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

[Fish Sticks]

This version is behind a pay wall, I have a free copy somewhere. I’ll have to dig it up. Not all culverts are 100% impassible obviously there are still brook trout in penns creek so biotic barriers are not air tight either, but as we know partial barriers can have negative consequences. As for the importance of bigger receiving streams in the colder months that was almost the entire conclusion of Shannon Whites loyalsock study.

 

[Mike]

All that means in this context is that there is documented variation in behavior from one watershed to the next. That would not be a great surprise given what we know about the great cost of migration for many species. There has to be a substantial advantage to do so.

As for Pa streams and this behavior in Brook trout (running downstream to larger receiving streams after spawning and then producing unusually large trout over time) we don’t see these big Brook trout of yore in the Ltl Schuylkill from South Tamaqua to the mouth despite the frequency of wild ST tribs, which approaches 20 tribs. Also, we don’t find large ST or even many 9” ST in the tribs in summer, with possibly two to three exceptions regarding 9” abundance, despite the fact that within that 18 mi. stretch only a mile is stocked at the mouth and another two miles are stocked in the DH Area roughly mid-way in 18 miles. Given this, I don’t see stocking being the reason why those 9” and larger fish are quite limited in the LtlSchuylkill stretch that I cited, nor is it water quality, forage, or physical habitat in the river. What we do have in the Ltl Schuylkill despite two pockets of stocking, one being at the mouth with less than 1000 RT, is the occasional trib that supports 9” trout, which is true throughout much of Pa. Note that one of those tribs flows directly into that stocked stretch at the mouth!

 

[troutbert]

As for the importance of bigger receiving streams in the colder months that was almost the entire conclusion of Shannon Whites loyalsock study.

That is true. But stocking directly on top of native brookies has much more of an impact on native brook trout populations than stocking in large, warm waters downstream that are not even on the wild trout list.

So, fixing that problem should be our main focus.

The reason the academics focus on the migration thing is not because that is more important than stocking directly over native brook trout.

It's because new transmitter technology has made it possible to track fish movements much better than in the past. So that is a ripe area for original research. Original research is what they are incentivized to do. That is what advances their careers. Publish or perish, as they say in academia.

There isn't much incentive for academics to do more research on the impact of stocking over wild trout. Because fisheries biologists have known that is harmful since at least the 1940s. There is not much point in researching what everyone already knows.

 

[Fish Sticks]

All that means in this context is that there is documented variation in behavior from one watershed to the next. That would not be a great surprise given what we know about the great cost of migration for many species. There has to be a substantial advantage to do so.

As for Pa streams and this behavior in Brook trout (running downstream to larger receiving streams after spawning and then producing unusually large trout over time) we don’t see these big Brook trout of yore in the Ltl Schuylkill from South Tamaqua to the mouth despite the frequency of wild ST tribs, which approaches 20 tribs. Also, we don’t find large ST or even many 9” ST in the tribs in summer, with possibly two to three exceptions regarding 9” abundance, despite the fact that within that 18 mi. stretch only a mile is stocked at the mouth and another two miles are stocked in the DH Area roughly mid-way in 18 miles. Given this, I don’t see stocking being the reason why those 9” and larger fish are quite limited in the LtlSchuylkill stretch that I cited, nor is it water quality, forage, or physical habitat in the river. What we do have in the Ltl Schuylkill despite two pockets of stocking, one being at the mouth with less than 1000 RT, is the occasional trib that supports 9” trout, which is true throughout much of Pa. Note that one of those tribs flows directly into that stocked stretch at the mouth!

I am very familiar with that stream and would have to disagree with your observations as away from stocked stretches I do find 9+ in the mainstem from time time.

Also when you say “we don’t see” I don’t think anyone “sees” thats why Shannon white used fin clip genetics and Telemetry tags. Again fisheries managers over reliant on their observations and not performing high quality controlled studies suffer from their eyes lying to them, doesn’t matter how many decades.

Genetics and tele tags don’t lie… our eyes do.

While there is variation watershed to watershed these dynamics have been documented in multiple watersheds across the east coast and the benefit of this movement is food abundance. Your mistaken conclusion that 1700’s 20” brook trout must be present to benefit from this growth ignores that if you increase growth rate and survival can benefit reproductive the entire population dynamics. How do you know those tribs would not have smaller brook trout to an extent(as far as the fraction that does move without the well established source sink dynamics that the big water provides) . This was the whole last EBTJV lunch n learn with yochiro kanno that established downstream growth in larger waterways for fecundity was happening and important. He had a study and did not rely on his eyes either.

See the trend here

 

[Fish Sticks]

That is true. But stocking directly on top of native brookies has much more of an impact on native brook trout populations than stocking in large, warm waters downstream that are not even on the wild trout list.

So, fixing that problem should be our main focus.

The reason the academics focus on the migration thing is not because that is more important than stocking directly over native brook trout.

It's because new transmitter technology has made it possible to track fish movements much better than in the past. So that is a ripe area for original research. Original research is what they are incentivized to do. That is what advances their careers. Publish or perish, as they say in academia.

There isn't much incentive for academics to do more research on the impact of stocking over wild trout. Because fisheries biologists have known that is harmful since at least the 1940s. There is not much point in researching what everyone already knows.

So yes sure in the immediate, yes. And sometimes thats the best your going to get is stopping direct.

But look at slate and cedar

No direct and their lower secrions are class A brown trout or mixed with 10-20:1 BT/ST

so what your advocating for there has already happened and its failing because of slate run brown trout club and PFBC

 

[gulfgreyhound]

A tempest in a tea pot, imo. GG

 

[Fish Sticks]

A tempest in a tea pot, imo. GG

I covered this in the Fly Fisherman mag article with over 100 readable studies and statements performed/given by fisheries scientists supporting that this has been overlooked incredibly as a serious threat to brook trout. These are top 100 worldwide worst invasive species. EBTJV lists salmo trutta as 3rd biggest threat to wild native brook trout in PA



By the numbers here you go, enlighten me about the Tea pot

 

[silverfox]

This is what I don't get and a big part of why I question PFBC's practices in general.

This was published in 2015 BY PFBC (and PGC).

It's obvious there is zero interest from the agency in actually addressing this at this point. If they haven't done this in the past eight years, then I don't suspect they will do it anytime in the foreseeable future.

This brings us to the stocking over brook trout issue. If you're not going to remove the species, the least (I think) you could do is not add more of that species. Further, they admit on one hand that BT are bad for ST and then turn around and say BT isn't "considered" invasive. They aren't considered invasive by the agency because it would make them look really bad. That doesn't change the fact that the species is partly responsible for the loss of our state fish, or whether other people consider that "environmental harm" to qualify for a label.

The other thing I've never been able to figure out is the agency uses the language "areas managed for brook trout." What does that mean? There are no "brook trout management areas" with any kind of angling regulations or where brook trout are "managed" differently than any other trout species. There is nothing in the regulations book that identifies what a "brook trout management area" is, nor applies any kind of "management" to that species that doesn't apply to other species. Do they mean Class A sections of individual streams = "areas?" So if you have a 1/2 mile long Class A ST stream where they stock BT 1/2 a mile away in the receiving stream, that's a "brook trout management area?"

All I see is the agency publishing papers that look good to other states and making it look like they're doing things, and then turning around and arguing against there being any impact to ST from stocking or nonnative trout. It would be one thing to fail to take action, but to actively argue against taking action while simultaneously saying they should take action is astounding.

 

[krayfish2]

Brown trout versus what PFBC stocks and calls brown trout 😂

I can't even get a like on that post? Now I have Quasimodo spaniel in my Google search history just for a laugh. That's going to throw off the algorithms

 

[Fish Sticks]

This is what I don't get and a big part of why I question PFBC's practices in general.

This was published in 2015 BY PFBC (and PGC).
View attachment 1641229607

It's obvious there is zero interest from the agency in actually addressing this at this point. If they haven't done this in the past eight years, then I don't suspect they will do it anytime in the foreseeable future.

This brings us to the stocking over brook trout issue. If you're not going to remove the species, the least (I think) you could do is not add more of that species. Further, they admit on one hand that BT are bad for ST and then turn around and say BT isn't "considered" invasive. They aren't considered invasive by the agency because it would make them look really bad. That doesn't change the fact that the species is partly responsible for the loss of our state fish, or whether other people consider that "environmental harm" to qualify for a label.

The other thing I've never been able to figure out is the agency uses the language "areas managed for brook trout." What does that mean? There are no "brook trout management areas" with any kind of angling regulations or where brook trout are "managed" differently than any other trout species. There is nothing in the regulations book that identifies what a "brook trout management area" is, nor applies any kind of "management" to that species that doesn't apply to other species. Do they mean Class A sections of individual streams = "areas?" So if you have a 1/2 mile long Class A ST stream where they stock BT 1/2 a mile away in the receiving stream, that's a "brook trout management area?"

All I see is the agency publishing papers that look good to other states and making it look like they're doing things, and then turning around and arguing against there being any impact to ST from stocking or nonnative trout. It would be one thing to fail to take action, but to actively argue against taking action while simultaneously saying they should take action is astounding.

Yea PFBC which one is it? Lol

 

[Nymph-wristed]

Does the PA Council and/or national TU have guidance/enforcement/fines on this?

In my neck of the woods, angler organizations and clubs have a huge hand in introducing invasives over wild fish. Local TU's (and every deer camp) needs to look in the mirror too and not blame everything on the PFBC, whose mission is very different and who answers to a different constituency.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Does the PA Council and/or national TU have guidance/enforcement/fines on this?

In my neck of the woods, angler organizations and clubs have a huge hand in introducing invasives over wild fish. Local TU's (and every deer camp) needs to look in the mirror too and not blame everything on the PFBC, whose mission is very different and who answers to a different constituency.

While I totally agree PFBC has to educate for once and set the example. These people learned how to do it a long long time ago. With the messaging that its any citizens god given right to chuck invasive species in waterways from PFBC it makes it much more ineffective talking to these people doing it privately.


Not saying you shouldn’t hold them accountable, obviously I have spoken to a few of these groups myself. It will just be alot more effective when PFBC leads by example and possibly even makes some stocking auth with teeth.

 

[silverfox]

Yea PFBC which one is it? Lol

It's really bizarre. They published a "brook trout conservation strategies" document sometime around 2005. There's no date on the document , but you can infer from some of the dates that it was likely around 2005. I believe it was in conjunction with the formation of the EBTJV, the Hudy et al. paper, and the dataset for the status/threats document published around that time.

A lot of the things proposed in that document never happened. Like:

4.1. Enhance public interest and knowledge about brook trout and the importance of protecting, enhancing and restoring wild brook trout populations.

Strategy 4.1.1. Develop, present and distribute a multi-media program describing the history of brook trout in Pennsylvania.

Strategy 4.1.2. Partner with the Pennsylvania Outdoor Writers Association, and numerous other organizations that publish a newsletter (or other media access), to communicate the imperative to protect brook trout and their habitats.

Strategy 4.1.4. Use internet-media sources such as the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, Pennsylvania Council of Trout Unlimited and National Trout Unlimited websites to post information on the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture and the National Fish Habitat Initiative.

Basically, none of that ever happened.

Then in 2015, they published the wildlife action plan, which restated one of the objectives in the brook trout management document that never happened.

A formal state monitoring plan is currently being developed to assess population trends.

That never happened. At least it was never published.

In the most recent trout management plan from 2020, they mention again about impacts of BT on ST, but again, nothing happened there apparently, except for a meeting last year. It's also worth pointing out that by 2020, the story changed from "remove brown trout in areas managed for brook trout" to "conduct a study to see if brown trout are increasing and brook trout are decreasing." as if we don't already know the answer to that. Here's 38 studies that answer that question.

It's like somewhere around 2016-2018, someone made a deliberate decision just to ignore anything that has to do with brook trout specifically and tout the "unassessed waters" and "habitat improvement," neither of which are species specific, anytime anyone questions what they're doing for brook trout. All the action items established for brook trout specifically were abandoned at some point, and it turned into "wild trout" focus. It will be interesting to see what the 2026-2036 wildlife action plan says for brook trout. Maybe they'll just delete that section entirely.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

It's really bizarre. They published a "brook trout conservation strategies" document sometime around 2005. There's no date on the document , but you can infer from some of the dates that it was likely around 2005. I believe it was in conjunction with the formation of the EBTJV, the Hudy et al. paper, and the dataset for the status/threats document published around that time.

A lot of the things proposed in that document never happened. Like:




Basically, none of that ever happened.

Then in 2015, they published the wildlife action plan, which restated one of the objectives in the brook trout management document that never happened.

That never happened. At least it was never published.

In the most recent trout management plan from 2020, they mention again about impacts of BT on ST, but again, nothing happened there apparently, except for a meeting last year.

It's like somewhere around 2016-2018, someone made a deliberate decision just to ignore anything that has to do with brook trout specifically and tout the "unassessed waters" and "habitat improvement," neither of which are species specific anytime anyone questions what they're doing for brook trout. All the action items established for brook trout specifically were abandoned at some point, and it turned into "wild trout" focus. It will be interesting to see what the 2026-2036 wildlife action plan says for brook trout. Maybe they'll just delete that section entirely.

2026-2036 wildlife action plan

Brook Trout:

Monitor and assess population downward trends using plan developed.
As populations deplete, ad waters to the state stocking program.

🤷

 

[Nymph-wristed]

While I totally agree PFBC has to educate for once and set the example. These people learned how to do it a long long time ago. With the messaging that its any citizens god given right to chuck invasive species in waterways from PFBC it makes it much more ineffective talking to these people doing it privately.


Not saying you shouldn’t hold them accountable, obviously I have spoken to a few of these groups myself. It will just be alot more effective when PFBC leads by example and possibly even makes some stocking auth with teeth.

I respectfully disagree. I think a movement like this is not going be a top down affair. Grassroots, build support, etc. That seems to be lacking still from what I see, but I don't think that is immovable at all. A gov't agency is going to be reactive not proactive, as always. I appreciate you fighting the fight on a grassroots level, even though I love me some browns trouts

 

[Fish Sticks]

I respectfully disagree. I think a movement like this is not going be a top down affair. Grassroots, build support, etc. That seems to be lacking still from what I see, but I don't think that is immovable at all. A gov't agency is going to be reactive not proactive, as always. I appreciate you fighting the fight on a grassroots level, even though I love me some browns trouts

I am pushing on the grassroots level and at PFBC so hopefully got both bases covered. Just need more people pushing. Honestly we need to go even more grass roots and drag non angler stakeholders into this. I am going to give a presentation to sierra club coming up and their already so organized in terms of advocacy and used to engaging that if they take interest that could be a nice entry in the non angler stakeholder demo.

And i’ve walked into the slate run geneal store and talked to the individual running the brown trout club, zero F’s given its bussiness for them in my opinion attracting folks to the shop. Look at this fraudulent solicitation for invasive species stocking.

 

[silverfox]

I respectfully disagree. I think a movement like this is not going be a top down affair. Grassroots, build support, etc. That seems to be lacking still from what I see, but I don't think that is immovable at all. A gov't agency is going to be reactive not proactive, as always. I appreciate you fighting the fight on a grassroots level, even though I love me some browns trouts

I'm more interested in government oversight. They're putting out these plans and documents to check off boxes as part of some larger statewide or regional initiative involving multiple state and federal agencies, but who's checking in to see if they're actually doing any of these things?

 

[silverfox]

2026-2036 wildlife action plan

Brook Trout:

Monitor and assess population downward trends using plan developed.
As populations deplete, ad waters to the state stocking program.

🤷

I know this is a joke, but honestly, they've had "assess populations" as a "goal" for the past 20 years. At least. We'll just assess them until they're extinct, and then we can finally just ignore them completely.

 

[jifigz]

I can't even get a like on that post? Now I have Quasimodo spaniel in my Google search history just for a laugh. That's going to throw off the algorithms

Just because I like Springer Spaniels I went back and gave you a "courtesy" like.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I know this is a joke, but honestly, they've had "assess populations" as a "goal" for the past 20 years. At least. We'll just assess them until they're extinct, and then we can finally just ignore them completely.

They would love nothing more. Thats what happens when your commissioner’s are ex custodians, accountants, delicatessens, cross walk guards, and volunteer WCO’s. You just get a bunch of guys who like fishing and it all becomes about fishing and they sit up there in those meetings faking it until they make it acting like they understand fisheries science or the importance of species conservation. Everyone of the initiatives silverfox posted that exists on paper only has been chosen intentionally to be ignored.