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

silverfox said:
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?
Click to expand...
I am probably rehashing months of discussion and dissent on here, so I will keep it short. No one wants to pay taxes these days and licenses keep the agency going and many people want a fishery not a particular wild fishery.... How can you have top down oversight when there is like one CO for three counties, etc.? I also think it's a slippery slope from ending stocking to the extirpation like done out West. Playing god to undue our forbears playing god? Seems dangerous and not fully enlightened.

That is why I am still on the fence. Build support and allay folks' concerns about how pervasive the practice will be; start with pilot watersheds and report findings; work on climate change deniers in office because who knows if the targeted creeks will even support brook trout in the next 10 years; fine polluters and track down those that abandon fracking operations or will in the future; and so on...

Clubs and private landowners play an unexamined big part. For example with a creek I love: Many tribs of the Brodhead have native fish, and the private clubs stock invasives on their properties There is even a pay to fish hatchery on Paradise Creek if I am not mistaken.
 
Fish Sticks said:
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.
Click to expand...
I said we don’t find “many” 9” ST in the Ltl Schuylkill; I didn’t say none. I would say that your “time to time” is the equivalent of my “we don’t find many.”Furthermore, if good numbers are not showing up in the tribs, it’s unlikely they (good numbers) are in the river, as logically they would become concentrated in the tribs. The vast majority of the tribs were surveyed as part of the unassessed waters program very close to or at their mouths, the most likely stretches to have habitat capable of supporting larger trout in such small tribs.

As for fecundity in trout, it’s an over-rated metric. Larger trout may be more fecund, but egg quality is lower. Smaller, younger fish produce better quality eggs and by virtue of their higher population abundance, produce more eggs than the largest, older adults. Furthermore, trout year class strength is seldom limited by the abundance of adults and one does not need to do genetics research to know that few are showing up in the vast majority of the tribs.

I’m not debating that there is movement of larger trout in at least some systems, although I’m not certain that you have defined “larger trout.” Just to clarify what is your definition of larger ST in the context being discussed? Given the voluntary C&R in many Pa trout streams, I certainly would not apply a ST C&R reg in the receiving waters that are stocked without having up to date evidence that larger wild ST are being harvested to any great extent in stocked receiving waters.
 
Last edited:
Nymph-wristed said:
I am probably rehashing months of discussion and dissent on here, so I will keep it short. No one wants to pay taxes these days and licenses keep the agency going and many people want a fishery not a particular wild fishery.... How can you have top down oversight when there is like one CO for three counties, etc.? I also think it's a slippery slope from ending stocking to the extirpation like done out West. Playing god to undue our forbears playing god? Seems dangerous and not fully enlightened.

That is why I am still on the fence. Build support and allay folks' concerns about how pervasive the practice will be; start with pilot watersheds and report findings; work on climate change deniers in office because who knows if the targeted creeks will even support brook trout in the next 10 years; fine polluters and track down those that abandon fracking operations or will in the future; and so on...

Clubs and private landowners play an unexamined big part. For example with a creek I love: Many tribs of the Brodhead have native fish, and the private clubs stock invasives on their properties There is even a pay to fish hatchery on Paradise Creek if I am not mistaken.
Click to expand...
All of the nuances aside, I simply want the agency to do what they've been saying they're going to do for the past few decades. Everything I complain about is either something they've said they're going to do and haven't or things that are common everywhere else but here.

It doesn't have to be some huge "what to do." Heck, the "Enhance public interest and knowledge about brook trout and the importance of protecting, enhancing and restoring wild brook trout populations." strategy in the action plan published 18 years ago would be a huge start. What the heck controversy would that cause?
 
silverfox said:
All of the nuances aside, I simply want the agency to do what they've been saying they're going to do for the past few decades. Everything I complain about is either something they've said they're going to do and haven't or things that are common everywhere else but here.

It doesn't have to be some huge "what to do." Heck, the "Enhance public interest and knowledge about brook trout and the importance of protecting, enhancing and restoring wild brook trout populations." strategy in the action plan published 18 years ago would be a huge start. What the heck controversy would that cause?
Click to expand...
I think that is fair.
 
Mike said:
I said we don’t find “many” 9” ST in the Ltl Schuylkill; I didn’t say none. I would say that your “time to time” is the equivalent of my “we don’t find many.”Furthermore, if good numbers are not showing up in the tribs, it’s unlikely they (good numbers) are in the river, as logically they would become concentrated in the tribs. The vast majority of the tribs were surveyed as part of the unassessed waters program very close to or at their mouths, the most likely stretches to have habitat capable of supporting larger trout in such small tribs.

As for fecundity in trout, it’s an over-rated metric. Larger trout may be more fecund, but egg quality is lower. Smaller, younger fish produce better quality eggs and by virtue of their higher population abundance, produce more eggs than the largest, older adults. Furthermore, trout year class strength is seldom limited by the abundance of adults and one does not need to do genetics research to know that few are showing up in the vast majority of the tribs.
Click to expand...
Have you looked for upwellings in the mainstem?
🙂

It could be that the most likely area surveyed isn't the best area after all.
I've seen planty of streams were the best habitat for larger specimens are mid river etc.


It's possible your data set is incomplete.
It's also possible it isn't.


We will never know 🤷

What do you conclude their limiting factor is?
 
Last edited:
Mike said:
I said we don’t find “many” 9” ST in the Ltl Schuylkill; I didn’t say none. I would say that your “time to time” is the equivalent of my “we don’t find many.”Furthermore, if good numbers are not showing up in the tribs, it’s unlikely they (good numbers) are in the river, as logically they would become concentrated in the tribs. The vast majority of the tribs were surveyed as part of the unassessed waters program very close to or at their mouths, the most likely stretches to have habitat capable of supporting larger trout in such small tribs.

As for fecundity in trout, it’s an over-rated metric. Larger trout may be more fecund, but egg quality is lower. Smaller, younger fish produce better quality eggs and by virtue of their higher population abundance, produce more eggs than the largest, older adults. Furthermore, trout year class strength is seldom limited by the abundance of adults and one does not need to do genetics research to know that few are showing up in the vast majority of the tribs.
Click to expand...
I mean i am just saying what Dr. Kanno who has studied brook trout throughout their native range and in their invasive range in colorado has presented Friday during the last EBTJV Lunch n learn. He said the growth rated contribution to fecundity in larger main-stem habitats was present . He thought it was important enough to mention. Might want to visit his google scholar and read his last publication “small giants”.
 
Fish Sticks said:
I mean i am just saying what Dr. Kanno who has studied brook trout throughout their native range and in their invasive range in colorado has presented Friday during the last EBTJV Lunch n learn. He said the growth rated contribution to fecundity in larger main-stem habitats was present . He thought it was important enough to mention. Might want to visit his google scholar and read his last publication “small giants”.
Click to expand...
Are you sure their native range is like this area of the world? It's totally unique, especially when compared to just below it's southern border.
 

Attachments

  • 360_F_292974482_H5p8rGsBDpO0yh89U5Ye4wXdbAExlfst.jpg
    360_F_292974482_H5p8rGsBDpO0yh89U5Ye4wXdbAExlfst.jpg
    10.3 KB · Views: 3
Mike said:
I said we don’t find “many” 9” ST in the Ltl Schuylkill; I didn’t say none. I would say that your “time to time” is the equivalent of my “we don’t find many.”Furthermore, if good numbers are not showing up in the tribs, it’s unlikely they (good numbers) are in the river, as logically they would become concentrated in the tribs. The vast majority of the tribs were surveyed as part of the unassessed waters program very close to or at their mouths, the most likely stretches to have habitat capable of supporting larger trout in such small tribs.

As for fecundity in trout, it’s an over-rated metric. Larger trout may be more fecund, but egg quality is lower. Smaller, younger fish produce better quality eggs and by virtue of their higher population abundance, produce more eggs than the largest, older adults. Furthermore, trout year class strength is seldom limited by the abundance of adults and one does not need to do genetics research to know that few are showing up in the vast majority of the tribs.

I’m not debating that there is movement of larger trout in at least some systems, although I’m not certain that you have defined “larger trout.” Just to clarify what is your definition of larger ST in the context being discussed? Given the voluntary C&R in many Pa trout streams, I certainly would not apply a ST C&R reg in the receiving waters that are stocked without having up to date evidence that larger wild ST are being harvested to any great extent in stocked receiving waters.
Click to expand...
I don't understand the reluctance for any kind of ST harvest regs anywhere in the state. Are you opposed to harvest of BT on the LJR? Penns? Spring Ck? Yellow Ck? The Letort?

I think we have it backwards. There should be harvest of brook trout permitted on Class As that can support it, and no harvest on Class B, C, Ds that are stocked. If you're going to stock over brook trout, at least protect the brook trout in those waters. Size is irrelevant. If those populations are struggling and you're dumping fish on top of them and inviting an unnatural number of anglers to fish there with the intent to harvest, the least you could do is mandatory C&R of the struggling brook trout.

www.fredericknewspost.com

Today's Sportsman: New regulations aim to protect, preserve Md.'s brook trout populations

Fishing has many intrinsic qualities that go well beyond the mere act of catching fish. For instance, holding a native brook trout in your hand for only a few seconds
www.fredericknewspost.com www.fredericknewspost.com
 
Nymph-wristed said:
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.
Click to expand...
Which PA TU chapters do you think are stocking over wild trout?
 
silverfox said:
I don't understand the reluctance for any kind of ST harvest regs anywhere in the state. Are you opposed to harvest of BT on the LJR? Penns? Spring Ck? Yellow Ck? The Letort?
Click to expand...
Spring Creek has a brookie population? If so, where?
 
troutbert said:
Which PA TU chapters do you think are stocking over wild trout?
Click to expand...
Not opening a can of worms here. I told Fish Sticks about one over PM last year.
 
troutbert said:
Which PA TU chapters do you think are stocking over wild trout?
Click to expand...
I know the Little Schuylkill ironically gets stocked by the Schuylkill Headwaters Assoc, I believe with help from Schuylkill TU
 
troutbert said:
Looks like just technical errors in a GIS map.

Errors are common with GIS maps. Not just with the PFBC, but also with the "big boys" like Google Maps.

I'm pretty sure that there is not a brook trout population in Spring Creek.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, after I brought this up before they changed a few streams but left others alone. One of the Class A BT streams out east was changed from "best ST" to "best BT." So I'm not sure this is just some data labeling error. I was also told that the map would be "fixed" by January...
 
jifigz said:
That is from SilverFox's website. Show me where the PFBC documents brookies in Spring Creek? I'm guessing the "best fishing waters" page had glitches and misinformation. Everyone, including the PFBC, knows Spring is not a brook trout stream.
Click to expand...
How about this, click on the map and click on the red line for Spring Creek. It's listed as one of PA's best brook trout streams. Does that qualify as "PFBC saying there are brook trout in Spring Creek?"

ArcGIS Web Application

pfbc.maps.arcgis.com pfbc.maps.arcgis.com
 
silverfox said:
How about this, click on the map and click on the red line for Spring Creek. It's listed as one of PA's best brook trout streams. Does that qualify as "PFBC saying there are brook trout in Spring Creek?"

ArcGIS Web Application

pfbc.maps.arcgis.com pfbc.maps.arcgis.com
Click to expand...
Yes, that is the PFBC saying there are brook trout in Spring Creek. But I think it is an error, an accident. I don't think the agency is actually saying or trying to convince anyone that brook trout are in Spring Creek or that it is managed as a brook trout water.
 
jifigz said:
Yes, that is the PFBC saying there are brook trout in Spring Creek. But I think it is an error, an accident. I don't think the agency is actually saying or trying to convince anyone that brook trout are in Spring Creek or that it is managed as a brook trout water.
Click to expand...
Exactly. It's a software error or someone just made a wrong entry in the database. I've seen such errors many times on GIS maps.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top