Hammer creek conservation thread

[Fish Sticks]

In regards to selecting where to do removal, only doing it in class A allopatric brook streams will run into the below issue.

As one can see from the graph showing “heterozygosity” which means different genetic material essentially in its most basic explanation, these smaller populations tend to suffer from inbreeding depression and loss of helpful survival genes from genetic drift. Efforts In these class A allopatric streams only would likely result in eventual loss anyway down the line from this inbreeding depression. It’s essentially like betting on a losing horse compared to if that same class A stream is part of a meta population( 3+ populations that are genetically somewhat different). The hammer has fin clips being analyzed here soon to look at genetics although I don’t know sample area was big enough to capture multiple populations if they do exist genetically in hammer.

However the hammer is a good example of a place that has multiple different viable brook trout tributaries above a barrier(most people don’t know about their on private land some not even in google maps) that are above a barrier. Given how effective supermales combined with manual removal can be with highly fit fish(not the same kind of stocked trout that have low spawning success with wild fish), the hammer may be the best of both worlds in terms of possibly diverse genetic structure above a barrier that could possibly even be a genetic rescue candidate for additional diversity from genetic rescue(made bigger, more fertile more survivable offspring in one year as per NC study). Super males and manual removal for all the data we have, are highly effective in smaller confined systems like the hammer. They are being used in Idaho, New Mexico and Washington already. There are still some questions to answer in terms of how many fish how often ect but modeling is there to give us solid starting places to begin with.

“Trout density resulted in a time to extirpation of only 2–4 years if supermale fitness was equivalent to wild male fitness. However, time to extirpation in streams was 5–15 years if supermale fitness was 80% lower than wild male fitness.”

USGS Publications Warehouse

Eradication of nonnative Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis populations is difficult to achieve with standard techniques, such as electrofishing removal or piscicides; new approaches are needed. A novel concept is to stock “supermale” hatchery fish with wild conspecifics. Supermales (MYY) have...

pubs.er.usgs.gov

In the Hammers case Once the USGS gets the fin clip information and I reach out and talk to them we will see if it will be a candidate for removal, it may even not be but they will give the most accurate answer on likelihood of success for sure so will be happy to share what I find if they can advise the DFTU effort on the creek. Also Dr. Shirey a professor and fisheries PhD with lots of brook trout experience in the driftless now at Upitt who also does advisory work for NFC will be a very valuable source of consultation as well in the hammers case as we weigh these decisions.

Despite my involvement in the hammer being 100% focused on native fish conservation, I don’t think the fishery would suffer long term post removal especially if genetic rescue is under taken(larger brook trout, more fertile brook trout laying more eggs, and bigger survival tool belt). Also the supermales themselves will be quite catchable and many would likely have to be stocked, since they will have to be fit they will likely not be the drab stockers the commission has. Picture the widely irresponsibly stocked slate run brown trout that look great l(but aren’t supermales) that are being used to sabotage one of best EBTJV strong hold patches in the pine creek drainage. People definitely love catching them.

 

[Fish Sticks]

In regards to selecting where to do removal, only doing it in class A allopatric brook streams will run into the below issue.

View attachment 1641224874


As one can see from the graph showing “heterozygosity” which means different genetic material essentially in its most basic explanation, these smaller populations tend to suffer from inbreeding depression and loss of helpful survival genes from genetic drift. Efforts In these class A allopatric streams only would likely result in eventual loss anyway down the line from this inbreeding depression. It’s essentially like betting on a losing horse compared to if that same class A stream is part of a meta population( 3+ populations that are genetically somewhat different). The hammer has fin clips being analyzed here soon to look at genetics although I don’t know sample area was big enough to capture multiple populations if they do exist genetically in hammer.

However the hammer is a good example of a place that has multiple different viable brook trout tributaries above a barrier(most people don’t know about their on private land some not even in google maps) that are above a barrier. Given how effective supermales combined with manual removal can be with highly fit fish(not the same kind of stocked trout that have low spawning success with wild fish), the hammer may be the best of both worlds in terms of possibly diverse genetic structure above a barrier that could possibly even be a genetic rescue candidate for additional diversity from genetic rescue(made bigger, more fertile more survivable offspring in one year as per NC study). Super males and manual removal for all the data we have, are highly effective in smaller confined systems like the hammer. They are being used in Idaho, New Mexico and Washington already. There are still some questions to answer in terms of how many fish how often ect but modeling is there to give us solid starting places to begin with.

“Trout density resulted in a time to extirpation of only 2–4 years if supermale fitness was equivalent to wild male fitness. However, time to extirpation in streams was 5–15 years if supermale fitness was 80% lower than wild male fitness.”

USGS Publications Warehouse

Eradication of nonnative Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis populations is difficult to achieve with standard techniques, such as electrofishing removal or piscicides; new approaches are needed. A novel concept is to stock “supermale” hatchery fish with wild conspecifics. Supermales (MYY) have...

pubs.er.usgs.gov

In the Hammers case Once the USGS gets the fin clip information and I reach out and talk to them we will see if it will be a candidate for removal, it may even not be but they will give the most accurate answer on likelihood of success for sure so will be happy to share what I find if they can advise the DFTU effort on the creek. Also Dr. Shirey a professor and fisheries PhD with lots of brook trout experience in the driftless now at Upitt who also does advisory work for NFC will be a very valuable source of consultation as well in the hammers case as we weigh these decisions.

Despite my involvement in the hammer being 100% focused on native fish conservation, I don’t think the fishery would suffer long term post removal especially if genetic rescue is under taken(larger brook trout, more fertile brook trout laying more eggs, and bigger survival tool belt). Also the supermales themselves will be quite catchable and many would likely have to be stocked, since they will have to be fit they will likely not be the drab stockers the commission has. Picture the widely irresponsibly stocked slate run brown trout that look great l(but aren’t supermales) that are being used to sabotage one of best EBTJV strong hold patches in the pine creek drainage. People definitely love catching them.

And to clarify I was referencing supermales paired with manual removal when talking about how successful modeling looked with high fitness. The YY brook trout goin gin in those 3 states might not be as successful as the models but even if it works 1/3rd as fast that’s a quantum leap compared to removal manually alone.

 

[silverfox]

Given how effective supermales combined with manual removal can be with highly fit fish(not the same kind of stocked trout that have low spawning success with wild fish), ...

This is an important distinction. These fish are created specifically to reproduce in the wild, not solely for recreational enjoyment. So they're a tool, created to serve a purpose, not just some random hatchery stock that you introduce estrogen to early in their development.

 

[Fish Sticks]

This is an important distinction. These fish are created specifically to reproduce in the wild, not solely for recreational enjoyment. So they're a tool, created to serve a purpose, not just some random hatchery stock that you introduce estrogen to early in their development.

It might actually be super popular with anglers as a …sideffect/unintended consequence?

 

[moon1284]

Thankfully that picture is getting clearer. https://db.ecosheds.org/ Proceed past the safety warning. It's a USFWS/USGS map. That's a limited dataset based on an accompanying paper. There's a much more complete version of this that I've seen but don't have access to/isn't public. Turn on the hatcheries legend so you can compare the structure of sampled fish to the hatchery's genetic fingerprint.

I'm not big on phenotypic variation as an indicator of speciation (or "strain"), but I've fished for ST specifically all over the mid-Atlantic enough to see that there are some common visual traits among fish from different areas that there likely is some hatchery influence in some places (we know that's the case). I think in tiny drainages in different major watersheds you see a lot more common traits that seem to be associated w/ a larger geographic range. i.e., our fish down here look a lot like the Potomac headwaters fish (because they are), and then just a little north you'll see those same fish but also "another" fish that doesn't match mixed in with them. Slight things like spot patterning especially near the caudal fin or the vermiculation intensity etc. It's hard to express in words, but in person you start to get a feel for it. That all could just be adaptation or isolation playing out in appearance and have no bearing on hatchery influence, but it could also be hatchery influence. Possibly from over 100 years ago when, as you said, we carried milk jugs of ST all over the place.

I'm also not a fan of genetic purity being a driving factor. I don't think it's fair that we split hairs on the genetic purity of our native fish while simultaneously allowing pretty much anything to go with introduced nonnatives. If we're going to limit any kind of ST restoration to heritage strains then we better be applying that same measure to the nonnative fish. Where does that lead? What % of loch leven genetic material needs to be present for them to matter?

It's a double standard to say, "a wild brown trout is a wild brown trout", but only "heritage genetics in brook trout matter".

Now, if we could establish heritage genetics as they do in upstate NY, would the state follow NY's lead and rotenone reclaim the waters to reestablish heritage strain brook trout? Btw, even WV has a restoration hatchery and is restoring heritage strain brook trout. Add that to ME and their artic charr, heritage brook trout ponds etc.

On the issue of hatchery introgression and outward appearance;

This is from the same stream as the following pic. (fish A)
View attachment 1641224862


(Fish B) from the same day.

View attachment 1641224865

"Fish A" looks like the same fish I find in tiny little streams that likely never had hatchery fish or fish from other areas introduced. Fish A also looks a lot like some obscure, not public, streams in western MD in the Potomac headwaters. Fish B is the "look" that I think is probably either from some kind of hatchery introduction or has some hatchery traits in it.

Again, I'm not a fan of phenotypic variation as an indicator of genetic origin. I think sequencing is the only way to tell that story. I'm just bringing it up to agree that there's likely some introgression in ST across the state dating back to the 1900's. So it's safe to say the same is true of BT. Especially since BT are nonnative and there's no native genetic stock present to mix with. I.e., they're all from hatchery origin. Obviously. Likely to varying degrees from place and time.

Agree phenotypic variation is not a good indicator of genetic origin. The photo argument is less than scientific.

NYS used rotenone in ponds, not moving water. You're not comparing apples to apples.

Maine is not a good example either because for whatever reason (my guess is environmental factors), wild BT and RT never took off in the vast majority of ME waterways.

I know much less about MD and WV so I won't comment much on them, other than WV isn't known for their conservation.

I'm not telling you you're incorrect, or that you have no valid points. But I do think you make a lot of assumptions without fully understanding what you are reading or being told. Then you go 100mph to propose solutions to problems based on assumptions that are incorrect or partially incorrect. Your heart is in the right place, you just need more sound science behind the solutions you advocate for.

 

[silverfox]

Agree phenotypic variation is not a good indicator of genetic origin. The photo argument is less than scientific.

NYS used rotenone in ponds, not moving water. You're not comparing apples to apples.

Maine is not a good example either because for whatever reason (my guess is environmental factors), wild BT and RT never took off in the vast majority of ME waterways.

I know much less about MD and WV so I won't comment much on them, other than WV isn't known for their conservation.

I'm not telling you you're incorrect, or that you have no valid points. But I do think you make a lot of assumptions without fully understanding what you are reading or being told. Then you go 100mph to propose solutions to problems based on assumptions that are incorrect or partially incorrect. Your heart is in the right place, you just need more sound science behind the solutions you advocate for.

My point w/ ME, or NY, or ID, or any other state that actually does reclamation is simply that they actually do reclamation. Something that seems extremely unlikely in PA in my lifetime.

Can you give an example of where I've gone 100mph on something I've suggested based on incorrect or partially incorrect assumptions?

 

[silverfox]

Agree phenotypic variation is not a good indicator of genetic origin. The photo argument is less than scientific.

NYS used rotenone in ponds, not moving water. You're not comparing apples to apples.

Maine is not a good example either because for whatever reason (my guess is environmental factors), wild BT and RT never took off in the vast majority of ME waterways.

I know much less about MD and WV so I won't comment much on them, other than WV isn't known for their conservation.

I'm not telling you you're incorrect, or that you have no valid points. But I do think you make a lot of assumptions without fully understanding what you are reading or being told. Then you go 100mph to propose solutions to problems based on assumptions that are incorrect or partially incorrect. Your heart is in the right place, you just need more sound science behind the solutions you advocate for.

Also, I haven't advocated for anything that isn't already being done elsewhere, so if what I'm advocating for is incorrect, you should probably tell the other states' fisheries managers that they're incorrect.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Agree phenotypic variation is not a good indicator of genetic origin. The photo argument is less than scientific.

NYS used rotenone in ponds, not moving water. You're not comparing apples to apples.

Maine is not a good example either because for whatever reason (my guess is environmental factors), wild BT and RT never took off in the vast majority of ME waterways.

I know much less about MD and WV so I won't comment much on them, other than WV isn't known for their conservation.

I'm not telling you you're incorrect, or that you have no valid points. But I do think you make a lot of assumptions without fully understanding what you are reading or being told. Then you go 100mph to propose solutions to problems based on assumptions that are incorrect or partially incorrect. Your heart is in the right place, you just need more sound science behind the solutions you advocate for.

I can appreciate that supermales and genetic rescue are new techniques, that’s why I referenced “from the data we have”. Genetic rescue had amazing results in the North Carolina brook trout study so that is more so proven to have the potential for great benefit, however I think the big unanswered question there is what’s the risk of outbreeding depression. Now that brook trout genome is sequenced we will make progress in that arena I suspect as we begin to know which genes correlate with certain survival traits and existing local populations. I did disclose that YY supermales are being stocked in 3 states but that only data available is the modeling. It may seem like I’m going “100mph” if one assumes I am saying it’s guaranteed to work but in reality we won’t know in the east until someone tries it. Someone has to be the first. We have to give brook trout one stream in this state to find out. I referenced “even if it isn’t as effective as the modeling “ showing I do have insight into this is not a sure thing.

This is why I referenced in that post that I will be seeking out the technical assistance of Dr. Shirey and the USGS if they have the bandwidth/interest in the hammer beyond the recent fin clips taken for genetic studies now available to a number of organizations. You don’t have to worry about my interpretation because I don’t own a smith and root, I’m not certified to remove and I certainly won’t have capacity to produce super males when they come. The only way this stuff will happen in the hammer is if I’m their expert opinion it’s viable.

Because we have done so little for brook trout in PA everything is untested in pa. Everything is new in Pa. Everything would be “100mph” to a different place than we have been in PA. That genetic rescue study in NC that had amazing results of bigger, more fertile, and more survivable fish was based on the best available data before they tried it nothing was proven. Part of the problem with the whole invasive trout problem is there are so many studies benefiting it’s so under realized as an impairment and everyone is so hesitant to implement that we actually zero implementation data in Pa on brown trout removal because we have paralysis of analysis despite overwhelming amount of evidence urging us to take the next step. You don’t have to take my word for it, it’s why The experts at the STAC CONFERENCE had a whole presentation on YY supermales and presented it to fisheries managers including Jason detar from PAFB. They think it’s viable enough, they don’t see this as going 100mph on something that needs more “proofing” you get as much data as you can in the early stages without trying it but then, someone has to try. Someone has to actually leave their comfort zone, why not in one stream that has enough springs to likely buffer brook trout against climate change already that we are actively improving above a barrier where the avg brown trout is like 4-8”. Again I won’t decide, I can’t. The experts will. It’s not the letort, it’s not bald eagle, it’s not penns, it’s not the lack, it’s not the little J, it’s not the Kish, it’s not the upper Allegheny, it’s not the Lehigh, it’s not the frankie, it’s not any of hundreds of streams that grow large brown trout in this state. It’s one stream where brook trout have more of a chance due to the hydrology possibly.

 

[moon1284]

Guys, I'm not saying I don't agree with your overall message or point. But rotenone treatment of a pond (NY) is different than rotenone treatment of a river or stream. Use somewhere out west as an example, not NY. You're making it too easy for people to shoot holes in your argument.

I also think ME is a bad example to give because it doesn't support anything you are saying about the impacts of BT and ST.

I have plenty of experience with PA, NY, and ME fisheries. I have very little with MD, or WV - that's why I won't attempt to go toe to toe with you there.

When you have one or two incorrect or overzealous assumptions it casts doubt on everything you say. That's my point.

 

[silverfox]

Guys, I'm not saying I don't agree with your overall message or point. But rotenone treatment of a pond (NY) is different than rotenone treatment of a river or stream. Use somewhere out west as an example, not NY. You're making it too easy for people to shoot holes in your argument.

I also think ME is a bad example to give because it doesn't support anything you are saying about the impacts of BT and ST.

I have plenty of experience with PA, NY, and ME fisheries. I have very little with MD, or WV - that's why I won't attempt to go toe to toe with you there.

When you have one or two incorrect or overzealous assumptions it casts doubt on everything you say. That's my point.

Again, my point with bringing up ME or NY is that they're reclaiming water. The real point there is that they're putting native brook trout (and arctic charr) at the forefront of what they're doing to such a degree that they're reclaiming waters.

I bring that up to show the extreme between other states and PA. We bring up C&R regs on brook trout streams and get slapped with a poorly designed study that isn't even anything I'd ever suggest doing as justification for why it won't work while MD has proven it's successful on a larger scale.

We bring up any kind of species preference treatment like harvest regs in Blue Ridge parkway waters and people in PA lose their collective $#!T. The idea of "giving up" one single inch of water to brook trout seems a bridge too far in PA.

So my point was, that other states are going to great lengths to protect brook trout. My comment about WV's conservation hatchery was thrown in for that same reason. I didn't mean any disrespect to WV by the way, it's just that one doesn't immediately think of WV as the kind of place to have a brook trout conservation/restoration hatchery/effort. I will point out that WV also has Otter creek. The entire watershed actually. Heck, WV even one-ups MD's Upper Savage in that there is no stocking at all in the entire Otter Ck watershed AND it's C&R brook trout.

All of this is to say that in PA, we can't seem to get harvest regs for rainbow trout on Big Spring, let alone ever reclaiming any actual meaningful waterway via rotenone, mechanical removal, super males, or anything else. I didn't bring up ADK pond reclamation to imply we should rotenone some flowage in PA. I'm trying to make a point that PA doesn't even want to entertain simple harvest regs, let alone reclamation.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Guys, I'm not saying I don't agree with your overall message or point. But rotenone treatment of a pond (NY) is different than rotenone treatment of a river or stream. Use somewhere out west as an example, not NY. You're making it too easy for people to shoot holes in your argument.

I also think ME is a bad example to give because it doesn't support anything you are saying about the impacts of BT and ST.

I have plenty of experience with PA, NY, and ME fisheries. I have very little with MD, or WV - that's why I won't attempt to go toe to toe with you there.

When you have one or two incorrect or overzealous assumptions it casts doubt on everything you say. That's my point.

I wasn’t talking about rotenone at all I mentioned that other states were doing removal just to point out the will exists there and not here. So it wasn’t overzealous or in accurate because I never said it was the same thing, I was just pointing out people are doing removal in the east already just not us to point out Pa as the outlier.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

... Super males and manual removal for all the data we have, are highly effective in smaller confined systems like the hammer. They are being used in Idaho, New Mexico and Washington already. There are still some questions to answer in terms of how many fish how often ect but modeling is there to give...

You continue to highlight the success elsewhere, and likelihood of success for xyy supermale brown trout in Pennsylvania if used. I am not aware of release of supermale brown trout anywhere in the US and there are not yet actual results from efforts in the west related to brook trout.

There are certainly questions related to its application, just a few... What if anglers move a super male to another stream such as one of the popular brown trout streams. What if the super males don't spawn at the same time as wild fish? If they are more aggressive feeders what if anglers harvest the majority of the supermales?

 

[Fish Sticks]

You continue to highlight the success and likelihood of success for xyy supermale brown trout in Pennsylvania. I am not aware of release of supermale brown trout anywhere in the US and there are not yet actual results from efforts in the west related to brook trout.

There are certainly questions related to its application, just a few... What if anglers move a super male to another stream such as one of the popular brown trout streams. What if the super males don't spawn at the same time as wild fish? If they are more aggressive feeders what if anglers harvest the majority of the supermales?

I never claimed we had super males I PA let alone brown trout?I’ve actually repeatedly mentioned we only have super male brook trout being stocked in WA, NM, and Idaho. And I only pointed to the success of the modeling done. I even said that it might not be as successful as the modeling indicates in above post. I have mentioned several time on this site YY brown and rainbow trout not available yet intact. I just mentioned a cumulative group of brook trout experts recommending them as a future management technique to fisheries managers including Jason at the STAC conference.

So what if they get into other populations? You need to continually stock them to have an effect. It’s not like a disease where you need one individual to propagate it would likely take 5-15 years with thousands of individuals. I don’t understand what your getting at or concerned about unless you are implying you think some genetics the super males could pass on is worse than the stocked brown trout pa fish and boat stocks everywhere else already.

 

[silverfox]

You continue to highlight the success and likelihood of success for xyy supermale brown trout in Pennsylvania. I am not aware of release of supermale brown trout anywhere in the US and there are not yet actual results from efforts in the west related to brook trout.

There are certainly questions related to its application, just a few... What if anglers move a super male to another stream such as one of the popular brown trout streams. What if the super males don't spawn at the same time as wild fish? If they are more aggressive feeders what if anglers harvest the majority of the supermales?

I'm personally looking at the xyy males as a window into what is likely to be, more than where it is right now. I know they're working on the BT and RT version now and if they're putting the ST versions in streams out west, I think the writing is on the wall for what comes next. I do think there's more of it going on than has been documented or is publicly known.

What was described to me is that MT for example has a lot bigger watersheds with more natural species separation, so while it seems to be working in MT, it may not have the same efficacy in PA. I was more interested in the psychological implications though, so I didn't dig too deeply into the extent of what they're doing there.

Edit> I'm also interested in its application for other invasive species (round goby, snakehead etc.) where they're in large systems and other removal methods aren't feasible at all.

I "think" what fish sticks might be getting at is that the way forward with these kinds of techniques is through more widespread experimentation/studies. So, for example, Hammer might be a candidate for a doc candidate to conduct a study. In theory. I think a logical step might be to see what the reaction of people involved in the project is. Then what the state thinks about it. Again, theoretically speaking, not that the outcome is secured and therefore an actual useful approach. I think part of that is just to move the needle in the right direction even by mentioning it.

My point in all of this trojan fish talk is that we're not even attempting less controversial approaches, so I don't have a lot of hope for anything like that ever happening here.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I'm personally looking at the xyy males as a window into what is likely to be, more than where it is right now. I know they're working on the BT and RT version now and if they're putting the ST versions in streams out west, I think the writing is on the wall for what comes next. I do think there's more of it going on than has been documented or is publicly known.

What was described to me is that MT for example has a lot bigger watersheds with more natural species separation, so while it seems to be working in MT, it may not have the same efficacy in PA. I was more interested in the psychological implications though, so I didn't dig too deeply into the extent of what they're doing there.

Edit> I'm also interested in its application for other invasive species (round goby, snakehead etc.) where they're in large systems and other removal methods aren't feasible at all.

I "think" what fish sticks might be getting at is that the way forward with these kinds of techniques is through more widespread experimentation/studies. So, for example, Hammer might be a candidate for a doc candidate to conduct a study. In theory. I think a logical step might be to see what the reaction of people involved in the project is. Then what the state thinks about it. Again, theoretically speaking, not that the outcome is secured and therefore an actual useful approach. I think part of that is just to move the needle in the right direction even by mentioning it.

My point in all of this trojan fish talk is that we're not even attempting less controversial approaches, so I don't have a lot of hope for anything like that ever happening here.

Yea there’s so many levels to that. We are not even attempting any removal of any kind—>>we are still stocking invasive brown and rainbow trout—->> we have regs specifically to protect those invasive brown and rainbow trout—-> we don’t even have C and R for native brook trout SL despite stocking of invasive species. Is FUBAR and behind our neighbors by eons.

 

[McSneek]

How about before you all remove the wild brown trout from Hammer Creek you work to restore the headwaters, get the livestock out of the stream and it’s tributaries, improve riparian buffers, stabilize some of the constantly eroding banks, divert runoff from the gravel road and cleanup all the stream side litter? I’ll help. Let me know when. Geezus.

 

[moon1284]

I can appreciate that supermales and genetic rescue are new techniques, that’s why I referenced “from the data we have”. Genetic rescue had amazing results in the North Carolina brook trout study so that is more so proven to have the potential for great benefit, however I think the big unanswered question there is what’s the risk of outbreeding depression. Now that brook trout genome is sequenced we will make progress in that arena I suspect as we begin to know which genes correlate with certain survival traits and existing local populations. I did disclose that YY supermales are being stocked in 3 states but that only data available is the modeling. It may seem like I’m going “100mph” if one assumes I am saying it’s guaranteed to work but in reality we won’t know in the east until someone tries it. Someone has to be the first. We have to give brook trout one stream in this state to find out. I referenced “even if it isn’t as effective as the modeling “ showing I do have insight into this is not a sure thing.

This is why I referenced in that post that I will be seeking out the technical assistance of Dr. Shirey and the USGS if they have the bandwidth/interest in the hammer beyond the recent fin clips taken for genetic studies now available to a number of organizations. You don’t have to worry about my interpretation because I don’t own a smith and root, I’m not certified to remove and I certainly won’t have capacity to produce super males when they come. The only way this stuff will happen in the hammer is if I’m their expert opinion it’s viable.

Because we have done so little for brook trout in PA everything is untested in pa. Everything is new in Pa. Everything would be “100mph” to a different place than we have been in PA. That genetic rescue study in NC that had amazing results of bigger, more fertile, and more survivable fish was based on the best available data before they tried it nothing was proven. Part of the problem with the whole invasive trout problem is there are so many studies benefiting it’s so under realized as an impairment and everyone is so hesitant to implement that we actually zero implementation data in Pa on brown trout removal because we have paralysis of analysis despite overwhelming amount of evidence urging us to take the next step. You don’t have to take my word for it, it’s why The experts at the STAC CONFERENCE had a whole presentation on YY supermales and presented it to fisheries managers including Jason detar from PAFB. They think it’s viable enough, they don’t see this as going 100mph on something that needs more “proofing” you get as much data as you can in the early stages without trying it but then, someone has to try. Someone has to actually leave their comfort zone, why not in one stream that has enough springs to likely buffer brook trout against climate change already that we are actively improving above a barrier where the avg brown trout is like 4-8”. Again I won’t decide, I can’t. The experts will. It’s not the letort, it’s not bald eagle, it’s not penns, it’s not the lack, it’s not the little J, it’s not the Kish, it’s not the upper Allegheny, it’s not the Lehigh, it’s not the frankie, it’s not any of hundreds of streams that grow large brown trout in this state. It’s one stream where brook trout have more of a chance due to the hydrology possibly.

100mph is in reference to the experiment you want. You're not isolating any variables. I'm having a hard time understanding what you want to do exactly or where you want to do it. I'll go ahead and assume you just want your experiment in the hammer creek watershed.

Correct me if im wrong, but some things I think you mention include:

Stop stocking BT and RT to protect ST from predation and because stocking BT and RT downstream of ST apparently is a major factor in preventing gene flow in ST.

Stock super male BT and RT so that they will breed with wild BT and RT and eliminate both populations.

Eliminate all hatcheries in the watershed because they use up cold water and limit the downstream range of ST within the watershed. Which then limits the maximum size of ST.

Poison the entire watershed then restock with heritage strain native species. I know rotenone kills trout, I'm not sure of its affect on other fish and I don't care enough to look it up.

Make all ST catch and releas only.

I'm sure you have more ideas that I'm missing. You guys keep throwing out all of these ideas and I have no clue what you really want to do.

I would hope you guys agree that trying all of these ideas at once would be a terrible experiment.

I'm clear you want to restore the native ST population in hammer creek. If you could explain clearly how you want to do it, then come up with controlled experiment it would be a lot easier to take you seriously.

 

[silverfox]

100mph is in reference to the experiment you want. You're not isolating any variables. I'm having a hard time understanding what you want to do exactly or where you want to do it. I'll go ahead and assume you just want your experiment in the hammer creek watershed.

Correct me if im wrong, but some things I think you mention include:

Stop stocking BT and RT to protect ST from predation and because stocking BT and RT downstream of ST apparently is a major factor in preventing gene flow in ST.

Stock super male BT and RT so that they will breed with wild BT and RT and eliminate both populations.

Eliminate all hatcheries in the watershed because they use up cold water and limit the downstream range of ST within the watershed. Which then limits the maximum size of ST.

Poison the entire watershed then restock with heritage strain native species. I know rotenone kills trout, I'm not sure of its affect on other fish and I don't care enough to look it up.

Make all ST catch and releas only.

I'm sure you have more ideas that I'm missing. You guys keep throwing out all of these ideas and I have no clue what you really want to do.

I would hope you guys agree that trying all of these ideas at once would be a terrible experiment.

I'm clear you want to restore the native ST population in hammer creek. If you could explain clearly how you want to do it, then come up with controlled experiment it would be a lot easier to take you seriously.

Just pointing out your "100mph" comment was a reply to my post, in which I didn't prescribe anything for Hammer ck.. I'm not advocating for anything on Hammer Ck. because I'm not as familiar with the watershed.

My comments in general about issues/approaches used in other states are broad, and one more time, to point out that other states are doing all these things, yet any one solution, in particular, is a completely foreign concept in PA. Why is that?

I also don't think anyone was suggesting all those things on Hammer and certainly not all at the same time. I think you're attempting to put words in people's mouths to try to make them look bad.

Again, nothing I've proposed (broadly) is considered that extreme anywhere else, nor is any of it my idea. I'm careful to only suggest things that are done and work elsewhere. If you paid attention, you'd see that my particular interest is in a watershed like the Upper Savage, or statewide species-specific angling regs like MD and NJ have done.

You're now quoting fish sticks, not me, but you said "you guys" which implies that I'm somehow advocating for your list of "experiments" that now we're somehow suggesting we do all at once even though nobody ever said that.

 

[silverfox]

Poison the entire watershed then restock with heritage strain native species. I know rotenone kills trout, I'm not sure of its affect on other fish and I don't care enough to look it up.
take you seriously.

This is exactly why we can't even have conversations about things like this. Not a single person suggested using piscicides on Hammer Creek or "restocking with heritage strain native species", yet here we are.

How about the next time you want to claim that anyone said something, you actually quote where they said it? Go ahead, show me where anyone suggested using rotenone on Hammer creek.

 

[troutbert]

How about Kettle Creek/Cross Fork/Hammersely? Did those populations exist prior to the construction of Alvin Bush in 1961? I doubt it.

Why do you doubt it? The Fish Commission began stocking brown trout in large numbers in the 1880s.

Brown trout are non-native but "took" when introduced in many places in the US in the east, midwest and west and in many different types of waters. And Canada, New Zealand, Argentina, Chile and other countries.

There is a Penn State study on Kettle Creek that George Harvey was involved with in the 1940s that found brown in Kettle Creek.

The book Vanishing Trout talks about brown trout populations in the Loyalsock drainage and other PA streams. It was written in the early 1930s and the author was old and nearly blind when he wrote it, and books typically take a few years to write and publish so he was almost certainly writing about observations in the 1920s and earlier.

Joe Humphries fished Spring Creek in the 1940s and said that catching native brook trout was rare then. It was already mostly a brown trout stream by that time.

Is there some theory that brown trout were widely stocked, but didn't "take" from the 1880s through the 1960s, then suddenly did begin to "take" after that?

I've never heard that. And what would the possible explanation be?