LJRA To Discuss Upper Bells Gap Run Brown Trout Removal

[silverfox]

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.

I misunderstood your comment.

On that point, having been corrected, I agree, and a lot of the blame falls on their shoulders and those who are supposed to direct them on topics if importance.

My comments on abandoning plans that they themselves wrote still stand.

 

[rrt]

BDH77 -- Thank you for posting the article about Bill and the LJRA. I kind of knew they found only a few trout in the reservoir, but I did not know they found any like the big one in the photo. That is some fish! That is quite illuminating. As Bill says, control of the browns is necessary to try to protect the native brook trout. I truly hope that if the LJRA attempts to get rid of the browns (which are my favorite fish on most waters I fish), they are successful. As I previously wrote, I think it's worth a try.

 

[hooker-of-men]

Unfortunately. It goes something like, we stripped all the trees, dynamited the streams, polluted all the water and wiped out “all” the brook trout.

I just want to emphasize that this narrative is fundamentally and brutally true, in a relative, historical sense.

It was just the final sentence of the OP's post was inaccurate.

 

[troutbert]

I just want to emphasize that this narrative is fundamentally and brutally true, in a relative, historical sense.

It was just the final sentence of the OP's post was inaccurate.

The brook trout were not wiped out. Genetic studies in both PA and NJ show this.

 

[silverfox]

Oh, I've seen the studies posted here.

But, when we've gone from rivers bursting with fish the size of a country ham that just jump into your lap to 200+ posts of people squabbling over what we can do to help them grow to 6 inches in one particular body of water... They are wiped out.

The point is that some people use this “brook trout were extirpated” story to diminish the value of the fish that are left. i.e., they’re all hatchery fish and of no more value than brown trout.

I grew up about 5 miles from one of the newly minted virgin hemlock stands. That valley was never logged because it’s physically impossible to log it. The stream that flows through it is full of brook trout. Brook trout that have been there since the ice receded.

I’m certain there are streams where most of the brook trout are descendants of hatchery fish. It’s not true statewide though and we don’t have the PA holotype to compare them to. Nor would it make any practical sense to try to setup criteria where we only attempt to save genetically pure fish that match that holotype even if we had it.

They’ve obviously been reduced in number, size, and range. I’m personally not interested in brook trout conservation, preservation, or restoration in order to grow 20 inch brook trout. They’re an important heritage species, keystone in ecosystems, and partly our responsibility to preserve and protect, regardless of average size.

 

[rrt]

Silverfox's Post #266 is, perhaps, the most sensible one dealing with the BGR situation.

 

[troutbert]

But big fish were present, so why wouldn't growing huge, healthy, reproducing brook trout be the goal?

Their story is that the original brook trout were extirpated. The genetic studies and historical record show that their story is false. They were not extirpated.

You're saying that brook trout are mostly small now. That does not support their story that the brook trout were extirpated.

 

[hooker-of-men]

Was groggy when I foolishly engaged. Posts deleted.

 

[JeffK]

Over in NJ when DNA studies were done 20 years ago or so many streams most likely were heritage brook trout. Couldn't be sure since no pre-stocking samples to check against, but evidence that they were heritage was strong. If NJ, the most densely populated state which is at the thermal edge of brook trout range, has significant heritage brook trout populations I am sure PA has many heritage populations.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

The point is that some people use this “brook trout were extirpated” story to diminish the value of the fish that are left. i.e., they’re all hatchery fish and of no more value than brown trout.

I grew up about 5 miles from one of the newly minted virgin hemlock stands. That valley was never logged because it’s physically impossible to log it. The stream that flows through it is full of brook trout. Brook trout that have been there since the ice receded.

I’m certain there are streams where most of the brook trout are descendants of hatchery fish. It’s not true statewide though and we don’t have the PA holotype to compare them to. Nor would it make any practical sense to try to setup criteria where we only attempt to save genetically pure fish that match that holotype even if we had it.

They’ve obviously been reduced in number, size, and range. I’m personally not interested in brook trout conservation, preservation, or restoration in order to grow 20 inch brook trout. They’re an important heritage species, keystone in ecosystems, and partly our responsibility to preserve and protect, regardless of average size.

If what you are saying is accurate about the native brook trout population (untouched by man since the ice receded) in the stream flowing through the virgin hemlock stand, it seems to me that you have discovered the holy grail -- the Pennsylvania native brook trout holotype! Why aren't scientists pushing each other aside trying to be the first person to get there to document this startling finding?

 

[Mike]

I misunderstood your comment.

On that point, having been corrected, I agree, and a lot of the blame falls on their shoulders and those who are supposed to direct them on topics if importance.

Thank you for acknowledging that. I would add only as a gentle reminder that my view that education, not regs, being the appropriate route to take has been consistent whether it pertains to ST or BT…….read on:

Specifically, while I know Silverfox will remember our discussion, other readers here may or may not recall that I supported the York Co club that posted signage along SBr Muddy Ck indicating that wild brown trout were present in the stocked section (Class C or D) and suggesting that they voluntarily be released. By “supported” I don’t mean that I had anything to do with the signage. I didn’t; I discovered it on my own. Rather, when doing an opening day angler count and making contacts with anglers, multiple questions regarding how to distinguish wild browns from the stocked browns made me decide to shift stockings in that section the very next season from BT/RT to 100% RT. Not only would it assist the club in its effort, but it also might enhance the wild BT population as such moves in some other York Co Class B sections already had with all three later becoming Class A (and then removed from stocking).

The questions from some anglers and their clearly cooperative attitudes indicated that they had read the signs and were willing to help if not outright support the endeavor. Equally important, there were no negative comments made by the often outspoken angling public. That’s education without arm twisting regs.

 

[silverfox]

If what you are saying is accurate about the native brook trout population (untouched by man since the ice receded) in the stream flowing through the virgin hemlock stand, it seems to me that you have discovered the holy grail -- the Pennsylvania native brook trout holotype! Why aren't scientists pushing each other aside trying to be the first person to get there to document this startling finding?

Because it’s not the holy grail. I’m talking about a specimen that might have been preserved prior to stocking efforts to compare them to. Without that, we’re only guessing that they’re a match.

That population is not unique. I helped catch and preserve some brook trout from another population that has likely been isolated since pre-colonialism this past spring. Those samples were genotyped and they’re not the only ones. So scientists do have it.

The point is that nobody wants to go down that rabbit hole. It makes no practical sense. I disagree with a lot of NY DEC’s focus on “heritage strains” as well. By making a subset more “valuable” than another we might decide to ignore a population with genetic traits more valuable than being untainted by hatchery genes. We don’t know enough about the genome to make those calls, nor do I believe we should even if we thought we did.

 

[silverfox]

Thank you for acknowledging that. I would add only as a gentle reminder that my view that education, not regs, being the appropriate route to take has been consistent whether it pertains to ST or BT…….read on:

Specifically, while I know Silverfox will remember our discussion, other readers here may or may not recall that I supported the York Co club that posted signage along SBr Muddy Ck indicating that wild brown trout were present in the stocked section (Class C or D) and suggesting that they voluntarily be released. By “supported” I don’t mean that I had anything to do with the signage. I didn’t; I discovered it on my own. Rather, when doing an opening day angler count and making contacts with anglers, multiple questions regarding how to distinguish wild browns from the stocked browns made me decide to shift stockings in that section the very next season from BT/RT to 100% RT. Not only would it assist the club in its effort, but it also might enhance the wild BT population as such moves in some other York Co Class B sections already had with all three later becoming Class A (and then removed from stocking).

The questions from some anglers and their clearly cooperative attitudes indicated that they had read the signs and were willing to help if not outright support the endeavor. Equally important, there were no negative comments made by the often outspoken angling public. That’s education without arm twisting regs.

I do remember that and how it applies in this context. I worry about the weight things like that carry if not endorsed by the state. A similar approach might carry significant weight on BGR if the sponsor is as well respected as the LJRA though.

The only remaining question becomes whether it’s limited to a suggestion to follow statewide regs or whether the state might allow a more liberal harvest exemption to support the reclamation. Aside from my obvious bias, I do believe something like that makes sense and would be warranted in this case. That can’t happen without PFBC making an exemption, i.e. regulation change. Without that I’m not sure how effective encouraging words on a sign might be toward getting angler assistance by the way of cleaning up any stragglers.

On that last point, I routinely see PFBC issue temporary exemption to harvest limits on impoundments scheduled for dewatering. Something like that might apply here, even if temporarily. It wouldn’t be much different and the purpose is similar.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

Because it’s not the holy grail. I’m talking about a specimen that might have been preserved prior to stocking efforts to compare them to. Without that, we’re only guessing that they’re a match.

Okay, I think I'm starting to understand your logic. The brook trout population you stated that has been untouched by man since the ice receded is not the holy grail even though discovering a bonafide population of native brook trout untouched by man since the ice receded would in fact be the holy grail. Sorry I misunderstood your logic.

 

[troutbert]

Both the PA and NJ studies show that there has been very little mixing in of hatchery strain genetics.

They are all the same species, Salvelinus fontinalis, which means they share the vast majority of their genetic material. Which is what makes them recognizably brook trout, as opposed to a turnip, aardvark, or brown trout, which have very different genetics.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

The point is that some people use this “brook trout were extirpated” story to diminish the value of the fish that are left. i.e., they’re all hatchery fish and of no more value than brown trout.

I grew up about 5 miles from one of the newly minted virgin hemlock stands. That valley was never logged because it’s physically impossible to log it. The stream that flows through it is full of brook trout. Brook trout that have been there since the ice receded.

I’m certain there are streams where most of the brook trout are descendants of hatchery fish. It’s not true statewide though and we don’t have the PA holotype to compare them to. Nor would it make any practical sense to try to setup criteria where we only attempt to save genetically pure fish that match that holotype even if we had it.

They’ve obviously been reduced in number, size, and range. I’m personally not interested in brook trout conservation, preservation, or restoration in order to grow 20 inch brook trout. They’re an important heritage species, keystone in ecosystems, and partly our responsibility to preserve and protect, regardless of average size.

This is the post that made hooker delete his?
🤣

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Silverfox's Post #266 is, perhaps, the most sensible one dealing with the BGR situation.

Which ironically , is your post telling us it is perhaps the most sensible one.
Sorry I know some posts disappeared or got deleted. Just made me laugh is all.

 

[rrt]

SFF -- Just my "amazing" math skills at work again. I think I meant #265. (Maybe I should have had them pray for my suspect math skills in church this morning.)

Glad you got a chuckle. (My wife never laughed when I had the balance of our checkbook fouled up in the past. I am still allowed to write checks and enter the amounts in the ledger, but I am no longer permitted to subtract the amount of the check. She takes care of that.)

T/b -- I know of one tiny stream where the brook trout population is probably pure. This stream, now inaccessible to me, is cut off from larger waters when it dries up during the summer. It also has an abandoned reservoir where the trout above the reservoir are unlikely to have ever mixed with any others. It has never been stocked. I do fear, however, with its isolation and its being cut off from any movement into or out of the tiny brook that the brookies might eventually die off due to the lack of genetic diversity. I don't think anything can possibly be done about this. I know of another, even smaller, where the same thing is likely to occur for similar reasons.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Yea if LJRA is willing to go through the effort and if the university associated is willing to as well it would only make sense to allow unlimited harvest on browns.

 

[rrt]

Post copied form other thread >

Because of this thread, my wife, her dog, and I made a drive to Bell's Run after church (and after visiting an antique car show where a friend of mine had his 65 Mustang on display with 150 other antique cars -- nicer looking cars than the ones we drive today).

Anyhow, I did not realize the reservoir was still empty, except for the machinery at the bottom where the mud/silt is all dried up. I guess they are fixing a lot of stuff there. I guess the reservoir dam is being strengthened?

Regarding this topic, I am now of the opinion that if the LJRA and the PFBC are going to electroshock the stream and try to remove the brown trout to help the brook trout, now is the time. There will not be a run of browns coming up from the reservoir -- at all -- to replenish the browns that are removed.

One could then hope that anglers would remove any remaining browns they catch.

This could be a viable way to help the brook trout, and I think now is the time to do it.

(I still do not know what the LJRA said about it at its August meeting.)