MD proposed changes for brook trout

[silverfox]

It's pretty interesting (or sad?) that Maryland and New Jersey are leading the way on brook trout conservation. I know this is a "PA" site, but I think this is important, so I have to share.

Maryland has proposed changing regulations for brook trout to;

1) Require catch-and-release only (for brook trout) in all put-and-take waters statewide;

and

2) Require catch-and-release only (for brook trout) in all waters east of Interstate 81 (I-81).

I'm happy to see some states taking brook trout conservation seriously. Maryland has spent a large amount of time and money studying brook trout and the effects of regulations on the populations.

Here's the supporting document: https://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/Reg_Changes/BrookTrout_Catch_Release.pdf

And the link to the public comment form page:

https://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Pages/regulations/changes.aspx#brookie

Or the link directly to the comment form (yes, they're using google forms): https://forms.gle/YHQcvpdSaiFCQstbA

The comments are open to anyone, not only Maryland residents, and MD DNR wants everyone possible to comment.

 

[Dave_W]

Interesting and important stuff.

Thanks for the heads-up.

 

[wildtrout2]

Pa should have catch and release for brook trout as well. Considering the average size of a native trout, even a limit of them really doesn't amount to a meal. For their long term survival, C&R is the way to go.

 

[Baron]

I've never been a fan of playing Doctor with environmental changes. I'm not necessarily in agreement or not with the brook trout situation.
I did live on a Dairy Farm during the HayDays of Pheasants and we did fill our freezer.
My point it that there has to be more in this than just rules regarding harvest. Pennsylvania means 'Penn's Woods'. So why do we clear land to build houses? Why are lawns allowed? If we, as the top species in Penn's Woods, are not farming then why do we not mandate that we reforest all non farmed land like nature would provide us. If we want all of our streams to become natural again, why is there no environmental law requiring us to at least provide shade (planting trees) along all of our streams similarly as they once had.
You can't half tie your shoes. you can't half protect a resource.
I eat a portion of what I catch; mostly that which have been hooked badly. There are probably 10 trout and 10 perch in the freezer right now. The regs proposed above will take all discretion out of the equation. It will also give government another control over us.......never, never a good thing.
I bet there are other solutions but I'm not the Pro here so I've said my piece and will step back, obeying the convoluted and increasingly complex laws as best as I can.

 

[Bamboozle]

Wasn't the "discontinued for lack of positive results," Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Program something similar?

I know there will be 46,271,693 reasons given why no Brook Trout harvest on selected PA streams with good populations failed to achieve the desired results, but what's to say the outcome in Maryland will be any different?

Hopefully Mike will chime in...

It sounds like more feel good legislation to me...

...something to make you smile while you are slipping on your mandated rubber bottomed wading shoes. ;-)

 

[silverfox]

Bamboozle wrote:
Wasn't the "discontinued for lack of positive results," Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Program something similar?

I know there will be 46,271,693 reasons given why no Brook Trout harvest on selected PA streams with good populations failed to achieve the desired results, but what's to say the outcome in Maryland will be any different?

Hopefully Mike will chime in...

It sounds like more feel good legislation to me...

...something to make you smile while you are slipping on your mandated rubber bottomed wading shoes. ;-)

The supporting doc I posted, as well as some other MD DNR documents out there, as well as first hand information from MD DNR about the program on the Upper Savage River watershed, as well as first hand experience points to an improvement in overall population and size structure as a result of the regulations. I don't think it's a "feel good legislation" when there is data to back it up.

The PA program wasn't a complete failure. They did find larger fish in the mainstem when they abandoned the program. Apparently it wasn't the improvement they were looking for in a 10 year span so, rather than leave it, they abandoned it. Sounds like it was designed to fail and destined to fail from the start.

I know one thing, it's far easier to do nothing.

 

[silverfox]

I think the biggest thing these regulations do is protect the larger fish when they're in the downstream stocked sections in early spring when harvest is opened up. As has been demonstrated on the Savage and the Loyalsock here in PA, brook trout use the mainstem to overwinter. Just like Browns use bigger rivers throughout PA to overwinter. Right now, the bigger brookies (and browns) are still down in the lower rivers.

I follow a local person instagram and most of what they post are stockers and I know where they're fishing. It's the stocked downstream section of a stream with a Class A headwater. Just the other day they posted a good size 10 or 11 inch WILD brookie they caught WAY downstream in the stocked section.

These reg changes would eliminate those fish from being harvested. I really don't think harvest is an issue on the headwater streams, but brookies don't just live in the 1st order streams. They use the entire system. That's the problem in PA. They're in those marginal, stocked sections on opening day and get harvested along with 10 inch stocked rainbows and nobody is any the wiser.

 

[ryansheehan]

silverfox wrote:
I think the biggest thing these regulations do is protect the larger fish when they're in the downstream stocked sections in early spring when harvest is opened up. As has been demonstrated on the Savage and the Loyalsock here in PA, brook trout use the mainstem to overwinter. Just like Browns use bigger rivers throughout PA to overwinter.

^This

Watched a guy take a 12"+ brookie out of the stocked section of the savage a couple weeks ago, put it on the stringer next to a golden.

 

[PennKev]

Baron wrote:
I've never been a fan of playing Doctor with environmental changes. I'm not necessarily in agreement or not with the brook trout situation.
I did live on a Dairy Farm during the HayDays of Pheasants and we did fill our freezer.
My point it that there has to be more in this than just rules regarding harvest. Pennsylvania means 'Penn's Woods'. So why do we clear land to build houses? Why are lawns allowed? If we, as the top species in Penn's Woods, are not farming then why do we not mandate that we reforest all non farmed land like nature would provide us. If we want all of our streams to become natural again, why is there no environmental law requiring us to at least provide shade (planting trees) along all of our streams similarly as they once had.
You can't half tie your shoes. you can't half protect a resource.
I eat a portion of what I catch; mostly that which have been hooked badly. There are probably 10 trout and 10 perch in the freezer right now. The regs proposed above will take all discretion out of the equation. It will also give government another control over us.......never, never a good thing.
I bet there are other solutions but I'm not the Pro here so I've said my piece and will step back, obeying the convoluted and increasingly complex laws as best as I can.

(warning sarcasm)

Yep cause you if you can't do EVERYTHING you shouldn't bother doing anything!!!

(end sarcasm)

I'm not necessarily saying that Marlyland has got it right. In fact I doubt it will make much difference. We tried doing special regs on brookies a while back and there was no discernible difference in populations. Though, the catch and release of brookies in the put and take streams is an interesting twist. However, assuming Maryland stocks in a similar manner as we do, are many of their P&T streams viable wild trout streams to begin with? Brook trout streams at that?

As for habitat, YES habitat improvement is key. Shade, woody debris, natural channels, limiting erosion. All extremely important. However I do not expect those to be improved in one all encompassing edict. They can be improved gradually and we've already seen environmental improvements help our own streams. But while those improvements slowly come to fruition, we should not be dismissive of smaller attempts to improve wild trout populations. Again, I don't really think these changes will make a big difference, or any difference at all, but at least MD is trying something that is pro-wild trout just as PA tried with the brook trout enhancement program. Improving and expanding wild trout fisheries is not something that will happen in one big, all encompassing move.

 

[Acristickid]

Easier for MD to say. I didn’t look anything up but I’m guessing they have about 10% of the brook trout water PA has. I’m not against it.

 

[csoult]

But they taste so good....

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Silverfox,

As always, everything you said is on point.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

One that moves.
Rare bird.

Cant grow'm on a stringer in the early season.

 

[Tucker733]

ryansheehan wrote:

silverfox wrote:
I think the biggest thing these regulations do is protect the larger fish when they're in the downstream stocked sections in early spring when harvest is opened up. As has been demonstrated on the Savage and the Loyalsock here in PA, brook trout use the mainstem to overwinter. Just like Browns use bigger rivers throughout PA to overwinter.

^This

Watched a guy take a 12"+ brookie out of the stocked section of the savage a couple weeks ago, put it on the stringer next to a golden.

I think this happens a lot on the Put & Take sections on many of the streams that are in the Western section of the proposed regulation. Many, if not all, of the stocked sections throughout the Western region have Brook trout all the time or during certain times of the year. I've caught them and seen them on stringers on maybe all but 1 of the P&T waters in the 2 Western most counties. Most headwaters West of Cumberland have brook trout and the densities you see in the P&T sections support larger 10+" that are getting thrown on stringers the way these sections are heavily fished.

I'm for the regulation and in favor of just all C&R for both Regions not just the Eastern. 99%+ Maryland BT are wild with the few coming from other states that flow in.

 

[sarce]

Comparing what MD is proposing with PA's WBTEP is apples and oranges. MD has three distinct areas with brook trout. East of 81, where C&R of brook trout is proposed in all streams, there are two populations, Piedmont and Catoctin Mountain.

The Piedmont populations exist only in Baltimore, Harford, and Carroll counties. The native brook trout there are clinging to existence in less than 3 dozen isolated streams. 80% of these streams are experiencing gradual degradation of habitat and declining numbers of adult brook trout. Some of these streams rely on less than one dozen spawning-aged fish to reproduce and sustain the population each fall.

50% of MD's piedmont brook trout populations have disappeared in just a 30-year span. While harvest isn't the reason for declines in this area (development is #1 with brown trout invasion being a close second or sometimes concurrent reason), allowing harvest of the few remaining adult fish in such fragile populations would be foolish.

PA's program focused on already healthy wild trout streams, not streams that were on the brink of losing their brook trout populations.

 

[PennKev]

^Going as far as closing fishing altogether should be an option if the situation is that dire. Certainly, curtailing the P&T fisheries on those waters should be on the table.

How much does MD actually want to preserve these brook trout populations? Maintaining P&T fisheries on these waters seems to tell just how important they think they are.

 

[sarce]

I agree with both of those points to an extent. Would be OK with no fishing over the Piedmont populations but then you'd have to specify which streams those are, which only puts them on the map for those with nefarious intentions. Situation is far less dire in Catoctin.

On the second point, I do think the brook trout guys at DNR have a far better idea of what needs to be done compared to what political pressure will allow them to do. Given that, I support the proposal as a step forward.

 

[Tucker733]

PennKev wrote:
^Going as far as closing fishing altogether should be an option if the situation is that dire. Certainly, curtailing the P&T fisheries on those waters should be on the table.

How much does MD actually want to preserve these brook trout populations? Maintaining P&T fisheries on these waters seems to tell just how important they think they are.

The only major (stocked with >1500 rainbows) P&T fisheries in the effected Western Region that hold decent brook trout all of time would be a select few maybe 2 or 3 streams. One being the upper Savage main branch and this would make sense for ending P&T there.

I don't MD has the extensive overstocking of wild brook trout like PA does. Maryland also has the added benefit of not stocking brooks or browns in the Western region where most headwaters have Brook trout. MD also limits the sections they stock and call P&T to avoid reaching into the upper sections with wild trout.

 

[JimKennedy]

Silverfox, thanks for posting this valuable information. I agree with sentiments expressed on this board that we owe it to ourselves to protect wild brook trout (just like bald eagles, bears and grouse), and I respectfully disagree with the taoist sentiment expressed that changes affected by the hand of humans are purely natural. We are not wolves; we know not to kill all the prey animals just because we can. If we want brook trout in our lives, not just in the pictures on our walls, we should act. I filled out the survey and expressed my support, then I went so far as to suggest a few other things. The survey does not ask if you are a resident of Maryland (I am Maryland born and raised, though I have extensive family in Penn's Woods). I encourage everyone to fill out the form and express your opinion about the brook trout regulations proposed. While I would prefer you echo my opinion and support the no-kill regulations, it's a free country and all deserve to be heard.

If you really want to get into the weeds of it, you can go into the details I sent to DNR. Comments to the state follow:


Additional protections would also be useful in protecting and reviving wild brook trout populations across the state:

--Make brook trout a catch-and-release-only species statewide (expand the proposal to include ALL streams west of I-81, not just put and take streams).

--Cease all stocking in the Fishing Creek Watershed upstream from the Frederick Water Authority reservoir and make the waterways a fly fishing only, no-kill area. Brook trout by-catch by put-and-take anglers pursuing stocked rainbow trout proves fatal even when the brook trout are released. A roughly handled brook trout or one that is gut-hooked is very unlikely to survive. It is not so much the angler keeping the fish as the reality that the fish is not carefully handled is the factor limiting survival of brook trout in the 7 to 12 inch size range in this stream. In addition, the stream's largest pools -- those where stocked rainbow trout are pursued -- are actively fished throughout the spring and summer months by anglers in pursuit of fish for food. This essentially deprives the substantial wild brook trout population of the watershed the best habitat available. Instead find a new location in the region where the rainbow trout can be stocked on a put-and-take basis. Possibilities include: the pond near the confluence of High Run and Big Hunting Creek, which was recently became property of the town of Thurmont; Glade Creek near the Fountain Rock Nature Center in Walkersville; Lake Linganore or Linganore Creek below the lake or both, Tom's Creek in Emmitsburg.

--Consider a major brook trout restoration effort on Little Hunting Creek from Catoctin Furnace upstream through the Manor Area of Cunningham Falls State Park and along Catoctin Hollow Road in the area of the former Trout Run retreat acquired by the state a few years back.

The proposals regarding the Fishing Creek Watershed and Little Hunting Creek upstream from Catoctin Furnace have the potential to expand the Maryland brook trout population in a matter of a few spawning seasons. If they are beyond the scope of this survey, please make an effort to consider the ideas in future trout management policies.

Meanwhile, do everything possible to make brook trout a no-kill species statewide, not just west of I-81.

 

[jifigz]

What I'd like to see PA do:

No stocking over wild trout, period. Low limits on harvest with a possible slot limit, no C&R only streams.

That would be good enough for trout conservation, methinks. It leaves the option for harvest, relieves a ton of pressure with no stocked fish, both from the absence of stocked fish and the anglers that wouldn't be there due to the stream not being stocked, and most who fish at that level wouldn't harvest or would harvest very little.

I think we often overthink this.