Heritage Brook Trout

[lycoflyfisher]

If you think politicians don't get involved when stocking is reduced in their districts you would be mistaken (ask Arway). I am sure Mike could tell some stories as well... having PFBC funded through the general assembly would only give politicians more control and of a lot more than just stocking trout. Just saying to do your research and be careful what you wish for.

Furthermore, a reduction in license buying anglers would also reduce the economic impact that recreational angling associated expenditures provide as well as the lobbying power that anglers collectively have. That reduction could be leveraged by powers to be to diminish regulatory protections of aquatic resources if their recreational use and associated economic activity is shown to be reduced. This comment is not directed towards supporting the current stocking practices, but is in the interest of conservation of all aquatic resources.

 

[silverfox]

If you think politicians don't get involved when stocking is reduced in their districts you would be mistaken (ask Arway). I am sure Mike could tell some stories as well... having PFBC funded through the general assembly would only give politicians more control and of a lot more than just stocking trout. Just saying to do your research and be careful what you wish for.

Furthermore, a reduction in license buying anglers would also reduce the economic impact that recreational angling associated expenditures provide as well as the lobbying power that anglers collectively have. That reduction could be leveraged by powers to be to diminish regulatory protections of aquatic resources if their recreational use and associated economic activity is shown to be reduced. This comment is not directed towards supporting the current stocking practices, but is in the interest of conservation of all aquatic resources.

I get it. Just pointing out that it is done this way elsewhere already, so it's not really an outlandish concept.

Not claiming that's the answer. It just pains me to see the state basically begging for donations (voluntary permits) to carry out what should be core mission activities (habitat improvement, wild trout related conservation etc.). I already pay for a fishing license and several other stamps. It's crazy to me that I should have to donate additional money to do what should be the first priority of the agency. Instead, the majority of the money I pay to the state goes to do the very things I'm vehemently against (stocking over native brook trout).

Furthermore, a reduction in license buying anglers would also reduce the economic impact that recreational angling associated expenditures provide as well as the lobbying power that anglers collectively have. That reduction could be leveraged by powers to be to diminish regulatory protections of aquatic resources if their recreational use and associated economic activity is shown to be reduced.

Except we don't really have "lobbying" power as it is. What we seem to have is some pockets of influence where someone is "buddy-buddy" with someone who has some sway in decision making. Those people aren't registered as 501c4's and they're not actually lobbying, just using their personal connections to influence appointees.

Regardless, natural resource management shouldn't be influenced by what Tom, Dick, and Harry want, or which group of Tom, Dicks, and Harrys has the biggest membership, it should be based on what's best for the resources. Stocking trout (the largest line item on the books) has absolutely nothing to do with resource management. It's a social program to generate revenue, and indirectly "interest", which is arguably what's best for the resource.

 

[JeffK]

NJ has a Fish and Game council as well, and the politics of it are changing all the time. It originally consisted of 6 sportsmans club representatives from the counties and 4 farmers representing the ag community plus a chair. In 90's some of the sportsmans club reps were from TU rather than typical rod and gun club guys, which got some native trout perspective. The ag community is getting weaker in NJ so we now have have replaced one farmer with a public member which is a non-sportsman conservation person, and may be an anti. This has been tough on hunters which get little public support, but has lesser effect on fishing which still is generally perceived positively. However, doesn't help. For example, a few years ago all the COs were pulled off stream duty on opening day to do bear management.

NJ relies a lot on license sales as well, which puts pressure on selling licenses. NJ has a unique issue where the 100,000+ freshwater licensees are often called to fund the 1 million saltwater person registry since salt water guys really resist paying anything to fish. That said, the license funding part is under their control; the state funding part gets jerked around all the time and fisheries is way at the end of the priority list. When times get tough ( which they always do) fisheries are one of first things to be cut. However, it does cause a lot of political tight rope walking. Stocking cant be ignored, but hopefully the managers keep native fish in balance. The other political squabble for state funding is among different areas of the state; some counties get more fisheries benefits (ie. trout, walleye, mucky stocking) than others and some counties don't want to foot the bill for something they don't benefit from. At least fish and game people look to increase their funding.

 

[Fish Sticks]

If you think politicians don't get involved when stocking is reduced in their districts you would be mistaken (ask Arway). I am sure Mike could tell some stories as well... having PFBC funded through the general assembly would only give politicians more control and of a lot more than just stocking trout. Just saying to do your research and be careful what you wish for.

Furthermore, a reduction in license buying anglers would also reduce the economic impact that recreational angling associated expenditures provide as well as the lobbying power that anglers collectively have. That reduction could be leveraged by powers to be to diminish regulatory protections of aquatic resources if their recreational use and associated economic activity is shown to be reduced. This comment is not directed towards supporting the current stocking practices, but is in the interest of conservation of all aquatic resources.

Yea besides the fact that there is no formal/ legitimate lovbying, i would argue micu of the fishing lobby is doing awuatic ecosystems a disservice. Just like mentioned hatchery clones stop dropping from the sky start back channeling with their congressmen/comissioner ect to get more. That is the closest thing we have now to a fishing lobby and id argue its a big part of why we are in this stocked mess.

 

[Fish Sticks]

If you think politicians don't get involved when stocking is reduced in their districts you would be mistaken (ask Arway). I am sure Mike could tell some stories as well... having PFBC funded through the general assembly would only give politicians more control and of a lot more than just stocking trout. Just saying to do your research and be careful what you wish for.

Furthermore, a reduction in license buying anglers would also reduce the economic impact that recreational angling associated expenditures provide as well as the lobbying power that anglers collectively have. That reduction could be leveraged by powers to be to diminish regulatory protections of aquatic resources if their recreational use and associated economic activity is shown to be reduced. This comment is not directed towards supporting the current stocking practices, but is in the interest of conservation of all aquatic resources.

People often confuse fishing and conservation despite that they have different goals. The conservation lobby would not change if license sales dropped and it might be easier for them to get somethings done if the “stock everything at all costs” faction wasn’t as big. Unless its a really high profile stream that has a dominant revenue producing role in a towns economy, i don’t think the fishing “lobby”, nor formal of course, has ever stopped nestle, fought nicholas meats/sunoco, or talked to their legislators about. conservation for the most part.

I am defining fishing lobby by those who are motivated by stocked trout and conservation lobby as those arguing for protection of wild native species, clean water, and habitat. People who prioritize stocking above all else generally don’t see as big of an issue if the creek can still be stocked when impairments start happening compared to conservationists.

 

[Mike]

Yeah, I get that risk, but it would remove the focus of prioritizing stocked trout. Even in that model, you'd still have license sales, permit fees, fines, and federal grant revenue to spend on conservation rather than aquaculture, or general fund would fund conservation and the other revenue could still fund stocked trout.

I think NY is roughly 50/50 general fund (state and federal)/license sales. So you could establish a rule that the 50% state/federal general funds have to go to conservation-related activities and the other 50% can go to recreational stocking etc.

Right now in PA, you've got this big incentive to stock trout in order to sell licenses, in order to raise and stock trout, in order to sell licenses, in order to stock trout... To support that cycle, you've got to keep the interest in stocked trout high. That leads to less focus on wild fish (and wild native fish) and more focus on stocked trout. You'll never break that cycle with the current funding model.

I won’t address all that was said here, but there are a few points of clarification that I will make….

It wouldn’t remove the legislators’ focus on stocking at all….not one bit.

As for federal money, it’s not permitted by the feds to be used to raise and stock adult trout. Aside from projects that are more conservation oriented, it may also be used for fingerling culture and stocking of all coldwater, warmwater, and coolwater species and evaluation of those stockings. The split is 70% fed money for the 30% match put up by the states. The 70% is not up front money though; the states have to spend the full 100% first to get 70% reimbursed. So, they have to have the money to get the money and it has to be spent only on projects that are pre-approved by the feds.

Fact: You have to sell licenses to capture any fed money and the more you sell the more fed money you can capture.


.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I won’t address all that was said here, but there are a few points of clarification that I will make….

It wouldn’t remove the legislators’ focus on stocking at all….not one bit.

As for federal money, it’s not permitted by the feds to be used to raise and stock adult trout. Aside from projects that are more conservation oriented, it may also be used for fingerling culture and stocking of all coldwater, warmwater, and coolwater species and evaluation of those stockings. The split is 70% fed money for the 30% match put up by the states. The 70% is not up front money though; the states have to spend the full 100% first to get 70% reimbursed. So, they have to have the money to get the money and it has to be spent only on projects that are pre-approved by the feds.

Fact: You have to sell licenses to capture any fed money and the more you sell the more fed money you can capture.


.

Yea i think the real question is why do we need to use federal money to stock? Sure the legislature sees less a few less buckets a year in their district as armageddon. They proved that with arway.

People talk about stocking like its an absolute requirement. When rivers caught on fire and streams couldn’t sustain any trout in this state over 100 years ago the fish commission provided stocked fish. However, thats not all they did. Much like the trout in the hatchery, the people in PA were conditioned for over a century to expect the fish commission to dump something in the water they can consume with minimal effort.

I get it, change nothing.

To do anything but what we have been doing for the last century sounds crazy unless you cross state lines.

Other states are making it work with the general fund. Other states have cut back their stocking in native brook trout watersheds and manage them entirely for native brook trout. Other states have discontinued stocking over non game species with an ESA listing. Other states have done limited removal of invasive trout. Other states have native brook trout conservation hatcheries for reintroduction(we have bucks county TU doing reinteoduction acting as a positive role model for the fish commission). Other states have C and R on native brook trout and tell you “of course incidental harvest is an issue.” To demand the very same achieved elsewhere for our state fish in PA is just the pure lunacy of a few fanatical native fish enthusiasts here in Pa.

So whats the plan? Wait till an ESA listing for native brook trout then do what we should have done 50 years ago in multiple streams in the last remaining one or two? Rhetorical question, the plan is to produce more PDF’s about conserving ourstate fish, attend regional conferences on native brook trout conssrvation with no intention of acting on the science while other states change. Symbolic gestures towards conservation without compromising a single one of the 8-9 million adult/fingerling/trophy/creamsickle trout stocked in this state. Meanwhile the 600 some registered private hatchery operations( donnie beavers, slate run brown trout ect.) in the state put their fish in too to add the 8-9 million commission/co-op fish.

Lets up it to 20 million trout stocked in Pa. The 9million stockers plus what 600 some private hatcheries stock isnt enough. 5 years after going to 20 million people will be complaining about the “light stockings” in their stream and write their congressmen/senator as the childish expectations of high catch rate/low effort establish a new baseline . Shoot, i may write my elected officials tomorrow and ask why the game commission is not supplementing our wild deer population with a bunch of confused deformed sick captive reared deer so i can limit out at 5 deer per outing. I need more opportunity. Its like a wild trout stream that meets for class A and peoples expectations are they can put down a lawn chair like their at a farm pond full of bluegill and limit out in 3 hours. I say bread/entrain/change the animal to jive with my preferred outdoor experience if it doesnt exist thay way in nature. I expect farm raised deer fed by people for their entire lives before being release to suck on the salt lick smeared on the end of my rifle’s barrel right before I pull the trigger.

You’ll laugh at all this and accuse me of being unrealistic/idealistic and say that things are the way they are and all we can hope for are minor changes to stocking routes or the current nonsensical “management” of wild native brook trout in out state. Doesn’t make it any less true though and I just want to know when i should be unsettled enough
to try to do something about it? You let me know when that’s appropriate in your opinion.

 

[Mike]

Required C&R for ST would do absolutely nothing unless you can find a stream where they are overharvested. C&R is not some game that is randomly applied to fisheries based on the whims of anglers. It is a management tool with the specific objective of correcting an existing or reasonably, professionally anticipated overharvest problem, either of a population as a whole or of a specific length or age group. With a total annual avg population mortality rate of 60-65% in Pa from age 2 to the terminal age, most of which is clearly natural mortality given the avg statewide harvest rate of 7 ST per mile (…YES, ONLY 7) and the role of compensatory survival mechanisms, C&R anywhere other than where overharvest can be documented would be a “feel-good” measure with zero impact biologically at the population level. It is estimated by at least one researcher that without about a 50% fishing mortality rate, special regs such as C&R will not be effective.

If C&R is to be used as an educational tool, it should be for the appropriate reasons stated above. Unfortunately, it has been used too often in just the opposite way as, in effect, a counter-educational tool among anglers and, sadly, in agency to angler communications at times. I have few concerns with individuals voluntarily C&R fishing unless harvest is prescribed, as in certain slot limits, but requiring C&R when angling is not a causal agent in a fish population problem, including size or age structure, is ill-advised. I make exceptions for endangered and threatened species, even coterminously, such as bull trout.

 

[silverfox]

Required C&R for ST would do absolutely nothing unless you can find a stream where they are overharvested. C&R is not some game that is randomly applied to fisheries based on the whims of anglers. It is a management tool with the specific objective of correcting an existing or reasonably, professionally anticipated overharvest problem, either of a population as a whole or of a specific length or age group. With a total annual avg population mortality rate of 60-65% in Pa from age 2 to the terminal age, most of which is clearly natural mortality given the avg statewide harvest rate of 7 ST per mile (…YES, ONLY 7) and the role of compensatory survival mechanisms, C&R anywhere other than where overharvest can be documented would be a “feel-good” measure with zero impact biologically at the population level. It is estimated by at least one researcher that without about a 50% fishing mortality rate, special regs such as C&R will not be effective.

If C&R is to be used as an educational tool, it should be for the appropriate reasons stated above. Unfortunately, it has been used too often in just the opposite way as, in effect, a counter-educational tool among anglers and, sadly, in agency to angler communications at times. I have few concerns with individuals voluntarily C&R fishing unless harvest is prescribed, as in certain slot limits, but requiring C&R when angling is not a causal agent in a fish population problem, including size or age structure, is ill-advised. I make exceptions for endangered and threatened species, even coterminously, such as bull trout.

MD's results from C&R regs on the upper savage showed: "..., compared to pooled sites open to harvest by anglers (2 fish per day, no closed season) from around the state, the upper Savage River has maintained statistically significant greater brook trout densities for each year of monitoring following the regulation change."

So clearly C&R regs for ST can and do have a positive biological impact on the ST population. Especially where stocking still occurs and anglers are there to harvest trout.

I'd get the reluctance to institute C&R regs if it wasn't something that is already done all across PA for other species. Since the current TMP was adopted, we've got C&R downstream of STW's with the stated objective of "protecting large migratory BT" (with no study to back up its need btw), cemented C&R (slot limit) on Penns Creek, a new C&R reg (slot limit) to be used on undetermined waters, and which has no exemption for ST and in my opinion, disproportionately negatively affects ST, though it's been said it won't be used on waters with an ST component. How many C&R reg sections do we have on BT waters?

I don't think angling regulations would do anything on high elevation 2nd/3rd order streams. I don't think that's where they're needed. I think we need them on STW or important watersheds where the mainstem is stocked and it's a travel corridor between tribs. At the same time, I don't think it makes sense to try to establish where those important highways are. So why not just make them C&R in all STW sections?

If nobody is harvesting ST anyway, then nobody should be upset about it, right?

 

[Mike]

I didn’t say that special regs for ST don’t work when harvest is high. Perhaps harvest was higher in MD than Pa because there are less wild trout streams over which to spread the angling pressure. The Savage only demonstrates that special regs can work, but it doesn’t mean that they would work on any other stream.

A review of special reg implementation on wild trout streams in Pa would largely show that most were politically motivated rather than implemented for biological reasons. In fact, many came from the old stocked Fish For Fun projects and were grandfathered into a C&R program. In my long held view, the wild trout streams that would possibly need special regs in Pa probably already have them.

I think that a fundamental difference is that some individuals apparently think these corridors are not being negotiated successfully by enough wild ST to effectively produce enough gene flow while I believe the opposite. I have explained that in other threads regarding the Loyalsock (similarity of genetic backgrounds among the tribs) and the experiment in which only ten ST needed to be introduced into each of four streams for genetic diversity to greatly increase. In real life, that means to me that it only takes a trickle of fish movement between streams. Additionally, a recent paper on barriers and modeling trout and salmon movements over a 30 yr period, only the top 4% of stream flows, which produced the “rare movement of adults,” were needed in simulations to maintain the abundance of trout upstream of the barrier and in upstream tribs to the same degree as if no barrier had been present. Harvey, B.C. and S.F. Railsbach. 2021. All fish, all the time: a good general objective for fish passage projects? Fisheries: 46(3): 119-124. I was not cherry picking; this paper just happened to appear in a journal as I was catching up on some back reading.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I didn’t say that special regs for ST don’t work when harvest is high. Perhaps harvest was higher in MD than Pa because there are less wild trout streams over which to spread the angling pressure. The Savage only demonstrates that special regs can work, but it doesn’t mean that they would work on any other stream.

A review of special reg implementation on wild trout streams in Pa would largely show that most were politically motivated rather than implemented for biological reasons. In fact, many came from the old stocked Fish For Fun projects and were grandfathered into a C&R program. In my long held view, the wild trout streams that would possibly need special regs in Pa probably already have them.

I think that a fundamental difference is that some individuals apparently think these corridors are not being negotiated successfully by enough wild ST to effectively produce enough gene flow while I believe the opposite. I have explained that in other threads regarding the Loyalsock (similarity of genetic backgrounds among the tribs) and the experiment in which only ten ST needed to be introduced into each of four streams for genetic diversity to greatly increase. In real life, that means to me that it only takes a trickle of fish movement between streams. Additionally, a recent paper on barriers and modeling trout and salmon movements over a 30 yr period, only the top 4% of stream flows, which produced the “rare movement of adults,” were needed in simulations to maintain the abundance of trout upstream of the barrier and in upstream tribs to the same degree as if no barrier had been present. Harvey, B.C. and S.F. Railsbach. 2021. All fish, all the time: a good general objective for fish passage projects? Fisheries: 46(3): 119-124. I was not cherry picking; this paper just happened to appear in a journal as I was catching up on some back reading.

This is why I am not impressed by any PA studies/internal data by Pa fish and boat on catch and release. This came from a 2019 manuscript on brown/brook trout habiat by Doug deiterman and john hoxmier out of the drift-less region.

“
Fausch, et al. (31) proposed the riverscape approach to guide management
and conservation efforts for stream fishes. The riverscape approach expanded the dynamic landscape model to note, in part, that management and research efforts need to consider how fish movements among all heterogeneous habitat patches across the full extent of all spatial and temporal scales dictate the persistence and abundance of stream fishes in any partic- ular habitat patch at a particular time. For example, their riverscape approach encouraged assessment of habitat require- ments over longer-time scales than traditional within-season assessments (e.g., assessing summer habitat requirements of fishes because most fish sampling occurred during summer) and at much larger spatial scales than the 150 to 1,500-ft (50 to 500-m) sampling stations common to many previous fish-habitat studies. In particular, they noted the need to understand, sample, and manage fish populations at 0.5 to 50-mi (1 to 100-km) stream segment and 5 to 50-year scales. Collectively, each of these conceptual frameworks is important to describing the habitat requirements of stream fishes and in- corporating that information in the implementation of stream habitat restoration projects (Table 2).


So I think its not wise to rely on methodically flawed data like the study on C and R pa fish and boat did on that handful of streams sampling (300 yard) very short almost insignificant stream reaches. The above quote illustrates the fallacy of relying on such poor quality data. Basically if you want to see how C and R effects a population study the population. Not 300 yards where a fee rootballs/trees washing out could drastically change the habitat and alter your results due to confounders. Like most fish commission ideology it completely ignored movement. What were the conditions? Did they dictate a different habiat use from that of the orginal 300 yard sample reach? Even a lay person can begun to see the holes in that study are large.

Also the surveys about how intense harvest is on brook trout streams you seem to think are bullet proof. Your average 2 weekend a year angler doesn’t correctly identify the species of their catch in a large amount of cases. Also as sulver fox mentioned your selecting for the largest most fecund brook trout with that alot limit on penns because that reg is designed only with browns in mind. And YES 7 legal sized (the largest ST in the entire system) if we are talking about most streams could be a disproportionately high amount of the following years eggs especially in non class A population. And in penns again your dealing with the minority of the brook trout population that is influencing rover scape genetics even if you ignore their large fecund status.

 

[Fish Sticks]

This is the gene map from the loyalsock study. Yes there is mixing just how similar of a background of the different tribs do you think that looks???? You act like that riverscape is at the optimum amount of gene flow, what is that? I don’t think anyone does. So its incorrect and irresponsible to say we don’t need to worry about the connectivity effects of large movement corridors like the sock. Incase you want to know the author of the atudy your talking about feels with on this one, knowing the loyalsock and her own results, the paper STILL concludes

“While all methods detected a negative effect of permanent barriers on gene flow, only the BGR model identified stream segments with intermittent flow as also having a negative effect.”

This discredits your extrapolation of a non brook trout study about salmonids that tried to show rare moment events can maintain a healthy population based on density. Now being in the age of conservation genetics its shocking they tried to claim since rare passage maintained density without looking on what genetic effects it had. Did they monitor levels of inbreeding depression that would reduce genetic variability and adaptive potential to deal with climate change? I think not and again its not even about brook trout. You really don’t want to making statements about optimum/appropriate connectivity without genetics.


And apparently i’m not the only one worried about what happens to those brook trout in large water ways used as movement corridors by native brook trout. Another direct quote from Shannon’s loyalsock study. Please pass that along to your former employeer.


“Consequently, changes in habitat suitability at one site can have significant, unintended consequences to large-scale metapopulation genetic structure and demography (Letcher et al. 2007). In addition, maintain- ing the ecological integrity of habitats that are only sea- sonally suitable for brook trout occupancy appears to be critical for maintaining gene flow and population con- nectivity in this system.”

 

[Fish Sticks]

I didn’t say that special regs for ST don’t work when harvest is high. Perhaps harvest was higher in MD than Pa because there are less wild trout streams over which to spread the angling pressure. The Savage only demonstrates that special regs can work, but it doesn’t mean that they would work on any other stream.

A review of special reg implementation on wild trout streams in Pa would largely show that most were politically motivated rather than implemented for biological reasons. In fact, many came from the old stocked Fish For Fun projects and were grandfathered into a C&R program. In my long held view, the wild trout streams that would possibly need special regs in Pa probably already have them.

I think that a fundamental difference is that some individuals apparently think these corridors are not being negotiated successfully by enough wild ST to effectively produce enough gene flow while I believe the opposite. I have explained that in other threads regarding the Loyalsock (similarity of genetic backgrounds among the tribs) and the experiment in which only ten ST needed to be introduced into each of four streams for genetic diversity to greatly increase. In real life, that means to me that it only takes a trickle of fish movement between streams. Additionally, a recent paper on barriers and modeling trout and salmon movements over a 30 yr period, only the top 4% of stream flows, which produced the “rare movement of adults,” were needed in simulations to maintain the abundance of trout upstream of the barrier and in upstream tribs to the same degree as if no barrier had been present. Harvey, B.C. and S.F. Railsbach. 2021. All fish, all the time: a good general objective for fish passage projects? Fisheries: 46(3): 119-124. I was not cherry picking; this paper just happened to appear in a journal as I was catching up on some back reading.

Another direct quote

“Accordingly, brook trout management efforts are rarely put into a metapopulation context, and the significance of conservation actions or disturbance events are gener- ally considered to be restricted to a single stream. How- ever, results of the BGR model question the validity of these assumptions for brook trout in Loyalsock Creek,”

Key words “ ASSUMPTIONS FOR BROOK TROUT IN LOYALSOCK CREEK”

Apparently the study’s author you are referencing does not share your opinion about the current management, or lack there of, of the meta population in the loyalsock system as being currently valid/effective.

 

[moon1284]

View attachment 1641225116

This is the gene map from the loyalsock study. Yes there is mixing just how similar of a background of the different tribs do you think that looks???? You act like that riverscape is at the optimum amount of gene flow, what is that? I don’t think anyone does. So its incorrect and irresponsible to say we don’t need to worry about the connectivity effects of large movement corridors like the sock. Incase you want to know the author of the atudy your talking about feels with on this one, knowing the loyalsock and her own results, the paper STILL concludes

“While all methods detected a negative effect of permanent barriers on gene flow, only the BGR model identified stream segments with intermittent flow as also having a negative effect.”

This discredits your extrapolation of a non brook trout study about salmonids that tried to show rare moment events can maintain a healthy population based on density. Now being in the age of conservation genetics its shocking they tried to claim since rare passage maintained density without looking on what genetic effects it had. Did they monitor levels of inbreeding depression that would reduce genetic variability and adaptive potential to deal with climate change? I think not and again its not even about brook trout. You really don’t want to making statements about optimum/appropriate connectivity without genetics.


And apparently i’m not the only one worried about what happens to those brook trout in large water ways used as movement corridors by native brook trout. Another direct quote from Shannon’s loyalsock study. Please pass that along to your former employeer.


“Consequently, changes in habitat suitability at one site can have significant, unintended consequences to large-scale metapopulation genetic structure and demography (Letcher et al. 2007). In addition, maintain- ing the ecological integrity of habitats that are only sea- sonally suitable for brook trout occupancy appears to be critical for maintaining gene flow and population con- nectivity in this system.”

Riveting

 

[silverfox]

I didn’t say that special regs for ST don’t work when harvest is high. Perhaps harvest was higher in MD than Pa because there are less wild trout streams over which to spread the angling pressure. The Savage only demonstrates that special regs can work, but it doesn’t mean that they would work on any other stream.

A review of special reg implementation on wild trout streams in Pa would largely show that most were politically motivated rather than implemented for biological reasons. In fact, many came from the old stocked Fish For Fun projects and were grandfathered into a C&R program. In my long held view, the wild trout streams that would possibly need special regs in Pa probably already have them.

I think that a fundamental difference is that some individuals apparently think these corridors are not being negotiated successfully by enough wild ST to effectively produce enough gene flow while I believe the opposite. I have explained that in other threads regarding the Loyalsock (similarity of genetic backgrounds among the tribs) and the experiment in which only ten ST needed to be introduced into each of four streams for genetic diversity to greatly increase. In real life, that means to me that it only takes a trickle of fish movement between streams. Additionally, a recent paper on barriers and modeling trout and salmon movements over a 30 yr period, only the top 4% of stream flows, which produced the “rare movement of adults,” were needed in simulations to maintain the abundance of trout upstream of the barrier and in upstream tribs to the same degree as if no barrier had been present. Harvey, B.C. and S.F. Railsbach. 2021. All fish, all the time: a good general objective for fish passage projects? Fisheries: 46(3): 119-124. I was not cherry picking; this paper just happened to appear in a journal as I was catching up on some back reading.

This is exactly like the claim that stocking doesn't negatively impact population size where other variables are suppressing population size. How do we know harvest isn't an issue on some streams like it was on the Savage? The Savage likely did have significant harvest because of it being one of the few trout fisheries in the area. To me, that's no different than some popular stream in PA. The only difference is, MD DNR started looking at the impact on ST decads ago and changed course when they saw the problem. Nowhere in Pennsylvania have we done the same.

We seem to be willing to just continue throwing everything we can at brook trout. Stocked trout, purposefully expanding wild nonnative trout, no angling regs, habitat issues, water quality, etc. etc. etc. Out of all those things, 2 are virtually free and have no downside. Why not remove the pressures we have the ability to remove at little to no cost?

How do we know those 10 fish needed to provide adequate genetic diversity aren't being harvested? What if one of those fish is carrying important genes that might help the population cope with an evolving stressor like temperature? That Loyalsock study was 1 river out of how many miles of flowing water? To suggest that all watersheds function the same is ridiculous. That the Savage is somehow vastly different than anything we have in Pennsylvania. That's silly.

I'd buy the whole "angling regs were done for political reasons" line if we hadn't just created a brand new reg type and failed to simply write a sentence that would include brook trout in the reg. That's either complete oversight or it just reinforces that brook trout are an afterthought in this state.

 

[Fish Sticks]

NJ DNR, WV DNR, MD DNR don’t agree with you mike. Maybe tell them about what the PAFB studies that looked at 300 yard stream reaches in 3 streams showed. That would go over really well at a fisheries science management workshop. Im not saying C and R is going to in way solve our state fishes largest problems. However, its free and yes regulations that encourage the harvest of our largest brook trout in larger waterways where incidental harvest occurs are a real concern according to other states DNR if you call and ask.

Look at this in the below screen shot from the article

Openly admitting that solid fisheries science saying that we need to manage entire watersheds for native brook trout informed their decisions as managers !!!!!! They even referenced decision making in cooperation with the Eastern Brook Trout Joint venture!!! Some how their managers weren’t lost to angry hords of sportsman’s with pitch forks and torches, the American academy of pediatrics(who maintains stocked trout critical for normal childhood development and future in conservation), the legislature, the boogie man, la chupacabra, santa clause or all the other people PAFB claims will come after them for doing anything for our native brook trout.

Mean while we DO have watersheds with little to no stocking that are almost all C and R. Their just for brown trout, listed by the easternbrook trout joint venture as the number one bilogical threat to native brook trout. Makes sense right, i get the sense your really ok with it that way mike.

Catch-and-release fishing proposed for four WV brook-trout streams

Four of West Virginia’s native brook-trout streams are about to step out of the shadows and into the limelight.

www.wvgazettemail.com

 

[Fish Sticks]

NJ DNR, WV DNR, MD DNR don’t agree with you mike. Maybe tell them about what the PAFB studies that looked at 300 yard stream reaches in 3 streams showed. That would go over really well at a fisheries science management workshop. Im not saying C and R is going to in way solve our state fishes largest problems. However, its free and yes regulations that encourage the harvest of our largest brook trout in larger waterways where incidental harvest occurs are a real concern according to other states DNR if you call and ask.

Look at this in the below screen shot from the articleView attachment 1641225125 Openly admitting that solid fisheries science saying that we need to manage entire watersheds for native brook trout informed their decisions as managers !!!!!! They even referenced decision making in cooperation with the Eastern Brook Trout Joint venture!!! Some how their managers weren’t lost to angry hords of sportsman’s with pitch forks and torches, the American academy of pediatrics(who maintains stocked trout critical for normal childhood development and future in conservation), the legislature, the boogie man, la chupacabra, santa clause or all the other people PAFB claims will come after them for doing anything for our native brook trout.

Mean while we DO have watersheds with little to no stocking that are almost all C and R. Their just for brown trout, listed by the easternbrook trout joint venture as the number one bilogical threat to native brook trout. Makes sense right, i get the sense your really ok with it that way mike.

Catch-and-release fishing proposed for four WV brook-trout streams

Four of West Virginia’s native brook-trout streams are about to step out of the shadows and into the limelight.

www.wvgazettemail.com

Invasive species listed as number one biological threat to native brook trout by EBTJV* of which brown trout being the most mentioned species in the literature and on the EBTJV site

 

[troutbert]

Brook trout are over-harvested in PA.

Especially in the stream mileage where hatchery trout are stocked over native brook trout, which is a very common thing in PA, both by the PFBC and the coop hatcheries. I don't think anyone denies that. You can see it while fishing, and the electrofishing reports show it. Where hatchery trout are stocked over native brook trout, the number of brook trout 7 inches and up are low. They are severely cropped off, as you would expect.

But even where there is no stocking, there are many places where the brookies are heavily cropped. People who have done a lot of brookie fishing know this. You can see it very easily.

For those who want to catch brookies 8 inches and up, it's mostly a matter of finding stretches that aren't getting "hit."

 

[wildtrout2]

For those who want to catch brookies 8 inches and up, it's mostly a matter of finding stretches that aren't getting "hit."

That is a fact. And from my experience, the streams that do produce the bigger natives are always the one's that are most difficult to access (geography) and are far from any roads. It's really that simple.

 

[Mike]

There were not just three streams in the Pa ST special regs study. There were more, but it happens that the AFM for the Poconos region chose the three in his region for a regional web report. The final results of the multi-regional study were published, as I recall, in an American Fisheries Society journal. Furthermore, changes in micro-habitat at any one sampling site in a study like that are absorbed and accounted for by having multiple treatment streams and multiple control streams under study across a broad geographical area and multiple years. To show significant differences pre and post regulation between treatment and control streams, there needs to something more than natural variation occurring. Annual changes in habitat due to storms, etc are examples of natural variations, as are variations in year class strengths. This study was conducted across more than one generation of ST as well.

Regarding the ST genetic similarities among streams in the Loyalsock study, see third paragraph in the PSU article topic: Larger streams are critical to wild brook trout conservation.

I fully agree that maintaining passage through stream and river corridors is important. If I didn’t, I would not have been nearly as professionally active as I was in pressing for fishway development and dam removals, including removals specifically aimed at wild trout. In fact, some of those are still in the process of moving forward.

As for the need to have the same high genetic diversity in each ST stream in a given drainage, I’m not that much of a splitter. In fact a recent study in WV, if I recall the proper state, showed ST genetic differences among short segments of individual streams. I am satisfied at the moment to have high genetic diversity within a drainage and good connectivity such that when a catastrophic event occurs the pre-adapted individuals that survive in one stream can eventually contribute offspring to other streams via movement. This happens already in Pa following recoveries from drought and various causes of pollution that resulted in localized extirpation.

As for overharvest in Pa trout streams, localized overharvest at a popular bridge or where a forest road comes closest to a stream is not statewide or streamwide overharvest. I have on multiple occasions for a decade or more asked individuals here to name streams where the overall Wild trout population is overharvested and with only one exception, all that I have heard have been crickets. The statewide angler use and harvest study showed that this is not a statewide problem and the more localized, but still regionally diverse study of special ST regs, showed the same thing.