LJRA To Discuss Upper Bells Gap Run Brown Trout Removal

[sixfootfenwick]

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.

Nope. I have seen multiple challenges issued to you on multiple boards, I have yet to see you take them up.

The only disingenuous thing I see is you deleting your comments, taking your ball and going home on the LJRA Facebook page because everyone there was challenging your view on this project.

You had no support there for your rhetoric.
Here it's all, "your data is valuable, I know you catch fish buddy, right on." *Stroke,stroke*
😂

If you believe what you say about Bells Gap, stand by your comments. From here it looks like trying to save face/ reputation over substance.

 

[troutbert]

If PFBC just got out of the way or offered some support this could be a multi disciplinary removal, translocation, genetics study.

The PFBC is in the way? Do you know this to be the case or are you just speculating?

 

[troutbert]

The PFBC is in the way? Do you know this to be the case?

 

[silverfox]

Time will tell what PFBC's involvement is. Based on their track record, I'd say FS's speculation is justified.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The PFBC is in the way? Do you know this to be the case or are you just speculating?

We all know this to be the case because they have no target or plans for removals themselves, they don’t communicate the value of removal to the public, they lie to the public on state television telling them brown trout are not invasive, they won’t change regulations in any one stream to support removal. They have a reputation within the conservation community as absentee managers when it comes to conservation that just want to sell licenses in the wild wild west this state has become for fisheries. You won’t find the last one published anywhere lol.

on the above document count how many removals PFBC has, zero.

How many “translocations” or “reintroductions” 1 decietful/fraudulent is listed for big spring because fish that came out of a hatchery truck spawned there. No appropriate population was selected. Its actually closer to an introgression than a reintroduction if any BS brook trout survived which I doubt.

So you may say well PFBC just isn’t doing those projects but what you have to know is EBTJV members and their NGO’s/Agencies help other states with these efforts by studying them and providing input(example savage river). For christ sakes casey thomas weathers who did his dissertation at PSU worked on brook trout streams south of the mason dixion. I would think if there were a conducive environment or great opportunities to collaborate with PFBC near PSU he would have taken those?

Some people do research in PA but you essentially right now cannot study

1. Removal(their not doing it)

2. Conservation genetic projects like genetic rescue(their not doing it)

3. Brook trout prioritized management like MD, WV, VA and other states(their not doing it)

4. Brown trout displacement of brook trout(the state is behind on collecting data on this and don’t even know what they have lost) its a 2024 deliverable that will probably be delinquent like 75% of the brook trout goals from the brook trout management plan from the eary 2000’s are(WERE NOT DOING ANYTHING)

PA is a great place to study the direct competitive effects of invasive trout stocked on brook trout demographics and behavior but we have 100’s of different papers on that its been researched to death we know it’s bad already.

So if you were a researcher would you want to go to a state to study brook trout where they are an afterthought most of the streams are under surveyed and the state has taught the public to worship invasive brown trout and hatchery fish that you might need to remove????

 

[Fish Sticks]

We asked PFBC if they wanted to start a conservation hatchery because a faculty member in a western PA university had a hatchery and interest and they said they didn’t give two purple F*cks and were not interested. Thats the response fisheries scientists get when they wanna work with our states brook trout!

They could be doing reintroductions. But guess what its not in the budget when they waste all their money on creating invasive hatchery shock troops!!

 

[Fish Sticks]

They rather use your wild trout stamp money to put lunker hunkers and deep pools in streams to help the browns displce remaining brook trout

 

[Fish Sticks]

They put 20” browns up in the SGL on bobs creek and the brook trout in that stream are on the back of a milk carton. Who wants to try to study a restoration effort in that kind of hostile environment?!?!

 

[Fish Sticks]

It would be like studying of a new medicine for diabetes in a clinical trial where your participants all have gunshot wounds to the head.

 

[Fish Sticks]

No watershed exists in the whole state that is favorable from a management stand point to try a new restoration technique on-top of the field current standard because we don’t practice it!!

 

[silverfox]

Like I said. Given the track record, I'd say FS's speculation (and frustration) is warranted here.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I do not know who is doing the shocking this time but if its PFBC its going to be like making a 7 year old do homework. There will not be any statement to the public educating them about why this is important, no facebook post, no signage , no regulations allowing an angler stream clean up of sub legal browns. It’s literally something in the state wild life action plan “strategy-remove brown trout” written by them to avoid appearing as incompetent as they actually are to the rest of the conservation community BUT they did not reach out or come up with this idea, Bill did. They cannot stop adding brown trout let alone remove on their own volition!! They are wither going to be dragged along or PSU will do it. The maim focus of their regulations meanwhile for the past few months were making brown trout regulations they don’t want to be bothered with what, on paper, is there job and responsibility.

 

[Fish Sticks]

No one smarter than them is doing brook trout conservation projects/initiatives here……….because of them

 

[nymphingmaniac]

I think that was done.

sorry. It has not. The selection of BGR is based on the opportunity to use the draw down. The need for it is based on anglers reports, mostly two anglers. One of these anglers is very knowledgable and fishes it often. although I could be added because I have caught browns at a very low rate. My low rate could be biased by me targeting brookies on the surface and I can be overlooking a great population of browns. They as of a week ago it was unclear how or to what extent they will shock the tributaries, such as shaw run

 

[silverfox]

sorry. It has not. The selection of BGR is based on the opportunity to use the draw down. The need for it is based on anglers reports, mostly two anglers. One of these anglers is very knowledgable and fishes it often. although I could be added because I have caught browns at a very low rate. My low rate could be biased by me targeting brookies on the surface and I can be overlooking a great population of browns. They as of a week ago it was unclear how or to what extent they will shock the tributaries, such as shaw run

Regardless of the criteria used, this is a reasonable place to do it for a multitude of reasons. The barrier, the relatively low numbers of BT, somewhat intact habitat above the reservoir, etc. etc. etc. Most importantly, an organization willing to do it.

If we're only to do this where it's scientifically beaten to death with 100% consensus, it will never happen. Maybe that's the goal of some folks.

 

[Fish Sticks]

sorry. It has not. The selection of BGR is based on the opportunity to use the draw down. The need for it is based on anglers reports, mostly two anglers. One of these anglers is very knowledgable and fishes it often. although I could be added because I have caught browns at a very low rate. My low rate could be biased by me targeting brookies on the surface and I can be overlooking a great population of browns. They as of a week ago it was unclear how or to what extent they will shock the tributaries, such as shaw run

I do not know how the project was formulated or who was consulted and I wish the state would step in and bring in the EBTJV partners but they won’t, help is not coming for PA as long as PFBC run by a bunch of anglers with no fisheries science knowledge. PFBC is keeping it out of the state on purpose because its counter to their mission of making PA a giant invasive trout rodeo.

But here is something you can take to the bank on. We know the interactions between brook and invasive brown trout. Each one removed is one less negative interaction at that time the brook trout have to deal with.




As far as rebound why could you not just do it again? You could prevent the loss of that brook trout population by making those brown trout start over again in 3 years or even next year. Just because its not in the plan now does not mean it cannot be repeated to prevent extirpation. And as I keep saying more definitive techniques of removal are in the pipeline. If the brook trout are gone by the time they get here those technicians won’t recover that genetic diversity

 

[troutbert]

sorry. It has not. The selection of BGR is based on the opportunity to use the draw down. The need for it is based on anglers reports, mostly two anglers. One of these anglers is very knowledgable and fishes it often. although I could be added because I have caught browns at a very low rate. My low rate could be biased by me targeting brookies on the surface and I can be overlooking a great population of browns. They as of a week ago it was unclear how or to what extent they will shock the tributaries, such as shaw run

I remember Ken Undercoffer proposing brown trout removal here quite a few years ago. I don't remember the date. But I think the discussions about doing this began well before it was announced that the reservoir was going to be drained.

I think the reason it was approved was that most of the trout there were brookies. The number of browns there were small, so it made sense to knock back the brown trout population while still small, to limit their ability to expand their populations. Particularly as acid mine drainage treatment was ongoing, which if things go well, usually raise pH and alkalinity to closer to normal levels. That benefits aquatic life generally, but also benefits help brown trout outcompete brook trout. And the dam is a barrier which prevents brown trout from moving up from below.

So it's a stream that makes more sense than most for such a project.

 

[troutbert]

Like I said. Given the track record, I'd say FS's speculation (and frustration) is warranted here.

Speculation is fine, if you tell people that you're speculating.

Stating that the PFBC is blocking this project, as if this is a known fact, without any evidence, is not OK.

It's unethical. And hurts the pro-conservation side rather than helping it.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Speculation is fine, if you tell people that you're speculating.

Stating that the PFBC is blocking this project, as if this is a known fact, without any evidence, is not OK.

It's unethical. And hurts the pro-conservation side rather than helping it.

I was not saying they were for certain blocking this specific project, I said that they create an environment that effectively blocks projects from people pioneering brook trout restoration practices such as removal and genetic rescue ect. See my above examples, if the state is not willing to do it themselves its not speculation that these fisheries scientists cannot partner with them.

They don’t just show up one day on their own they do this with state cooperation. Of you understand how this stuff works youd see there is no way in h*ll anyone is coming in here without state support .

 

[troutbert]

I was not saying they were for certain blocking this specific project,

"If PFBC just got out of the way..."