LJRA To Discuss Upper Bells Gap Run Brown Trout Removal

[Fish Sticks]

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

Yes getting out of the way would be not stocking areas that could be brook trout management areas. Not many people are going to be interested in coming to a place with other negative detrimental variables to test a novel restoration technique or try to demonstrate the success of an established one. Its verifiable not speculation that we have none of those. And there is literature showing these type of management areas give brook trout the best chance to survive. Fisheries scientists do not want to do conservation projects for native brook trout in stocked waterways and they like to have state support for brook trout and their conservation initiatives which PFBC has multiple public evidences of just the opposite. Fisheries scientists will tell you large systems managed for brook trout are more valuable areas for study especially for conservation genetics, thats verifiable.

Wheres the speculation?

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

I'm sure I'll be accused of hijacking this thread with this question, but if I recall correctly there was a topic on here a few years ago discussing the genetics of the native brook trout that are currently in Pennsylvania. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that virtually all of the "native" brook trout in the state have, at least in part, some genetics gotten from hatchery brook trout many years ago after the state was deforested by logging -- and that virtually no native brook trout populations in the state have pure brook trout genetics undiluted by stocked brookies. Can someone smarter than me find this topic because I'd like to know if the native brook trout that many are trying to protect actually are the same as the native brookies that evolved over the centuries or are they partially invasive themselves?

 

[silverfox]

I'm sure I'll be accused of hijacking this thread with this question, but if I recall correctly there was a topic on here a few years ago discussing the genetics of the native brook trout that are currently in Pennsylvania. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that virtually all of the "native" brook trout in the state have, at least in part, some genetics gotten from hatchery brook trout many years ago after the state was deforested by logging -- and that virtually no native brook trout populations in the state have pure brook trout genetics undiluted by stocked brookies. Can someone smarter than me find this topic because I'd like to know if the native brook trout that many are trying to protect actually are the same as the native brookies that evolved over the centuries or are they partially invasive themselves?

For starters, there has been relatively little genetic testing in PA (compared to elsewhere). So we don't even have the slightest handle on that from a statewide perspective.

Two, if we're going down this road, every single brown trout in PA (nah, the United States) is from hatchery origin. So if we're using hatchery genetics as a baseline for support/removal, then every single brown has to go.

 

[Mike]

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 .

Seeking state permission and obtaining appropriate scientific collector’s permits are different processes from proposing that the state initiate one of these removal projects.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I'm sure I'll be accused of hijacking this thread with this question, but if I recall correctly there was a topic on here a few years ago discussing the genetics of the native brook trout that are currently in Pennsylvania. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that virtually all of the "native" brook trout in the state have, at least in part, some genetics gotten from hatchery brook trout many years ago after the state was deforested by logging -- and that virtually no native brook trout populations in the state have pure brook trout genetics undiluted by stocked brookies. Can someone smarter than me find this topic because I'd like to know if the native brook trout that many are trying to protect actually are the same as the native brookies that evolved over the centuries or are they partially invasive themselves?

Seeking state permission and obtaining appropriate scientific collector’s permits are different processes from proposing that the state initiate one of these removal projects.

I am aware of this but who wants to submit the former if the state is not supportive of the latter if we are talking about people studying brook trout restoration ecology or conservation genetics?

 

[silverfox]

Seeking state permission and obtaining appropriate scientific collector’s permits are different processes from proposing that the state initiate one of these removal projects.

And it's the complete absence of the latter that is the problem.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I'm sure I'll be accused of hijacking this thread with this question, but if I recall correctly there was a topic on here a few years ago discussing the genetics of the native brook trout that are currently in Pennsylvania. I could be wrong, but I seem to recall that virtually all of the "native" brook trout in the state have, at least in part, some genetics gotten from hatchery brook trout many years ago after the state was deforested by logging -- and that virtually no native brook trout populations in the state have pure brook trout genetics undiluted by stocked brookies. Can someone smarter than me find this topic because I'd like to know if the native brook trout that many are trying to protect actually are the same as the native brookies that evolved over the centuries or are they partially invasive themselves?

So Frank brook trout if left alone long enough can purge mal adaptive hatchery genes. Believe this was displayed in NY In association with Trout Power’s civilian science fin clip collection program when studied. I have to read the manuscript yet. But maladaptive genes do not get rewarded over long periods of time. They can get rewarded over over the short term though before all the dominos come down at once. So to answer your question less hatchery genes is starting much higher on the ladder to increasing the genetic adaptive capacity to your environment but there are others who are starting lower down the ladder to reach this adaptove capacity who have to purge maladaptive genes to start climbing.

So it’s irrelevant if they are heritage strain or not from the standpoint of should we remove browns you could perform a genetic rescue or translocation immediately post removal if you really wanted to.

Like silver fox said PFBC does not give two wet f*cks about brook trout so we lack ALOT of genetic data.

 

[bdhoover77]

The handwringing over the prospect of ONE stream potentially being without brown trout is just ridiculous. There will continue to be thousands of miles of water where anglers can fish for brown trout, even if ONE small stream is set aside for native brook trout. Come on, this should not be a serious debate.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

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

Can you provide evidence that the PFBC is misappropriating wild trout stamp money? If not your credibility is dropping.

 

[silverfox]

Like silver fox said PFBC does not give two wet f*cks about brook trout so we lack ALOT of genetic data.

I don't know if I'd go that far. I wish the ecosheds map was working. It provides a good visual between PA and other states on genetic data and shows the amount of hatchery genes present within different populations and which hatchery those genes originated from.

To be fair, it's unknown wether PA is doing genetic testing and just hasn't shared it with others, or if they're just not doing it. Who knows? PA operates in a vacuum.

 

[silverfox]

The handwringing over the prospect of ONE stream potentially being without brown trout is just ridiculous. There will continue to be thousands of miles of water where anglers can fish for brown trout, even if ONE small stream is set aside for native brook trout. Come on, this should not be a serious debate.

The pushback in general is the result of PFBC refusing to utter the words brook and trout in public while making regulation after regulation for brown trout.

 

[silverfox]

Can you provide evidence that the PFBC is misappropriating wild trout stamp money? If not your credibility is dropping.

Oh lord. Don't go there. The moment they used $20,000 for lunker bunkers on spruce creek I lost just about all the respect I had for them. I don't know how many perched culverts exist on brook trout streams on public land throughout the northern tier, but I bet they could've found one of those instead of Donny Beaver's private fish hatchery.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Can you provide evidence that the PFBC is misappropriating wild trout stamp money? If not your credibility is dropping.

Yes plenty read up.

One thing you’ll learn about me is what I say is driven by the fisheries science I read. Otherwise I would never be able to keep up with all the “what aboutisms” and baseless attacks on brook trout conservation Bdhoover mentioned.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/rec.12925

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/rec.13678

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

 

[bdhoover77]

The pushback in general is the result of PFBC refusing to utter the words brook and trout in public while making regulation after regulation for brown trout.

Why is it that brown trout seem to receive more love than, say, rainbows? Would there be as much handwringing over this proposal if the idea was to remove rainbow trout to provide a sanctuary for brook trout?

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Why is it that brown trout seem to receive more love than, say, rainbows? Would there be as much handwringing over this proposal if the idea was to remove rainbow trout to provide a sanctuary for brook trout?

Yup, Big Spring.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Why is it that brown trout seem to receive more love than, say, rainbows? Would there be as much handwringing over this proposal if the idea was to remove rainbow trout to provide a sanctuary for brook trout?

Unfortunately yes many Cumberland valley anglers opposed rainbow removal on big spring to support native brook trout there.

 

[silverfox]

Why is it that brown trout seem to receive more love than, say, rainbows? Would there be as much handwringing over this proposal if the idea was to remove rainbow trout to provide a sanctuary for brook trout?

Supposedly, and while I haven’t filed a RTK for evidence, when PFBC proposed removing rainbows at Big Spring they encountered “significant public opposition.” Something I’d love to see actual evidence of.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Supposedly, and while I haven’t filed a RTK for evidence, when PFBC proposed removing rainbows at Big Spring they encountered “significant public opposition.” Something I’d love to see actual evidence of.

Supposedly, and while I haven’t filed a RTK for evidence, when PFBC proposed removing rainbows at Big Spring they encountered “significant public opposition.” Something I’d love to see actual evidence of.

Basically no wild invasive trout anywhere can be harmed to help our state fish that lacks a single mile out of 86,000 where it is specifically managed for by PFBC.

 

[silverfox]

In a nutshell, it seems that PFBC goes out of their way to avoid admitting that nonnative species negatively impact brook trout. Then act surprised when any attempts to mitigate the negative impacts of nonnative trout are met with opposition from the public. Even though they wrote it in the state wildlife action plan. It will be telling to see if they yank that section from the new wildlife plan in 2025.

Which touches on another point I've often wondered. In the wildlife plan it says "remove brown trout in areas managed for brook trout." I think the catch there is "areas managed for brook trout." I don't think that has a legal definition. So its up to the AFM's I guess? So then all they have to do is not have any areas managed for brook trout and then they don't have to remove any browns. Easy peasy.

 

[FrankTroutAngler]

Like silver fox said PFBC does not give two wet f*cks about brook trout so we lack ALOT of genetic data.

If the PFBC does not give "two wet f*cks about brook trout" as you say, why is it that in 1983 they increased the minimum size limit for creeling native brook trout from 6" to 7" after their biologists learned that the fastest growing native brookies were reaching 6" just about the same time as when fishing pressure was highest on native brookie streams; and therefore the fastest growers were getting cropped off in favor of the slow growers? This change was done expressly and specifically to protect native brook trout. Any intelligent angler who fishes for native brookies will tell you that this regulation change made a huge difference in the size of native brookies. I have my fishing data to prove it.

If you don't think the PFBC cares about native brook trout, would you be in favor of changing the minimum size back to 6"?