LJRA To Discuss Upper Bells Gap Run Brown Trout Removal

FYI. Further details at next meeting, Marzonis Restaurant (I presume the Greenwood location) on August 10th at 7pm. Public invited.

The idea is to restore brook trout as dominant. Upper = above the reservoir.
Queue the irate with their pitchforks and torches.
it would be real interesting to see what other streams like this could serve to duplicate these efforts.
 
Wow planned in 2014


THE EFFORT TO REMOVE BROWNS FROM BELLS GAP RUN



On November 19th there will be electroshocking done on a 2 mile stretch of Bells Gap Run. An effort will be made to eliminate the burgeoning numbers of brown trout, which threaten the viability of the native brook trout population. The Bells Gap Run Reservoir will be drained and brown trout removed next year.
 
Wow planned in 2014


THE EFFORT TO REMOVE BROWNS FROM BELLS GAP RUN



On November 19th there will be electroshocking done on a 2 mile stretch of Bells Gap Run. An effort will be made to eliminate the burgeoning numbers of brown trout, which threaten the viability of the native brook trout population. The Bells Gap Run Reservoir will be drained and brown trout removed next year.
Does anyone know if this work was done back then? I thought that it was done, but I'm not certain.
 
Does anyone know if this work was done back then? I thought that it was done, but I'm not certain.
It was not done before.
FYI. Further details at next meeting, Marzonis Restaurant (I presume the Greenwood location) on August 10th at 7pm. Public invited.

The idea is to restore brook trout as dominant. Upper = above the reservoir.
Brook trout already are more abundant than wild brown trout above the reservoir by a long shot.
 
For those of you who might be wondering what the OP was talking about, here's what was posted today (8/6/23) on Facebook by Bill Anderson of the Little Juniata River Association:

"The Little Juniata River Association is considering the removal of brown trout from Bells Gap Run above the reservoir. Historically this Little J tributary has had a good population of native Eastern Brook Trout. However, in recent years those of us who fish it have found that many, if not most, of the fish we catch there are brown trout. While we love wild brown trout and they are our our prefered target in the river, we do not like to see them dominating and eventually replacing our brookies in this small stream. Now, with the reservoir empty for repairs, is an opportune time to attempt to remove (transfer to the river) as many brown trout as possible. Stay tuned for updates. You can also attend our next meeting at Marzonis Restaurant on August 10th at 7pm where this subject will be discussed. Bill"

Here is my initial response:

I'm 100% against removing the wild brown trout from Bells Gap Run above the reservoir.

1. I'm assuming your method would be electro-shocking. If I take the farthest point upstream in the main stem and each of its tributaries where I have caught wild brown trout, offhand I'd estimate that you'd have to electro-shock at least six to seven miles of water to cover the water where there are wild brown trout. This is assuming you're trying to eliminate all wild brown trout. If you're not trying to eliminate all wild brown trout, then all that you are doing is trying to put a band-aid on what you perceive is the reason the native brook trout population has plunged in Bells Gap Run. Let a couple years go by after you've applied your band-aid and the wild browns would be back, so what have you accomplished?

2. How do you know that wild brown trout are the reason for the decline in the native brook trout population? The truth is you don't know. I've been fishing the main stem from where it enters the reservoir upstream to the junction of Green Springs Run and Tubb Run, which is where my map shows Bells Gap Run begins, several times each year since 1986. I'm VERY familiar with the stream and all of its tributaries. (In fact, if I had the free time to compile the data I could list the day, species and size of every trout I have ever caught in the entire watershed. Heck, I even fished Collier Run one time.) I have never caught a wild brown trout above the waterfalls located just below the mouth of Bear Loup Run, yet the native brook trout population above this waterfall has plummeted just like it has in the portion of the stream below this barrier. Seems to me this might indicate that wild brown trout aren't the cause of the problem.

3. If wild brown trout are the cause of the problem, why hasn't the wild brown trout population replaced the robust native brook trout population that was once there with a robust wild brown trout population? As an example, let's take the roughly one-mile stretch from the point where BGR enters the reservoir upstream to the mouth of Shaw Run. This is strictly a guess, but I'd estimate that the overall trout population is about one-tenth of what it was in its prime a decade or more ago. If wild brown trout are replacing the native brook trout, why hasn't it been on a more or less one-to-one basis? Seems like maybe one wild brown trout has replaced ten native brookies, roughly. This leads me to think that there are other factors involved. Could it be that whatever factors are suppressing the native brook trout population are also suppressing the wild brown trout population?
 
It was not done before.

Brook trout already are more abundant than wild brown trout above the reservoir by a long shot.
they may be more plentiful numbers wise but I think what they mean is just to prevent brown trout from displacing the brook trout population.

I have heard it explained as there is no “safe” amount pf brown trout with brook trout. Probably Easier to get them now while their less than if they start expanding their population.
 
For those of you who might be wondering what the OP was talking about, here's what was posted today (8/6/23) on Facebook by Bill Anderson of the Little Juniata River Association:

"The Little Juniata River Association is considering the removal of brown trout from Bells Gap Run above the reservoir. Historically this Little J tributary has had a good population of native Eastern Brook Trout. However, in recent years those of us who fish it have found that many, if not most, of the fish we catch there are brown trout. While we love wild brown trout and they are our our prefered target in the river, we do not like to see them dominating and eventually replacing our brookies in this small stream. Now, with the reservoir empty for repairs, is an opportune time to attempt to remove (transfer to the river) as many brown trout as possible. Stay tuned for updates. You can also attend our next meeting at Marzonis Restaurant on August 10th at 7pm where this subject will be discussed. Bill"

Here is my initial response:

I'm 100% against removing the wild brown trout from Bells Gap Run above the reservoir.

1. I'm assuming your method would be electro-shocking. If I take the farthest point upstream in the main stem and each of its tributaries where I have caught wild brown trout, offhand I'd estimate that you'd have to electro-shock at least six to seven miles of water to cover the water where there are wild brown trout. This is assuming you're trying to eliminate all wild brown trout. If you're not trying to eliminate all wild brown trout, then all that you are doing is trying to put a band-aid on what you perceive is the reason the native brook trout population has plunged in Bells Gap Run. Let a couple years go by after you've applied your band-aid and the wild browns would be back, so what have you accomplished?

2. How do you know that wild brown trout are the reason for the decline in the native brook trout population? The truth is you don't know. I've been fishing the main stem from where it enters the reservoir to the junction of Green Springs Run and Tubb Run, which is where my map shows Bells Gap Run begins, several times each year since 1986. I'm VERY familiar with the stream and all of its tributaries. (In fact, if I had the free time to compile the data I could list the day, species and size of every trout I have ever caught in the entire watershed. Heck, I even fished Collier Run one time.) I have never caught a wild brown trout above the waterfalls located just below the mouth of Bear Loup Run, yet the native brook trout population above this waterfall has plummeted just like it has in the portion of the stream below this barrier. Seems to me this might indicate that wild brown trout aren't the cause of the problem.

3. If wild brown trout are the cause of the problem, why hasn't the wild brown trout population replaced the robust native brook trout population that was once there with a robust wild brown trout population? As an example, let's take the roughly one-mile stretch from the point where BGR enters the reservoir upstream to the mouth of Shaw Run. This is strictly a guess, but I'd estimate that the overall trout population is about one-tenth of what it was in its prime a decade or more ago. If wild brown trout are replacing the native brook trout, why hasn't it been on a more or less one-to-one basis? Seems like maybe one wild brown trout has replaced ten native brookies, roughly. This leads me to think that there are other factors involved. Could it be that whatever factors are suppressing the native brook trout population are also suppressing the wild brown trout population?
There is no harm to the brook trout by removing wild invasive brown trout so giving it a try is worth a shot. Actually “band aids” are what we need in some cases because invasive fish bio controls are improving. If you lose bells gap brook trout the genetics are gone even if the bio-trch to deal with the browns definitively is present after their gone.

Its not really productive to try to pin all or alot of brook trouts decline in that system on brown trout. What ever is going on there is death by a 1000 cuts, brown trout are a cut, listed as 3rd largest in Pa by EBTJV. If we can get up in there and “mow the lawn” it might help, if the lake is going to be drawn down and your just shocking fish in a puddle who cares lets see if it helps.
 
they may be more plentiful numbers wise but I think what they mean is just to prevent brown trout from displacing the brook trout population.

I have heard it explained as there is no “safe” amount pf brown trout with brook trout. Probably Easier to get them now while their less than if they start expanding their population.
I've been catching wild brown trout in Bells Gap Run above the reservoir (which was drained last summer and is currently dry) for likely over 35 years. If I felt the urge I could look up the exact day I caught my first wild brown trout in that stream. On my last visit to this stream (May 2023) I caught 17 native brookies for every one wild brown trout.
 
There is no harm to the brook trout by removing wild invasive brown trout so giving it a try is worth a shot. Actually “band aids” are what we need in some cases because invasive fish bio controls are improving. If you lose bells gap brook trout the genetics are gone even if the bio-trch to deal with the browns definitively is present after their gone.

Its not really productive to try to pin all or alot of brook trouts decline in that system on brown trout. What ever is going on there is death by a 1000 cuts, brown trout are a cut, listed as 3rd largest in Pa by EBTJV. If we can get up in there and “mow the lawn” it might help, if the lake is going to be drawn down and your just shocking fish in a puddle who cares lets see if it helps.
What evidence is there that native brook trout will fill in the void left by the wild brown trout that were electro-shocked? In the upstream area, above a waterfalls, where there are no wild brown trout, the native brook trout population has declined similarly to how it has declined closer to the reservoir. Many good pools have no trout. Native brookies haven't even filled the void where there were no wild brown trout to begin with. How do we know that we won't just end up with an overall lower number of trout?

I don't know what "bio-trch" means.

I sure hope the PFBC studies this closely before considering approval.
 
Also by LJRA:

The stream stretch in question is protected from the river browns by the reservoir dam which is more than 40 feet high. The reservoir (now drained) has been the source of browns for decades. We have no illusion that we will get them all, however a significant reduction in numbers of browns will help at least temporarily. We also incourage everone to keep legal brown trout from this stream. We will seek official approval from PFBC for this effort.

My question is, what is the downside (ecologically speaking) of removing browns? They certainly aren’t helping the brook trout. That’s for dern sure.
 
What evidence is there that native brook trout will fill in the void left by the wild brown trout that were electro-shocked? In the upstream area, above a waterfalls, where there are no wild brown trout, the native brook trout population has declined similarly to how it has declined closer to the reservoir. Many good pools have no trout. Native brookies haven't even filled the void where there were no wild brown trout to begin with. How do we know that we won't just end up with an overall lower number of trout?

I don't know what "bio-trch" means.

I sure hope the PFBC studies this closely before considering approval.
Bio-tech meaning bio controls such as CRISPR gene editing, trojan super males and other means of genetically eradicating invasive species.

When you say “fill the void” I assume you mean make the same number of fish as before the brown trout were there but just brook trout. The goal is not to fill the void and have the same number of catchable fish when you do something like this. Its not a fishing project its a conservation project aimed at saving an at risk native species that is in our state wild life action plan. So even if there were 10 trout in bells gap and 5 brook 5 brown, a success would just be 5 brook trout 5 trout total so the brook trout stay there and are not lost to invasive species.
 
What evidence is there that native brook trout will fill in the void left by the wild brown trout that were electro-shocked? In the upstream area, above a waterfalls, where there are no wild brown trout, the native brook trout population has declined similarly to how it has declined closer to the reservoir. Many good pools have no trout. Native brookies haven't even filled the void where there were no wild brown trout to begin with. How do we know that we won't just end up with an overall lower number of trout?

I don't know what "bio-trch" means.

I sure hope the PFBC studies this closely before considering approval.
One example:
Brown trout abundance in Coolridge Creek reached thehighest level immediately prior to removal efforts. We removed 6052 (99.3 kg) brown trout from CoolridgeCreek above the barrier in fall 2009. Follow-upsampling in spring 2010 removed another 520 browntrout from the stream. Total number of brown troutremoved during subsequent sampling was less, butnever reached zero. Mean abundance of age-0 browntrout significantly decreased in the upper treatmentreach from 312 to 14/km after removal efforts(ANOVA; P\0.001). Age-0 brown trout abundancealso significantly decreased in the lower treatmentreach from 1682 to 350/km (P = 0.04). Adult browntrout showed a significant decrease in our uppertreatment reach (pre = 54/km, post = 20/km;P = 0.01), and decreased from 344 to 123/km in thelower treatment reach (P\0.001). We only capturedone brown trout above the barrier with an adipose clipindicating barrier passage. We were unable to removeall brown trout during the initial removal period whichresulted in continued reproduction of brown trout inCoolridge Creek. After six removal attempts, browntrout still maintained successful reproduction in Coolridge Creek, although at lower levels.
Brook trout abundance increased in lower Coolridge Creek after brown trout suppression (2-wayANOVA interaction term, log-transformed; Age-0,P = 0.02; Adult, P = 0.004). The magnitude ofresponse was greater in the lower reach than the upperreach of Coolridge Creek where few brown trout werepresent before removal efforts. In lower CoolridgeCreek, adult brook trout increased from a pre-treatmentmean of 42 to 161/km. Recruitment of age-0 brooktrout was higher in lower Coolridge Creek after browntrout removal, increasing from a mean of 76 to 443/km.There was not a treatment effect in the upper reachesfor age-0 brook trout (time 9 reach; P = 0.86), butthere was a treatment effect for adult brook trout(time 9 reach; P = 0.05). Adult brook trout increasedin upper Coolridge Creek from 104 to 206/km.Abundance of both adult and age-0 brook trout steadilyincreased after the initial brown trout removal, andreached their highest levels at the end of the study(Fig. 3). Brook trout in Coolridge Creek were moreabundant in the lower reach (1508/km) compared to theupper reach (625/km) at the end of the study.
 
The only continent browns don’t have is Antarctica. They have essentially the entire little J. If we cannot do a single removal in PA above a barrier in a small brook trout stream somethings wrong with how we view conservation. We have given them not a single mile out of 86,000 stream miles in PA . Its all just “wild trout” which is a dog whistle for managing for displacing brook trout.

Everywhere we try to do something for them some one will have the “not in my backyard” attitude. PFBC should study this, post removal to see if our state fish benefits.
 
The only continent browns don’t have is Antarctica. They have essentially the entire little J. If we cannot do a single removal in PA above a barrier in a small brook trout stream somethings wrong with how we view conservation. We have given them bot a single mile out of 86,000 stream miles in PA . Its all just “wild trout” which is a dog whistle for managing for displacing brook trout.
Yet people will fight this tooth and nail. The only positive outcome for some is that brook trout get eradicated, and brown trout inhabit every single trickle of flowing water in the state. Thank those who have promoted the species to the point of fanaticism for decades.
 
Yet people will fight this tooth and nail. The only positive outcome for some is that brook trout get eradicated, and brown trout inhabit every single trickle of flowing water in the state. Thank those who have promoted the species to the point of fanaticism for decades.
Agreed this is why PFBC should ask anglers things like “which warm scummy pond do yall want the most rubber hatchery trout in”. Not to comment on the popularity of fisheries science based management initiatives aimed at preventing local extinction.
 
Bio-tech meaning bio controls such as CRISPR gene editing, trojan super males and other means of genetically eradicating invasive species.

When you say “fill the void” I assume you mean make the same number of fish as before the brown trout were there but just brook trout. The goal is not to fill the void and have the same number of catchable fish when you do something like this. Its not a fishing project its a conservation project aimed at saving an at risk native species that is in our state wild life action plan. So even if there were 10 trout in bells gap and 5 brook 5 brown, a success would just be 5 brook trout 5 trout total so the brook trout stay there and are not lost to invasive species.
I think the time would be better spent looking for the real cause of the decline of the native brook trout there. Nothing I see indicates wild brown trout are the cause since the decline is also occurring in the section of stream that currently already doesn't have and likely never had any wild brown trout.

I view this project as a "feel good," emotionally-charged project that will have no lasting meaning.
 
Back
Top