LJRA To Discuss Upper Bells Gap Run Brown Trout Removal

[Fish Sticks]

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.

https://easternbrooktrout.org/science-data/ebtjv-assessment-data/eastern-brook-trout-restoration-summary-table/at_download/file

 

[nymphingmaniac]

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.

re-introduction would be required if the stream was sterilized by rotenone treatment.
As I asked fish sticks, please provide me a list of those studies That address manual removal of brown trout be effective to restoring brook trout. I am not convinced by statements like "dozens of studies on this forum indicated'. Please direct me to these studies. That's all I'm asking.

 

[Fish Sticks]

re-introduction would be required if the stream was sterilized by rotenone treatment.
As I asked fish sticks, please provide me a list of those studies That address manual removal of brown trout be effective to restoring brook trout. I am not convinced by statements like "dozens of studies on this forum indicated'. Please direct me to these studies. That's all I'm asking.

the link above has many examples of successful electrofish only projects

 

[silverfox]

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

The irony. You're whining about what people decide to discuss on an open forum and claiming moral superiority. That's rich.

 

[silverfox]

re-introduction would be required if the stream was sterilized by rotenone treatment.
As I asked fish sticks, please provide me a list of those studies That address manual removal of brown trout be effective to restoring brook trout. I am not convinced by statements like "dozens of studies on this forum indicated'. Please direct me to these studies. That's all I'm asking.

Nobody is talking about using piscicides here. It's unnecessary.

Here's a collection of good information. Some of it is piscicides, some manual removal. There's even data about the effectiveness of each method. https://easternbrooktrout.org/science-data/brook-trout-restoration

 

[nymphingmaniac]

https://easternbrooktrout.org/science-data/ebtjv-assessment-data/eastern-brook-trout-restoration-summary-table/at_download/file

Thank you. This is a great list. I'll need a little time to look at this. This more encouraging. Sorry, scientist in me coming out here. I have to ask: what is the criteria for considering the project a success in the spreadsheet?
I also noticed that most of these required multiple passes, in some cases multiple years. If the BGR project was planned to be reoccurring, I'd have a more optimistic view of the project

 

[Fish Sticks]

Thank you. This is a great list. I'll need a little time to look at this. This more encouraging. Sorry, scientist in me coming out here. I have to ask: what is the criteria for considering the project a success for these projects?
I also noticed that most of these required multiple passes, in some cases multiple years. If the BGR project was planned to be reoccurring, I'd have a more optimistic view of the project

i think recurring electroshocking are not out of the question and maybe harvest regs could be changed to allow al browns to come out. People are going to need Pfbc at some point to help this effort out by simply getting out of the way regulations wise and supporting removal publicly.

Here is another example of manual removal outside the EBTJV range not included in prior list of projects.

https://commons.nmu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1064&context=theses

 

[nymphingmaniac]

Nobody is talking about using piscicides here. It's unnecessary.

Here's a collection of good information. Some of it is piscicides, some manual removal. There's even data about the effectiveness of each method. https://easternbrooktrout.org/science-data/brook-trout-restoration

this is good too. I liked the comparison of methods, and now agree mitochondrial poisons are no more effective than multiple, annual electroshock removals. Regular removal has other benefits by not affecting other wild life. Unfortunately, and this is the reason for my critique, this is not what is being proposed for BGR. Maybe they will convince the PFBC to commit to yearly (or multiple year year) removal. But what's on the table is a single event.

 

[silverfox]

this is good too. I liked the comparison of methods, and now agree mitochondrial poisons are no more effective than multiple, annual electroshock removals. Regular removal has other benefits by not affecting other wild life. Unfortunately, and this is the reason for my critique, this is not what is being proposed for BGR. Maybe they will convince the PFBC to commit to yearly (or multiple year year) removal. But what's on the table is a single event.

Especially when compared with cost. i.e., manual removal is one of the least costly methods while still being somewhat effective compared to piscicides.

I agree there should be a larger plan in place here. Frankly, I believe this is what happens when you have an NGO or two trying to do something progressive without the full support of the state. This isn't a PFBC idea, nor do I suspect they have much of an appetite for it.

I'm admittedly making assumptions here, but given PFBC's track record on reclamation (they don't have a track record), I'm not convinced they'll jump at the idea of developing a plan for the watershed that includes further nonnative fish removal. I'd love to be wrong here. The state should spearhead this kind of thing, not them being drug along reluctantly.

I really wish this was some student's thesis project as opposed to a grassroots project. It would likely be more widely accepted and a longer-term plan laid out. Conversely, this isn't some cutting edge approach to fisheries management. It happens all over the world and has for some time. There are plenty of studies already, and I'm not sure more are needed.

 

[nymphingmaniac]

Especially when compared with cost. i.e., manual removal is one of the least costly methods while still being somewhat effective compared to piscicides.

I agree there should be a larger plan in place here. Frankly, I believe this is what happens when you have an NGO or two trying to do something progressive without the full support of the state. This isn't a PFBC idea, nor do I suspect they have much of an appetite for it.

I'm admittedly making assumptions here, but given PFBC's track record on reclamation (they don't have a track record), I'm not convinced they'll jump at the idea of developing a plan for the watershed that includes further nonnative fish removal. I'd love to be wrong here. The state should spearhead this kind of thing, not them being drug along reluctantly.

I really wish this was some student's thesis project as opposed to a grassroots project. It would likely be more widely accepted and a longer-term plan laid out. Conversely, this isn't some cutting edge approach to fisheries management. It happens all over the world and has for some time. There are plenty of studies already, and I'm not sure more are needed.

no disagreement with what you wrote. I am judging the plan as is, not what it can/should be. Thus, my opinion that it is a feel good, low impact project.
sorry to keep this going, but can brook trout ever outcompete brown trout? Meaning, reducing the number of brown trout without total elimination, allow brooks to take over? My gut (none evidence based) says no, without significant changes to the habitat or stream chemistry, such as pH.
I would also be more enthusiastic if the BGR project was selected on multiple criteria taking into account the watershed characteristics that will increase success. This project was chosen based on the reservoir drawdown. That's not a bad reason to consider it. you eliminate or greatly reduce a pool of BT in the reservoir that would have been inaccessible. I assume the list of projects you guys sent me were chosen after considering features of the stream and the likelihood of success.

 

[silverfox]

no disagreement with what you wrote. I am judging the plan as is, not what it can/should be. Thus, my opinion that it is a feel good, low impact project.
sorry to keep this going, but can brook trout ever outcompete brown trout? Meaning, reducing the number of brown trout without total elimination, allow brooks to take over? My gut (none evidence based) says no, without significant changes to the habitat or stream chemistry, such as pH.
I would also be more enthusiastic if the BGR project was selected on multiple criteria taking into account the watershed characteristics that will increase success. This project was chosen based on the reservoir drawdown. That's not a bad reason to consider it. you eliminate or greatly reduce a pool of BT in the reservoir that would have been inaccessible. I assume the list of projects you guys sent me were chosen after considering features of the stream and the likelihood of success.

Yes. I know FS has posted it before, and I don't recall which study it was, but they simply reduced BT to a point where ST took over. Effectively the reverse effect of invasion. The invader has the upper hand. Change the species around and it has the same effect. In some places...

I agree with Frank on the chemistry issues. I don't think there are any habitat problems here. However, up on top there is a lot of legacy mining damage. Something might be causing settling ponds to leach more toxins into feeder streams or some other phenomenon. That should be investigated/mitigated too.

When they drew this reservoir down before they removed some massive browns. There was a photo floating around on the internet of a 30 inch brown that came out of the lake. Unfortunately, without any angling permitted in the reservoir, and without an ongoing effort to drain the lake and remove any browns from there, it's possible (likely) that it will happen again. Again, this is where the state needs to be fully on board with this stuff and an active participant, if not a leader.

 

[Fish Sticks]

no disagreement with what you wrote. I am judging the plan as is, not what it can/should be. Thus, my opinion that it is a feel good, low impact project.
sorry to keep this going, but can brook trout ever outcompete brown trout? Meaning, reducing the number of brown trout without total elimination, allow brooks to take over? My gut (none evidence based) says no, without significant changes to the habitat or stream chemistry, such as pH.
I would also be more enthusiastic if the BGR project was selected on multiple criteria taking into account the watershed characteristics that will increase success. This project was chosen based on the reservoir drawdown. That's not a bad reason to consider it. you eliminate or greatly reduce a pool of BT in the reservoir that would have been inaccessible. I assume the list of projects you guys sent me were chosen after considering features of the stream and the likelihood of success.

The savage river is an example of where brook trout outcompete a micropopulation of brown trout every year. Their densities are very high. There is data for this out west as I mentioned in Dr. Phaedra Budy’s study of invasive brown trout and native cutthroat trout.

Utah State University

Welcome to Utah State University, Logan Utah

www.usu.edu

 

[Zak]

Late to the party here but if they are only shocking 2 miles, ya, this is a total waste of effort and resources. I trust Frank's info about 6 miles needing to be shocked because, well, the man lives like 15 min from the place and his knowledge and data is impeccable. If you're only going to remove browns from 2 of 6 miles it's literally a pointless effort. Use Valley Creek as an example. That place has a 'massive' fish kill on what seems like a semi-annual basis. No matter what happens the browns just flow back into the open available habitat and they do it FAST. I've never noticed a decline in population to a stretch after a kill. They do it from upstream and downstream. They'll do it at BGR instantly too. If they shock 2 miles of stream in October or Nov ( puzzling as that is prime brook spawning season which is a whole other topic of poor planning) by the Spring fishing season anglers will notice almost no difference as browns from other parts will flow right in over the winter. Frank is 1000% correct about this effort. This is nothing more than a pointless feel good effort. It's 100% guaranteed to fail and fail immediately. I'm shocked a group like that isn't already well aware of this.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Late to the party here but if they are only shocking 2 miles, ya, this is a total waste of effort and resources. I trust Frank's info about 6 miles needing to be shocked because, well, the man lives like 15 min from the place and his knowledge and data is impeccable. If you're only going to remove browns from 2 of 6 miles it's literally a pointless effort. Use Valley Creek as an example. That place has a 'massive' fish kill on what seems like a semi-annual basis. No matter what happens the browns just flow back into the open available habitat and they do it FAST. I've never noticed a decline in population to a stretch after a kill. They do it from upstream and downstream. They'll do it at BGR instantly too. If they shock 2 miles of stream in October or Nov ( puzzling as that is prime brook spawning season which is a whole other topic of poor planning) by the Spring fishing season anglers will notice almost no difference as browns from other parts will flow right in over the winter. Frank is 1000% correct about this effort. This is nothing more than a pointless feel good effort. It's 100% guaranteed to fail and fail immediately. I'm shocked a group like that isn't already well aware of this.

“1000%”

“100%”

“Fail immediately”

This is not a serious post

 

[silverfox]

Late to the party here but if they are only shocking 2 miles, ya, this is a total waste of effort and resources. I trust Frank's info about 6 miles needing to be shocked because, well, the man lives like 15 min from the place and his knowledge and data is impeccable. If you're only going to remove browns from 2 of 6 miles it's literally a pointless effort. Use Valley Creek as an example. That place has a 'massive' fish kill on what seems like a semi-annual basis. No matter what happens the browns just flow back into the open available habitat and they do it FAST. I've never noticed a decline in population to a stretch after a kill. They do it from upstream and downstream. They'll do it at BGR instantly too. If they shock 2 miles of stream in October or Nov ( puzzling as that is prime brook spawning season which is a whole other topic of poor planning) by the Spring fishing season anglers will notice almost no difference as browns from other parts will flow right in over the winter. Frank is 1000% correct about this effort. This is nothing more than a pointless feel good effort. It's 100% guaranteed to fail and fail immediately. I'm shocked a group like that isn't already well aware of this.

Well I live 28 minutes from BG. So does my input matter too then?

As I've said before, this needs to be coupled with education and ideally encouraged harvest post-removal. I know LJRA plans to promote harvest above the reservoir and I might make it my personal hobby next year for the sake of support.

There aren't that many browns in there. It's not like a Class A BT stream with no brook trout in it. It won't be that difficult to crop the BT down to a point where it's going to be tough for them to bounce back. Especially with the lake drawn down removing the purported source.

 

[troutbert]

I would also be more enthusiastic if the BGR project was selected on multiple criteria taking into account the watershed characteristics that will increase success.

I think that was done.

 

[JeffP]

Well I live 28 minutes from BG. So does my input matter too then?

As I've said before, this needs to be coupled with education and ideally encouraged harvest post-removal. I know LJRA plans to promote harvest above the reservoir and I might make it my personal hobby next year for the sake of support.

There aren't that many browns in there. It's not like a Class A BT stream with no brook trout in it. It won't be that difficult to crop the BT down to a point where it's going to be tough for them to bounce back. Especially with the lake drawn down removing the purported source.

And why not see what happens. You have to start somewhere.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Well I live 28 minutes from BG. So does my input matter too then?

As I've said before, this needs to be coupled with education and ideally encouraged harvest post-removal. I know LJRA plans to promote harvest above the reservoir and I might make it my personal hobby next year for the sake of support.

There aren't that many browns in there. It's not like a Class A BT stream with no brook trout in it. It won't be that difficult to crop the BT down to a point where it's going to be tough for them to bounce back. Especially with the lake drawn down removing the purported source.

I am definitely going on a browndup there as well post removal.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The other very interesting thing here that has not been considered is if you decrease the effective population size you could make brown trout suffer a founder effect possibly and reduce their fitness to spawn. Conservation genetics works both ways and those browns are above a barrier. You could even do a genetic rescue on the brook trout to potentially increase their fitness to compete with the browns.

If PFBC just got out of the way or offered some support this could be a multi disciplinary removal, translocation, genetics study. But PFBC has made PA a brook trout conservation dead zone. They can’t even communicate to the public the value of these things who wants to deal with researching in an environment with little public awarness/acceptance. Mean while in MD the savage river has essentially become a living Laboratory.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

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.

Your statement in post #74 where you wrote, "I have yet to see you take up the opportunity when challenged to do so in person," indicates that you are being disingenuous in your statements in this post.