Hammer creek conservation thread

[silverfox]

I am in no way downplaying the conservation need of brook trout. For all those that wanted c&r on wild trout streams, you basically got it from Labor Day to opening day.

So that's it then? Job done?

 

[Fish Sticks]

Some parts of the state have seen an expansion of wild trout and st populations. Mike documented this in his area in many cases. I fully acknowledge populations seemingly have been reduced elsewhere in the state, but personally do not subscribe to the sky is falling mindset.

One could look at what we have lost and say the sky has fallen caught on fire burned and been urinated on. However, I don’t know that it’s productive to view it that way even if true because the question becomes: With human influence on landscape/habitat and climate what can we get back? And also with the impacts we have created, regardless of current brook trout numbers, what trajectory is the population on. Knowing the ounce of prevention vs. pound of cure adage, these are the two questions researchers are trying to figure out.

Interms of what can we get back, we have fully reforested freestone streams with amazing habitat and near zero impact from development with amazing “traditional connectivity” (culvert AOP assessment not invasive species). Cedar, slate, hammersly and many more in that area. The last stone unturned that is very much so within our reach is what happens if we stop actively managing for/propping up invasive species in these places that we know to be detrimental. Habitat, water quality, hydrology are intact, only thing left is biotic interactions there.

People view doing something about invasive species and stocking as so absolute. “You’ll never get every last one out”. Do we have to to have success???
As I mentioned the upper savage isn’t stocked to death but 800 rainbows go in that 100 miles of continuous water. Imagine what we could do with zero stocked fish and some regs/simple serial practices to address wild invasive species in what is supposed to be brook trout conservation strong holds/conservation areas.

I don’t think anyone studying brook trout would disagree with upper kettle was no longer stocked that native brook trout wouldn’t see a benefit. The density of fish that go in there is insane it’s actually a microcell the brook trout there are not worse off than they are. And there is evidence that propagule pressure props up some of these wild brown trout populations referenced in this article, brown trout as a global invader. https://www.usu.edu/fel/publications/pdf/Budy&Gaeta2017BrownToutinNAChapter20.pdf

 

[lycoflyfisher]

So that's it then? Job done?

Absolutely not

 

[sarce]

One other point on the BT expansion thing. I've wondered, seriously, why aren't they so widespread in other areas nearby? MD, OH, VA, WV? Even parts of SW NY? Did our trains stop at the Mason Dixon line? Was PA just that much more hell-bent on spreading them?

MD has a crap ton of browns, my GIS database has them in about 4X as many streams as brook trout. Off the top of my head I don't recall how I handled overlapping populations of each in my count.

I don't think the origins were the same as in PA, in private messages with another forum member last year I got some more historical perspective (I haven't been around long enough to know for myself).

MD DNR is largely responsible for spreading browns throughout MD and I think most of this occurred in the 50s through 70s with only isolated efforts more recently. They had to play around with different source strains to find ones that would take in each watershed. Then as development came in and destabilized the brook trout tributaries the browns were in position to take advantage.

Given that a lot of the early PA introductions were via railroad, I wonder if those other areas you mentioned simply were less accessible in that day and age based on location of railways. I don't know.

WV struggled with acid rain and low pH for decades and is still trying to remediate that in some areas. OH I get the idea is more drought prone and SW NY is similar. VA for whatever reason never pushed as hard for brown trout stocking.

 

[Fish Sticks]

MD has a crap ton of browns, my GIS database has them in about 4X as many streams as brook trout. Off the top of my head I don't recall how I handled overlapping populations of each in my count.

I don't think the origins were the same as in PA, in private messages with another forum member last year I got some more historical perspective (I haven't been around long enough to know for myself).

MD DNR is largely responsible for spreading browns throughout MD and I think most of this occurred in the 50s through 70s with only isolated efforts more recently. They had to play around with different source strains to find ones that would take in each watershed. Then as development came in and destabilized the brook trout tributaries the browns were in position to take advantage.

Given that a lot of the early PA introductions were via railroad, I wonder if those other areas you mentioned simply were less accessible in that day and age based on location of railways. I don't know.

WV struggled with acid rain and low pH for decades and is still trying to remediate that in some areas. OH I get the idea is more drought prone and SW NY is similar. VA for whatever reason never pushed as hard for brown trout stocking.

That just goes to show that some peoples perceptions that they can survive much better than brook trout in our streams entirely because of the fishes I ate characteristics may not be entirely accurate. Trying and failing with different strains in different water ways with those browns is a lot of human charity to an invasive species and an obviously unfair advantage that our brook trout didn’t get when people chose to stock brown trout and try to establish a population to replace them. Propagule pressure is real and obviously adding all these additional strains to see what could survive likely prevented an inbred situation that would have depressed the population over time, another human given advantage not related to how the fish functions.

 

[silverfox]

MD has a crap ton of browns, my GIS database has them in about 4X as many streams as brook trout. Off the top of my head I don't recall how I handled overlapping populations of each in my count.

I don't think the origins were the same as in PA, in private messages with another forum member last year I got some more historical perspective (I haven't been around long enough to know for myself).

MD DNR is largely responsible for spreading browns throughout MD and I think most of this occurred in the 50s through 70s with only isolated efforts more recently. They had to play around with different source strains to find ones that would take in each watershed. Then as development came in and destabilized the brook trout tributaries the browns were in position to take advantage.

Given that a lot of the early PA introductions were via railroad, I wonder if those other areas you mentioned simply were less accessible in that day and age based on location of railways. I don't know.

WV struggled with acid rain and low pH for decades and is still trying to remediate that in some areas. OH I get the idea is more drought prone and SW NY is similar. VA for whatever reason never pushed as hard for brown trout stocking.

They do. They also have a lot of watersheds with none at all.

I know from talking to Bob Bachman he hated stocking so that might have played a role in more recent times. Different geology in a lot of MD. Especially east and center.

One interesting thing I found out is that there is a tiny population in an otherwise all brook trout watershed where the browns never seem to take hold. They find them every few years sampling and then they seem to disappear again, then they'll find some YOY and then nothing again. Don't know if they're just so outnumbered they can't seem to take over or if it's something environmental but it's interesting.

I know MD had a lot of problems with the water in their hatcheries w/ BT. I think they only have 1 that they use for BT and they keep the stocking down east/south. I'm pretty sure they don't stock BT where there are wild BT as a rule. This part is fuzzy and might not be correct, but I think they got a lot of BT stock from PA? I think they still get their musky from PA.

Somewhere I have a "book" that someone put together a little while back. Can't remember his name off the top of my head, but it was basically from Washinton Co. east/south and focused on "wild trout". It was pretty thorough and was a lot of really obscure streams. Some on private land etc..

 

[sarce]

They do. They also have a lot of watersheds with none at all.

I know from talking to Bob Bachman he hated stocking so that might have played a role in more recent times. Different geology in a lot of MD. Especially east and center.

One interesting thing I found out is that there is a tiny population in an otherwise all brook trout watershed where the browns never seem to take hold. They find them every few years sampling and then they seem to disappear again, then they'll find some YOY and then nothing again. Don't know if they're just so outnumbered they can't seem to take over or if it's something environmental but it's interesting.

I know MD had a lot of problems with the water in their hatcheries w/ BT. I think they only have 1 that they use for BT and they keep the stocking down east/south. I'm pretty sure they don't stock BT where there are wild BT as a rule. This part is fuzzy and might not be correct, but I think they got a lot of BT stock from PA? I think they still get their musky from PA.

Somewhere I have a "book" that someone put together a little while back. Can't remember his name off the top of my head, but it was basically from Washinton Co. east/south and focused on "wild trout". It was pretty thorough and was a lot of really obscure streams. Some on private land etc..

Yeah that was me lol.

 

[silverfox]

Yeah that was me lol.

Haha! Nice! It’s very nicely done!

 

[sarce]

Haha! Nice! It’s very nicely done!

Thanks, appreciate that! I'd have some additional info and filter out some other info if I did it knowing what I do now - but I'm glad I did it back then because I'd never find the time these days.

 

[silverfox]

I dont necessarily disagree with what your saying re big Spring. I just think it's a hard sell to ruin that RT fishery for an ST fishery that in my opinion isn't a sure thing.

I meant to comment on this at the time but got sidetracked on the genesis of BT in PA sidebar.

To be clear, "we" ruined the Brook Trout fishery on Big Spring first. I mean from the first mill pond, to the hatcheries, to the recent hatchery, to the protection of RT there now. It's interesting seeing how we each view the fishery. I see it as a Brook Trout fishery, and you see it as a Rainbow Trout fishery. My perception is based on what it was naturally, historically, yours is based on what it is today.

How do we know we're not "ruining" the ST fishery by protecting the RT? Unless you remove that variable, I don't see how you can say it's at its maximum potential for ST. With the recent habitat projects there, the goal was to see if they could design in-stream solutions to favor ST. Given the habitat preference similarities between RT and ST, I don't see how that could ever achieve a meaningful shift in species composition long-term.

One sidenote here with the final report on the habitat improvement projects at Big Spring is that not once did the author mention the fact that the state still stocks brook trout at Big Spring and that they have access to the project reaches. In fact, I'd say the bulk of the brook trout you catch there are of hatchery origin. I don't know how you write a paper on the effects of habitat improvement on species composition without even mentioning that you're manually adding to the ST population, or at least mention that you tried to identify wild ST from stocked ST in the surveys. I also think it would've been nice to look at genetics and introgression there with ST. If you're focusing on improving ST numbers, wouldn't you want to look at every possible variable?

Unfortunately (for me and the brook trout of big spring), we put a lot of weight on economic value and angler sentiment, and we've somehow assigned a higher value to the wild nonnative rainbow trout there than the brook trout. Here again, fish size has set up an unwinnable position for our state fish. As long as we use maximum potential adult size as the criteria for which fish deserve prioritization, brook trout will always come last.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I meant to comment on this at the time but got sidetracked on the genesis of BT in PA sidebar.

To be clear, "we" ruined the Brook Trout fishery on Big Spring first. I mean from the first mill pond, to the hatcheries, to the recent hatchery, to the protection of RT there now. It's interesting seeing how we each view the fishery. I see it as a Brook Trout fishery, and you see it as a Rainbow Trout fishery. My perception is based on what it was naturally, historically, yours is based on what it is today.

How do we know we're not "ruining" the ST fishery by protecting the RT? Unless you remove that variable, I don't see how you can say it's at its maximum potential for ST. With the recent habitat projects there, the goal was to see if they could design in-stream solutions to favor ST. Given the habitat preference similarities between RT and ST, I don't see how that could ever achieve a meaningful shift in species composition long-term.

One sidenote here with the final report on the habitat improvement projects at Big Spring is that not once did the author mention the fact that the state still stocks brook trout at Big Spring and that they have access to the project reaches. In fact, I'd say the bulk of the brook trout you catch there are of hatchery origin. I don't know how you write a paper on the effects of habitat improvement on species composition without even mentioning that you're manually adding to the ST population, or at least mention that you tried to identify wild ST from stocked ST in the surveys. I also think it would've been nice to look at genetics and introgression there with ST. If you're focusing on improving ST numbers, wouldn't you want to look at every possible variable?

Unfortunately (for me and the brook trout of big spring), we put a lot of weight on economic value and angler sentiment, and we've somehow assigned a higher value to the wild nonnative rainbow trout there than the brook trout. Here again, fish size has set up an unwinnable position for our state fish. As long as we use maximum potential adult size as the criteria for which fish deserve prioritization, brook trout will always come last.

Those rainbows may be born in the stream, but they are obviously dependents of hatchery fish and they have no significant genetic adaptation to

 

[Fish Sticks]

Those rainbows may be born in the stream, but they are obviously dependents of hatchery fish and they have no significant genetic adaptation to

Big spring or anywhere east of their native range. The brook trout, although hatchery introgression may or may not be occurring, evolved in that ecosystem along with the the other aquatic organisms the rainbows are an inbred invasive trashy side show there that just reminds us the things that we can fix, we don’t when it comes to our best native brook trout habitat.