Native fish restoration- Westslopes and Grayling

[Fish Sticks]

I still can't believe PA doesn't have a brook trout biologist. That alone speaks volumes.

Wait we have Jason Detar!!!- “When the water is cold brook trout don’t have problems” (unless of course jason when they rotenone alot of these streams and change nothing about the water in other states and brook trout it come back where they were gone after bye bye brown trout) its like dude you sit for Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture presentations and symposiums……embarrassing. Thwre are streams brook trout it can’t live in obviously but what he is espousing would be like as a doctor if I started treating people in 2023 by draining “the evil humors”, i can get sued for malpractice, PFBC bullet proof legally from an incompetence standpoint apparently.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Sky is Pink too.
Im out
Good luck...

Guess someone couldn't find any evidence🤷

Earth's Skies Are Violet, We Just See Them As Blue

You might know why the sky is blue, but why isn't the sky violet?

www.forbes.com

 

[tomgamber]

 

[sixfootfenwick]

 

[troutbert]

Wait we have Jason Detar!!!- “When the water is cold brook trout don’t have problems” (unless of course jason when they rotenone alot of these streams and change nothing about the water in other states and brook trout it come back where they were gone after bye bye brown trout) its like dude you sit for Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture presentations and symposiums……embarrassing. Thwre are streams brook trout it can’t live in obviously but what he is espousing would be like as a doctor if I started treating people in 2023 by draining “the evil humors”, i can get sued for malpractice, PFBC bullet proof legally from an incompetence standpoint apparently.

Don't you think you should give Jason Detar credit for the things he has done to benefit brook trout?

 

[Fish Sticks]

Don't you think you should give Jason Detar credit for the things he has done to benefit brook trout?

Oh I have to hear all about this, please tell me more

 

[troutbert]

Don't you think you should give Jason Detar credit for the things he has done to benefit brook trout?

Oh I have to hear all about this, please tell me more

You don't know?

 

[Fish Sticks]

You don't know?

Which of his achievements are you taking about?

1. Pretending to attend EBTJV meetings and activities in good faith and hearing the science behind the management actions taken in other states working like gangbusters and doing nothing?
2. Telling concerned anglers who call or e-mail him that brook trout always do just fine when the water is cold enough regardless of brown trout(EBTJV 3rd biggest threat to brook trout in PA ironically)
3. Espousing PFBC’s stocking currently has no negative effect on wild native brook trout
4. Publishing a poorly designed study that selected streams with very little angler pressure and wild native brook trout, using ~300 yrd reaches to measure the effects of a sub-watershed management tool, and then using that joke of a study that should have never made it out of peer review to put the kibosh on any thing brook trout protection ever again in PA as we pass our invasive brown trout protection reg today PRAISE BE!
5. Or are referring to the achievement of moat of the brook trout goals in the wild trout management plan being completely unfulfilled or symbolically fufilled only(still a stretch).
your going to have to be more specific with all of his great achievements for wild native brook trout in a state that has no regs, management, or plan for them specifically (just wild trout)

Maybe I should thank Sam bankman-freid for all the wonderful work hes done for FTX! Their both frauds who swindled the public into thinking they were managing a precious resource!

 

[mt_flyfisher]

For those that are interested, here’s another ongoing project in Montana to protect Yellowstone Cutthroat Trout in the Shields river, which empties into the Yellowstone River several miles east of Livingston.

https://myfwp.mt.gov/getRepositoryFile?objectID=98639

Other reports on this river are also available.

Basin wide, I believe the Shields River and it’s tributaries cover something like 375 stream miles, probably making it one of the largest streams in the state containing one of the largest remaining populations of pure strains of Yellowstone Cutthroat. It also contains (wonderful?) populations of brown, rainbow and brook trout.

It‘s anyone’s guess, but I‘d guess that there have been many hundreds of thousands of dollars, perhaps over a million dollars, spent during the past decade, and longer, by the MFWP, and other state and federal government agencies on this effort.

As shown on the Shields River, and elsewhere, once non-native fish have been introduced, it becomes difficult, if not impractical, to totally eliminate them. Perhaps, the best that can be expected is to minimize their impact in some situations.

 

[Mike]

I’m not going to address every issue or get into a big debate here because experience tells me it’s not worth it. My entire point about Philly’s population vs all of Montana’s, Area 6’s (SE Pa) population and surface area vs those of CT and RI combined, the ratio of biological staff to number of people in these states, and the abundance of natural resources or natural resource problems was that these factors make a big difference as to allocation of staff time and prioritization of projects, especially when projects are of the “never ending type,” such as invasive species removals. I was using Area 6 to make a general point about Fisheries Management Areas around the state, but if one prefers to consider Area 3 instead (northcentral Pa), I calculated that Area 3 alone has a human population that is approximately 62% of that of Montana. There are two fisheries management biologists assigned to Area 3. How many does Montana have?

I’ll address one other thing. For my money in Pennsylvania when it comes to ST restoration, I would much rather see time, effort, and money spent on mine acid abatement (and reduction in the accompanying pollutants such as iron, manganese, sulfates, and aluminum) in order to restore ST and other stream dwelling species to much larger drainages or combined stream lengths than than would be addressed, for example, by BT removals in some small trib in Potter Co. Pa has miles of potential ST water, now acidic and loaded with heavy metals, remaining to be restored. In addition to enhancing Salmonid populations, there are multiple substantial benefits to enhanced water quality short to long distances downstream from potential trout restoration stretches.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I’m not going to address every issue or get into a big debate here because experience tells me it’s not worth it. My entire point about Philly’s population vs all of Montana’s, Area 6’s (SE Pa) population and surface area vs those of CT and RI combined, the ratio of biological staff to number of people in these states, and the abundance of natural resources or natural resource problems was that these factors make a big difference as to allocation of staff time and prioritization of projects, especially when projects are of the “never ending type,” such as invasive species removals. I was using Area 6 to make a general point about Fisheries Management Areas around the state, but if one prefers to consider Area 3 instead (northcentral Pa), I calculated that Area 3 alone has a human population that is approximately 62% of that of Montana. There are two fisheries management biologists assigned to Area 3. How many does Montana have?

I’ll address one other thing. For my money in Pennsylvania when it comes to ST restoration, I would much rather see time, effort, and money spent on mine acid abatement (and reduction in the accompanying pollutants such as iron, manganese, sulfates, and aluminum) in order to restore ST and other stream dwelling species to much larger drainages or combined stream lengths than than would be addressed, for example, by BT removals in some small trib in Potter Co. Pa has miles of potential ST water, now acidic and loaded with heavy metals, remaining to be restored. In addition to enhancing Salmonid populations, there are multiple substantial benefits to enhanced water quality short to long distances downstream from potential trout restoration stretches.

Thats been tried and it failed multiple times. The problem is once you do that with no plan to stop stocking in the watershed brown trout just displace brook trout as soon as the PH raises high enough for them to tolerate it. If your going to do AmD work you need to at least consider limited or full removal and trade offs of a conservation barrier. The proof that this idea of AmD restoration being a great thing for native brook trout if nothing is done about stocked or wild invasive trout was debunked by tom clark on his kratzer run study detailed in this video. If you skip to about minute 10 the following 40 seconds detail the results.

I will also mention removal projects are not never ending in many cases especially if a barrier exists. If one does not the increasing the density of native trout relative to invasive ones can help cause a biotic resistance that causes the native trout to remain in place. There is obviously no “safe”amount of brown trout in a stream as far as loss of brook trout or loss of other important biodiversity, however if not stocked and managed intelligently we see places like the savage river in Maryland hold their own despite small amount of browns and remain strongholds anglers can enjoy. Browns can be removed by anglers as well there. Sometimes we may kist need to shift the unnatural balance we caused by stocking or protecting invasive trout and let the native trout do the rest. This is supported by Dr. Phaedra Budy’s research in the Logan river in Utah. You should give this whole article a read its very wide view of this topic.

https://www.montana.edu/mcmahon/Paradox%20book%20chapter.pdf

“Less traditional options for management of Brown Trout are promising and wor- thy of further study (Budy and Gaeta 2017). First, biotic resistance (Elton 1958), expressed as high density of native Cutthroat Trout, is the mechanism limiting ex- pansion and establishment of Brown Trout into upper headwaters of western U.S. streams. Although Brown Trout are unaffected by high density of native Cutthroat Trout, Cutthroat Trout performance increases with increasing density of conspecific species. Therefore, if Cutthroat Trout density is high enough, Brown Trout may not be able to expand, which is promising for native fish management, The potential for biotic resistance suggests that shifting the balance of predominance back to native fish may be sufficient, rather than trying to eradicate Brown Trout. Second, nonna- tive Brown Trout have difficulty passing American beaver Castor canadensis dams that do not impede native Cutthroat Trout (Lokteff et al. 2013). This presents a poten- tially promising management option for passive stream restoration across the western United States (e.g., Pollock et al. 2015), as beaver dam densities increase in the future.”

 

[tomgamber]

So if you cut and paste stuff, it takes words that were hyphenated because the line ended on the page and keeps them hyphenated in the middle of a line when they don't need to be you let readers know that you've appropriated other work. When this is done in a short period of time it suggest you pasted it without sufficient time too even read the material beyond the title.

 

[Fish Sticks]

So if you cut and paste stuff, it takes words that were hyphenated because the line ended on the page and keeps them hyphenated in the middle of a line when they don't need to be you let readers know that you've appropriated other work. When this is done in a short period of time it suggest you pasted it without sufficient time too even read the material beyond the title.

Its an article I have read twice

 

[Fish Sticks]

So if you cut and paste stuff, it takes words that were hyphenated because the line ended on the page and keeps them hyphenated in the middle of a line when they don't need to be you let readers know that you've appropriated other work. When this is done in a short period of time it suggest you pasted it without sufficient time too even read the material beyond the title.

Thats actually how i could find it and c and p so fast because i have roughly memorized the sections from reading multiple times

 

[Fish Sticks]

So if you cut and paste stuff, it takes words that were hyphenated because the line ended on the page and keeps them hyphenated in the middle of a line when they don't need to be you let readers know that you've appropriated other work. When this is done in a short period of time it suggest you pasted it without sufficient time too even read the material beyond the title.

I have also read Dr. Budy’s own study separately which is the basis for that statement in this one.

 

[troutbert]

Second, nonna- tive Brown Trout have difficulty passing American beaver Castor canadensis dams that do not impede native Cutthroat Trout (Lokteff et al. 2013). This presents a poten- tially promising management option for passive stream restoration across the western United States (e.g., Pollock et al. 2015), as beaver dam densities increase in the future.”

I've noticed that in PA forested watersheds with mixed populations of browns and brookies that the stream stretches with beaver ponds tend to favor brook trout rather than brown trout. I think there is a big potential to improve brookie populations in PA through improving beaver populations.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I've noticed that in PA forested watersheds with mixed populations of browns and brookies that the stream stretches with beaver ponds tend to favor brook trout rather than brown trout. I think there is a big potential to improve brookie populations in PA through improving beaver populations.

This is true, I see this myself and find the thought fascinating.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Thats been tried and it failed multiple times. The problem is once you do that with no plan to stop stocking in the watershed brown trout just displace brook trout as soon as the PH raises high enough for them to tolerate it. If your going to do AmD work you need to at least consider limited or full removal and trade offs of a conservation barrier. The proof that this idea of AmD restoration being a great thing for native brook trout if nothing is done about stocked or wild invasive trout was debunked by tom clark on his kratzer run study detailed in this video. If you skip to about minute 10 the following 40 seconds detail the results.

I will also mention removal projects are not never ending in many cases especially if a barrier exists. If one does not the increasing the density of native trout relative to invasive ones can help cause a biotic resistance that causes the native trout to remain in place. There is obviously no “safe”amount of brown trout in a stream as far as loss of brook trout or loss of other important biodiversity, however if not stocked and managed intelligently we see places like the savage river in Maryland hold their own despite small amount of browns and remain strongholds anglers can enjoy. Browns can be removed by anglers as well there. Sometimes we may kist need to shift the unnatural balance we caused by stocking or protecting invasive trout and let the native trout do the rest. This is supported by Dr. Phaedra Budy’s research in the Logan river in Utah. You should give this whole article a read its very wide view of this topic.

https://www.montana.edu/mcmahon/Paradox%20book%20chapter.pdf

“Less traditional options for management of Brown Trout are promising and wor- thy of further study (Budy and Gaeta 2017). First, biotic resistance (Elton 1958), expressed as high density of native Cutthroat Trout, is the mechanism limiting ex- pansion and establishment of Brown Trout into upper headwaters of western U.S. streams. Although Brown Trout are unaffected by high density of native Cutthroat Trout, Cutthroat Trout performance increases with increasing density of conspecific species. Therefore, if Cutthroat Trout density is high enough, Brown Trout may not be able to expand, which is promising for native fish management, The potential for biotic resistance suggests that shifting the balance of predominance back to native fish may be sufficient, rather than trying to eradicate Brown Trout. Second, nonna- tive Brown Trout have difficulty passing American beaver Castor canadensis dams that do not impede native Cutthroat Trout (Lokteff et al. 2013). This presents a poten- tially promising management option for passive stream restoration across the western United States (e.g., Pollock et al. 2015), as beaver dam densities increase in the future.”

I've seen this happen first hand on AMD recovered streams with no barrier and stocking.
It's only a matter of time.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

So if you cut and paste stuff, it takes words that were hyphenated because the line ended on the page and keeps them hyphenated in the middle of a line when they don't need to be you let readers know that you've appropriated other work. When this is done in a short period of time it suggest you pasted it without sufficient time too even read the material beyond the title.

Translation:

When you cut and paste stuff from fisheries science and studies that goes against my notions, I can simply disregarded it because you didn't put it in your own words. It makes it easier for me because attacking the content is hard.

 

[silverfox]

I’m not going to address every issue or get into a big debate here because experience tells me it’s not worth it. My entire point about Philly’s population vs all of Montana’s, Area 6’s (SE Pa) population and surface area vs those of CT and RI combined, the ratio of biological staff to number of people in these states, and the abundance of natural resources or natural resource problems was that these factors make a big difference as to allocation of staff time and prioritization of projects, especially when projects are of the “never ending type,” such as invasive species removals. I was using Area 6 to make a general point about Fisheries Management Areas around the state, but if one prefers to consider Area 3 instead (northcentral Pa), I calculated that Area 3 alone has a human population that is approximately 62% of that of Montana. There are two fisheries management biologists assigned to Area 3. How many does Montana have?

I’ll address one other thing. For my money in Pennsylvania when it comes to ST restoration, I would much rather see time, effort, and money spent on mine acid abatement (and reduction in the accompanying pollutants such as iron, manganese, sulfates, and aluminum) in order to restore ST and other stream dwelling species to much larger drainages or combined stream lengths than than would be addressed, for example, by BT removals in some small trib in Potter Co. Pa has miles of potential ST water, now acidic and loaded with heavy metals, remaining to be restored. In addition to enhancing Salmonid populations, there are multiple substantial benefits to enhanced water quality short to long distances downstream from potential trout restoration stretches.

Not getting into a big debate either. A few points.

1. We would have more staff for actual natural resources management if we didn't have to spend so much money and staff on hatchery trout.
2. I agree on AMD remediation but I have serious concerns about PFBC immediately stocking trout into waters as soon as the water quality is improved to the point where it can support trout. It's the reason I got involved in a big one right out of the gate.
3. Species specific angling regulations are effectively free and require no additional staff time once implemented. They'll either A) result in fewer BT in ST streams, or B) inform anglers that the two species don't belong together.
4. I had an AFM tell me and another NGO member this spring that we need to remove beavers from a high-elevation brook trout stream. The other member and I are convinced that the only reason ST have survived in this stream is BECAUSE of the beavers. So I'm not sure this beaver-love is widely adopted across PFBC staff.

With point #2 above, just to prove it's not alarmism, this article explains exactly why I have that concern. https://tribune-democrat-cnhi.newsmemory.com/?publink=4a05ebbff_134ad90

communications manager. “There’s going to be trout stocking here ... and more opportunities to recreate along the Ghost Town Trail.”

Instead of, we're going to restore this watershed, it's straight to the trout stocking.

So shame on me for not being more optimistic about the prospects of AMD remediation being a boon for brook trout. Just like habitat improvement being touted as the panacea for brook trout/brown trout competition, then it doesn't happen and people just shrug their shoulders.

https://www.fishandboat.com/Conservation/Habitat/Documents/Stream-Projects/wallacks_br_2010.pdf

Biological data revealed a 340% increase in the quantity of trout analyzed during the catch and release monitoring survey.

Note that it says "quantity of trout," not quantity of "brook trout." Yeah, it was a 340% increase in brown trout in a brook trout stream. Conversely probably a 100% decrease in brook trout. Fantastic.