Chesapeake Log Perch soon Federally Endangered? PSU’s Dr. Stauffer highlights threat of invasive predators

This whole situation is very interesting to me because it's wading into an area of law that isn't well established yet. I suspect, based on the small amount of legal precedence that does exist (from a lawsuit against the CADF&G), that legal precedence may be set soon that forces state F&G agencies to submit environmental impact reports on the impact of stocked trout. Of course CA has fought tooth and nail to avoid having to do it. Pretty funny (sad) that a state agency charged with protecting state resources would appeal to the ends of the earth to avoid having to provide impact statements on trout stocking.

It makes logical sense to me. If a polluter were negatively impacting a designated critical habitat for a T/E species, they would be subject to all the remedies under the ESA (and other laws). A very well-pedigreed environmental lawyer told me a while back that "it's not up to the scientific community to prove there is harm to T/E species by stocked nonnative trout, but rather up to the states' F&G agencies to prove there is none." I think we forget that this change in mindset that stocked nonnative trout aren't harmless is still a very new thing (from a legal perspective).
 
Mike said:
“Imagine smiling that a species is at a possible threat level 4 by down playing it to another struggling species.”

It’s not a threat level; it’s a priority level 4 on a scale of 1-5. There’s a difference. I assume 1’s are top priority.

By the way, around 2015 or so I independently proposed a Chesapeake Logperch catch and transfer effort to other streams with similar habitats as an initial range restoration or expansion effort. If there was already another effort underway at PSU or by another agency, I was not aware of it. A species need not be on a federall list to implement range restoration or expansion efforts.
Click to expand...
Sounds like sympatric semantics.

Some how, without any barriers to stop you, your deflection exists with my point.

How did that independently proposed catch and transfer go?

Proposed is different than accomplished.

If this fish has less interest to the PFBC than brook trout, it will need to be federally listed.
So I disagree with you.
 
Last edited:
silverfox said:
This whole situation is very interesting to me because it's wading into an area of law that isn't well established yet. I suspect, based on the small amount of legal precedence that does exist (from a lawsuit against the CADF&G), that legal precedence may be set soon that forces state F&G agencies to submit environmental impact reports on the impact of stocked trout. Of course CA has fought tooth and nail to avoid having to do it. Pretty funny (sad) that a state agency charged with protecting state resources would appeal to the ends of the earth to avoid having to provide impact statements on trout stocking.

It makes logical sense to me. If a polluter were negatively impacting a designated critical habitat for a T/E species, they would be subject to all the remedies under the ESA (and other laws). A very well-pedigreed environmental lawyer told me a while back that "it's not up to the scientific community to prove there is harm to T/E species by stocked nonnative trout, but rather up to the states' F&G agencies to prove there is none." I think we forget that this change in mindset that stocked nonnative trout aren't harmless is still a very new thing (from a legal perspective).
Click to expand...
👏
 
Mike said:
Yet the most common SE Pa darter, the tessellated darter, populations do fine with or without sympatric BT. Along with blacknose dace, longnose dace, rosyside dace, and the occasional creek chub, they are the most common species found with wild BT in the SE and usually one or more among this mix of these species is abundant in fish population surveys in wild BT streams. BT are not cleaning out the forage base.

By the way, who is “we?” Anglers?
Don’t you mean “they?”
Click to expand...
No I mean “we” as in ALL stakeholders, even the ones that don’t know PFBC making awful decisions for them. Your saying BT not clearing out the forage base but your basing this on anecdotal experience and very old surveys simply looking at static presence data and even if in your life time there is not a significant change in SOME of these species in the presence of invasive brown trout its a drop in the bucket time and evolutionary wise, invasive lake trout in flathead lake were dormant for nearly a century in flathead lake before taking down native salmonids. What your saying is riddled with issues and very misleading, show me empirical evidence
 
sixfootfenwick said:
Sounds like sympatric semantics.

Some how, without any barriers to stop you, your deflection exists with my point.

How did that independently proposed catch and transfer go?

Proposed is different than accomplished.

If this fish has less interest to the PFBC than brook trout, it will need to be federally listed.
So I disagree with you.
Click to expand...
Proposed for others to consider within the agency whose functions were more commensurate with actions required and the species involved.
 
Mike said:
Proposed for others to consider within the agency whose functions were more commensurate with actions required and the species involved.
Click to expand...
AND HOW DiD IT GO, THEY DO IT?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet they didn't.
Why would they?

In 2015, they had a 5 year action plan that I'm sure isn't completed and should have ended in 2020. Seems familiar, I swear there is another species of fish in PA with a PFBC action or management plan being ignored. Huh, can't put my finger on it

Your claim is a species doesn't need to be federally listed to implement range restoration or expansion efforts. True.

But "political realities" of having it listed grease the wheels.
 
Last edited:
sixfootfenwick said:
AND HOW DiD IT GO, THEY DO IT?

I'm going to go out on a limb here and bet they didn't.
Why would they?

In 2015, they had a 5 year action plan that I'm sure isn't completed and should have ended in 2020. Seems familiar, I swear there is another species of fish in PA with a PFBC action or management plan being ignored. Huh, can't put my finger on it

Your claim is a species doesn't need to be federally listed to implement range restoration or expansion efforts. True.

But "political realities" of having it listed grease the wheels.
Click to expand...
I've said before that I get the impression a lot of these "plans" were the result of being included in some wider effort by other agencies/collaborations to address issues, and they had to produce them to check a box. I don't think there was any real desire to do most of the things on these lists/plans. They had to participate since they were included in the workgroup, and that's about the extent of it.

The original brook trout plan is pushing 20 years old now, and I doubt 10% of the proposed actions ever happened. Some of the issues had target dates for completion in 2015, and they never happened. Even now, there is a deadline of Jan 2024 to produce a status update, and they've only had one meeting about it since 2020.
 
silverfox said:
I've said before that I get the impression a lot of these "plans" were the result of being included in some wider effort by other agencies/collaborations to address issues, and they had to produce them to check a box. I don't think there was any real desire to do most of the things on these lists/plans. They had to participate since they were included in the workgroup, and that's about the extent of it.

The original brook trout plan is pushing 20 years old now, and I doubt 10% of the proposed actions ever happened. Some of the issues had target dates for completion in 2015, and they never happened. Even now, there is a deadline of Jan 2024 to produce a status update, and they've only had one meeting about it since 2020.
Click to expand...
Bingo.
And I'm seeing a report from 2018 that had the same goals as the 2015.

Color me not surprised.
I think we all know and can understand the agency is strapped and over burdened. It's unfair, but then tell it like it is, I don't need someone from the agency currently or retired to pee on my leg and act like the drought is over.
 
Fish Sticks said:
www.wtaj.com

One-of-a-kind: Penn State research team studies rare Susquehanna fish

Pa. (WTAJ) — A Penn State University research team is sharing new findings about a rare darter fish that they believe only lives in the Susquehanna River. It’s called the Chesapeake log…
www.wtaj.com www.wtaj.com

Stauffer warns against adding more invasive predators


Of note PA fish and boat stocks some of the last few streams on earth containing this rare species with invasive hatchery trout as well as manages for wild invasive brown trout populations in or very near them.

If Feds list the species PFBC might be forced to clean up their act. We will see.
Click to expand...
The invasives specified in the linked article are those being transported across state lines. Funding from the PFBC and the Wildlife Resource Fund for logperch research work is also mentioned.

See even more descriptive details in the 7/7/23 issue of Pennsylvania Outdoor News in an article by Editor, Jeff Mulhollem.
 
Last edited:
Mike said:
The invasives specified in the linked article are those being transported across state lines. Funding from the PFBC and the Wildlife Resource Fund for logperch research work is also mentioned.

See even more descriptive details in the 7/7/23 issue of Pennsylvania Outdoor News in an article by Editor, Jeff Mulhollem.
Click to expand...
I read that, is there research showing one invasive species is worse than another for log perch?
 
I don’t know, but the comments regarding invasive threats did not refer to any coldwater species.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages
Wayward Trading”/> </center> </div> </div> </div> <div class=


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top