LJRA To Discuss Upper Bells Gap Run Brown Trout Removal

[silverfox]

that is THE correct way to look at it. was this in dispute?

Unfortunately. It goes something like, we stripped all the trees, dynamited the streams, polluted all the water and wiped out “all” the brook trout. Then stocked new ones, so all the brookies in PA are descendants of hatchery fish. 🙄

I think it’s basically an attempt to diminish the value of brook trout so nobody tries “too” hard to save them.

 

[bdhoover77]

I just looked through my email and couldn't find it, but I had a photo of a huge brown from the first drawdown and I thought it was 30". Might have been mid/upper 20's though. I don't recall who sent it to me, but I think Bill took the picture. I don't know that I knew how many they caught either, but, like you, I recall it being only a few.

I think the manual removal route is good here. LJRA has done a lot for the browns and I know those folks all love their brown trout. So relocating them makes sense. If folks are willing to put in the effort, I don't see what the problem would be.

It was the session that Dave Kile did with Bill Anderson on the LJ from a year or so back. Bill included a photo of one of the monster brown trout taken out of the Bells Gap Reservoir. The photo shows up at the 42:25 mark.

Here‘s a screenshot.

 

[silverfox]

It was the session that Dave Kile did with Bill Anderson on the LJ from a year or so back. Bill included a photo of one of the monster brown trout taken out of the Bells Gap Reservoir. The photo shows up at the 42:25 mark.

Here‘s a screenshot.

View attachment 1641231932

Yeah, that photo has been floating around for a while. I think it was in the gallery on the LJRA site for a while.

 

[Mike]

Unfortunately. It goes something like, we stripped all the trees, dynamited the streams, polluted all the water and wiped out “all” the brook trout. Then stocked new ones, so all the brookies in PA are descendants of hatchery fish. 🙄

I think it’s basically an attempt to diminish the value of brook trout so nobody tries “too” hard to save them.

I’ve never heard anything remotely like that from anyone. I think it’s probably safe to say that hatchery ST in 1873, the year of the first PFC hatchery (Donegal Springs, Lanc Co) were genetically a lot different from those of today. My guess would be that they were close to being wild fish, if not wild fish, genetically speaking. ST from that and the other 1800’s hatchery (Corry, 1875) were spread far and wide, as were ST from the early 1900’s hatcheries. This would confound the issue of whether or not wild fish of today had their genetic beginnings with “hatchery stock.”

From my viewpoint and experiences with pollution impacts on many fish species and fisheries, I have a difficult time believing that some isolated remnants of wild stock were not left in little pockets of cleaner water around portions of the state, but then when I see the photos of Cross Fork’s denuded mountains at the peak of the logging days, if those pics are representative, I again start to think that maybe they were gone or at least largely so.

The other logical question that arises has to do with the speed of recovery. If the fry stockings didn’t work, how did the recovery occur so fast so far and wide across the state? If the recovery was strictly from remnants of wild fish, there must have been a lot of remnants and somehow they were located upstream from all types of natural physical and manmade barriers, as well as upstream from various forms of pollution. Thoughts about this are confounded as well by fry being transported by rail car and then wagon or horseback to remote areas.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

I’ve never heard anything remotely like that from anyone. I think it’s probably safe to say that hatchery ST in 1873, the year of the first PFC hatchery (Donegal Springs, Lanc Co) were genetically a lot different from those of today. My guess would be that they were close to being wild fish, if not wild fish, genetically speaking. ST from that and the other 1800’s hatchery (Corry, 1875) were spread far and wide, as were ST from the early 1900’s hatcheries. This would confound the issue of whether or not wild fish of today had their genetic beginnings with “hatchery stock.”

From my viewpoint and experiences with pollution impacts on many fish species and fisheries, I have a difficult time believing that some isolated remnants of wild stock were not left in little pockets of cleaner water around portions of the state, but then when I see the photos of Cross Fork’s denuded mountains at the peak of the logging days, if those pics are representative, I again start to think that maybe they were gone or at least largely so.

The other logical question that arises has to do with the speed of recovery. If the fry stockings didn’t work, how did the recovery occur so fast so far and wide across the state? If the recovery was strictly from remnants of wild fish, there must have been a lot of remnants and somehow they were located upstream from all types of natural physical and manmade barriers, as well as upstream from various forms of pollution. Thoughts about this are confounded as well by fry being transported by rail car and then wagon or horseback to remote areas.

It's nice to have an intelligent, critical thinker providing input on this topic.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I'm sure I'll be accused of hijacking this thread with this question, but if I recall correctly there was a topic on here a few years ago discussing the genetics of the native brook trout that are currently in Pennsylvania. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that virtually all of the "native" brook trout in the state have, at least in part, some genetics gotten from hatchery brook trout many years ago after the state was deforested by logging -- and that virtually no native brook trout populations in the state have pure brook trout genetics undiluted by stocked brookies. Can someone smarter than me find this topic because I'd like to know if the native brook trout that many are trying to protect actually are the same as the native brookies that evolved over the centuries or are they partially invasive themselves?

Unfortunately. It goes something like, we stripped all the trees, dynamited the streams, polluted all the water and wiped out “all” the brook trout. Then stocked new ones, so all the brookies in PA are descendants of hatchery fish. 🙄

I think it’s basically an attempt to diminish the value of brook trout so nobody tries “too” hard to save them.

I’ve never heard anything remotely like that from anyone.

It's nice to have an intelligent, critical thinker providing input on this topic.

🤣

 

[sixfootfenwick]

For those that missed the link posted by nymphingmaniac

Few hatchery brook trout genes present in Pennsylvania watershed wild fish

Despite many decades of annual brook trout stocking in one northcentral Pennsylvania watershed, the wild brook trout populations show few genes from hatchery fish, according to researchers who genotyped about 2,000 brook trout in Loyalsock Creek watershed, a 500-square-mile drainage in Lycoming...

www.eurekalert.org

 

[troutbert]

I’ve never heard anything remotely like that from anyone.

See post #142 in this thread.

And this "theory" has been posted on paflyfish.com several times in the past. And I've heard people say it. And I saw an article expounding this "theory" in a PA outdoors magazine in the late 1980s. It's a common argument used by people opposing conservation of native brook trout.

But genetic studies in both PA and NJ show that it's not true. And the historical record doesn't support it. If there had actually been a time when brook trout were wiped out, that would have been written about at that time. And you just don't find that. The Fish Commission existed all through the logging era and they published annual reports. People wrote about fishing in numerous publications all through that period.

What the historical record shows is that people were fishing for brook trout all through those years. People complained about brook trout populations being reduced by the logging boom. But not eradicated.

Vanishing Trout was published in the early 1930s. Charle Lose probably fished NCPA from about the 1870s through the 1920s. So he fished these streams through the logging boom years. He wrote about brook trout populations being reduced, but never said they were eradicated.

He wrote a lot about the decline in brook trout in the larger streams such as the Loyalsock, but his writing described the brook trout as still being in the tributaries. And other historical writings describe the same thing, i.e. the decline of brook trout in the big water, but still being in the headwaters and tributaries.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

See post #142 in this thread.

And this "theory" has been posted on paflyfish.com several times in the past. And I've heard people say it. And I saw an article expounding this "theory" in a PA outdoors magazine in the late 1980s. It's a common argument used by people opposing conservation of native brook trout.

But genetic studies in both PA and NJ show that it's not true. And the historical record doesn't support it. If there had actually been a time when brook trout were wiped out, that would have been written about at that time. And you just don't find that. The Fish Commission existed all through the logging era and they published annual reports. People wrote about fishing in numerous publications all through that period.

What the historical record shows is that people were fishing for brook trout all through those years. People complained about brook trout populations being reduced by the logging boom. But not eradicated.

Vanishing Trout was published in the early 1930s. Charle Lose probably fished NCPA from about the 1870s through the 1920s. So he fished these streams through the logging boom years. He wrote about brook trout populations being reduced, but never said they were eradicated.

He wrote a lot about the decline in brook trout in the larger streams such as the Loyalsock, but his writing described the brook trout as still being in the tributaries. And other historical writings describe the same thing, i.e. the decline of brook trout in the big water, but still being in the headwaters and tributaries.

👆🤣
You caught it too absolutely hilarious.
Well done Sir, you are 100 percent correct.

 

[Mike]

And this "theory" has been posted on paflyfish.com several times in the past. And I've heard people say it. And I saw an article expounding this "theory" in a PA outdoors magazine in the late 1980s. It's a common argument used by people opposing conservation of native brook trout.

As you know, I had publicly spoken far and wide about trout management to anglers from around the state for decades and not once during a question and answer period or in a side-bar discussion was that theory ever brought up. Either individuals were afraid to mention it in public or it isn’t a widespread theory in the angling community. Maybe it just exists within tight angling circles rather than general angling circles. I have always done my best to avoid angler theories anyway, so I apparently missed it on this forum as well.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I agree with you both

 

[silverfox]

I'm still amazed at the amount of pushback on this. Not just on PAFF, but on "other parts of the www." Some folks are vehemently against doing anything specifically for brook trout if it means there's any slight to other species. You'd think people were talking about rotenoning the Letort in some posts I've seen. Talking about "eradication." It's a translocation.

This is 100% PFBC's fault. @Mike, I know you've argued before that PFBC staff have more important things to do than post on social media, press releases, and educational material. The problem with that argument is that PFBC somehow finds the time to post 3-4 times a day on all the social media platforms. They do press releases. They do educational material. They find the time to post thousands of photos of stocked trout, but not a single one explaining the plight of brook trout.

Then that's backed up by regulations that either avoid doing anything specifically for brook trout, outright ignore the species, or focus on competing species.

What a mess.

 

[CRB]

Push back, look at antler restrictions with the PAGC.💣🤯

 

[Mike]

This is 100% PFBC's fault. @Mike, I know you've argued before that PFBC staff have more important things to do than post on social media, press releases, and educational material. The problem with that argument is that PFBC somehow finds the time to post 3-4 times a day on all the social media platforms. They do press releases. They do educational material. They find the time to post thousands of photos of stocked trout, but not a single one explaining the plight of brook trout

That’s not the staff I was referring to. I was referring to technical staff, who would either have to write that which you seek or do an internal interview and then edit the product. Either way, that great sucking noise you would hear would be technical staff getting pulled into it. Technical staff actually have jobs to do unrelated to social media.

As for ST specific regs, I don’t buy the idea that biologically unnecessary regs should be used for “educational purposes.” In my view statewide education on such a topic should be the job of those very educators that you cited.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

It's like I told an HR rep at an old job of mine who complained that I required a paper copy of my pay stub rather than just going electronic:

It must suck to have to work and not only do your job but do a good job.

 

[silverfox]

That’s not the staff I was referring to. I was referring to technical staff, who would either have to write that which you seek or do an internal interview and then edit the product. Either way, that great sucking noise you would hear would be technical staff getting pulled into it. Technical staff actually have jobs to do unrelated to social media.

As for ST specific regs, I don’t buy the idea that biologically unnecessary regs should be used for “educational purposes.” In my view education is the job of those very educators that you cited.

Either way, the absence of both (education, outreach, promotion, social media etc. AND any kind of special regs) has led to the opposition we see. That’s only going to grow stronger with every passing year.

So you might not see the value in it, or disagree with regulations as a psychological tool, but you’ll see the effects of it nonetheless.

And by the way, according to MD DNR, and other peers, C&R for brook trout with harvest of nonnatives has positive biological effects as well. So it’s not like it’s purely psychological.

 

[Mike]

I'm still amazed at the amount of pushback on this. Not just on PAFF, but on "other parts of the www." Some folks are vehemently against doing anything specifically for brook trout if it means there's any slight to other species. You'd think people were talking about rotenoning the Letort in some posts I've seen. Talking about "eradication." It's a translocation.

Get used to it; that’s what it is often like in the fisheries world.

 

[silverfox]

In my view statewide education on such a topic should be the job of those very educators that you cited.

Then the education those educators provide is ignored by fisheries managers in certain states, which renders their efforts useless.

Get used to it; that’s what it is often like in the fisheries world.

What that really means is that fisheries folks strive to avoid alienating the largest demographic of license buyers. Hence the insistence on "wild trout," which is just code for "wild brown trout." It looks good to the layman because it implies they're focused on all "wild trout" when in reality, it's only one particular kind.

As long as the only people who are ticked off are the smallest possible group of anglers, then all is well.

 

[silverfox]

It's not even ignoring what these educators have published. I've mentioned the wildlife action plan repeatedly. Why even write that if they had no intentions of actually doing it? Why sign the bay agreement if they had no plans of even attempting the goals (related to brook trout)? Why write a brook trout management plan 19 years ago and then ignore 75% of it? Why write things in the trout management plan and then ignore it for 5 years?

It's not even about listening to what other agencies, scientists, educators, or citizens are saying, it's that they're not following through on the things they say they're going to do. It's insane. It sure seems like a deliberate about face, or some kind of grudge. I can't wrap my head around it.

Worst of all, there seems to be absolutely no consequence to saying they're going to do something and then just ignoring it. Nobody is keeping PFBC honest here. Yah government I guess.

 

[Mike]

PFBC somehow finds the time to post 3-4 times a day on all the social media platforms. They do press releases. They do educational material.

Silverfox, these are the educators to whom I was referring per your comment.
Additionally, I don’t know any “fisheries folks” for whom “wild trout” is code for brown trout.