stream for thermal refuge or feeding which will translate into higher brook trout spawning numbers in a watershed like kettle most likely.

Now can you guarantee that stop stocking will allow the brook trout in kettle suppress wild browns to a stable micro population? No, but brook trout are already found in low numbers in the lower mainstems in colder months and they are found in the upper mainstem year round with a mix/spectrum inbetween those two points. They are using that main-stem now to some degree.

So what I am getting at is based on Kurt Faust’s finding that browns displace brookies from prime habiat and removal studies where brook trout reclaim down stream habitat, removing the fraction of the 60k trout or so above the lake by not stocking it will highly likely result in use of larger mainstem habitat more frequently in kettle, higher rates of gene flow based on casey thomas weathers dissertation, large individuals based on Petty et al 2012, and a more resilient adaptable population over all we can use as a source population for genetic rescues all over the region or even state depending on the genetics. Then if you have a brookie stream on Little J above a barrier with a reservoir for instance, you can use that highly adaptive pop to create artificial gene flow by putting some in there for a genetic rescue. There is an exponential snow ball effect of potential for brookies state wide when you create one of these special management areas.

You mentioned brown trout’s evolutionary process. While there can be some rapid adaptation on a smaller scale in the span of 100 years (at least based in alewives as per the fisheries podcast), brown trout are not necessarily more fit or survivable on the landscape than native trout in every case. We all think useless or harmful genetic adaptations get selected out right away. They don’t, events like very severe floods, wild fire, drought, anchor ice, extreme heat waves, cyclic fish pathogens/diseases experienced a century prior, potential return of beavers all happen very infrequently. Fish that didn’t evolve here like invasive browns can completely take over and because they don’t have a million or more years of evolution in PA some thing that arrises every 3 centuries could give them a big haircut. Look whats happening in montana with browns declining faster than cutthroat in many places.

 

[Stenonema]

Yea Kray you don’t have to worry about anyone shooting for eradication in a situation like that.

The savage river for example has a micropopulation of brown trout that can never take hold. This is probably due in some capacity to biotic resistance all though its not known why for sure in that specific instance. But there is data from the Logan river in Utah with cutthroats and brown trout that high density of native trout is a deterrent to invasion(biotic resistance to invasion). So what you might see is lets say someone said lets take kettle creek above the lake and make 200+ mile wild native brook trout management area in UKC watershed, when stocking stops and that periodic reproduction of stocked fish ontop of wild you mentioned stops that ratio of invasive trout to native trout will shift some potentially providing some biotic resistance and the browns will have to try to overwhelm the brook trout on their own without hatchery reinforcements. Each less brown stocked is one more “seat at the table” as bob bachman would say in the stream for thermal refuge or feeding which will translate into higher brook trout spawning numbers in a watershed like kettle most likely.

Now can you guarantee that stop stocking will allow the brook trout in kettle suppress wild browns to a stable micro population? No, but they are already found in low numbers in the lower mainstems in colder months and they are found in the upper mainstem year round with a mix/spectrum inbetween those two points.

So what I am getting at is based on Kurt Faust’s finding that browns displace brookies from prime habiat and removal studies where brook trout reclaim down stream habitat, removing the fraction of the 60k trout or so above the lake by not stocking it will highly likely result in use of larger mainstem habitat more frequently in kettle, higher rates of gene flow based on casey thomas weathers dissertation, large individuals based on Petty et al 2012, and a more resilient adaptable population over all we can use as a source population for genetic rescues all over the region or even state depending on the genetics. Then if you have a brookie stream on Little J above a barrier with a reservoir for instance, you can use that highly adaptive pop to create artificial gene flow by putting some in there for a genetic rescue. There is an exponential snow ball effect of potential for brookies state wide when you create one of these special management areas.

You mentioned brown trout’s evolutionary process. While there can be some rapid adaptation on a smaller scale in the span of 100 years (at least based in alewives as per the fisheries podcast), brown trout are not necessarily more fit or survivable on the landscape than native trout in every case. We all think useless or harmful genetic adaptations get selected out right away. They don’t, events like very severe floods, wild fire, drought, anchor ice, extreme heat waves, cyclic fish pathogens/diseases experienced a century prior, potential return of beavers all happen very infrequently. Fish that didn’t evolve here like invasive browns can completely take over and because they don’t have a million or more years of evolution in PA some thing that arrises every 3 centuries could give them a big haircut. Look whats happening in montana with browns declining faster than cutthroat in many places.

Habitat chooses the favored when we take our hands off the scale. Every ecosystem is different. The results of changes we make will have different impacts on different populations in different ecologies. There is no blanket other than we need to stop stocking over them to find out. We haven't shown (other than the petition) that we are able to work together to help the PFBC more comfortably walk in that direction. The question remains. How do you or the PFBC sell the idea to the anglers who enjoy fishing for the stocked trout in that location.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Habitat chooses the favored when we take our hands off the scale. Every ecosystem is different. The results of changes we make will have different impacts on different populations in different ecologies. There is no blanket other than we need to stop stocking over them to find out. We haven't shown that we are able to work together to help the PFBC more comfortably walk in that direction.

Yea I don’t believe in any blanket solutions and wouldn’t try to say there are. I don’t think people interested primarily in wild trout fishing or native brook trout conservation have not supported an initiative to stop stocking because of any differences.

 

[Stenonema]

Yea I don’t believe in any blanket solutions and wouldn’t try to say there are. I don’t think people interested primarily in wild trout fishing or native brook trout conservation have not supported an initiative to stop stocking because of any differences.

I am referring to your quoted studies and science not solutions. You haven't given any solutions. The petition was an initiative to move in the direction of no longer stocking.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I am referring to your quoted studies and science not solutions. You haven't given any solutions. The petition was an initiative to move in the direction of no longer stocking.

The petition was to protect large invasive wild brown trout and while as mentioned bo one is interested in removing these fish in huge rivers because it’s impossible, that wasn’t a solution for native brook trout. The studies show us the solution is for native brook trout is reducing competition with invasive trout as mentioned in the PA wild life action plan that was followed by no action.

 

[Fish Sticks]

How was this a solution when the PA wild life action plan is telling us to do the opposite.

Petition to Protect Large Brown Trout in Pennsylvania - Doc Fritchey Trout Unlimited

Our goal is to have 1,000-1,500 signatures to present to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission in January of 2021. Sixty-one years ago, Trout Unlimited – a renowned conservation organization […]

dftu.org

 

[Tom1980]

And there was my reason for bringing it up.
Not hard to understand.

The reason it was brought up that far into the conversation is because I don't live online it's been weeks since I logged in.

I brought it up, as soon as I could 🤷

 

[Tom1980]

So the solution, is to stop stocking nursery waters, so the wild brown trout spawn won't be stunted and the larger ones will become movers to spread their genes down the larger water highway to more tributaries.

These resident fish will make a sustainable yield for the harvesting angler.

Sounds like a death sentence for brook trout and worse than the stockings.

On one hand, fish that get harvested or perish mostly but put in each spring.

On the other, resident brown trout that are always there and compete for spawning habitat.

Nothing can go wrong there😐

Please find new material, it appears you ask the same silly questions to anyone that disagrees with you.

WhAt aRe yOu PRoteCTiNg?

How about our state fish, from you.
If you want to act like others are a determent to conservation simply for disagreeing with you then expect the same.

By all means continue the whine and stroke.
This isn't a thread to find common ground. It's a thread to whine about anyone not stroking the ego train.

 

[Stenonema]

How was this a solution when the PA wild life action plan is telling us to do the opposite.

Petition to Protect Large Brown Trout in Pennsylvania - Doc Fritchey Trout Unlimited

Our goal is to have 1,000-1,500 signatures to present to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission in January of 2021. Sixty-one years ago, Trout Unlimited – a renowned conservation organization […]

dftu.org

View attachment 1641227917

The brown trout isn't going anywhere. Can we manage for it differently to the benefit of the brook trout? We certainly need to entertain any ideas that lead to no longer stocking over native brook trout. The threat you shared above doesn't change the management practice.

 

[Stenonema]

So the solution, is to stop stocking nursery waters, so the wild brown trout spawn won't be stunted and the larger ones will become movers to spread their genes down the larger water highway to more tributaries.

These resident fish will make a sustainable yield for the harvesting angler.

Sounds like a death sentence for brook trout and worse than the stockings.

On one hand, fish that get harvested or perish mostly but put in each spring.

On the other, resident brown trout that are always there and compete for spawning habitat.

Nothing can go wrong there😐

Please find new material, it appears you ask the same silly questions to anyone that disagrees with you.

WhAt aRe yOu PRoteCTiNg?

How about our state fish, from you.
If you want to act like others are a determent to conservation simply for disagreeing with you then expect the same.

By all means continue the whine and stroke.
This isn't a thread to find common ground. It's a thread to whine about anyone not stroking the ego train.

My ego is shattered. I don't have one. If I had any self esteem I wouldn't subject myself to this. You don't even know me. Other than blaming the brown trout and complaining about me what are your ideas?
If it helps: Change the concept to Brook trout. Is there a possibility that stocking stunts brook trout. I don't see why we wouldn't want to know. Larger fish are appealing to anglers. If we can show through study that our wild trout grow larger in the absence of stocking it might help. Perhaps the mover is the most adaptable and the most impacted by stocking. We know the importance of these trout that move to the overall health of the wild trout communities.
Please stop looking at this in an adversarial light. Change your lens and help look for solutions before dismissing an idea out of hand because it targets the brown trout.
I love the brook trout every bit as much as you do.

 

[Tom1980]

Study: Wild brook trout do suffer from stocking - Outdoor News

Recent research conducted by the U.S. Geologic Survey in New York shows that stocking brown trout into streams harboring wild brook trout is harmful to the native trout populations.

www.outdoornews.com

If there were only studies....

There are. Many.
Stop looking at this from DeYoung Brown trout tinted glasses and realize all the data is there already. All of it is already there.

They don't give a crap about data. I've seen data dismissed, petitions ignored, public comment periods overwhelmingly to one side and then ignored. Occasionally they might give you a bone but you are asking for the whole bag of kibble when it comes to stocking and the majority of anglers.

Change the culture then you can make change.
It was discussed in many threads before this one.

 

[Tom1980]

Why are we going to electric cars? Cutting back on gasoline? Trying to go renewable?

Is it because of convenience? No it is not. Gasoline is convenient. So is stocking.

It is because of data mixed with global climate threats. It is because the culture has recognized the threat worldwide.

Change the culture, eliminate the threat.

The majority of anglers in PA have not changed their attitudes towards stocking.
Perhaps if they recognized a species threatened they may change. Brown trout are thriving and growing. Stocking is convenient to the average angler.

Why would they change?


I'm down to end stocking. I'm not down with any petition to protect large wild migratory Brown trout before even one iota of protection is granted to brook trout from them. There are streams that can be reclaimed for brook trout but if we are just going to blanket protect these type of brown trout, I'm not open to it.

Thought needs to go into this type of management.

 

[Stenonema]

The petition was to protect large invasive wild brown trout and while as mentioned bo one is interested in removing these fish in huge rivers because it’s impossible, that wasn’t a solution for native brook trout. The studies show us the solution is for native brook trout is reducing competition with invasive trout as mentioned in the PA wild life action plan that was followed by no action.

Study: Wild brook trout do suffer from stocking - Outdoor News

Recent research conducted by the U.S. Geologic Survey in New York shows that stocking brown trout into streams harboring wild brook trout is harmful to the native trout populations.

www.outdoornews.com

If there were only studies....

There are. Many.
Stop looking at this from DeYoung tinted glasses and realize all the data is there already.

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.

 

[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.

The article isn't the study.
The article points to just one study that was done by the US Geologic Survey.
There are many studies that show what you want but none from a stocking over brown trout perspective that I'm aware of.

The point is we don't need another study to get your answer.

 

[Stenonema]

The article isn't the study.
The article points to just one study that was done by the US Geologic Survey.
There are many studies that show what you want but none from a stocking over brown trout perspective that I'm aware of.

The point is we don't need another study to get your answer.

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