FOX 43 News: PFBC stocking invasive trout story(link to video of story aired on evening news). PFBC declines to be interviewed

[Fish Sticks]

Are Pennsylvania's trout stocking practices harming the native brook trout?

The Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission is stocking 3.2 million adult trout this year. Nearly 94% are brown and rainbow trout, both non-native to Pennsylvania.

www.fox43.com

For the record PA fish and boat lied in a pre-prepared statement.

They said their trout, despite being ranked in the top 100 worst invasive species out of around 4-5,000 on planet earth, are not invasive according to them.

Lying by omission as they have done in the past is one thing but flat out lying about generally accepted knowledge in fisheries to take advantage of the general public PFBC has kept in the dark is disgusting.

Guess they made International Union of Conservation of Natures 100 worst global invasive species list by mistake then.

Listed alphabetically
Rainbow trout number 63
Brown trout number 82

GISD

description

www.iucngisd.org

guess Utah state published this by accident if their not invasive

“Brown trout have been included in the top 30 worst invasive species on the globe due to their overwhelming success as invaders and the plethora of negative impacts they have had on invaded ecosystems (reviewed in McIntosh et al. 2011; International Union for the Conservation of Nature). “

https://www.usu.edu/fel/publications/pdf/Budy&Gaeta2017BrownToutinNAChapter20.pdf

details

I guess removals of millions of these fish outside their native range world wide was just a mistake? Lol

 

[Silent Ocelot]

Doesn't look good that the PFBC refused to be interviewed.

 

[afishinado]

While I agree, more can/should be done to preserve native brook trout in PA, we all know the PFBC is funded by license buying anglers. Fulfilling the desires of anglers that buy fishing licenses is a large part of why the FBC stocks so many trout.

I put up a survey on PAFF about trout species fishing preference a while back and close to half of the posters on here responded they preferred fishing for brown trout: https://www.paflyfish.com/threads/favorite-trout-species-to-ff-for.81811/

Check out a thread concerning trout species preference from the PA Hunting & Fishing site, which is mostly from the spin anglers perspective: https://www.huntingpa.com/threads/w...out-to-catch-in-pa.347793/page-2#post-4224372

I believe PA angler attitudes have to change before we ever see a major shift from stocking trout to wild trout to making brook trout survival the highest priority in PA streams.

 

[jifigz]

While I agree, more can/should be done to preserve native brook trout in PA, we all know the PFBC is funded by license buying anglers. Fulfilling the desires of anglers that buy fishing licenses is a large part of why the FBC stocks so many trout.

I put up a survey on PAFF about trout species fishing preference a while back and close to half of the posters on here responded they preferred fishing for brown trout: https://www.paflyfish.com/threads/favorite-trout-species-to-ff-for.81811/

Check out a thread concerning trout species preference from the PA Hunting & Fishing site, which is mostly from the spin anglers perspective: https://www.huntingpa.com/threads/w...out-to-catch-in-pa.347793/page-2#post-4224372

I believe PA angler attitudes have to change before we ever see a major shift from stocking trout to wild trout to making brook trout survival the highest priority in PA streams.

Yo Tom, I enjoyed the forum thread from Hunting PA. You see quite a diverse amount of answers, but there is more brookie support on that thread than I would have guessed. Interesting to read everyone's responses.

 

[wildtrout2]

Doesn't look good that the PFBC refused to be interviewed.

I was thinking the same thing.

 

[silverfox]

I was more surprised by the definition of "invasive species" they provided. They added the word "significant" to the definition, which isn't correct.

As per Executive Order 13112 (Section 1. Definitions) an "invasive species" is a species that is:

1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and,

2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.

A species ranked as one of the top reasons for the decline of native species seems like it would qualify as "environmental harm." Heck, it might even qualify as "significant" environmental harm, depending on your perspective. "Significant" isn't part of the definition because it's subjective.

Also, environmental impacts are largely responsible for the loss of brook trout. I think everyone knows that. There are countless federal and state agencies (including PFBC), nonprofits, individuals etc. working on correcting environmental degradation. However, nonnative species are an impact. We can argue the severity til we're blue in the face, but the fact is they are an issue. To date, I've seen very little to suggest that the agency is willing to admit that. From my perspective, it looks like the agency is doing everything they can to avoid addressing that issue while focusing on everything else. It should be a holistic approach to conservation, including all threats, not just the noncontroversial ones.

The stocking authorization is one of the most significant steps in the right direction in decades that will likely have some positive impact on brook trout, but as we've seen, it's now watered down to more or less be ineffective for the foreseeable future.

Stocked fish aside, we have nothing from an angling regulation standpoint that addresses the nonnative trout issue. So far, we have no trout species specific regulations and more or less treat all trout species as equals, even though the same agency has published guidance saying they should do the opposite.

On the PAFF poll, it's worth noting that only eight people out of 70 chose BT over ST. Hardly an overwhelming majority. Even if it was, brook trout aren't a promoted angling species in PA, so it wouldn't surprise me. Even if nobody cared about angling for brook trout, angler preference shouldn't be a driving force in whether a species receives conservation or angling protections.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

On the PAFF poll, it's worth noting that only eight people out of 70 chose BT over ST. Hardly an overwhelming majority. Even if it was, brook trout aren't a promoted angling species in PA, so it wouldn't surprise me. Even if nobody cared about angling for brook trout, angler preference shouldn't be a driving force in whether a species receives conservation or angling protections.

👆

They should just change the definition of stocked trout to wild trout, just avoid the whole mess.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Are Pennsylvania's trout stocking practices harming the native brook trout?

The Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission is stocking 3.2 million adult trout this year. Nearly 94% are brown and rainbow trout, both non-native to Pennsylvania.

www.fox43.com

For the record PA fish and boat lied in a pre-prepared statement.

They said their trout, despite being ranked in the top 100 worst invasive species out of around 4-5,000 on planet earth, are not invasive according to them.

Lying by omission as they have done in the past is one thing but flat out lying about generally accepted knowledge in fisheries to take advantage of the general public PFBC has kept in the dark is disgusting.

Guess they made International Union of Conservation of Natures 100 worst global invasive species list by mistake then.

Listed alphabetically
Rainbow trout number 63
Brown trout number 82

GISD

description

www.iucngisd.org

guess Utah state published this by accident if their not invasive

“Brown trout have been included in the top 30 worst invasive species on the globe due to their overwhelming success as invaders and the plethora of negative impacts they have had on invaded ecosystems (reviewed in McIntosh et al. 2011; International Union for the Conservation of Nature). “

https://www.usu.edu/fel/publications/pdf/Budy&Gaeta2017BrownToutinNAChapter20.pdf

details

I guess removals of millions of these fish outside their native range world wide was just a mistake? Lol

Outline of all land masses in the world where fisheries science doesn't matter and fish culture stations breed a type of trout that makes friends, shares food, shares spawning ground , shares habitat and sings kumbaya with it's competition.

 

[Fish Sticks]

While I agree, more can/should be done to preserve native brook trout in PA, we all know the PFBC is funded by license buying anglers. Fulfilling the desires of anglers that buy fishing licenses is a large part of why the FBC stocks so many trout.

I put up a survey on PAFF about trout species fishing preference a while back and close to half of the posters on here responded they preferred fishing for brown trout: https://www.paflyfish.com/threads/favorite-trout-species-to-ff-for.81811/

Check out a thread concerning trout species preference from the PA Hunting & Fishing site, which is mostly from the spin anglers perspective: https://www.huntingpa.com/threads/w...out-to-catch-in-pa.347793/page-2#post-4224372

I believe PA angler attitudes have to change before we ever see a major shift from stocking trout to wild trout to making brook trout survival the highest priority in PA streams.

I agree that fishing drives license sales and thats how their operating right now as far as their priorities so agree there for sure.

The only thing is their not claiming to manage “license holder” aquatic resources. They are claiming to manage “the commonwealths” aquatic resources. So since thats how they operate there is a transparency issue there for the lay person as far as what drives their decisions.

The other thing is with their purported “resource first” slogan misrepresents them as making decisions based on aquatic ecosystems and conservation.

They sell Licenses and its the fox watching the hen house so maybe their social program should be separate from actual resource management that they are not really doing right now, at least not for the benefit of conservation.

Maybe we need an agency that does the real evidence based practice of fisheries science implementation like a separate DNR that houses the biologists and all the unqualified leadership won’t have to vote on conservation and can focus on fishing which is largely what their doing anyway. Essentially PFBC could just be told where they can stock.

I mean it sounds like an untenable huge change but I think what your post speaks to is that we don’t expect PFBC to ever make significant changes and thats the problem.

 

[streamerguy]

"The Commission calls protecting the native brook trout, along with other wild trout, a priority..."

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Prove it then. Stop stocking over brook trout, and stop allowing co-ops to do it. Pretty freaking simple.

 

[streamerguy]

"The state also avoids stocking wild brook trout streams which contain moderate to high-density populations of those native fish."

The low density populations are the ones that need the help the most.

 

[silverfox]

One thing they should be able to do easily is to prohibit private hatcheries from raising brook trout. It was a private hatchery that introduced gill lice to several brook trout populations years ago. All that would require is a change to the list of species permitted for propagation. They shouldn't even need an act of god (commissioner approval) to do it.

Stocking non-native species over brook trout is bad, but stocking brook trout over brook trout is worse. In fairness, I give PFBC credit for cutting back brook trout stocking themselves. What's the next step, though?

 

[Fish Sticks]

"The state also avoids stocking wild brook trout streams which contain moderate to high-density populations of those native fish."

The low density populations are the ones that need the help the most.

And who knows they could be wrapping up class B and below in “low density”

 

[JimKennedy]

I was thinking the same thing.

There’s responding to a legitimate question, then there’s having the good sense to know you’re about to be ambushed in a way that makes everything you could possibly say seem both sinister and stupid.

As a reporter who spent 30 years in the business, I can say that no one ever gave me a no comment because they knew they would have their comments fairly reported and in context.

Pennsylvania and other states have been stocking invasive trout since 1883. A story about stocking invasives on the eve of opening day is like a Super Bowl halftime show about brain injury. Or a story about an ex girlfriend presented during the best man’s toast.

If Fox was interested in a fair and balanced story about a complex situation, it would not have approached a century old practice as though it was breaking news.

PaFBC may look a bit bad by giving a no comment, but I suspect anything that they did say would have been turned into something damning.

That’s what happens when news reporters become the news instead of doing their damn job and reporting it.

 

[Fish Sticks]

There’s responding to a legitimate question, then there’s having the good sense to know you’re about to be ambushed in a way that makes everything you could possibly say seem both sinister and stupid.

As a reporter who spent 30 years in the business, I can say that no one ever gave me a no comment because they knew they would have their comments fairly reported and in context.

Pennsylvania and other states have been stocking invasive trout since 1883. A story about stocking invasives on the eve of opening day is like a Super Bowl halftime show about brain injury. Or a story about an ex girlfriend presented during the best man’s toast.

If Fox was interested in a fair and balanced story about a complex situation, it would not have approached a century old practice as though it was breaking news.

PaFBC may look a bit bad by giving a no comment, but I suspect anything that they did say would have been turned into something damning.

That’s what happens when news reporters become the news instead of doing their damn job and reporting it.

Because its a century old and loads of research comes out in the last 25 years on how harmful it is and the public is informed now their journalistic integrity is compromised? The whole point of the story is the general public had no idea they were invasive species. While some groups call stocking these species “conservation” and step on invasive lantern flies that look like angels compared to brown and rainbow trout, no one told them their invasive rankings based on spread and impact were top 100 our of 4-5k known invasive species on earth. Thats what the news is supposed to do, making informed decisio makers and stakeholders

It’s obvious you just don’t like that this information is being shared with the public

 

[ryansheehan]

Because its a century old and loads of research comes out in the last 25 years on how harmful it is and the public is informed now their journalistic integrity is compromised? The whole point of the story is the general public had no idea they were invasive species. While some groups call stocking these species “conservation” and step on invasive lantern flies that look like angels compared to brown and rainbow trout, no one told them their invasive rankings based on spread and impact were top 100 our of 4-5k known invasive species on earth. Thats what the news is supposed to do, making informed decisio makers and stakeholders

It’s obvious you just don’t like that this information is being shared with the public

I thought someone who was in the business for 30 years offered some interesting insight I would have never known. He didn't seem to have any take on the information itself but just on the no comment portion. The only thing that is obvious is the direction of this thread.....

 

[PennKev]

Pennsylvania and other states have been stocking invasive trout since 1883. A story about stocking invasives on the eve of opening day is like a Super Bowl halftime show about brain injury. Or a story about an ex girlfriend presented during the best man’s toast.

Let's get real, the same story wouldn't see the light of day any other time of year. This is the only time of year the general public even thinks about trout.

 

[Coontail77]

They have to balance angler enjoyment with environmental protection? Shouldn’t that be one and the same?

 

[jifigz]

Are Pennsylvania's trout stocking practices harming the native brook trout?

The Pennsylvania Fish & Boat Commission is stocking 3.2 million adult trout this year. Nearly 94% are brown and rainbow trout, both non-native to Pennsylvania.

www.fox43.com

For the record PA fish and boat lied in a pre-prepared statement.

They said their trout, despite being ranked in the top 100 worst invasive species out of around 4-5,000 on planet earth, are not invasive according to them.

If those stocked trout don't reproduce and, in many streams, die off/vanish are they still invasive? I'm talking about the fish specifically stocked by the PFBC. I would say no. That line that is stocked is not spreading, colonizing, and over taking environments. They are a temporary disruption.

I don't refute brown and rainbow trout are invasive. Of course they are. So many species are. So many common species people would never realize.

So, did the PFBC knowingly lie if their strains aren't reproducing and becoming established?

 

[Andrwhite610]

Do these stocked trout absolutely never reproduce? Specifically brown trout. It seems that wild brown trout are in many creeks In my area. Maybe this is a stupid question but are they from recent stocked browns that reproduced? Recent being from the last few decades. Or are they ancestors of brown trout from long ago? If stocked trout don’t reproduce how did brown trout take hold from the jump? Were the very beginnings of stocked browns pure wild trout imported from different parts of the world?