Pennsylvania's Best Brook Trout Waters?

[silverfox]

I think the fisheries managers are deliberately low key about how many miles of streams were changed from stocked "hatchery outlets" to wild trout management over the decades, and the techniques they've used to achieve that, to avoid riling up the other side, and giving them too much information that could be used against the fisheries managers.

It's a shame that they have to operate that way, and not get credit for what they've achieved. But the PA system is what it is.

I agree completely. The piece Mike wrote touches on this in a guarded way. Not to sound conspiratorial, but I've suspected some outcomes I've witnessed personally may not have been as "natural" as some might expect.

I think the state managers/biologists have to work within a flawed system, to begin with. Folks inherit processes that they didn't design and have to work with what they've been given.

The biggest issue in my opinion is that we're managing fishery resources by applying standards and management tools to fragments of streams whereas (in my opinion) we should be managing at the watershed scale. This isn't some obscure concept. It's the same reason connectivity and AOP barriers are such buzzwords right now.

This is likely the reason the Native Brook Trout Enhancement Program "failed", as it applied a management tool to too small of a test area to be effective. It also sought an outcome based on an angling value rather than an ecological value to the species.

One of the primary motives behind the Upper Savage River project was to establish watershed-scale population resiliency. If one tributary were to "blink out" due to drought or any other abiotic factor, enough fish are conserved within the system to naturally populate the extirpated stream. Again, it's the same reason we're all trying to yank every perched culvert out of tributaries.

The main stem is arguably the most important feature of that system for brook trout, even though that habitat is only occupiable during the coldest months of the year. Here, we determine that criteria to open the door to stocking and a different approach to species management. It's echoed by all the stocked trout defenders every time they announce that stream X "gets too warm for brook trout." (https://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/Telemetry_Study.pdf)

 

[sixfootfenwick]

That’s not exactly the case for a few reasons:
Some Class A sections are essentially unfishable for a variety of habitat or social reasons; it is recognized that there is seasonal and annual variation in the biomasses; and the wild trout designation alone, often Class D waters, offers water quality protections through DEP’s Chapter 93. I have mentioned the seasonal variations and the PFBC work that showed early spring vs summer variations numerous times in the past. A Class A biomass adds to the protections that CWF streams receive. Wild trout = CWF protections for the stream plus EV (exceptional value) protections, the highest possible protections in Pa, for the surrounding wetlands. Class A = HQCWF protections. High Quality (HQ) is the second highest possible water quality protection in Pa.

It appears we define value in the definition of importance differently, hence why our definition of substantial doesn't line up.

You place value of a species on fishability of habitat and social aspects, so they are only substantial if at number high enough, due to habitat, for angling to take place and make the public reasonably happy.


I view their value to be much greater than that, substantially more.
^now I used the qualitative definition of substantial 😉

 

[Mike]

I agree completely. The piece Mike wrote touches on this in a guarded way. Not to sound conspiratorial, but I've suspected some outcomes I've witnessed personally may not have been as "natural" as some might expect.

I think the state managers/biologists have to work within a flawed system, to begin with. Folks inherit processes that they didn't design and have to work with what they've been given.

The biggest issue in my opinion is that we're managing fishery resources by applying standards and management tools to fragments of streams whereas (in my opinion) we should be managing at the watershed scale. This isn't some obscure concept. It's the same reason connectivity and AOP barriers are such buzzwords right now.

This is likely the reason the Native Brook Trout Enhancement Program "failed", as it applied a management tool to too small of a test area to be effective. It also sought an outcome based on an angling value rather than an ecological value to the species.

One of the primary motives behind the Upper Savage River project was to establish watershed-scale population resiliency. If one tributary were to "blink out" due to drought or any other abiotic factor, enough fish are conserved within the system to naturally populate the extirpated stream. Again, it's the same reason we're all trying to yank every perched culvert out of tributaries.

The main stem is arguably the most important feature of that system for brook trout, even though that habitat is only occupiable during the coldest months of the year. Here, we determine that criteria to open the door to stocking and a different approach to species management. It's echoed by all the stocked trout defenders every time they announce that stream X "gets too warm for brook trout." (https://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/Telemetry_Study.pdf)

Regarding the second sentence of your 6 th paragraph immediately above….
But from the savage R telemetry study that is cited, within the remaining stocked section there was a maximum estimated harvest of 25% of the ST approx 9.5 inches long and longer based on 4 of 16 radio tagged fish disappearing. The assumption in the report is that they were harvested rather than subject to natural mortality, although just one of those fish was known to have been harvested. Even if a 25% harvest of these larger fish was a known fact, and with that small sample size the rate was still representative of the population of larger wild ST in the remaining stocked part of the river, I would not consider that to be a high harvest rate for larger, generally “easily caught” brook trout; I would consider it to be within a range of acceptability.

 

[silverfox]

Regarding the second sentence of your 6 th paragraph immediately above….
But from the savage R telemetry study that is cited, within the remaining stocked section there was a maximum estimated harvest of 25% of the ST approx 9.5 inches long and longer based on 4 of 16 radio tagged fish disappearing. The assumption in the report is that they were harvested rather than subject to natural mortality, although just one of those fish was known to have been harvested. Even if a 25% harvest of these larger fish was a known fact, and with that small sample size the rate was still representative of the population of larger wild ST in the remaining stocked part of the river, I would not consider that to be a high harvest rate for larger, generally “easily caught” brook trout; I would consider it to be within a range of acceptability.

I understand and agree if we're only looking at it purely from a biological data perspective without considering social effects (note that most MD anglers wanted C&R regulations). Again, I think the value is in the larger fish, and given the opportunity to harvest stocked fish, there is no reason to continue to allow the harvest of larger brook trout. I've read conflicting summaries of the following, but MD referenced studies that indicated larger females are more fecund as further justification for protecting larger fish.

At any rate, MD decided to eliminate all harvest of brook trout from the lake and up all 100 miles of connected streams and tributaries. As I've said before, I think there is a social component to angling regs (something I'm working on proving and publishing), and that may have a greater impact on attitude toward brook trout conservation than the biological value of C&R regulations.

 

[Mike]

Social/socialogical aspects of fisheries are an entire subject (or thread) in their own right, so I will not comment on those here.

Regarding fecundity, however, it is correct to consider conflicting info because there is fecundity and effective fecundity. A fish can be highly fecund or carrying/producing many eggs, but effective fecundity can be low or zero as measured by egg viability and/or survival. Contributing factors to gamete failure include warm water temps during gamete development, cross breeding between species due to the activities of precocial males, and ages of females beyond prime spawning condition (example: generally beyond age 4 in hatcheries). These factors are independent of redd failure due to environmental conditions, physical disturbance, or limited suitable spawning habitat.

 

[silverfox]

Social/socialogical aspects of fisheries are an entire subject (or thread) in their own right, so I will not comment on those here.

Regarding fecundity, however, it is correct to consider conflicting info because there is fecundity and effective fecundity. A fish can be highly fecund or carrying/producing many eggs, but effective fecundity can be low or zero as measured by egg viability and/or survival. Contributing factors to gamete failure include warm water temps during gamete development, cross breeding between species due to the activities of precocial males, and ages of females beyond prime spawning condition (example: generally beyond age 4 in hatcheries). These factors are independent of redd failure due to environmental conditions, physical disturbance, or limited suitable spawning habitat.

Fecundity/effective fecundity aside, would it be fair to suggest that a fish that reaches age 4 (or older), or reaches a ~ ≥200mm length likely has traits that helped it reach that age/size in the wild? Serious question. So, could the value of older/larger fish be in the value of their offspring regardless of reproductive success? i.e., even if fecundity declines with age/length/weight, could the viable eggs have more value to the population due to inherited survival traits that would theoretically be passed on to some number of the surviving offspring?

 

[Mike]

I doubt it, but even if there was a bit of truth to it one must bear in mind that the larger fish have already contributed to the population gene pool through previous spawning events, occurring for however long the fish have been mature. In nature, Genetics play a minor role in fish growth in comparison to food supply and growing season length. (I’m not talking about the heavy artificial selection and genetic manipulation, ie triploidy, that can occur in aquaculture).

In general, however, and I’m not sure that it applies to all species, managers must watch for population-wide earlier than normal maturity being reached by nearly all or all fish in certain species populations in a particular water body due to heavy cropping of larger fish. This is true with bluegill (BG) because behaviorally (and perhaps through pheremones…my additional speculative comment) large BG, particularly males, when prevalent in a bluegill population, prevent most smaller males from reaching maturity. When fish don’t reach early maturity they keep growing at a good pace. When the large males BG are overharvested, population survival mode kicks in and small BG mature, considerably slowing their growth to the point of stunting. You’ll find this in populations in many Pa lakes due to the absence of this knowledge in the scientific community prior to, I would estimate, the early 1990’s, but this can also happen with an over abundance of dense aquatic vegetation,mpreventing predation, or a lack of macroinvertebrates that would otherwise allow for continued growth. The overharvest effect is why I pressed for even more conservative BG regs within the Pa Panfish Protection program for BG rather than just a 7” length limit and a 20 fish creel limit. Obviously, I was not successful, but I remain hopeful because more PFBC fisheries managers are starting to think this way.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I doubt it, but even if there was a bit of truth to it one must bear in mind that the larger fish have already contributed to the population gene pool through previous spawning events, occurring for however long the fish have been mature. Genetics play a minor role in fish growth in comparison to food supply and growing season length.

In general, however, and I’m not sure that it applies to all species, managers must watch for population-wide earlier than normal maturity being reached by nearly all or all fish in certain species populations in a particular water body due to heavy cropping of larger fish. This is true with bluegill (BG) because behaviorally (and perhaps through pheremones…my additional speculative comment) large BG, particularly males, when prevalent in a bluegill population, prevent most smaller males from reaching maturity. When fish don’t reach early maturity they keep growing at a good pace. When the large males BG are overharvested, population survival mode kicks in and small BG mature, considerably slowing their growth to the point of stunting. You’ll find this in populations in many Pa lakes due to the absence of this knowledge in the scientific community prior to, I would estimate, the early 1990’s, but this can also happen with an over abundance of dense aquatic vegetation,mpreventing predation, or a lack of macroinvertebrates that would otherwise allow for continued growth. The overharvest effect is why I pressed for even more conservative BG regs within the Pa Panfish Protection program for BG rather than just a 7” length limit and a 20 fish creel limit. Obviously, I was not successful, but I remain hopeful because more PFBC fisheries managers are starting to think this way.

To be fair to silverfox I don’t think he was purely suggesting the value in older larger fish was creating more older larger fish. Agree gentics not the biggest influence in brook trout size but did they get that old and large because of another heritable trait that relates to survival through movement, thermal tolerance or competitive behavior thats the real question.

 

[silverfox]

I doubt it, but even if there was a bit of truth to it one must bear in mind that the larger fish have already contributed to the population gene pool through previous spawning events, occurring for however long the fish have been mature. In nature, Genetics play a minor role in fish growth in comparison to food supply and growing season length. (I’m not talking about the heavy artificial selection and genetic manipulation, ie triploidy, that can occur in aquaculture).

In general, however, and I’m not sure that it applies to all species, managers must watch for population-wide earlier than normal maturity being reached by nearly all or all fish in certain species populations in a particular water body due to heavy cropping of larger fish. This is true with bluegill (BG) because behaviorally (and perhaps through pheremones…my additional speculative comment) large BG, particularly males, when prevalent in a bluegill population, prevent most smaller males from reaching maturity. When fish don’t reach early maturity they keep growing at a good pace. When the large males BG are overharvested, population survival mode kicks in and small BG mature, considerably slowing their growth to the point of stunting. You’ll find this in populations in many Pa lakes due to the absence of this knowledge in the scientific community prior to, I would estimate, the early 1990’s, but this can also happen with an over abundance of dense aquatic vegetation,mpreventing predation, or a lack of macroinvertebrates that would otherwise allow for continued growth. The overharvest effect is why I pressed for even more conservative BG regs within the Pa Panfish Protection program for BG rather than just a 7” length limit and a 20 fish creel limit. Obviously, I was not successful, but I remain hopeful because more PFBC fisheries managers are starting to think this way.

Interesting. So, in theory, you could create a genetic bottleneck by favoring more larger/older fish in the population due to their propensity to exclude younger/smaller individuals. Assuming brook trout communities function like Bluegill or any other species that behavior exists in.

I read several papers over the past few days on this and tried to look at it objectively. One stood out on Atlantic Cod, where the researchers looked at the relationship between fecundity–mass, hatching probability, and batch spawning. In that study, they found that "variation in the shape of the fecundity–mass relationship had the most substantial impact on population resistance and recovery [due to fishing pressure]" and that "Batch spawning and variation in hatching probability had limited impacts."

The conclusion is interesting [emphasis mine]:

The universality of maternal effects and the evolutionary explanations for their presence in fish populations remain unclear. Regardless of whether they occur in wild fish populations, our study has shown that they might have limited effect on population resilience. This contrasts with the effect of changing the shape of the fecundity–mass relationship. Estimates of population resistance and recovery time were highly sensitive to variation in the fecundity–mass relationship, underlining the need to use fecundity estimates based on population mass-distribution rather than SSB as a metric for population reproductive output. From a conservation perspective, it has often been argued that larger females should be preserved because of their higher fecundity and the presence of maternal effects. In this study, we conclude that preserving larger individuals enhances population resistance to high exploitation levels, because it helps maintain the population reproductive potential, thus limiting the risk of recruitment overfishing. However, displacing the fishing pressure from larger fish to medium size fish reduces the ability of a population to recover from a collapse, because the potential for rapid growth in biomass is maximal when medium size fish are abundant in a population.

Modelling the effects of variation in reproductive traits on fish population resilience

Abstract. Preserving larger fish is often advocated as a conservation measure to help fish populations buffer environmental variation and fishing pressure. The

doi.org

It would be interesting to see similar research on salmonids. The only things I could find that were more connected was research into the difficulty in eradicating invasive brook trout because of the species' ability to reach sexual maturity at such small/young sizes/ages. Essentially that their reproductive success is tied more to population density than to size/age fecundity. That reinforces the idea that "more brook trout (of any size) is better than more larger brook trout." At least as far as population resiliency is concerned. There is the issue of weighting the importance of unique genetic traits over basic population size metrics, but that's getting really in the weeds on judging individual importance and assuming we know what's best genetically in the long run.

Then there's the issue of more fish isn't always best. Shannon White has an interesting post on that subject on her blog: https://www.thetroutlook.com/latest-updates/population-size-when-big-is-bad

All of this begs the question of why meddle in brook trout population size/age dynamics at all? Unlike Cod, or brown trout, do we really need to be "messing" with brook trout age/size distribution? Couldn't we just establish C&R and let the population be what it is based on the environment? It would be one thing if the species was a key component of subsistence fishing and necessary to manage like Atlantic Ocean stocks for the food security of the country. Potter County ain't the Atlantic, and brook trout aren't at the top of Long John Silver's order manifest. Apparently, they aren't even a target species for sportfishing worthy of any significant stream/watershed established as "the best in the state."

 

[pcray1231]

I'd absolutely support.

1. Don't stock brook trout, only stock rainbows and browns.
2. Follow by enacting state wide C&R regs specifically on brook trout.

This is aside from discussions over which streams to stock, we'd still argue about that, lol. I'll be clear, I do not believe such a step will benefit brook trout populations in unstocked streams. It would have the greatest effect in streams that have brookie populations that also get stocked. And even then, it wouldn't be a huge effect in many cases.

But I also believe the cost to be minimal, as harvest is already very low where there aren't any stocked fish. It may not help a lot, but it doesn't harm anyone either. It's simple to understand for anglers, much much easier than saying check this list, and hey, this stream is on it between SR10232 and SR12312 bridges, so the season/bag limits/minimum size etc. is this, but the rules are differently over here. It's just, if it's a brookie, it's native, let it go. Simple! It keeps stocked brook trout DNA away from wild populations, we're already going that direction. And it establishes protections specifically for our native fish, and that has benefits from an educational standpoint.

When a father takes a child fishing, teaching how to identify a brook trout from a rainbow or brown becomes a pre-requisite. Not just because daddy likes them, but because you need to know that in order to follow the law. It leads to an explanation that the brook trout are our native fish, all of them are wild, and we value them as a resource. Stocked fish and invasives are fine for fun and table fare, and there's nothing wrong with that. But native fish still exist and are a resource to be cherished. That's an important lesson. It takes us away from the mentality that "all trout are stocked". It's unbelievable to me, even among adults, and people that call themselves outdoorsmen, who don't understand that there are wild trout in their backyards. A kid that learns early that this is a valuable species, and they exist right there where they are fishing, is a kid that grows up and learns more about wild trout fisheries.

 

[silverfox]

I'd absolutely support.

1. Don't stock brook trout, only stock rainbows and browns.
2. Follow by enacting state wide C&R regs specifically on brook trout.

This is aside from discussions over which streams to stock, we'd still argue about that, lol. I'll be clear, I do not believe such a step will benefit brook trout populations in unstocked streams. It would have the greatest effect in streams that have brookie populations that also get stocked. And even then, it wouldn't be a huge effect in many cases.

But I also believe the cost to be minimal, as harvest is already very low where there aren't any stocked fish. It may not help a lot, but it doesn't harm anyone either. It's simple to understand for anglers, much much easier than saying check this list, and hey, this stream is on it between SR10232 and SR12312 bridges, so the season/bag limits/minimum size etc. is this, but the rules are differently over here. It's just, if it's a brookie, it's native, let it go. Simple! It keeps stocked brook trout DNA away from wild populations, we're already going that direction. And it establishes protections specifically for our native fish, and that has benefits from an educational standpoint.

When a father takes a child fishing, teaching how to identify a brook trout from a rainbow or brown becomes a pre-requisite. Not just because daddy likes them, but because you need to know that in order to follow the law. It leads to an explanation that the brook trout are our native fish, all of them are wild, and we value them as a resource. Stocked fish and invasives are fine for fun and table fare, and there's nothing wrong with that. But native fish still exist and are a resource to be cherished. That's an important lesson. It takes us away from the mentality that "all trout are stocked". It's unbelievable to me, even among adults, and people that call themselves outdoorsmen, who don't understand that there are wild trout in their backyards. A kid that learns early that this is a valuable species, and they exist right there where they are fishing, is a kid that grows up and learns more about wild trout fisheries.

I have a friend in NJ who lives in the brook trout conservation zone. He trout fishes a lot for stocked rainbows. He just told me the other day he caught a brook trout in the stream (it's a pretty big stream) and unfortunately it probably died due to inhaling the entire treble hook on a spinner.

Two things about that, 1) he's not really an avid angler, and he didn't really know what brook trout were before NJ implimented the regulations. Now he just releases every brook trout and understands why. 2) where stocking over brook trout, incidental mortality is a big issue. People are using "means" to catch trout with the intent to kill them. That likely leads to increased mortality of hooked sub-legal (where legal) or juvenile brook trout where protected by rule.

So 1) the regulations have extreme value in terms of education, regardless of biological results and 2) stocking over them is still going to lead to unnecessary mortality. It's also interesting that brookies are becoming more common (anecdotal/personal communications) in larger streams/rivers there as a result of the regulations.

Also, my friend has two young kids who both now know about brook trout and to release them when they catch them. So I agree on the generational education component too.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I'd absolutely support.

1. Don't stock brook trout, only stock rainbows and browns.
2. Follow by enacting state wide C&R regs specifically on brook trout.

This is aside from discussions over which streams to stock, we'd still argue about that, lol. I'll be clear, I do not believe such a step will benefit brook trout populations in unstocked streams. It would have the greatest effect in streams that have brookie populations that also get stocked. And even then, it wouldn't be a huge effect in many cases.

But I also believe the cost to be minimal, as harvest is already very low where there aren't any stocked fish. It may not help a lot, but it doesn't harm anyone either. It's simple to understand for anglers, much much easier than saying check this list, and hey, this stream is on it between SR10232 and SR12312 bridges, so the season/bag limits/minimum size etc. is this, but the rules are differently over here. It's just, if it's a brookie, it's native, let it go. Simple! It keeps stocked brook trout DNA away from wild populations, we're already going that direction. And it establishes protections specifically for our native fish, and that has benefits from an educational standpoint.

When a father takes a child fishing, teaching how to identify a brook trout from a rainbow or brown becomes a pre-requisite. Not just because daddy likes them, but because you need to know that in order to follow the law. It leads to an explanation that the brook trout are our native fish, all of them are wild, and we value them as a resource. Stocked fish and invasives are fine for fun and table fare, and there's nothing wrong with that. But native fish still exist and are a resource to be cherished. That's an important lesson. It takes us away from the mentality that "all trout are stocked". It's unbelievable to me, even among adults, and people that call themselves outdoorsmen, who don't understand that there are wild trout in their backyards. A kid that learns early that this is a valuable species, and they exist right there where they are fishing, is a kid that grows up and learns more about wild trout fisheries.

I personally don't agree with very minor things in this but oh how good this comment was.

You are 💯 correct on the thoughts of starting to change the culture and values from the top down.
Laws in place to protect brook trout as a species of utmost importance, sportsman recognize it as required to follow the law, a generation later it is accepted as "right".

This is accomplished through our native fish, not invasive species.
Some would be wise to listen.

It's working in other states, the push back here by trying to sway sportsmen first is too much.
The above post by silverfox shows what the fruit of such actions can be if we only found a way.

 

[pcray1231]

Granted incidental mortality is an issue where fish are stocked over wild fish. That step, in no way, would end the debate over where to stock. In no way does it say you can't have delayed harvest, artificial lure, etc. regs where they deem it necessary, or not have them in other areas. It doesn't solve any of those debates at all.

Just as a base reg. All brookies are native, wild, and valued. Don't keep brookies.

You're going to still have a bunch of hatchery rainbows thrown in a small stream with opening day crowd surrounding them. Not taking that away. You are still going to have incidental mortality. It's not telling anyone how to fish to avoid it.

But I think in time you'd see more anglers aware of brook trout. I think you'd see a voluntary change in tactics and incidental mortality. Silver's friend in NJ, who didn't even know what a brookie was. Now he does, understands why they're important, and respects them. He may keep using spinners with trebles and target stocked rainbows, and that's fine, but I bet he'll be a little more careful each time he lands a brookie, and may be more gentle when trying to remove that hook so that the fish lives. If it's a repeated problem, and he incidentally kills more brookies, he's going to feel a pang of guilt each time. He may even take a steps like putting single hooks on his spinners, or pinching down the barbs, to make hook removal easier. Not because somebody is demanding he fish a certain way. Voluntarily. Because he understands and respects that the fish is important. They've given him the value, and the freedom to decide on his own how to respect that value.

If he used bait, he may keep using bait. Ok. But knowing that there's protected fish in there, and every fish that bites the bait may not be one he wants to kill, he might actually set the hook quicker instead of letting that fish swallow it first. You'll have a hundred kids with worms, saying "dad, I got a bite", and the dad saying "don't tell me, set the hook right away, if it's a brookie you don't want it to swallow it!". And that's what you want. Whether the kid killed that fish or not. He got he message that wild fish are present and important, and his goal is not to kill it. As he grows up he can figure out his own methods that work for him, and he may start asking if there's wild trout here, why do we stock it? It may lead him to brown trout. But you've planted that message. There are wild fish here and they are important to protect. That's light years ahead of where we are today.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

Granted incidental mortality is an issue where fish are stocked over wild fish. That step, in no way, would end the debate over where to stock. In no way does it say you can't have delayed harvest, artificial lure, etc. regs where they deem it necessary, or not have them in other areas. It doesn't solve any of those debates at all.

Just as a base reg. All brookies are native, wild, and valued. Don't keep brookies.

You're going to still have a bunch of hatchery rainbows thrown in a small stream with opening day crowd surrounding them. Not taking that away. You are still going to have incidental mortality. It's not telling anyone how to fish to avoid it.

But I think in time you'd see more anglers aware of brook trout. I think you'd see a voluntary change in tactics and incidental mortality. Silver's friend in NJ, who didn't even know what a brookie was. Now he does, understands why they're important, and respects them. He may keep using spinners with trebles and target stocked rainbows, and that's fine, but I bet he'll be a little more careful each time he lands a brookie, and may be more gentle when trying to remove that hook so that the fish lives. If it's a repeated problem, and he incidentally kills more brookies, he's going to feel a pang of guilt each time. He may even take a steps like putting single hooks on his spinners, or pinching down the barbs, to make hook removal easier. Not because somebody is demanding he fish a certain way. Voluntarily. Because he understands and respects that the fish is important. They've given him the value, and the freedom to decide on his own how to respect that value.

If he used bait, he may keep using bait. Ok. But knowing that there's protected fish in there, and every fish that bites the bait may not be one he wants to kill, he might actually set the hook quicker instead of letting that fish swallow it first. You'll have a hundred kids with worms, saying "dad, I got a bite", and the dad saying "don't tell me, set the hook right away, if it's a brookie you don't want it to swallow it!".

Yes.

But it is always possible given enough time, that the discussions naturally gravitate towards, "why do we even stock this stream anyways?"

The first step is getting the general public to recognize the species as important to them to follow the law and why those laws are in place, then leads to recognizing them as a valuable resource to finally acknowledged as worthy of high level care.

It has to start somewhere.
It won't just happen on its own as we stand now.
Nor will it happen by elevating Brown Trout above them.

 

[pcray1231]

Yep. All you're doing is informing people this is a wild and native fish, this fish is valued, we want it to live.

And that alone right there will make an awful lot of conservationists in 20 years.

 

[afishinado]

Yep. All you're doing is informing people this is a wild and native fish, this fish is valued, we want it to live.

And that alone right there will make an awful lot of conservationists in 20 years.

Good stuff Pat, plus all the stuff you wrote in your previous post.

 

[troutbert]

Stocking over native brook trout is very common. From what I've seen this practice greatly reduces brook trout populations.

Supposing that stocking over native brook trout continues, but the rules are changed to catch-and-release for brook trout.

Would that solve the problem and allow the brook trout populations to rise to near their full potential, even with the stocking?

I don't think so. Here is why:

1) Stocking greatly increasing angling pressure, resulting in high rates of C&R mortality.

2) Territorial Competition. Big fish push smaller fish out of prime holding places. You can observe this when fishing, and a study on Spruce Creek also showed this.

3) The large stocked trout reduce the population of the smaller brook trout by EATING them. That's pretty obvious, but it's rarely mentioned. Large hatchery trout are stocked in the spring, which is also when the wild trout fry emerge.

Are cutthroat trout managed this way?

 

[pcray1231]

I didnt say it would solve that problem. In fact I kind of said it wouldn't. That debate would continue to rage.

I said, per the PFBC's own data that says people dont really harvest fish in unstocked streams, and it doesnt stop anyone from harvesting stocked fish, thus it wouldn't negatively affect anyone. And the value would be of an educational/cultural nature rather than beneficial for the management of any specific fishery. All the decisions of stock/don't stock, seasons, etc still exist, this has no effect.

It is merely sending a signal to the public that we value this fish. The fish commission rules today establish the culture 20 years from now. Just like our game commission rule of no baiting game leads our hunters to view baiting game as a dirty, unsportsmanlike tactic. If a hunter hunts over a corn pile or salt block he gets looked down upon and likely turned in. If he ever admitted it on social media he'd get blasted by the hunting community. Its part of the culture. In places where its allowed, its not unsporting to hunt over bait, out of cars, etc. The rules are what creates the culture. Think of crossbows, considered "cheating" by the archery community not very long ago, still is by the traditionalists. But their ranks are shrinking and its becoming accepted as ok. Why? Because its legal. Legal becomes accepted and sporting. Illegal becomes frowned upon and innately unsporting. The laws drive the culture.

And that is the rulemakers #1 responsibility, to establish the culture. They lead, not follow, and they too often forget that. All the rules are this here but something different over here confounds that, that is just management of specific waters, which is fine, but its not creating culture like a statewide policy message does.

The fish commission created the truck chasing, yank em and keep em, who cares about wild fish culture. They created it many years ago. Thats what people believe. Its become tradition for many families to stand around the stockie hole on xyz creek and yank out a limit on opening morning. You can't just end it, nor should you. But you can begin to proatively change the culture via rulemaking, and not hope it changes on its own, because it won't.

We have stocked fisheries and thats great. Enjoy em. But send the message, in a way that doesnt tell anyone where or how to fish. That our native fish is valued. Establish it by rule. You do that by saying all brook trout are to be released, all sizes, 365 days a year, everywhere in the state. Explain why. And instill that value as a culture for the next generation. And you and I may agree that we shouldn't stock over wild populations. The fact of the matter is that we don't have enough allies, because its not part of the general fishing culture in PA today. Start changing the culture and we'd have a lot more allies in 20 years.

 

[silverfox]

I didnt say it would solve that problem. In fact I kind of said it wouldn't. That debate would continue to rage.

I said, per the PFBC's own data that says people dont really harvest fish in unstocked streams, and it doesnt stop anyone from harvesting stocked fish, thus it wouldn't negatively affect anyone. And the value would be of an educational/cultural nature rather than beneficial for the management of any specific fishery. All the decisions of stock/don't stock, seasons, etc still exist, this has no effect.

It is merely sending a signal to the public that we value this fish. The fish commission rules today establish the culture 20 years from now. Just like our game commission rule of no baiting game leads our hunters to view baiting game as a dirty, unsportsmanlike tactic. If a hunter hunts over a corn pile or salt block he gets looked down upon and likely turned in. If he ever admitted it on social media he'd get blasted by the hunting community. Its part of the culture. In places where its allowed, its not unsporting to hunt over bait, out of cars, etc. The rules are what creates the culture. Think of crossbows, considered "cheating" by the archery community not very long ago, still is by the traditionalists. But their ranks are shrinking and its becoming accepted as ok. Why? Because its legal. Legal becomes accepted and sporting. Illegal becomes frowned upon and innately unsporting. The laws drive the culture.

And that is the rulemakers #1 responsibility, to establish the culture. They lead, not follow, and they too often forget that. All the rules are this here but something different over here confounds that, that is just management of specific waters, which is fine, but its not creating culture like a statewide policy message does.

The fish commission created the truck chasing, yank em and keep em, who cares about wild fish culture. They created it many years ago. Thats what people believe. Its become tradition for many families to stand around the stockie hole on xyz creek and yank out a limit on opening morning. You can't just end it, nor should you. But you can begin to proatively change the culture via rulemaking, and not hope it changes on its own, because it won't.

We have stocked fisheries and thats great. Enjoy em. But send the message, in a way that doesnt tell anyone where or how to fish. That our native fish is valued. Establish it by rule. You do that by saying all brook trout are to be released, all sizes, 365 days a year, everywhere in the state. Explain why. And instill that value as a culture for the next generation. And you and I may agree that we shouldn't stock over wild populations. The fact of the matter is that we don't have enough allies, because its not part of the general fishing culture in PA today. Start changing the culture and we'd have a lot more allies in 20 years.

It's worth mentioning that the increases in fish size, and the statistically significant larger brook trout population documented in the USR occurred in the presence of stocked rainbows. Even when harvest of brookies was still permitted in the stocked section, the watershed's population was still stronger following the original USR brookie regs than other brookie streams across MD that allowed the harvest of brook trout (note that MD's bag limit prior to statewide reg change was 2 fish). It's similar in NJ I'm sure.

So the concept that C&R might benefit brook trout even without changes to stocking is sound, at least based on MD and NJ's examples. It's likely the stocking is still causing increased mortality of brook trout where stocking still occurs, but the overall mortality is likely much lower now that brook trout are C&R.

I think you're correct, too, that regulations form perceptions about the value of species. Right now, with no brook trout specific regulations, where stocking occurs over brook trout, anglers might devalue brookies and take less care to carefully release an accidentally hooked brook trout in stocked trout waters. Since there's virtually no mention of the value of brook trout from PFBC's media and there are no angling regulations to differentiate them from stocked or wild nonnatives, there's no reason for anglers to be concerned about accidentally killing them and tossing them back dead. Anglers may view brook trout as a nuisance since they're there to catch trophy yellow trout.

The bottom line is, as you've said, anglers will value what the laws tell them to value. Right now, we place a disproportionate value on stocked trout in PA. We also have more regulations to protect wild non-native fish, which contributes to declining brook trout, than we do for brook trout. So we've got attitudes surfacing that brook trout aren't part of the "modern angling experience" by wild nonnative fans, and then stocked trout anglers devaluing the species because they don't know any better.

This is what happens when the state agency in charge of managing the species hardly ever even mentions the fish, ignores the species as a potential target species for angling, and provides absolutely no regulations to protect the species explicitly. All this while it's the only sportfish listed in the state's wildlife action plan as a species of greatest conservation need.

I've mentioned here before about how little PFBC showcases brook trout on social media. It's not that I place some extreme value on social media, but it's telling when compared with everything else mentioned above. It's not even about showcasing the species and talking about its plight; they very rarely ever use photos of brook trout for any reason. The vast majority of their posts on social media bombard viewers with image of stocked trout and disproportionately pump up the value of trout stocking.

As a case in point, these two posts were posted almost simultaneously on the same day a few weeks ago.

 

[silverfox]

Expanding on the social media topic and the lack of focus on brook trout in the last post, here is an image that illustrates the disproportionate promotion of stocking and nonnative trout. Red=stocked/nonnative trout, Green=brook trout. Note that the Green image (brook trout) on the left is a repost from DCNR, who posted the brook trout photo. On the right, brook trout photo, it's a stocked brook trout, and the associated caption says nothing of value about brook trout. This pattern gets even worse the further back you go.

Again, not to over-value social media, but it does have an impact. It's also worth pointing out that the "Pennsylvania’s Brook Trout Conservation Strategies" document, which I believe was created in 2005, explicitly states that they will:

Strategy 4.1. Enhance public interest and knowledge about brook trout and the importance of protecting, enhancing and restoring wild brook trout populations.

and

Strategy 5.1.1. Focus on existing angling opportunities through the various Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission information and media outlets. Include an emphasis on the special nature of brook trout and why they are important. Encourage conservation angling practices when fishing for wild brook trout.

https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Fisheries/TroutPlan/Documents/strategies.pdf

None of that actually happened.

I also think this side-topic ties directly into the issue in the original post in this thread. It all points to a serious lack of any kind of focus on the species from an angling, conservation, education, and promotional standpoint.