Petition to end the practice of stocking over wild native brook trout.

[silverfox]

http://chng.it/xvFHKJHknB

I've heard from a lot of folks here and elsewhere that stocking over wild native brook trout needs to stop and that should be a primary focus.

I don't know how much stock PFBC puts on petitions, but since they mentioned the last one in reference to the recent "below STW" reg change, I guess it wouldn't hurt to try one for brookies.

There are some interesting studies cited in the petition body.

 

[Mike]

“Present” can be a very small number (1).

 

[redietz]

Mike wrote:
“Present” can be a very small number (1).

And "native" can be hard to prove. If the stream is being stocked, then at some point in the past it mat have been stocked with brook trout. Even if for only one season, the PFBC may argue that the existing population may be descendants of stocked fish, and therefore not native.

 

[silverfox]

Mike wrote:

“Present” can be a very small number (1).

I personally would rather not get into drawing lines in the sand on biomass density unless someone can prove that the classifications/biomass numbers are based on current data and represent the entirety of the stream. Then we're basically arguing how many fish we're willing to sacrifice. There are likely as many opinions there as there are anglers in PA.

redietz wrote:

Mike wrote:
“Present” can be a very small number (1).

And "native" can be hard to prove. If the stream is being stocked, then at some point in the past it may have been stocked with brook trout. Even if for only one season, the PFBC may argue that the existing population may be descendants of stocked fish, and therefore not native.

Genetic purity plays no role in whether the species is "native" to a geographical area. Going down that road is a muddy mess because you would have to identify what you want to say is the species holotype in PA, collect DNA samples from every population and compare it to the genetic material from the holotype. Who on earth would pay for that? Where do you draw the line on genetic purity? How far from the holotype could the genes stray before you say it's simply a wild descendent of a stocked fish? How long has it been since the introgression occurred to qualify as a "heritage strain"?

Hopefully, this doesn't derail into a debate about what the word native means.

 

[redietz]

silverfox wrote:
Who on earth would pay for that?

Nobody would, which is my point. The proposal needs to be refined. It should be to prohibit stocking in streams with sustainable populations of wild brook trout.

I signed the petition, but don't see it going anyplace.

 

[silverfox]

redietz wrote:

silverfox wrote:
Who on earth would pay for that?

Nobody would, which is my point. The proposal needs to be refined. It should be to prohibit stocking in streams with sustainable populations of wild brook trout.

I signed the petition, but don't see it going anyplace.

Thanks for signing!

The idea is to simply promote that there are folks in this state who don't like the idea of stocking over wild native brook trout. It's something people have said here repeatedly.

I'm not a fisheries manager at PFBC so I'd rather not try to tell them what to do with this information or how to fine-tune any reaction to what makes the most sense for the fishery.

Everyone always says that the stocked trout guys are more organized and better able to raise a ruckus about any perceived threat to stocking. Here's your chance to show that wild trout fans can be just as organized. As long as we can get past the infighting and species preferences.

There's nothing controversial about this petition. It simply states facts based on existing scientific research. Again, we don't want to get in the weeds in delineating biomass limits for where we're "ok with stocking" or where we're not.

 

[wildtrout2]

I signed, along with a few bucks to help spread the word. Time will tell if it goes anywhere.

 

[troutbert]

silverfox wrote:

The idea is to simply promote that there are folks in this state who don't like the idea of stocking over wild native brook trout. It's something people have said here repeatedly.

I'm not a fisheries manager at PFBC so I'd rather not try to tell them what to do with this information or how to fine-tune any reaction to what makes the most sense for the fishery.

Everyone always says that the stocked trout guys are more organized and better able to raise a ruckus about any perceived threat to stocking. Here's your chance to show that wild trout fans can be just as organized. As long as we can get past the infighting and species preferences.

There's nothing controversial about this petition. It simply states facts based on existing scientific research. Again, we don't want to get in the weeds in delineating biomass limits for where we're "ok with stocking" or where we're not.

I signed. Thanks for starting this petition.

And I agree with your description above. That summarizes it very well.

By the way, no one, on either side, should think of this as an attack on the PFBC.

It is SUPPORTING those in the PFBC who want to shift the hatchery trout away from the native brook trout streams to other waters.

And there are many of them. They need more political support. This is a step in the right direction.

Personal letters are also very useful, both supporting the general principle of ending stocking over native brook trout, and mentioning specific streams with brookie populations that you want stocking ended on.

 

[flyguyfishing]

Currently, how many streams with wild brookies are stocked? Can you name 5-10 examples?

(This is not a ‘challenge your position’’ type of post. I simply do not know which streams have wild brookies and are stocked)

 

[silverfox]

flyguyfishing wrote:
Currently, how many streams with wild brookies are stocked? Can you name 5-10 examples?

(This is not a ‘challenge your position’’ type of post. I simply do not know which streams have wild brookies and are stocked)

Off the top of my head, there are quite a few I know personally.

Out of curiosity, I just ran a query on the data in GIS to see how many STW overlap NR and came up with 561 overlaps statewide. Now, I'm sure some of those NR streams are NR BT, BUT, there are also obviously quite a few NR brookie streams in that mix.

Unfortunately, the dataset from PFBC doesn't specify species composition in the NR vectors, so I can't definitively say exactly how many cases there are that are brook trout only.

 

[troutbert]

silverfox wrote:

flyguyfishing wrote:
Currently, how many streams with wild brookies are stocked? Can you name 5-10 examples?

(This is not a ‘challenge your position’’ type of post. I simply do not know which streams have wild brookies and are stocked)

Off the top of my head, there are quite a few I know personally.

Out of curiosity, I just ran a query on the data in GIS to see how many STW overlap NR and came up with 561 overlaps statewide. Now, I'm sure some of those NR streams are NR BT, BUT, there are also obviously quite a few NR brookie streams in that mix.

Unfortunately, the dataset from PFBC doesn't specify species composition in the NR vectors, so I can't definitively say exactly how many cases there are that are brook trout only.

Also, there are many streams stocked by coop hatcheries, which do not show up on the layer you searched.

The PFBC has never published the sections stocked by the coop hatcheries.

The number of streams stocked by the PFBC and the coop hatcheries with brook trout populations on the natural reproduction list goes far into the hundreds.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

I support the general concept of the petition, however, I think the organizers would have been better off using a FEW concise citations that look at the effects of hatchery trout on wild populations, ie the montana studies amongst others. The information blast overwhelms many and many of the citations are not directly related to the effects of stocking on native salmonid populations.

Also, a group would be better served to work with PFBC to define a stream and define wild populations of brook trout. As Mike mentioned is this one fish, a certain biomass, etc? Its easy to say the entire stream, but take our NCPA freestoners. First Fork, Kettle, Big Pine, Lycoming, Loyalsock, Muncy etc all have brook trout populations in their headwaters. In most cases the stocked trout water that is most heavily used is far downstream in sections that may get used by trout seasonally, but are vastly different resources than they are in their headwaters.

I think wild trout enthusiasts all have interest in protecting wild trout populations, especially brook trout. It is somewhat comical, but overall disappointing to see the bickering that is occurring on Facebook from the brown trout petition crowd and NFC.

My thought overall is that if we continue to protect and improve water quality. we will have wild trout for generations to come. Continued improvement of PFBCs stocking program is a part of the puzzle as is watershed scale restoration efforts to reconnect streams to their floodplains, increase runoff retention and large scale riparian plantings.

Wild trout and Class A designations are tied to significant water quality protections that are and will continue to be politicized. One of my biggest concerns with efforts to make sweeping CRALO designations, and stocking reductions is the potential political backlash that could jeopardize the established water quality protections.

 

[silverfox]

troutbert wrote:

silverfox wrote:

flyguyfishing wrote:
Currently, how many streams with wild brookies are stocked? Can you name 5-10 examples?

(This is not a ‘challenge your position’’ type of post. I simply do not know which streams have wild brookies and are stocked)

Off the top of my head, there are quite a few I know personally.

Out of curiosity, I just ran a query on the data in GIS to see how many STW overlap NR and came up with 561 overlaps statewide. Now, I'm sure some of those NR streams are NR BT, BUT, there are also obviously quite a few NR brookie streams in that mix.

Unfortunately, the dataset from PFBC doesn't specify species composition in the NR vectors, so I can't definitively say exactly how many cases there are that are brook trout only.

Also, there are many streams stocked by coop hatcheries, which do not show up on the layer you searched.

The PFBC has never published the sections stocked by the coop hatcheries.

The number of streams stocked by the PFBC and the coop hatcheries with brook trout populations on the natural reproduction list goes far into the hundreds.

Right. I think a lot of the STW count as either state hatchery fish or co-op fish. Though I know for a fact that some co-ops are stocking streams that aren't listed as STW.

I doubt even PFBC has a handle on exactly where all the stocking is going on. Until there are some reforms on the legality of stocking public waters, that's going to continue to be an issue.

 

[silverfox]

lycoflyfisher wrote:
I support the general concept of the petition, however, I think the organizers would have been better off using a FEW concise citations that look at the effects of hatchery trout on wild populations, ie the montana studies amongst others. The information blast overwhelms many and many of the citations are not directly related to the effects of stocking on native salmonid populations.

Also, a group would be better served to work with PFBC to define a stream and define wild populations of brook trout. As Mike mentioned is this one fish, a certain biomass, etc? Its easy to say the entire stream, but take our NCPA freestoners. First Fork, Kettle, Big Pine, Lycoming, Loyalsock, Muncy etc all have brook trout populations in their headwaters. In most cases the stocked trout water that is most heavily used is far downstream in sections that may get used by trout seasonally, but are vastly different resources than they are in their headwaters.

I think wild trout enthusiasts all have interest in protecting wild trout populations, especially brook trout. It is somewhat comical, but overall disappointing to see the bickering that is occurring on Facebook from the brown trout petition crowd and NFC.

My thought overall is that if we continue to protect and improve water quality. we will have wild trout for generations to come. Continued improvement of PFBCs stocking program is a part of the puzzle as is watershed scale restoration efforts to reconnect streams to their floodplains, increase runoff retention and large scale riparian plantings.

Wild trout and Class A designations are tied to significant water quality protections that are and will continue to be politicized. One of my biggest concerns with efforts to make sweeping CRALO designations, and stocking reductions is the potential political backlash that could jeopardize the established water quality protections.

Again, we're opposed to the practice of stocking over wild native brook trout. Period. So I personally won't entertain the discussion of where I feel it's ok vs where it's not. My stance on this is binary.

The citations used were provided by USGS and that list is the exact list that USGS uses to cite why stocking over brook trout is a bad idea. I'd rather use a complete list from a federal agency that has already been fully vetted than pair it down so it's more easily digestible for the entire population.

Unfortunately, we've been made out to be the enemy by some folks. I honestly believe that it's mostly due to the fact that nonnative species ARE deleterious to wild native brook trout and we've got a lot of nonnative fans in the state. Any evidence that one species is damaging to the other is a tough pill to swallow if you're a fan of the nonnatives. That's a pretty sad state of affairs. It's not surprising though. There was a lot of uproar recently when a western state announced they were going to start manually removing rainbows. Unfortunately, fishermen have a hard time separating what they enjoy doing from what is environmentally or ecologically appropriate.

 

[troutbert]

silverfox wrote:

troutbert wrote:

silverfox wrote:

flyguyfishing wrote:
Currently, how many streams with wild brookies are stocked? Can you name 5-10 examples?

(This is not a ‘challenge your position’’ type of post. I simply do not know which streams have wild brookies and are stocked)

Off the top of my head, there are quite a few I know personally.

Out of curiosity, I just ran a query on the data in GIS to see how many STW overlap NR and came up with 561 overlaps statewide. Now, I'm sure some of those NR streams are NR BT, BUT, there are also obviously quite a few NR brookie streams in that mix.

Unfortunately, the dataset from PFBC doesn't specify species composition in the NR vectors, so I can't definitively say exactly how many cases there are that are brook trout only.

Also, there are many streams stocked by coop hatcheries, which do not show up on the layer you searched.

The PFBC has never published the sections stocked by the coop hatcheries.

The number of streams stocked by the PFBC and the coop hatcheries with brook trout populations on the natural reproduction list goes far into the hundreds.

Right. I think a lot of the STW count as either state hatchery fish or co-op fish. Though I know for a fact that some co-ops are stocking streams that aren't listed as STW.

I doubt even PFBC has a handle on exactly where all the stocking is going on. Until there are some reforms on the legality of stocking public waters, that's going to continue to be an issue.

I'm pretty sure that that layer is only for PFBC stocked sections. That layer is probably pretty accurate.

The stocking by the coop hatcheries is a whole different thing. The PFBC has never published the streams stocked by the coops, in any form.

Some of the streams in the layer you looked at are stocked by both the PFBC and a coop. But the layer is info on where the PFBC stocks.

Streams stocked only by coops are not on that layer.

 

[troutbert]

flyguyfishing wrote:
Currently, how many streams with wild brookies are stocked? Can you name 5-10 examples?

(This is not a ‘challenge your position’’ type of post. I simply do not know which streams have wild brookies and are stocked)

There are hundreds.

But here a few examples that people may know of:

Little Kettle Creek

Young Womans Creek

Mix Run

Medix Run

East Licking Creek

West Branch Fishing Creek (Sullivan Cty)

Wolf Run (Centre)

Sixmile Run (Centre)

 

[wildtrout2]

troutbert wrote:

flyguyfishing wrote:
Currently, how many streams with wild brookies are stocked? Can you name 5-10 examples?

(This is not a ‘challenge your position’’ type of post. I simply do not know which streams have wild brookies and are stocked)

There are hundreds.

But here a few examples that people may know of:

Little Kettle Creek

Young Womans Creek

Mix Run

Medix Run

East Licking Creek

West Branch Fishing Creek (Sullivan Cty)

Wolf Run (Centre)

Sixmile Run (Centre)

TB, doesn't the EB of Fishing Creek have AMD issues? I heard there are still some nice natives in there though.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

wildtrout2 wrote:

troutbert wrote:

flyguyfishing wrote:
Currently, how many streams with wild brookies are stocked? Can you name 5-10 examples?

(This is not a ‘challenge your position’’ type of post. I simply do not know which streams have wild brookies and are stocked)

There are hundreds.

But here a few examples that people may know of:

Little Kettle Creek

Young Womans Creek

Mix Run

Medix Run

East Licking Creek

West Branch Fishing Creek (Sullivan Cty)

Wolf Run (Centre)

Sixmile Run (Centre)

TB, doesn't the EB of Fishing Creek have AMD issues? I heard there are still some nice natives in there though.

I'll add Little Bear Creek (Lycoming Co)

I am not aware of EB Fishing Creek having AMD issues, I do believe it would have acidity issues from acid deposition due to the bedrock present there. Most of the adjacent watersheds face the same challenges.

 

[troutbert]

wildtrout2 wrote:

troutbert wrote:

flyguyfishing wrote:
Currently, how many streams with wild brookies are stocked? Can you name 5-10 examples?

(This is not a ‘challenge your position’’ type of post. I simply do not know which streams have wild brookies and are stocked)

There are hundreds.

But here a few examples that people may know of:

Little Kettle Creek

Young Womans Creek

Mix Run

Medix Run

East Licking Creek

West Branch Fishing Creek (Sullivan Cty)

Wolf Run (Centre)

Sixmile Run (Centre)

TB, doesn't the EB of Fishing Creek have AMD issues? I heard there are still some nice natives in there though.

I'm talking about the WEST Branch Fishing Creek.

That is a stream where stocking is taking place over native brook trout.

I'm pretty sure that there is no mine drainage in the West Branch.

 

[k-bob]

Blue is low buffering burgoon bedrock. EBFC has less helpful geology than WBFC, which has some class a tribs.