Fish Sticks
Well-known member
We see removals work in other states frequently and the above is how they do it. We have a successful model to follow, the will is whats lacking.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
The support of a government entity is what's lacking.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
Agreed thats what i mean’t. The public will is there for sure in certain places.
nymphingmaniac
Well-known member
people in favor of this should say turned and be ready to participate. If it happens, LJRA will need people to carry buckets up banks and thru the woods to transport fish downstream. Their ability to do this effectively (I have serious doubts) will depend on sufficient help to cover as much of BGR AND its tributaries.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
Yea this is something all the TU folks in the area or state who are free will hopefully help out with. Its in their brook trout conservation portfolio and inline with nationals mission. I am obviously going to recruit as many people as humanly possible. The more advanced you can give a date the better and picking a weekend will make sure its more than just 10 people with titanium joints and back issues to move those buckets for sure in my opinion.
S
Sharknado5
Active member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2017
- Messages
- 118
I completely support this idea. But instead of relying on the government to enforce it, in this area especially I think you'd get more buy-in and cooperation if it was a Penn State project.
DGC
Active member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2008
- Messages
- 870
Though premature until they sort out a few questions, this TU outfit float stocks Maryland streams. Perhaps reversing the process would be viable:
Potomac-Patuxent Trout Stocking
Potomac-Patuxent Trout Stocking
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
I'm sure if enough people volunteer it won't be a major undertaking to truck buckets of browns down below the dam. I don't think there's going to be all that many browns to move anyway.
I've never really caught that many browns there to be honest. Though I usually try to scoot up in the woods pretty far and don't mess around w/ the lower end much.
R
rrt
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 20, 2006
- Messages
- 2,317
I haven't fished Bells for several years. I always thought of it as a pretty sterile brookie stream with oodles of small brook trout till that last time when I caught several browns. One was around 15" and had "dragon" teeth. I didn't catch as many brookies as previously that day. Maybe that brown and others like him got to be that size by feasting on little brook trout.
I wish Bill Anderson and his group good luck with their project. I think it's worth a try. Maybe it'll work.
I wish Bill Anderson and his group good luck with their project. I think it's worth a try. Maybe it'll work.
F
FrankTroutAngler
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 323
Fish Sticks: If you could flip a switch and instantly eliminate all brown trout from the state of Pennsylvania, would you flip the switch? Please answer "Yes" or "No" followed by an explanation.
F
FrankTroutAngler
Active member
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2009
- Messages
- 323
silverfox: If you could flip a switch and instantly eliminate all brown trout from the state of Pennsylvania, would you flip the switch? Please answer "Yes" or "No" followed by an explanation.
B
bdhoover77
Well-known member
The proposal is to remove brown trout from ONE stream in Pennsylvania to provide a place for the native trout species…and now the question is whether one could flip a switch and eliminate all brown trout from the state. Wow, that’s an impressive way to blow this proposal out of proportion!
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
This is just rage-baiting.
Regardless, my answer is no. It would likely serve no purpose at this point. I'm not advocating for the wholesale removal of BT. I'm advocating that we manage for brook trout in a few key places in PA.
And I'm the zealot...
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
I would answer no for all watersheds, but yes for some.
I would also answer yes to elimination of stocking wild trout streams.
And yes to elimination of fish counters.
B
bdhoover77
Well-known member
Pardon my ignorance, but what are fish counters?
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
Yea so good question lets look at some reasoning behind my answer and some considerations.
Brown Trout are ranked by the International Union of Conservation of Nature as a top 30 most harmful invasive species on planet earth based on how destructive they are to aquatic ecosystems(species loss, food web shifts ect). There are 4 to 5000 invasive species on planet earth so thats quite a-lot of harm(Himalayan snow trout, New Zealand galaxids, Chilean galaxids, native fish in the mountains of Niger, Zimbabwe, short nose sucker, humpback chub, golden trout, gila trout, apache trout, Lahontan trout, candy darter, guyandotte crayfish, and many many more species). Many of these species are threatened, endangered or at risk of extinction or have been prevented from extinction by invasive brown trout removals. These things make new zealand mudsnails, snakeheads, lantern flies and other invasive species PFBC feels comfortable acknowledging look like the common cold as far as ecosystem ailments.
There are serious concerns about invasive brown trout with many threatened/endangered darters, shiners, and other native fish in PA that are likely harmed but have not been able to be studied. We have evidence that invasive brown and rainbow trout also are very likely harming our state amphibian the Hellbender which is probably going to wind up threatened or endangered in the future.
if you look at where a lot of our conservation dollars go its building habitat for invasive brown trout that does not match a historical reference condition of the stream and the native fish we claim to be protecting. We put in “lunker bunkers” and deep pools with abundant overhead cover that research has shown favor brown trout proliferation to the detriment of native fish assemblages. We waste tens of millions of dollars a year on stocking these invasive trout species which could go to buying PA anglers more access and protecting small mountain communities from having their best streams encroached on my “progress” to an extent.
Brown trout do have some financial and social benefits but I hear a common fear mongering belief that there would just be no good fishing if they were not here which isn’t true. We have to remember there are native fish species they Negatively effect and we would have more biodiverse ecosystems over all if they were not here. People would still be fishing. ,we are just socially conditioned to a particular fish at the moment. There were periods in history when lobster was deemed disgusting and only fed to slaves that built the pyramids, now its $35 at a restaurant. When a young child reels in a silvery, fusi-form, fall fish thats 14” that just put their tackle to the test and some older fishermen says “thats just a chub(even though its a fallfish)” the social conditioning of disappointment with anything but stocked or invasive trout starts as does the devaluation of a great game fish.
I would without a doubt have prevented those brown trout eggs from coming over here if I could have or flip a switch today. Its a no brainer ecologically speaking. The amount of money we have spent and have to yet spend to prevent extinctions from these things is enormous and never factored in to the economics of brown trout.
Now that being said there is no switch. There is no way to get these things out of larger waterways. This is where they live and have taken over, every continent except Antarctica. How worried are we about removing a few of these things from a handful of streams in PA while their on their world domination tour causing loss of biodiversity across the planet?
This ultimately comes down to if you value your own fishing preferences more or less than conservation of species during our planets sixth global extinction crisis and first human caused one. We put brown trout here their a made impairment just like mine drainage, deforestation, or agricultural. Unlike those industries we don’t even come close to needing invasive brown trout to live happy healthy lives.
Do I love catching them and pursue them with a passion and root for them in their native range and love them as a species and admire them? Yes. I just don’t think what i like to catch justifies extinctions and extirpations. And i would flip a switch for invasive brook trout in Argentina and Switzerland to disappear too.
How about you Frank? You flipping that switch or not.
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
Or:
Frank Nale's 2022 Trout Season Summary
www.huntingpa.com
Post #3 especially. It's hilarious the data spewed here that isn't useful to anyone but Frank for an ego stroke.
Last edited:
M
Mike
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 5,550
Quite the contrary, anglers frequently volunteer to help biologists, but from a fishing standpoint and hint at a trout population size, such quantitative data as Frank’s is nearly the only kind of angler provided fisheries data that are worthwhile…effort, species catch per hour, length distribution.View attachment 1641231908
Or:
Frank Nale's 2022 Trout Season Summary
Post #3 especially. It's hilarious the data spewed here that isn't useful to anyone but Frank for an ego stroke.
Presence/absence data can also be valuable depending upon the species and water body. Likewise, and this is a trickier situation, if an angler is known to catch what really represents a good number of fish, then a comment that they think a stream could be a Class A based on multiple trips like that at least is an indication that there must be a fairly good population there for them to even think that. It does not mean that a biologist thinks that because an angler says this stream might be a Class A that it is a Class A.
I also found a need to ask anglers the sizes and abundances of the smallest fish that they caught. They would want, of course, to tell me about the largest fish, so when I was more interested in the smallest fish, walleye for example, a lot of times they would give me a quizzical look. When it came to bluegill, then I wanted to know about typical size range and the largest fish caught in a reasonable quantity.
Finally, I found it beneficial to determine which anglers were reliable vs “full of it.” They became important contacts for water bodies that they fished and for specific species that they targeted or found in their by-catch. Given their stories or their responses to the kinds of questions I asked, it was easy to separate the angling stories from the truth and the truthful anglers remained as valuable go-to contacts.
Last edited:
sixfootfenwick
Well-known member
When you claim it would take a 50 percent harvest rate for an angler to notice a population decline, I doubt knowing Frank caught 1265 Trout at 12.6 TPH as opposed to 635 trout at 6.3 TPH between two watersheds is much use to anyone. Let alone, those in the majority just enjoying the outdoors and don't give a crap about such things 😂
Especially given, fly anglers have said time and again, some class C's fished better than Class A's.
Last edited:
R
Roofin' Trouter
Active member
Maybe more details will be released after the meeting? Isn't this section on Game Lands? If so, I applaud the Game Commission for allowing this project.
Will they follow it up with habitat improvement? Will they give it another sweep next year for any stragglers?
Will they follow it up with habitat improvement? Will they give it another sweep next year for any stragglers?
Latest posts
-
E
-
-
-
-
HDoes anyone know if it’s viable to raise a trout streams PH?
- Latest: HoboWithAFlyRod
