Good Article

[BrookieChaser]

... Snapping the necks of pelletheads.

http://www.hatchmag.com/articles/catch-and-kill/7713006

 

[greenlander]

BrookieChaser wrote:
... Snapping the necks of pelletheads.

http://www.hatchmag.com/articles/catch-and-kill/7713006

... well .... not exactly.

 

[BrookieChaser]

No, it mentioned hitting them on the head, Hahaha! But it's probably the most valid example to tie the article to the East.

The article was good and brings a good point to the forefront.
Educated individuals taking steps for individual streams/watersheds bucking the "warm and fuzzy" thing to do for the good of the native, or wild, fish.

 

[greenlander]

That was the intended goal, so I'm glad it came off that way for you. We're actually updating it to include a fish that was planned to be included, but somehow got left off -- hatchery steelhead (out west, not here in the GL tribs).

 

[troutbert]

"Brook trout also tend overpopulate and “stunt,” leaving anglers with a host of very small, very beautiful and very exotic fishing targets. In the West, it’s almost never a bad idea to harvest brook trout. First, they’re delicious and easy to prepare over the campfire. Second, by knocking a few on the head, anglers can help build a more robust population that has fewer, but larger fish."

Interesting theory. Is there any evidence for it?

Are there examples where people have harvested their way to larger brook trout?

In PA you see much evidence of the opposite. The more harvest, the smaller the fish. Where very few people fish, you find larger brookies.

 

[BrooksAndHooks]

This is definitely true. Of course depends on the stream some. Some streams the fish don't even get big enough to harvest, but giving them a little extra fishing pressure accomplishes almost the same thing. I don't feel so bad about that rare bad hook set that makes me keep a fish anymore, because I know another fish will live longer, grow larger, and take it's place. It's natural. I definitely enjoy thinning out the pelletheads over a wild population too. More people need to understand that not all harvest is bad on a wild stream. I recall some of the brook trout projects that they had C&R only on, that actually did worse/no better because of this concept.

 

[KenU]

Actually, trout living in streams stake out the best lies and chase out or eat smaller trout who invade their space. They only have a tendency to overpopulate lakes and ponds where this territoriality behavior doesn't occur.

The reason brook trout don't get larger in our streams are many: 1) poor habitat; 2) acidic and infertile water; 3) cropping/harvesting of larger individuals; 4) competition from brown trout, which are much more resistant to angling pressure and therefore live longer and grow larger, on average, than brookies.

Incidentally, we recently aged a 12-5-inch brookie from a small impoundment. He was in his 4th year of life, which means he was growing at about 3 inches/year. Brook trout in PA typically have a 6-year life span. The math is simple; he would have reached 18 inches or so had he lived that long. So stories by 'Old Timers' of 20" brookies are plausible.

 

[greenlander]

troutbert wrote:

Interesting theory. Is there any evidence for it?

http://1.usa.gov/1W2Rpqx

Beyond that particular study (which focuses on ponds), it generally is a well held concept that brook trout, in areas where they do not face limiting factors such competition from other species or lack of nutrient supply, will breed so successfully that they'll overpopulate, eventually resulting in stunting.

 

[troutbert]

You can't extend a study on ponds to streams. They are totally different environments.

If someone has any studies that show this on streams, I'd like to read them.

What I've seen on brookie streams does not show this at all.

As far as it being a "well held concept" that brookies over-populate and stunt on streams, I don't think so.

I haven't read that, and what you see in the field doesn't support it.

 

[Stenonema]

My experience is limited to the stream that I fish most often for Brook trout but I will weigh in. First I don't really accept any studies as anything other that the findings on that specific condition. The adaptability of trout and the differences of any water to another even from stream to stream make any blanket management or idea in that regard only informational. (To Me)
The stream that I fish most often, I fish throughout the seasons on a yearly basis for the past 30 years plus. I feel comfortable enough to say that on this stream the population is cyclic dependent on many natural variables to which none I can say decisively has impacted the population as my only proof would be my observation.
The age class and density appear to go through transitions or cycles where there will be fewer fish but larger or more fish and smaller. It is important to mention that even on years where there are many more and they average smaller there are still older class fish and larger fish, they are still there just fewer of them. I can conclude this by prime lies and what is occupying them. Fishing pressure I don't believe is a factor on this stream.

 

[greenlander]

troutbert wrote:
You can't extend a study on ponds to streams. They are totally different environments.

If someone has any studies that show this on streams, I'd like to read them.

What I've seen on brookie streams does not show this at all.

As far as it being a "well held concept" that brookies over-populate and stunt on streams, I don't think so.

I haven't read that, and what you see in the field doesn't support it.

What you see in the streams here in the east doesn't support it, where brook trout are in their native environment with limited nutrients. Outside of their native range, brook trout are a different animal (as are many invasive species).

Anyway, here are a number of other references to this concept, some from scientific sources, others from what one might consider 'trusted' or reputable sources.

From Wyoming Game and Fish Department:

"The brook trout is a prolific fall spawner. In small streams, it often overpopulates, which may eliminate other trout species and cause the brook trout to remain "stunted" or unable to grow past a relatively small size."

From Trout Unlimited's 2015 "State of Trout" (authored by TU senior scientist Jack Williams):

"For instance, brook trout, which are native to the East, have been widely introduced into western streams where they often overpopulate and compete with native trout for resources."

From 'Methods for Measuring the Acute Toxicity of Effluents and Receiving Waters to Freshwater and Marine Organisms' (from the Environmental Monitoring Systems Laboratory / US EPA):

"Brook trout may overpopulate small streams, resulting in large numbers of small fish less than 25.4cm long."

From Orvis' "Fish Facts":

"Outside their native range, brook trout can spawn so successfully that they overpopulate a stream or lake, resulting in stunted fish that can outcompete native species for food and habitat. For this reason, some states in the West ask anglers to harvest as many brook trout as they can in these overpopulated waters."

I've personally fished western streams that are absolutely rife with 4-6" brook trout, but with 50-60 fish taken in a day, barely any that exceed that size.

 

[KenU]

I fish a small freestone with good water quality and cover and lots of mayflies, caddis and minnows. It holds a few brookies up to ten inches, but not many. However, it also holds a lot of browns, certainly more than it does brookies. The browns are 7 to 10 inches on average, but some are much larger. They only show up when the water is a bit high and off color. I have caught and seen browns up to 17 inches in this stream. Question: If those browns were not there would there be brookies of similar size? The food and cover are there.

I believe this is because the larger browns take over the prime lies and chase off the smaller brookies. Those that don't get away, get eaten. That's how the browns get big.

 

[k-bob]

ken: "Question: If those browns were not there would there be brookies of similar size? The food and cover are there."

I dont think we can assume that a stream with brown trout of a certain size would have brook trout of that same size if there were no browns.

brown trout live longer than brook trout .. see shenandoah np:

http://www.nps.gov/shen/learn/nature/brown-trout.htm

"Generally, brown trout have greater longevity than brook trout, averaging about five years. In many naturalized populations, some individuals reach ages in excess of 10 years."

so I would guess that brown trout, with longer lives, may grow bigger in same habitat than brook trout would...

btw, the maximum lifespan of a mountain stream brookie might be 5 or 6 years, but average is more like 3. high annual mortality, as described for PA brook trout.

shanandoahs page on brook trout:

http://www.nps.gov/shen/learn/nature/brook-trout.htm

"Brook trout found within mountain stream habitats are fairly short lived, averaging about three years. Exceptionally large individuals encountered in large pools or other large stream habitats may attain ages of four, five or over six years."

 

[Chaz]

A good article, very accurate ,but he doesn't cite proof that brookies are entirely the culprits of the decline of cutts. I'd bet the biggest factor was over harvest initially, then came stocking.

As with everything, there are other arguments, such as indiscriminate stocking of non-native fish everywhere. Browns are to me equally guilty for the decline of cutthroat trout as are rainbows. Remember the trout of the west and indeed all of N.A. is the cutthroat, having the largest range of all the trout of N.A.

Rainbows are not native to most of the west, they were not found east of the Cascade Range and/or the impassible falls further east such as Shoshone Falls on the Salmon River. They were stocked east of there, and because they reproduce with cutthroats and produce viable young can overcome a cutthroat population in a matter of years.

Browns, the darlings of most trout fishermen, have impacted fisheries all over the world not just in N.A. their eating habitats are well documented. While the article does mention browns, what's not said speaks volumes.

 

[greenlander]

Chaz wrote:
Browns, the darlings of most trout fishermen, have impacted fisheries all over the world not just in N.A. their eating habitats are well documented. While the article does mention browns, what's not said speaks volumes.

Keep in mind, the purpose of the article was to highlight conservation efforts underway where removal/killing of invasive species is being recommended as an action to aid in those efforts -- not to highlight the invasive species with the greatest impacts on certain populations ... and that's an important distinction.

Someone raised the brown trout point on Facebook, as well, and here was the author's reply:

"Yes it could, but given the economic importance of many non-native fisheries, and the sheer scope of the potential restoration efforts, that's not practical (can you imagine trying to restore west slope cutthroat trout to the Madison or Yellowstone cutthroats to the Henry's Fork, with all the browns and rainbows on the kill list?). Rather, in smaller waters where brookies stunt, or in places where native fish face serious threats from invaders (South Fork), killing exotic fish is the right thing to do."