LJRA To Discuss Upper Bells Gap Run Brown Trout Removal

[FrankTroutAngler]

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.

You're not explaining it because you can't.

 

[falcon]

Why would someone want to catch 100 fish a day?

 

[TimMurphy]

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.

Dear FrankTroutAngler,

You have well over a decade on this board and you are still challenged by the fervent non-believers. It's almost as if they are offended by your success?

Please stay vigilant and keep on posting. This place desperately needs your presence.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[TimMurphy]

Why would someone want to catch 100 fish a day?

Dear falcon,

Why wouldn't they?

Honestly, if you can't have a 15 fish hour on a wild trout stream with a fly rod maybe you should fish for sunnies?

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[Fish Sticks]

Why would someone want to catch 100 fish a day?

A good number for me that makes me satisfied varies fishery to fishery. But to enjoy watching the fish themselves(something I really enjoy before casting to them in certain fisheries I like to go slow take it all in and pace myself). I am not saying I can catch 100 fish in a day in most trout streams I just don’t know if i would enjoy it as much and in a brook trout stream I wouldn’t want to magnify my footprint to that extent as far as incidental mortality that comes with all fishing. Just me

Dear falcon,

Why wouldn't they?

Honestly, if you can't have a 15 fish hour on a wild trout stream with a fly rod maybe you should fish for sunnies?

Regards,

Tim Murphy

^ what?

 

[rrt]

Moderators: Please lock this thread; shut it down; or, better yet, erase it. You can see what has happened.

(Maybe then someone else will begin a thread to tell us what the LJRA said at its meeting tonight about the possible project on Bells Run.)

 

[nymphingmaniac]

Moderators: Please lock this thread; shut it down; or, better yet, erase it. You can see what has happened.

(Maybe then someone else will begin a thread to tell us what the LJRA said at its meeting tonight about the possible project on Bells Run.)

couldn't make it. Minutes will be posted within a month of the meeting

 

[sixfootfenwick]

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.

The funny thing is I believe the numbers you post. I just don't find them all that amazing.

By your own account, you fish daybreak to dark, dont take breaks for lunch, fish fast and many miles. You would be hard pressed on many wild trout streams NOT to catch that many fish with a spinner. Especially if that is your goal and even if you were a mediocre fisherman.
Which I actually believe you a quiet talented at your craft.


I just find your ranting it all over the Internet to be kind of egotistical and borish, but if that's your thing have at it.

Your assumptions of "people like me", make me laugh in its entirety. Its based all on the false premise of that I dont believe you to begin with and if I have an axe to grind. I do believe you and I don't have an axe to grind.

The only axes being sharpened in this thread are the ones being carried by those that oppose a project the LJWA is trying to accomplish and its being used on those that support the project.

Sometimes the fish throws the trolling spoon back into the boat and sometimes those fish catch fisherman at a rate of 12.6 FPH.

thanks for the bite.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

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.

simply, it will be ineffective. They can't shock all the fish and can't access most of the tributaries. the stream would have to be sterilized and brookies re-introduced. Will it remove many BT, sure. It won't take long for the population to bounce back unless the procedure is repeated and/or brown trout are killed by harvest.
I could be convinced if presented with studies where electroshocking and removal worked. Sterilization of streams with rotenone might work- not really an option for a drinking water source.

 

[riverwhy]

Saying it is ineffective (without evidence) is no proof it is a vanity project. If you have evidence that those involved care nothing about brook trout and have some ulterior motive then spill the beans.

 

[Fish Sticks]

simply, it will be ineffective. They can't shock all the fish and can't access most of the tributaries. the stream would have to be sterilized and brookies re-introduced. Will it remove many BT, sure. It won't take long for the population to bounce back unless the procedure is repeated and/or brown trout are killed by harvest.
I could be convinced if presented with studies where electroshocking and removal worked. Sterilization of streams with rotenone might work- not really an option for a drinking water source.

First, manual removal has worked many times its just not the most effective.

Second, there is evidence in the west and in the east that a certain density of native trout can be a form of biotic resistance to invasive trout from taking over in some cases. Researchers are currently looking at if just simply “tipping the scales” in some cases could be enough ratio wise. Everyone forgets that when brown trout took over originally in many of theses streams mountains were bare dirt lumps and untreated point source discharges were everywhere. Invasive brown trout won’t have humans coming as the first wave to take out the brook trout en mass this time. While there is no safe amount of brown trout for a brook trout stream there has been a micro population in the savage that brookies have been able to hold off for a long time and still running.

Third, everyone always forgets that super-males are on their way. They could be here in the east in as soon as 10 years which can be paired with manual removal.

I wish more people were educated on this stuff thats why I created this.

Works Cited: Sources From James Suleski's Story - Fly Fisherman

Links and sources for his article on watershed-wide management and why we need to stop stocking invasive species.

www.flyfisherman.com

 

[falcon]

Dear falcon,

Why wouldn't they?

Honestly, if you can't have a 15 fish hour on a wild trout stream with a fly rod maybe you should fish for sunnies?

Regards,

Tim Murphy

No particular reason. Just curious. When I fish and the catching is easy I generally look for more difficult fish then just looking to put up numbers. I guess people fish for different reasons. I prefer large tailwaters where numbers dont usually come easy. I may cast to a particular fish for 45 min many times with no success.
A bull bluegill can be as wary as a spring creek brown. Quite different than the competitive schools of sunnies pecking away in the shsllows

 

[hooker-of-men]

Moderators: Please lock this thread; shut it down; or, better yet, erase it. You can see what has happened.

(Maybe then someone else will begin a thread to tell us what the LJRA said at its meeting tonight about the possible project on Bells Run.)

I don't think there's a transgression that merits locking, but it's truly impossible to find a sympathetic perspective in the... er... debate.

No matter who wins, we all lose.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Saying it is ineffective (without evidence) is no proof it is a vanity project. If you have evidence that those involved care nothing about brook trout and have some ulterior motive then spill the beans.

Freaking exactly.
Anytime these kinds of projects or views are expressed, these emotional inflammatory terms get tossed around at those trying to do good.

Vanity project, conservation jihadist, zealot blah blah blah etc etc

 

[TimMurphy]

Freaking exactly.
Anytime these kinds of projects or views are expressed, these emotional inflammatory terms get tossed around at those trying to do good.

Vanity project, conservation jihadist, zealot blah blah blah etc etc

Dear sixfootfenwick,

I'm sure you know the saying, if the shoe fits, wear it. Enjoy your footwear but please do it somewhere else.

You whiners are ruining what used to be a nice place.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

 

[Fish Sticks]

Freaking exactly.
Anytime these kinds of projects or views are expressed, these emotional inflammatory terms get tossed around at those trying to do good.

Vanity project, conservation jihadist, zealot blah blah blah etc etc

Unfortunately PFBC sets up quite the environment for this because they basically keep the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture at an arms length and at the same time pretend to be a non derelict member of the partnership. Other states have messaging from top fisheries scientists about the data behind past removal projects, why removal is important for native brook trout/ecosystems, and they communicate this to the public and partner with local groups sometimes on reintroduction ect. PFBC rarely even acknowledges brook trout’s existence let alone communicate any of this science educate anglers.

The end result is a lot of people making claims with no fisheries science to back them up and the same old brook trout defeatism sets in that gives way to the all too convenient narrative that we just need to do what’s absolutely best for certain anglers preferences because well.. ….those brook trout just aren’t going to make it anyway(false) their to fragile(false) you’d need to eradicate every single last brown trout(false). We better just try to manage for huge wild invasive brown trout in this stream and pretend like the only thing that lives in the stream brown trout can hurt is brook trout…..and remember their fragile, too fragile to save. They survived almost every tree being plucked off the mountain top, mines, Ag and bow that this state forest has completely reestablished tree canopy the habitat just won’t support them….but coincidentally there are wild invasive brown trout there which of course has nothing to do with brook trout disappearing.

And oh theres that waterfall, coincidentally the brook trout are doing better above that waterfall. Water quality, habitat, stream temps all magically change to not suitable for brook trout somewhere on the way down that 6 foot impassible to wild invasive brown trout drop of a waterfall, must be right?

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Dear sixfootfenwick,

I'm sure you know the saying, if the shoe fits, wear it. Enjoy your footwear but please do it somewhere else.

You whiners are ruining what used to be a nice place.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

So Bill A and the LJRA are whiners now too, considering they were the context of my comment and the thread.
Good to know.

So what evidence do you have of this being a vanity project since the shoe fits?

 

[hooker-of-men]

 

[silverfox]

simply, it will be ineffective. They can't shock all the fish and can't access most of the tributaries. the stream would have to be sterilized and brookies re-introduced. Will it remove many BT, sure. It won't take long for the population to bounce back unless the procedure is repeated and/or brown trout are killed by harvest.
I could be convinced if presented with studies where electroshocking and removal worked. Sterilization of streams with rotenone might work- not really an option for a drinking water source.

Brook trout don't need to be reintroduced. They're already there.

There are dozens of studies showing removal of nonnative species helps the native species. A lot of them have been posted here numerous times already. It's also prescribed in the state wildlife action plan. Why would PFBC list "remove brown trout in waters managed for brook trout" if they thought it wouldn't work?

Manual removal + encouraged harvest post-reclamation should improve success.

I know this is a foreign concept in PA, but it's not as uncommon elsewhere.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

First, manual removal has worked many times its just not the most effective.

Second, there is evidence in the west and in the east that a certain density of native trout can be a form of biotic resistance to invasive trout from taking over in some cases. Researchers are currently looking at if just simply “tipping the scales” in some cases could be enough ratio wise. Everyone forgets that when brown trout took over originally in many of theses streams mountains were bare dirt lumps and untreated point source discharges were everywhere. Invasive brown trout won’t have humans coming as the first wave to take out the brook trout en mass this time. While there is no safe amount of brown trout for a brook trout stream there has been a micro population in the savage that brookies have been able to hold off for a long time and still running.

Third, everyone always forgets that super-males are on their way. They could be here in the east in as soon as 10 years which can be paired with manual removal.

I wish more people were educated on this stuff thats why I created this.

Works Cited: Sources From James Suleski's Story - Fly Fisherman

Links and sources for his article on watershed-wide management and why we need to stop stocking invasive species.

www.flyfisherman.com

I read through, not digested every aspect, of what you outlined in FF mag. Thank you for these resources. I don't disagree with the concept that brown trout negatively effect brook trout and that habitat changes can shift the balance. Maybe I overlooked it. I would appreciate it if you could highlight the study(ies) where electroshocking removal (or other types of removal) of brown trout eliminated them or in a long window of time improved brook trout numbers. Please include the citations. As I wrote, I am open to having my mind changed and I am trained to analyze study and scientific data. Help me understand. Linking outcomes focusing on other interventions just isn't convincing me that electroshocking removal will have a great impact.