How many hatcheries in PA

[troutbert]

There was one more thing I forgot to include that was along the lines of what you had brought up in terms of mapping stuff. I was reading the wild trout management plan and if I recall I think issue 12 was connectivity. And it even mentioned there is an aquatic connectivity team that is assessing connectivity issues for native brook trout. Since we know these stocked trout can be a biological barrier to gene flow and negatively influence brook trout genetics in a significant way, the aquatic connectivity should be factoring this in and not just looking at the AOP scores of these Culverts as they only a piece of the connectivity information. Here is where mapping comes in. There is a GIS map I have heard that maps brown trout related connectivity issues I have to try and dig it up. I wonder if you could overlay a GIS map like that with stocking locations to provide a more accurate picture of connectivity for the aquatic connectivity team? This could be a great way to address issue 12 in the wild trout management plan.

Regarding stocking hatchery trout over native brook trout populations, the main impact is very simple: It reduces the native brook trout populations in those streams. And if you end stocking over native brook trout, their populations increase.

Of course reducing the native brook trout populations has further impacts, such as on genetics. But I think it's important to emphasize first things first.

Many people would like brook trout populations to improve. Shifting hatchery trout away from where they are currently stocked over native brook trout, to other waters, such as larger streams and impoundments, would improve the brook trout populations, and make no change in the number of hatchery trout stocked for early season recreation. And it is something that requires no additional money or labor to do.

 

[Mike]

Kurtz is the only one I can think of that had a formal name.

The Kurtz Hatchery that I know of is in Chester Co near Elverson, not in Central Pa. It is a source for warmwater species, forage fish, etc. See their web site.

 

[silverfox]

Regarding stocking hatchery trout over native brook trout populations, the main impact is very simple: It reduces the native brook trout populations in those streams. And if you end stocking over native brook trout, their populations increase.

Of course reducing the native brook trout populations has further impacts, such as on genetics. But I think it's important to emphasize first things first.

Many people would like brook trout populations to improve. Shifting hatchery trout away from where they are currently stocked over native brook trout, to other waters, such as larger streams and impoundments, would improve the brook trout populations, and make no change in the number of hatchery trout stocked for early season recreation. And it is something that requires no additional money or labor to do.

Absolutely agree. I think there's a few issues.

1) In order to present evidence on why stocking over wild native brook trout is bad, you have to include all the research that shows why nonnative fish negatively impact wild native brook trout. That inevitably leads to resentment toward the idea. This thread (and others) are exhibit A.

2) PFBC characterizes stocking over wild native brook trout as "only" 20% of stocked streams, and that they're marginal biomass populations. Additionally, the agency has denied that stocked trout present much of a problem for wild native brook trout (despite numerous citations by federal agencies countering that point), and that stocking isn't a limiting factor for brook trout biomass (despite not ceasing stocking to monitor population response).

So public sentiment might support the idea, but when they realize why they're asking for it, it immediately leads to resentment because of species favoritism. Then it's apparent that the agency itself doesn't support the idea. God forbid people bring this up in a public forum to try to sway public opinion on the issue. So it's a stalemate?

I've brought up that when MD changed their harvest regs across the state that an angler survey conducted prior to the regulation change indicated some 86% (if memory serves) supported the initiative. Frankly, I'm a little scared to see what it would be in PA based on some interactions with trying to discuss the subject.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The Kurtz Hatchery that I know of is in Chester Co near Elverson, not in Central Pa. It is a source for warmwater species, forage fish, etc. See their web site.

I’ve just driven past the area I’ve never gone there or anything. That’s the hard part that unless they have a website like that place or part of an organized program you don’t know what their reasoning or where their stocking.

 

[silverfox]

Regarding stocking hatchery trout over native brook trout populations, the main impact is very simple: It reduces the native brook trout populations in those streams. And if you end stocking over native brook trout, their populations increase.

Of course reducing the native brook trout populations has further impacts, such as on genetics. But I think it's important to emphasize first things first.

Many people would like brook trout populations to improve. Shifting hatchery trout away from where they are currently stocked over native brook trout, to other waters, such as larger streams and impoundments, would improve the brook trout populations, and make no change in the number of hatchery trout stocked for early season recreation. And it is something that requires no additional money or labor to do.

Honestly, here's the thing, nobody is going to listen to some blowhard on the internet (me) or even an organized group of blowhards. Clearly, if people want to argue against peer-reviewed journal publications, they aren't going to listen to angling peers.

The only people in this state with the power to do anything are in Bellefonte PA. Frankly, even advocating for this stuff is extremely difficult because there's almost nothing coming from the agency to support it, or the issue is downplayed. I've mentioned on here before that in going back through social media posts I think I found exactly 1 instance where brook trout were mentioned outside of stocked brook trout, and if memory serves, that was in conjunction w/ wild brown trout to highlight the unassessed waters initiative.

This is why I've brought up MD's C&R regs or the upper savage as a model. I strongly believe that the regs draw attention to the species and highlight for anglers that they're important. The reality is, we have more protections for stocked trout and nonnative trout than we do for brook trout specifically. Even though I believe angling/harvest regs for brook trout would be a valuable tool in educating anglers, it also had a documented net positive effect on the brook trout population in the USR (in the presence of stocked RT by the way).

We don't have a single regulation in this state designed to protect brook trout specifically. We have regs on waters that are allopatric brown trout. We have regs on stocked waters. We have regs that do protect all wild trout in the extended season, but we don't have anything for brook trout specifically.

The current trout management plan does mention brook trout quite a bit, but I haven't seen anything actually done as a result of that. While I like a lot of what it says, some of it is very vague and could be open for interpretation. I like the reduction in brook trout stocking to protect brook trout. That's a good start. I wish it was done though. I know they're winding down production but by the time the private permitting is implemented and the hatchery stocks are depleted, it will be 2026 before brook trout stocking is ended in PA.

Messaging and prioritization would go a long way in reinforcing the importance of brook trout.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Regarding stocking hatchery trout over native brook trout populations, the main impact is very simple: It reduces the native brook trout populations in those streams. And if you end stocking over native brook trout, their populations increase.

Of course reducing the native brook trout populations has further impacts, such as on genetics. But I think it's important to emphasize first things first.

Many people would like brook trout populations to improve. Shifting hatchery trout away from where they are currently stocked over native brook trout, to other waters, such as larger streams and impoundments, would improve the brook trout populations, and make no change in the number of hatchery trout stocked for early season recreation. And it is something that requires no additional money or labor to do.

I couldn’t agree more about the benefits of not stocking over them. The only problem with putting the stocked trout in downstream waterways in the same watershed can be that it can effect riverscape genetics big time. Shannon whites study on the loyal sock showed that gene flow that occurs when a brook trout swims down one stream into the main stem and then up another is occurring. This is a critical part of a brook trouts life history because mixing genes prevents what’s called inbreeding depression(no sharing of genes/isolated pop), a process that makes stunted, less fertile, less fit, and less adaptable brook trout. We know that invasive fish species can limit this critical but directional gene flow that limits this gene mixing of different pops that prevent inbreeding. So stocking browns and rainbows in those large waterways brook trout are traveling in can be similar to the effect of a poorly passable culvert in many cases. So even if they are not stocking on top of the brook trout where they are electro shocked in the summer to make the class A stream section designation, they are in essence stocking a culvert between populations that can damage the healthy genetics of the meta population in the watershed. We have done some great stream work that has cleaned up AMD, sediment, and nutrients but making the fish less genetically fit is a huge continuing issue that’s suffering lack of awareness. How much of brook trout’s issues surviving in the wild is due to habitat/water quality vs. the reduced size, fertility, and fitness that comes with inbreeding depression? I don’t have to answer but I know both are in play in PA.

This goes back to issue 12 on the PAFB wild management plan, the aquatic connectivity team needs to consider the effects of their own stocking as a barrier because even downstream it may be really harmful to brook trouts size/length, fertility, and adaptive potential to climate change. The field of conservation genetics as far as brook trout is concerned is growing. Two of the large goals are preserving adaptive ability for climate change and preserving local adaptation on the scale of sub watersheds so fish have the genetic tool belt to deal with environmental issues unique to their drainage. If you guys have not heard about genetic rescue it’s truly exciting we can reverse some of the negative genetic changes we have caused. They tested it and in North Carolina, brookies got bigger, had more offspring in the first generation!! (This is a huge Over simplification but to illustrate basic concept I’ll try to tel you how genetic rescue works) You try to find local, but not directly connected, brook trout population and then transport a number of individuals into the in bred population and the spawn from those fish are more genetically diverse and less inbred. I think if more people knew about conservation genetics (aka that the fish them selves have been negatively altered genetically and we can do something about that), there would not be as much native brook trout defeatism. Look at the results of this study it’s impressive.

Experimental test of genetic rescue in isolated populations of brook trout | Request PDF

Request PDF | Experimental test of genetic rescue in isolated populations of brook trout | Genetic rescue is an increasingly considered conservation measure to address genetic erosion associated with habitat loss and fragmentation. The... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on...

www.researchgate.net

 

[Mike]

I have searched through your invasive spp/trout references and abstracts in that list contained in the snakehead thread and read some some of the papers but can’t find a discussion of stocked trout blocking ST movement from stream to stream. Please direct me to that reference.

 

[troutbert]

Which do you think is likely to occur first?

Ending of Loyalsock Creek and similar very large freestone streams that are not even on the wild trout reproduction list, that go over 80F in the summer, and that support smallmouth bass?

Or small streams in these watersheds that are only about 15 feet wide, that are on the wild trout reproduction list, with documented populations of native brook trout from headwaters to mouth?

The PFBC has already taken large numbers of such streams off the stocking list. So, ending stocking over more of these smallish streams with native brook trout is an achievable goal.

There are still hundreds of them to go. PFBC biologists would like more support for ending of stocking such streams. I have heard them say so, on more than one occasion.

 

[silverfox]

I have searched through your invasive spp/trout references and abstracts in that list contained in the snakehead thread and read some some of the papers but can’t find a discussion of stocked trout blocking ST movement from stream to stream. Please direct me to that reference.

I think "fish sticks" was talking about a barrier to gene flow, not a physical barrier to movement. Though it's not a stretch to consider that competition & predation might function as a barrier to movement to some degree, in some cases also.

With gene flow, I think (I'll let fish sticks reply to this with links) he's referencing a paper that looks at the negative effects of introgression (intraspecies w/ stocked trout). I.e. that outbreeding depression functions as a barrier to bidirectional gene flow.

 

[silverfox]

Which do you think is likely to occur first?

Ending of Loyalsock Creek and similar very large freestone streams that are not even on the wild trout reproduction list, that go over 80F in the summer, and that support smallmouth bass?

Or small streams in these watersheds that are only about 15 feet wide, that are on the wild trout reproduction list, with documented populations of native brook trout from headwaters to mouth?

The PFBC has already taken large numbers of such streams off the stocking list. So, ending stocking over more of these smallish streams with native brook trout is an achievable goal.

There are still hundreds of them to go. PFBC biologists would like more support for ending of stocking such streams. I have heard them say so, on more than one occasion.

I think there's a lot more to this than just pulling stocking of some random large river off the books. This is all in reference to S. White's paper, and probably more directly to me, the Upper Savage system. The USR is over 100 miles of interconnected streams including the mainstem. The mainstem is still stocked, though the numbers are fairly limited and the stocking is confined to a small area on the mainstem. Then, throughout the system, C&R regs exist for brook trout.

That model has proven very successful. Pennsylvania has never attempted anything of that magnitude. To put that into perspective, that's like making all of the kettle creek watershed above Alvin Bush C&R for brook trout and limiting stocking to rainbows and yellow rainbows in the area immediately above the dam. Can you envision PA ever doing something like that?

The point is, brook trout populations are protected when you take a watershed level approach. Focusing any efforts on 1st order streams alone without addressing the travel corridors is a half-baked approach at best.

So yeah, in theory, those big rivers are important, but given where we're at in this state, cessation of stocking on a handful of streams is probably the best we can ever hope for. I agree with you completely.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I have searched through your invasive spp/trout references and abstracts in that list contained in the snakehead thread and read some some of the papers but can’t find a discussion of stocked trout blocking ST movement from stream to stream. Please direct me to that reference.

Good point Mike I have attached two photos. One is a slide used in a presentation by Dr. David Kayzak who is one of the worlds foremost experts in brook trout conservation genetics and as you can see there is a list of obstacles that restrict gene flow and on that list invasive species(picture of brown and rainbow trout seen next to that word) is listed right below culverts in the same category of obstacles.

The other photo is of a GIS mapping tool looking at connectivity and I picked the brown trout filter that shows where brown trout are connectivity issues in PA incase anyones interested. I’ll post the link to that program as well so you can all play with it. I had been somewhat aware of invasive species as a barrier to gene flow before this presentation David Kayzak gave due to the article I’ll list below. This conference was actually the STAC Chesapeake bay brook trout conservation genetics conference and although I was not able to attend in real time, I was told Jason Deter was there so he would have heard this information presented as well that the invasive species are a barrier to ST. I also heard Dr. Eric Hallerman another expert in that arena echoed that we know these invasive species are effecting gene flow no question.


Links:

-Program that can map brown trout caused connectivity barriers in case you want to see where your local brown trout connectivity barriers are. (They need to make this more intuitive to use lol)

Chesapeake Fish Passage Prioritization Tool - Redirect

Tool quantitatively assess habitats in Chesapeake Bay.

maps.freshwaternetwork.org

-Review on fish migration, the abstract mentions stocked fish negatively effecting gene flow.

“supplemental stocking can impact on gene flow and selection”

Ecological and Evolutionary Consequences of Environmental Change and Management Actions for Migrating Fish

Migration strategies in fishes comprise a rich, ecologically important, and socioeconomically valuable example of biological diversity. The variation and flexibility in migration is evident between and within individuals, populations, and species, and thereby provides a useful model system that...

www.frontiersin.org

-This is the link to where Dave Kayzak and Eric Hallerman say invasive species(picture brown trout and rainbow trout) are barriers to gene flow listed right under culvert. Title of this presentation given to managers including Pa fish and boat is titled “brook trout What we know”.

https://www.chesapeake.org/stac/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Hallerman-and-Kazyak-Review-of-what-we-know_dk_FINAL.pdf

Mike although I have never spoken with Dr. Kayzak or Hallerman I would be happy to reach out and get more information if you’d like. Like I said these are some of the upper echelon of most knowledgeable individuals on earth interms of brook trout conservation genetics. What I would like to see is Pa fish and boat actually reach out instead to people like this because I am assuming based on the fact that they made a presentation for fisheries managers that they want to help. But they can’t force Pa fish and boat to value them as ultimate authority on this topic and and they can’t force Pa fish and boat to collaborate with them/take recommendations, they can only do their research. I would like to see the aquatic connectivity team working on issue 12 of wild trout management plan reach out them instead to get a better idea of the scope of the biological connectivity issues from the stocking program that the culverts alone won’t address. It’s just extremely worrying to see the agency manage so counter to the most credible science and not see them making more of an attempt to collaborate on projects/management with these people at the top of their field. Now that being said despite pa fish and boat not implementing the principles for successful brook trout management outlined in the science such as managing watersheds for brook trout or the harmful effects of stocking/invasive species on the fish and their genetics, I know the individual employees at Pa fish and boat like the biologist/AFM and a lot of the commissioners are nice people who want to do good things for our brook trout so I am thankful for the devoted individuals working at the agency who are as passionate about this as I am, I just know it’s not always up to them Individually so they are in a tough spot. I appreciate what they do for us all.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I have searched through your invasive spp/trout references and abstracts in that list contained in the snakehead thread and read some some of the papers but can’t find a discussion of stocked trout blocking ST movement from stream to stream. Please direct me to that reference.

Good point Mike I have attached two photos. One is a slide used in a presentation by Dr. David Kayzak who is one of the worlds foremost experts in brook trout conservation genetics and as you can see there is a list of obstacles that restrict gene flow and on that list invasive species(picture of brown and rainbow trout seen next to that word) is listed right below culverts in the same category of obstacles.

The other photo is of a GIS mapping tool looking at connectivity and I picked the brown trout filter that shows where brown trout are connectivity issues in PA incase anyones interested. I’ll post the link to that program as well so you can all play with it. I had been somewhat aware of invasive species as a barrier to gene flow before this presentation David Kayzak gave due to the article I’ll list below. This conference was actually the STAC Chesapeake bay brook trout conservation genetics conference and although I was not able to attend in real time, I was told Jason Deter was there so he would have heard this information presented as well that the invasive species are a barrier to ST. I also heard Dr. Eric Hallerman another expert in that arena echoed that we know these invasive species are effecting gene flow no question.


Links:

-Program that can map brown trout caused connectivity barriers in case you want to see where your local brown trout connectivity barriers are. (They need to make this more intuitive to use lol)

Chesapeake Fish Passage Prioritization Tool - Redirect

Tool quantitatively assess habitats in Chesapeake Bay.

maps.freshwaternetwork.org

-Review on fish migration, the abstract mentions stocked fish negatively effecting gene flow.

“supplemental stocking can impact on gene flow and selection”

Ecological and Evolutionary Consequences of Environmental Change and Management Actions for Migrating Fish

Migration strategies in fishes comprise a rich, ecologically important, and socioeconomically valuable example of biological diversity. The variation and flexibility in migration is evident between and within individuals, populations, and species, and thereby provides a useful model system that...

www.frontiersin.org

-This is the link to where Dave Kayzak and Eric Hallerman say invasive species(picture brown trout and rainbow trout) are barriers to gene flow listed right under culvert. Title of this presentation given to managers including Pa fish and boat is titled “brook trout What we know”.

https://www.chesapeake.org/stac/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Hallerman-and-Kazyak-Review-of-what-we-know_dk_FINAL.pdf

Mike although I have never spoken with Dr. Kayzak or Hallerman I would be happy to reach out and get more information if you’d like. Like I said these are some of the upper echelon of most knowledgeable individuals on earth interms of brook trout conservation genetics. What I would like to see is Pa fish and boat actually reach out instead to people like this because I am assuming based on the fact that they made a presentation for fisheries managers that they want to help. But they can’t force Pa fish and boat to value them as ultimate authority on this topic and and they can’t force Pa fish and boat to collaborate with them/take recommendations, they can only do their research. I would like to see the aquatic connectivity team working on issue 12 of wild trout management plan reach out them instead to get a better idea of the scope of the biological connectivity issues from the stocking program that the culverts alone won’t address. It’s just extremely worrying to see the agency manage so counter to the most credible science and not see them making more of an attempt to collaborate on projects/management with these people at the top of their field. Now that being said despite pa fish and boat not implementing the principles for successful brook trout management outlined in the science such as managing watersheds for brook trout or the harmful effects of stocking/invasive species on the fish and their genetics, I know the individual employees at Pa fish and boat like the biologist/AFM and a lot of the commissioners are nice people who want to do good things for our brook trout so I am thankful for the devoted individuals working at the agency who are as passionate about this as I am, I just know it’s not always up to them Individually so they are in a tough spot. I appreciate what they do f

Which do you think is likely to occur first?

Ending of Loyalsock Creek and similar very large freestone streams that are not even on the wild trout reproduction list, that go over 80F in the summer, and that support smallmouth bass?

Or small streams in these watersheds that are only about 15 feet wide, that are on the wild trout reproduction list, with documented populations of native brook trout from headwaters to mouth?

The PFBC has already taken large numbers of such streams off the stocking list. So, ending stocking over more of these smallish streams with native brook trout is an achievable goal.

There are still hundreds of them to go. PFBC biologists would like more support for ending of stocking such streams. I have heard them say so, on more than one occasion.

wanted to say I agree with you the direct stocking is a win if they won’t acknowledge the science of the larger rivers being important too. I was talking about in an ideal management environment and I agree with your pragmatism given the current dynamics.

 

[silverfox]

I watched the Fisheries & Hatcheries committee meeting last evening. I wanted to attend that, but had to take my daughter on a college tour.

Commissioner Charlesworth asked Kris Kuhns "how many brook trout have we lost?". Kris more or less tried to sidestep the question and mentioned that we've "lost some fish in some places and probably gained some fish in other places". Charlesworth followed up with "across PA?". To which Kuhns said "oh yeah, depending on how far back you want to look..."

It's a bit shocking to me that we don't have a direct answer to that question. What is the trend in brook trout populations across Pennsylvania over the last 10 years? 20 years? 30 years? That dismissive attitude exemplifies the problem we have. How can we expect anything to be done if nobody is willing to admit the problem?

I've seen estimates in CT ranging from 3% to 5% per year. MD documented a 27% decline statewide, a 49.3% decline since 1987 in the central region. A 21.2% decline in more western counties, and a 14.9% decline in WMD.

In a report from 2011 from the EBTJV, it was stated that; "Pennsylvania had the greatest number of watersheds with brook trout population classified as reduced, severely reduced, extirpated, or unknown."

Acknowledging we have a problem with our state fish would be a good first step in educating the public about the need for support. It's great if the public wants to try to drum up support, but without the agency in lockstep, I'm not sure how effective any public advocacy groups could be.

Even with the brook trout stocking issue that was discussed on Monday, the agency has acknowledged a problem and is working to eliminate the threat, but if it's a threat, why is it going to take 6 years to stop the practice? Will gill lice take a break for the next 6 years while we figure out how to replace brook trout in the hatchery network?

During Charlesworth's comments, the idea of implementing an existing regulation model on "wild trout" streams was discussed. I think Charlesworth was clearly talking about brook trout here. The idea of using the newly created slot-limit program was floated, but Kuhns had to explain that the program wouldn't have any benefit to brook trout. That's a comment I made several times when the slot limit program was presented. It was created exclusively for brown trout and would allow the removal of all larger brook trout. In fact, the slot limit more or less targets the removal of all (legal) sizes of brook trout.

Again, we have no angling regulations for brook trout in this state. Is that because we've done such a good job of protecting them that we're somehow the only state in the native range to not have ongoing population losses on average?

 

[Mike]

From above: “Again, we have no angling regulations for brook trout in this state. Is that because we've done such a good job of protecting them that we're somehow the only state in the native range to not have ongoing population losses on average?”

Response: There is a good chance that’s because brook trout specific angling special regs, (ie the Brook Trout Enhancement Regulation with pre-treatment occurring various yrs between 1990-2004, post-treatment 2005-2011) did not produce positive results. The control streams’ populations under statewide regs did just as well.
Pre-treatment means pre-special regs, post-treatment means after special regs implemented.

Results: Adult ST, age 1 and older (>=4”), adult ST >=7”):
no difference in pre-treatment vs post-treatment;
no difference pre-control vs post-control.

Why no response? Low angler use (15 trips per mile), high C&R activity in treatment streams and in the control streams.

Furthermore, in the 2004 statewide study of 200 wild trout streams, angler trips on “small streams” less than 20 ft wide were 16/ mi, essentially the same as in the special reg study above. ST harvest was only 7 per mile.

As I have said before, the environment in freestone streams is so harsh that its effects override any potential angling effects when angler use and harvest are so low.

 

[Fish Sticks]

From above: “Again, we have no angling regulations for brook trout in this state. Is that because we've done such a good job of protecting them that we're somehow the only state in the native range to not have ongoing population losses on average?”

Response: There is a good chance that’s because brook trout specific angling special regs, (ie the Brook Trout Enhancement Regulation with pre-treatment occurring various yrs between 1990-2004, post-treatment 2005-2011) did not produce positive results. The control streams’ populations under statewide regs did just as well.
Pre-treatment means pre-special regs, post-treatment means after special regs implemented.

Results: Adult ST, age 1 and older (>=4”), adult ST >=7”):
no difference in pre-treatment vs post-treatment;
no difference pre-control vs post-control.

Why no response? Low angler use (15 trips per mile), high C&R activity in treatment streams and in the control streams.

Furthermore, in the 2004 statewide study of 200 wild trout streams, angler trips on “small streams” less than 20 ft wide were 16/ mi, essentially the same as in the special reg study above. ST harvest was only 7 per mile.

As I have said before, the environment in freestone streams is so harsh that its effects override any potential angling effects when angler use and harvest are so low.

Mike if I am thinking of the right study there was some serious methodology issues on the effectiveness of C&R. Unless some of the brook trout shocked in those streams on a year to year basis were growing 5-7” per year its more likely the small length ofstream surveyed relative to the length of the watershed used by the brook trout made this study suffer from lack of accounting of immigration/emmigration as a major confounder. Again, unless like I said brook trout were growing at near impossible or impossible rates. Also since brook trout streams are so remote and people who will be willing to participate in a survey are more biased towards conservation I have bias/sampling concerns about those surveys. I know areas near me that people unfortunately drive long distances to fish for brook trout legally to keep. One gentlemen with his sone said “you may want to try another stream me and my god got all the legal ones out this year I think”. I talked to that individual but more people are doing this than you would think. And most 2x a year anglers can’t tell difference between trout so where stocking/incidental harvest is happening their responses In a survey would be suspect. Also if a stream section is only 1/4 mile left and not class A biomass and only has a total of 30 individuals, 4 keepers(aka large fecund brook trout) could be removing a disproportionately high percentage of the next seasons egg production. I am not saying C and R is brook trouts biggest problem but it’s free and doing well in the savage river in Maryland and the studies against it are not sound due likely to immigration/emigration. It would be easy to do and if no one “really keeps” these fish anyway make them C&R. The other thing is C&R is also an education tool that helps the general public understand native brook trout have both a high conservation value and need. This could help with the messaging issues on native fish conservation created byPa fish and boat too.

 

[Fish Sticks]

From above: “Again, we have no angling regulations for brook trout in this state. Is that because we've done such a good job of protecting them that we're somehow the only state in the native range to not have ongoing population losses on average?”

Response: There is a good chance that’s because brook trout specific angling special regs, (ie the Brook Trout Enhancement Regulation with pre-treatment occurring various yrs between 1990-2004, post-treatment 2005-2011) did not produce positive results. The control streams’ populations under statewide regs did just as well.
Pre-treatment means pre-special regs, post-treatment means after special regs implemented.

Results: Adult ST, age 1 and older (>=4”), adult ST >=7”):
no difference in pre-treatment vs post-treatment;
no difference pre-control vs post-control.

Why no response? Low angler use (15 trips per mile), high C&R activity in treatment streams and in the control streams.

Furthermore, in the 2004 statewide study of 200 wild trout streams, angler trips on “small streams” less than 20 ft wide were 16/ mi, essentially the same as in the special reg study above. ST harvest was only 7 per mile.

As I have said before, the environment in freestone streams is so harsh that its effects override any potential angling effects when angler use and harvest are so low.

Look at jeans run in the study results for example the fish over 7 inches in a 3 year period go roughly 45 the 5 next year the roughly 45 again the following. That is highly suspect of emigration and immigration as confounded. The sample size of the survey was tiny compared to what the fish are using this just u deracores that managing these fish in tiny sections doesn’t capture their life histories and is irrelevant and scientifically indefensible.

 

[silverfox]

From above: “Again, we have no angling regulations for brook trout in this state. Is that because we've done such a good job of protecting them that we're somehow the only state in the native range to not have ongoing population losses on average?”

Response: There is a good chance that’s because brook trout specific angling special regs, (ie the Brook Trout Enhancement Regulation with pre-treatment occurring various yrs between 1990-2004, post-treatment 2005-2011) did not produce positive results. The control streams’ populations under statewide regs did just as well.
Pre-treatment means pre-special regs, post-treatment means after special regs implemented.

Results: Adult ST, age 1 and older (>=4”), adult ST >=7”):
no difference in pre-treatment vs post-treatment;
no difference pre-control vs post-control.

Why no response? Low angler use (15 trips per mile), high C&R activity in treatment streams and in the control streams.

Furthermore, in the 2004 statewide study of 200 wild trout streams, angler trips on “small streams” less than 20 ft wide were 16/ mi, essentially the same as in the special reg study above. ST harvest was only 7 per mile.

As I have said before, the environment in freestone streams is so harsh that its effects override any potential angling effects when angler use and harvest are so low.

The stated goal of that program was to increase the number of >100mm to >150mm fish. What does that have to do with anything, and how would anyone think that C&R regs on a 2 mile 1st order stream would have that desired outcome.

Also, the USR project (which is what I'm talking about) clearly showed "Annual brook trout population monitoring has indicated that the upper Savage River supports a stable population even with the normal environmentally driven annual fluctuations. Furthermore, 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."

Again, I'm talking about a watershed-level project, not a handful of 1st order streams. You're comparing apples and oranges. It's pretty sad that people go to such lengths to explain why we should do nothing.

 

[silverfox]

It would be easy to do and if no one “really keeps” these fish anyway make them C&R.

Right. If nobody is keeping brook trout anyway, then what are we afraid of? Who are we annoying? We seem awfully concerned and reluctant to make anyone angry.

 

[Mike]

Look at jeans run in the study results for example the fish over 7 inches in a 3 year period go roughly 45 the 5 next year the roughly 45 again the following. That is highly suspect of emigration and immigration as confounded. The sample size of the survey was tiny compared to what the fish are using this just u deracores that managing these fish in tiny sections doesn’t capture their life histories and is irrelevant and scientifically indefensible.

That is not what occurred. Look at the sample yrs; there is an 11 yr gap. Furthermore, such variations readily occur with fluctuating year class strengths associated with various density independent variables. Natural mortality rates in wild ST populations are very high and in infertile streams like Jeans Run a >= seven inch ST is probably near the end of its life.

 

[Fish Sticks]

That is not what occurred. Look at the sample yrs; there is an 11 yr gap. Furthermore, such variations readily occur with fluctuating year class strengths associated with various density independent variables. Natural mortality rates in wild ST populations are very high and in infertile streams like Jeans Run a >= seven inch ST is probably near the end of its life.

I glanced at it quickly, yea I see it’s spaced out but I still question the small length of streams surveyed. It would imagine it would be a lot more reliable if you implemented the regulations C and R in a whole sub watershed but then measured the population size/structure in that Sh watershed. Like the more extensive mo ignoring that is happening in the savage post C and R implementation.