LJRA To Discuss Upper Bells Gap Run Brown Trout Removal

[Fish Sticks]

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?

I wondered about repeat manual removals which is common and increases effectiveness. I hope that and unlimited harvest can be put into effect for browns there.

I have never been to the stream but it may be wise to avoid any habitat manipulation because a low level of invasive browns persisting can use habitat improvements to overtaken-brook trout like we saw in this case study on pine creek(below) which serves as proof of concept of this concept elucidated via multiple other well designed rigorously conducted studies.

We are likely “restoring” brook trout out of many streams with brown trout. Its thought in a lot of cases we are not really restoring a reference condition by making these deep single thread channels with engineered structures. There is a current strong hunch that multithread channel systems with shallower habitat/side channels may be better for brook trout in sympatric populations where risk of predation and competition exists. This needs to be further researched but there are some glaring anecdotal examples out there and some supportive presence data related to depth in some of Hoxmeir and dietermans driftless area publications.

https://www.kiaptuwish.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Pine-Creek-Case-Study_Final-Presentation-Manuscript_Wild-Trout-Symposium_0917.pdf

 

[Mike]

Multiple reports from each stream whether from the same angler or multiple anglers can be beneficial to biologists, but may be meaningless to other anglers for comparative purposes who don’t quantify their catches in terms of catch per hour. Why do you think that bass tournaments are required in Pa to report a catches and angler hours fished for each water body and each tournament held on that water body? Over time it’s good info for a given species in a given body of water.

As for anglers noticing a population decline, that’s not what was being asked. Catch per effort info is a statistic that may be contextually informative to biologists in a positive or negative way. For instance, a low catch rate on a recovering stream from historical mine acid drainage is great info if the stream was formerly considered to be “dead.” A series of low catch rates from a from a formerly high catch rate stream may suggest a need for further investigation. On the other hand, accompanying length frequency data may indicate that the “problem” is just a couple of weak year classes working their way through the population.

Individual anglers aren’t asked to interpret catch per effort data or their length/frequency data and to me the info has a lot more value in terms of impressions of a fishery than qualitative comments like “I had a good day.” One angler’s good day is another angler’s mediocre one. To biologists data records of zero catch days are just as important as those from 100 catch days, however. If anglers don’t like to quantify their catch data that’s fine, but they should understand that such info can be valuable.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Multiple reports from each stream whether from the same angler or multiple anglers can be beneficial to biologists, but may be meaningless to other anglers for comparative purposes who don’t quantify their catches in terms of catch per hour. .

So in other words, I was right.
It's meaningless to not useful to virtually EVERY angler in PA except for Frank.

You could have saved yourself all this pcraying....

Why do you think that bass tournaments are required in Pa to report a catches and angler hours fished for each water body and each tournament held on that water body? Over time it’s good info for a given species in a given body of water.

As for anglers noticing a population decline, that’s not what was being asked. Catch per effort info is a statistic that may be contextually informative to biologists in a positive or negative way. For instance, a low catch rate on a recovering stream from historical mine acid drainage is great info if the stream was formerly considered to be “dead.” A series of low catch rates from a from a formerly high catch rate stream may suggest a need for further investigation. On the other hand, accompanying length frequency data may indicate that the “problem” is just a couple of weak year classes working their way through the population.

Individual anglers aren’t asked to interpret catch per effort data or their length/frequency data and to me the info has a lot more value in terms of impressions of a fishery than qualitative comments like “I had a good day.” One angler’s good day is another angler’s mediocre one. To biologists data records of zero catch days are just as important as those from 100 catch days, however. If anglers don’t like to quantify their catch data that’s fine, but they should understand that such info can be valuable
.

I can't even express how valuable it is to the average angler to know how many fish a guy catches per hour using spinners, especially one that honed in his craft to the point of speed fishing and developing his own gear and tactics but I'll try.

It's like knowing the price of tea in China.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I can't help but wonder if a TPH going from 10 to 7 for X number of years is motivation behind not supporting Bill A and the LJWA in this endeavor.
🤔

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

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...

Philip, thanks for the reply. I was just trying to determine where you fell on the scale I use for interacting with various conservationists. At the rational end of my scale is "Conservationist" and at the other end is "Conservation Jihadist." Based on your reply I'd put you closer to "Conservationist" than where I previously thought you'd be. So thank you.

 

[afishinado]

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?

From the LJRA site:

"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."

Bill Anderson – Page 3 – Little Juniata River Association -a 501 c3 non-profit organization

www.littlejuniata.net

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

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?

View attachment 1641231907

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.

Thanks for the reply.

I definitely would not flip the switch, particularly after reading that one article you referenced which talked about climate change and its effect on native brook trout. Seems like climate change is going to continue to get worse and eventually warm the mountain streams to the point where native brook trout can't survive anyway. I know you'd rather see a mountain stream with no trout in it, but I'd I would rather see a mountain stream with wild brown trout in it if the brookies can't survive.

 

[troutbert]

From the LJRA site:

"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."

Bill Anderson – Page 3 – Little Juniata River Association -a 501 c3 non-profit organization

www.littlejuniata.net

That is dated October 14, 2014, so don't mark your calendars for Nov. 19th of this year.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

there was talk to do this during the first draw down of the reservoir, but the shocking/removal did not happen.

this is a vanity project IMO.

I think some people are dragging in past interactions/disagreements with Frank into this discussion. He is expressing a legitimate opinion. He is a seasoned, knowledgable angler in these parts of the woods.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

View attachment 1641231908

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.

sixfootfenwick: In your jealous rage you're quite mistaken that my data isn't useful to anyone but me for an ego stroke.

Back in the late 1980's and early 1990's I wrote a series of articles about spinner fishing for Pennsylvania Sportsman Magazine. In those articles I mentioned a lot of statistics. To my knowledge this was the first time statistics were mentioned to the extent I mentioned them. Yes, before my articles there were other articles that included statistics, such as Richard Tate's article "One Thousand Trout" that was in the April 1981 issue of Pennsylvania Angler. You'd probably enjoy that article since it was written by a fly angler.

Guess what? Those statistics I included in my articles caught the eye of a lot of anglers. To this day I still have people approach me to tell me how those articles positively influenced their trout fishing. How many other writers do you think have people come up to them to express how much they enjoyed an article they wrote 35 years ago? It was the numbers that caught the attention of people and there are quite a few spinner anglers all across Pennsylvania who fish spinners now because of my articles. I know this because I've met some of them at my seminars.

My annual fishing summary and all of the statistics in it has the same effect. Every year it attracts new anglers to the sport.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

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.

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.

Thanks for writing this Mike.

 

[Mike]

So in other words, I was right.
It's meaningless to not useful to virtually EVERY angler in PA except for Frank

No, for example there are those here from whom information had and has been quite valuable.

 

[riverwhy]

there was talk to do this during the first draw down of the reservoir, but the shocking/removal did not happen.

this is a vanity project IMO.

I think some people are dragging in past interactions/disagreements with Frank into this discussion. He is expressing a legitimate opinion. He is a seasoned, knowledgable angler in these parts of the woods.

Please provide reasons why you believe this is a vanity project.

I am not sure using the term conservationist jihadist is the way to approach conveying a legitimate opinion.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

sixfootfenwick: In your jealous rage you're quite mistaken that my data isn't useful to anyone but me for an ego stroke.

Back in the late 1980's and early 1990's I wrote a series of articles about spinner fishing for Pennsylvania Sportsman Magazine. In those articles I mentioned a lot of statistics. To my knowledge this was the first time statistics were mentioned to the extent I mentioned them. Yes, before my articles there were other articles that included statistics, such as Richard Tate's article "One Thousand Trout" that was in the April 1981 issue of Pennsylvania Angler. You'd probably enjoy that article since it was written by a fly angler.

Guess what? Those statistics I included in my articles caught the eye of a lot of anglers. To this day I still have people approach me to tell me how those articles positively influenced their trout fishing. How many other writers do you think have people come up to them to express how much they enjoyed an article they wrote 35 years ago? It was the numbers that caught the attention of people and there are quite a few spinner anglers all across Pennsylvania who fish spinners now because of my articles. I know this because I've met some of them at my seminars.

My annual fishing summary and all of the statistics in it has the same effect. Every year it attracts new anglers to the sport.

"Jealous rage". 🤣

Trust me it isn't jealousy, just an opinion over what I've seen on various state message boards when the subject of you comes up.

Your tactics can absolutely positively have a positive impact on others and their fishing, your number statistics are worthless to that effect.
It may attract people to be curious but your TPH calculations are worthless to know to the average angler

I have yet to see you take up the opportunity when challenged to do so in person.

there was talk to do this during the first draw down of the reservoir, but the shocking/removal did not happen.

this is a vanity project IMO.

I think some people are dragging in past interactions/disagreements with Frank into this discussion. He is expressing a legitimate opinion. He is a seasoned, knowledgable angler in these parts of the woods.

No past disagreements/ interactions. I agree, his opinion on it is legitimate and he should take it to the meeting. I said so, myself. Arguing with others about their opinion and using buzzwords like jihadist is inflammatory. Others here are also seasoned and knowledgeable anglers, who's opinion on opposition to his is just as legitimate.

If he wants flames and to argue, I gave a reason to.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Please provide reasons why you believe this is a vanity project.

I am not sure using the term conservationist jihadist is the way to approach conveying a legitimate opinion.

👏

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

I am not sure using the term conservationist jihadist is the way to approach conveying a legitimate opinion.

Please explain how me using the term "conservation jihadist" has anything whatsoever to do with me conveying my opinion about why I oppose electro-shocking the token wild brown trout population out of Bells Gap Run above the Bellwood Reservoir?

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Please explain how me using the term "conservation jihadist" has anything whatsoever to do with me conveying my opinion about why I oppose electro-shocking the token wild brown trout population out of Bells Gap Run above the Bellwood Reservoir?

Why dont you explain why you used it? I don't know why you used it, I mean, I have an idea especially after your rage bait questions but why dont you explain yourself.

Im not going to do it for you.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I really wish I could have attended to meeting myself but I worked too late to make it.
I hope someone will post the details of it.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Thanks for the reply.

I definitely would not flip the switch, particularly after reading that one article you referenced which talked about climate change and its effect on native brook trout. Seems like climate change is going to continue to get worse and eventually warm the mountain streams to the point where native brook trout can't survive anyway. I know you'd rather see a mountain stream with no trout in it, but I'd I would rather see a mountain stream with wild brown trout in it if the brookies can't survive.

I go out night time fly fishing for wild invasive brown trout and like hunting for large ones as an angler as well. We probably fish and enjoy alot of the same brown trout streams. People have also asked me if ai keep all brown trout that I can. The answer is no. While I would flip the switch if possible, it never will be. So by respecting the desire for places like the little J, spring creek, the letort ect Where brook trout no longer swim and streams provide a socially valuable wild invasive brown trout fisheries, thats some compromise on my part. And i really so enjoy them. But the compromise to recognize fishermen’s value of these places is hoping that fishermen will recognize the conservation value of places where projects like bells gap removal can be done for native fish.

There is a researcher named Mark Kirk who is looking at temperature changes in brook trout streams and he told me last we spoke that the dense forest canopy is actually going to buffer the temperature increases pretty effectively from climate change. I am waiting for publication of his manuscript so I can see the data. So don’t count brook trout out. Also, another thing you might be interested in is that brook trout conservation genetics is looking at how to maximize the brook trouts ability to evolve as fast as possible to survive climate change. We have seen examples of rapid adaptation in fish like alweives over rhe course if 100 years or so. If we can maximize gene flow (movement of fish spawning with other populations) and maintaining large population size, this capacity to adapt genetically can be maximized and accelerated to a degree. Fisheries scientists are also looking at brook trout thermal tolerance genes. Silvefox and I partially funded such a project at michigan state recently.

I know you value brook trout and due to Pa fish and boats lack of leadership on them and their excuses for **** poor stocking practices have left everyone as a brook trout defeatist citing habitat and temperature(which are important). But we have never taken our foot of their throats in PA as far as terrible fisheries management and I think what could be done with some common sense stocking reform, C and R regs, and liberalization of invasive trout harvest in streams we don’t cherish for hunting trophy invasive brown trout could surprise alot of people in this state despite the climate and some habitat challenges.

PFBC has created brook trout defeatism to justify using wild and hatchery brown and rainbow trout to sell fishing licenses in brook trout streams where we could have some great brook trout fisheries. Example kettle creek and a fee others I am sure you fished.

If we took a large watershed like kettle and stopped stocking/maximized adaptive genetic capacity we would probably see a large increase in brook trout from current levels because they would not have to fight other trout for thermal refuge when it gets hot or get pushed into warm spots.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

Your tactics can absolutely positively have a positive impact on others and their fishing, your number statistics are worthless to that effect.
It may attract people to be curious but your TPH calculations are worthless to know to the average angler

I have yet to see you take up the opportunity when challenged to do so in person.

sixfootfenwick: My statistics are what draws people to try my tactics. Pretty simple concept for most people to understand.

The people who have challenged me are typically people like you who don't believe me and have an ax to grind. I'd be a fool to fish with such a person. Let's say a person like you tags along for a morning and sees me catch 100 trout on spinners. Who's to say you wouldn't come on here and say I caught only 25 and lied about the other 75? I would never trust such a person to give an honest account of the day.

Years ago there was a DH on a website who challenged me to catch 100 trout in a day. He wanted me to drive two hours and meet him for breakfast at 8:00 a.m. and then fish downstream on a stream that held some native brookies and some warm water fish. No doubt he would have wanted to be back at camp by 11:00 for lunch and a few more beers (and likely some cigarettes for him) followed by going somewhere that someone else already fished that day. When I turned him down he made a big fuss on the website and basically said I had to be lying about my stats since I wouldn't accept his challenge. He didn't understand that if I were going to show someone what I do I'd research the stream and start at daybreak and fish all day. I'd eat later. He wouldn't be fishing and certainly wouldn't be picking the stream to fish. I also don't drink beer and I am repulsed by the stench of beer. I would never fish with someone if they were drinking.

With that said, I've fished with quite a few people over the years. I've been on a couple TV shows and have had articles written about me in magazines. I once fished with an outdoor writer and caught over 200 trout in his presence.

I don't expect anything that I've said to change your mind because you are a non-believer with an ax to grind. If I took you along to watch me fish and I caught 100 trout there's no doubt in my mind that even if you somehow acknowledged the 100 trout you'd say I did it only once and it doesn't prove I've done it before.