Native vs. Wild

[dcoffey]

You seem well versed on heritage vs. wild vs. native brook trout. Was this info pulled out of reference material? And if so, which one?

 

[troutbert]

JackM wrote:
But what about the pellet or bread-ball fed, stream-bred trout in sections of waters, such as the Little J., Valley Creek, or Spring Creek? Are those "wild." They seem tame to me.

Those are feral.

;-)

 

[troutbert]

dcoffey wrote:
I was also wondering if the book , Brook Trout by Nick Karas is worth a look. As I get older, I am becoming more and more intrigued with the history of our brook trout. I also am in the process of reading, The Vanishing Trout.

I've read both books. And neither book supports the idea that brook trout went extinct in PA.

 

[sarce]

Pellet hogs in Valley? *Raises eyebrows* *ties breadcrust flies*

Trout Tracker I still consider those native, at one time that stream was in their native range so to me it is a reintroduction of a native fish.

 

[KenU]

Brookies have lived in PA for a million years or more. They are the only salmonid native to our streams. They have a large gene pool and are very adaptable. They can live in large to tiny streams, rivers, lakes and even the ocean for short periods of time. Where they can access larger waters, they can achieve large sizes, better measured in pounds than inches. They once achieved 20 inches or so in the large freestone streams of PA and our limestone waters. In the smaller waters, to which they are now confined, they seldom exceed 10 inches. A foot long brookie is a wall hanger! I have caught wild brookies up to 11 inches in freestone waters and 13 inches in Fishing Creek. A few of the natural lakes in PA and Lake Erie once held naturally reproducing lake trout, a close relative with which brookies can interbreed.

 

[bikerfish]

https://brooktrouthatchery.wordpress.com/2011/05/20/brook-trout-distribution-across-north-america-part-i/

https://brooktrouthatchery.wordpress.com/2011/05/22/brook-trout-distribution-in-north-america-18000-years-ago-part-ii/

So, since the pa brook trout took a southern vacation for a few thousand years while the ice sheet sat over the state, are they now considered reintroduced? I guess since they didn't get any outside help we can still call them native.

 

[KenU]

The glaciers did not cover all of PA. They stopped at the NY/PA border in the center of the state and went down almost halfway in the NE and NW corners. NC PA remained Ice free but would have been like much of northern Canada today, maybe it was even tundra. It is likely that brookies survived thru the glaciations in NC PA in what we now refer to as God’s Country and from the middle of PA southward. So they’ve been around a long time.

 

[troutbert]

From that article:

"It is hypothesized that around 18,000 years ago brook trout would have occupied the reach from what is Connecticut today to the southeastern most portion of Georgia and those watersheds that drain into the Atlantic Ocean in between."

So the article doesn't say that brookies took a vacation from PA.

As Ken said, a great deal of PA has never been glaciated. You can find maps online that showed which areas in PA were glaciated.

Not that it makes any difference really. If a species territory shrinks do to something like a glacier, then that species re-colonizes after the glaciers melt, it is still the same species. That event does not somehow make it "non-native."

At least for those in the reality-based community.

When discussing this topic, always keep in mind what it's all about.

There are those who do not want any special status given to native brook trout because they fear possible harm to brown trout and rainbow trout populations.

So they come up with pseudo-science arguments about brook trout "not really being native."

THAT is the origin for such statements. Not scientific or historical evidence.

 

[afishinado]

troutbert wrote:
From that article:

"It is hypothesized that around 18,000 years ago brook trout would have occupied the reach from what is Connecticut today to the southeastern most portion of Georgia and those watersheds that drain into the Atlantic Ocean in between."

So the article doesn't say that brookies took a vacation from PA.

As Ken said, a great deal of PA has never been glaciated. You can find maps online that showed which areas in PA were glaciated.

Not that it makes any difference really. If a species territory shrinks do to something like a glacier, then that species re-colonizes after the glaciers melt, it is still the same species. That event does not somehow make it "non-native."

At least for those in the reality-based community.

When discussing this topic, always keep in mind what it's all about.

There are those who do not want any special status given to native brook trout because they fear possible harm to brown trout and rainbow trout populations.

So they come up with pseudo-science arguments about brook trout "not really being native."

THAT is the origin for such statements. Not scientific or historical evidence.

^ all very interesting stuff by everyone posting above.

Here are some relevant links and map I've found on the subject:

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/topogeo/field/glacial/index.htm

http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_014595.pdf

 

[FarmerDave]

3oh4 wrote:
I have changed my stance on this. Before I only considered Brooke trout to be Natives and Stream born OR fingerling stocked fish to be wild. But it makes no sense to not call every stream born fish a native. If we consider ourselves "Natives" of the states we come from we can't discredit Browns and bows from being Natives bc unless you are 100% Native American none of us our really Natives of our states if you trace our lineage. It contradicts itself IMO.

Brook trout are a native species to PA. Browns, rainbows, and carp are not. They are considered an introduced species in PA.

I can "discredit" anything I want, but I don't consider this a discredit. I like catching all three.

Comparing trout to people is a poor comparison, but I'll play along.

What we refer to as "Native Americans" are not native in the purest sense. They didn't evolve here. They just arrived here first, all on their own. in other words, not an introduced species.
I'm OK with that.

I live in Ohio, but wasn't born here. Since I was actually paid to come here, I consider myself an introduced Ohesian, not native.

 

[PennypackFlyer]

I know the past presidents have had trout replaced near their retirment homes. So it's really difficult to say what is a true native these days.

 

[Tups]

I can't say why some people find it necessary to assign a sinister motive to anyone interested in discovering the heritage strain of brook trout in PA, but that impulse is apparent in this thread. I can assure you that I am not part of any anti-brookie conspiracy, rather my curiosity about brook trout genetics is sincere.

The search for heritage strains of brook trout is covered by Nick Karas in his book "Brook Trout." This seems to be one of the few places you will find discussion of the issue. Heritage strains have been discovered in several states in the east, especially in places where timber and mining companies had a difficult time operating in the past - high peaks for instance. PA has no such areas. This is not to say that heritage strains do not exist in this state, but that it makes it less likely. Even in those states where heritage strains exist, most drainage basins are populated by hatchery strains as a result of the ubiquity of trout hatcheries over the past century and more.

 

[Tups]

Reference has also been made to "The Vanishing Trout" published in 1930 by Charles Lose. Lose makes no mention of heritage strains in his book. On the contrary, to Lose the concept of heritage brook trout might have been immaterial to any discussion of brook trout conservation, an issue he was very passionate about. However, part of Lose's solution to the problem of the vanishing trout was a wholesale stocking of the streams with hatchery fish. That stocking strategy was employed on a massive scale in PA and other states, resulting in the current dominant hatchery strain of brook trout we have today.

That is an essential part of our history of conservation. I see no reason to either deny it or hide it from ourselves. Personally, the possibility that the wild brook trout I catch in PA might be descended from a hatchery strain diminishes neither the experience nor the value of the fish.

 

[tomgamber]

I THOUGHT I REMEMBERED THE TOPIC BEING TACKLED BEFORE. HERE'S SOME REFRESHER TO ADD:

http://www.paflyfish.com/forums/Open-Forums/Paflyfish-General-Forum/Heritage-Strain-Brook-Trout/2,40445,589892.html#forumpost589892