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

[troutbert]

The water quality on East Branch Fishing Creek is a good topic. Maybe you could start another thread on that.

And keep this thread about the petition to end stocking over brook trout.

 

[Stenonema]

I have not been active on this forum for a very long time (2006?). I used this forum to evaluate the receptiveness of other anglers to the value of the migratory brown trout. In one of my last comments I remember saying, I am off to achieve the goal of protecting these trout that I have come to love admire and respect for their will to live.
It's been so long my login name should be changed to Maccaffertium.

Absolutely blown away by the following quote and it's shallow, linear, binary and most of all arrogant virtue signaling climax that it is a sad state of affairs to be a fan of the wild brown trout in Pennsylvania.


SilverFox (quote):
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. "Unfortunately, fishermen have a hard time separating what they enjoy doing from what is environmentally or ecologically appropriate."


Who are we to define for the environment, the ecologies, nature itself what is more appropriate? We are not that big, let's let nature decide.

Ethically I am of the opinion that we should seek from our own existence to have the least negative impact to nature while surviving ourselves.
We should do everything we can to control the introduction of invasive species of all kinds. Unfortunately with a fight fire mentality we cry when they are here. We create the weather then complain about standing in the rain. Once they are here it has been my experience, they are nearly impossible to eradicate.

The human arrogance to control the decision of what deserves to live where on this planet is the same sin that brought the brown trout here.
We can't fix one sin with another. Perhaps this is a sin we don't have the power to wash away. Perhaps there is good reason for that.

With that said I should mention that I don't look at our wild flowing freshwater rivers and streams exactly the same way that I look at the farmers field or my lawn. Some places are sacred.

The fastest and best way to achieve a goal is a straight path. The Brook trout guy is trying to play the side of the more virtuous by objecting to change when there is absolutely no evidence that they care any more about the brook trout than anybody else.

You cannot protect both yourself and a fish.

Something new is happening. Change is happening. Change makes some people uncomfortable. There are some uncomfortable people on this forum expressing that sentiment.

The change was not accomplished here on this forum and it was not accomplished through Trout Unlimited, but it was accomplished.

There is much to be learned by that. A grassroots movement that has the courage to walk away from distraction was and is necessary to maintain a straight line to make change and attain a goal.

The change is a story of two firsts.
1: For the first time in PA trout management history a petition and a true grassroots movement utilizing social media accomplished a regulatory amendment at the PFBC level.

2: For the first time the migratory brown trout was recognized of value and targeted for protection.

And yet, some angler conservationists are not happy. They played the part of distractor, demeanor and dismisser in this first of it's kind accomplishment in wild trout management. Amazing isn't it?

Change makes people uncomfortable. Especially when it is not their own idea and they fancy themselves as the all knowing fly fisherman.

Don't try to say there is not competition and ego driving many anglers in this sport.

For them it's about them. The lens these people view the world through might see another angler or group as a threat. The same person would view anyone in wild trout conservation as someone who is attempting to elevate their own personal status. The same person would not recognize someone who is driven solely with the purpose of protecting wild trout and native trout. #itsaboutthefish

Competition is the number one hurdle facing the wild trout conservation movement in Pennsylvania.

In Pennsylvania Not one brook trout was made more protected nor was the value of the brook trout ever made more elevated by the dismissal of the value of the Brown trout as an invasive.
Natural conservation was never elevated by marginalizing the existence of another free and wild living creature.

The adnausium invasive discussion at this point is an obvious protection of how someone feels about the Brown trout, not the protection of the Brook trout.

Who is to say that a different, first of it's kind management of the introduced invasive Brown cannot work to the benefit of the brook trout in the long run?
Can we at least entertain the idea and have the discussion of the potential benefits of a new approach to managing our wild brown trout without someone standing up in the back of the room and yelling 'INVASIVE', to end the discussion and protect their own self image as though they are the only one in the room to understand this already. Quickly followed by someone pointing out the brook trout is a char... I want to puke. Everyone knows already, please sit down.

In nature change is natural.

Every change is met with change creating balance making life possible.

America as a developing nation had a strong need of resources to earn it's freedom and conquer tyrants on the worlds behalf. Our environment paid that price. It is slowly healing.

The Brown trout is here. I didn't introduce it and neither did any of you. It is not going anywhere. These are important facts not to be ignored and dismissed around someone's feelings about our destructive but necessary past.

If by introducing another species from this awesome planet into another region is made unnatural by our own touch, we by these same standards cannot make it more natural by our own touch by altering it.

When will we learn?

I always laugh when a woman tries to dye her hair back to natural. It never works, she can get close, but it's not natural. She has to let the roots grow out to the ends for that. When are we going to have enough respect for nature to let go and let the roots grow to the ends?

When will begin valuing what we currently have and show appreciation for it by protecting it?

Should I feel wrong for appreciating the wild brown trout?

Who is to say, the study of an invasive cannot be used to benefit the native species?

When we understand the greatest negative impact of stocking over our wild trout only then can we stock with the least negative impact to our wild trout.

The wild migratory brown trout was targeted for protection by the petitioned for amendment to the Extended Season regulation as the fish that demonstrates the most observable cost of stocking over our wild trout. They now have value.

Anyone who has said, We need evidence to support the need for an amendment for regulatory protection of our wild trout resource in Pennsylvania should be easily recognized as the person who has the shoe on the wrong foot in conservation, protecting the wrong thing and missing the point of the change and to where the change goes into the future that we all should desire.
The desire for this state to demonstrate it's greatest potential as a trout state with preferential management for our native brook trout.

In the world today you are not accomplishing anything if you don't have a hater. I am just surprised by the disguise worn by the haters on this issue. The disguise of those who hope to steal from the momentum built by those engaged in beneficial change in conservation for their own benefit.

If you don't like something that was written here, that alone does not make it wrong. Change cannot be accomplished without the courage to have difficult discussions. If it hurts consider the truth of it.

 

[troutbert]

lycoflyfisher wrote:

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)

Little Bear Creek is a good example.

Honey Creek (the upper part, which is freestone) was mentioned in another thread.

 

[silverfox]

troutbert wrote:

lycoflyfisher wrote:

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)

Little Bear Creek is a good example.

Honey Creek (the upper part, which is freestone) was mentioned in another thread.

I'll mention the one I've referenced before where I found dead sub legal brookies. Piney Run in Somerset. Cub Run which is right next door is one that boggles my mind. When I first saw that stream I went home and double-checked the stocking list because I couldn't believe that anyone would stock such a small stream. Cub Run is all of about 4 feet wide in most places.

I know those streams have an inert base and they're classified as "infertile". There are still good populations of self-sustaining wild brook trout there though. I wish I knew how many got killed accidentally due to being hooked while folks are fishing for stockers.

 

[troutbert]

silverfox wrote:

troutbert wrote:

lycoflyfisher wrote:

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)

Little Bear Creek is a good example.

Honey Creek (the upper part, which is freestone) was mentioned in another thread.

I'll mention the one I've referenced before where I found dead sub legal brookies. Piney Run in Somerset. Cub Run which is right next door is one that boggles my mind. When I first saw that stream I went home and double-checked the stocking list because I couldn't believe that anyone would stock such a small stream. Cub Run is all of about 4 feet wide in most places.

I know those streams have an inert base and they're classified as "infertile". There are still good populations of self-sustaining wild brook trout there though. I wish I knew how many got killed accidentally due to being hooked while folks are fishing for stockers.

Anybody else have streams to add? There are plenty in western PA, in the Allegheny and Clarion drainages.

 

[RLeep2]

>>Anybody else have streams to add? There are plenty in western PA, in the Allegheny and Clarion drainages.>>

There are many, I’m sure. So far as the ANF region is concerned, it seems fairly safe to say that pretty much any currently stocked stream section averaging under 30 feet in width with good water quality and temperature regimes within the brook trout’s tolerance probably has a wild brook trout population that ranges in abundance from incidental to fairly strong, say in the very low class D to mid class B range just to put an estimation quantifier on it. My long term observational guess (with emphasis on the word “guess”) is that far more of these streams are towards the lower or poorer end of this scale than the higher or better end.

There are a lot of things in this overall discussion that need at least some level of agreement in terms of definitions and valuations. To be absolutely frank, one of the first, IMO anyway, is to assign an inherent or intrinsic valuation to the brook trout’s indigenous status. Not everyone agrees as to the degree that the brook trout’s indigenous status should serve as a driver for fisheries management decisions and I have to admit to being a bit conflicted about it myself.

I tend to see the idea of ending all stocking over “any” wild brook trout population as a locomotive of objective single-solution thinking that runs headlong into a stone wall of subjectivity, preferences and situational variation and serves little useful purpose other than being a mustering point for those of like-minded zealotry. That’s fine. This is one of the ways we conduct the policy debate whether we are talking about what to do about immigration, brook trout management or anything else.

I think perhaps what we need to do is test our various beliefs and convictions with a series of studies; here in Pennsylvania, with our brook trout. Noting what New Jersey or Maryland may have done is interesting and perhaps even useful, but of limited utility to us here when we compare the scope of the resource and the prevailing demography between the 3 places. I’d like to see us choose a range of current stream sections across the state where stocking occurs over wild brook trout populations, say 15-20 or so. They should be chosen to reflect as best possible such variables as historic brook trout abundance, angling pressure and current stocking rates and any other relevant factor that would be of value. Stop all stocking in these test sections for (how about) seven years and see what we get. So far as the streams in the ANF region and those on the periphery that I am most familiar with, my guess is that we won’t see significant changes for the better in brook trout abundance in the majority of studied waters. I’d love to be proven wrong, but I don’t think I will be.

And once all this is done and we have the results, one of the issues we can then take under consideration is whether the indigenous status of brook trout in those of the tested waters that did not perform well is important enough to us to reduce the social and angling opportunity values of these waters by deciding to not resume stocking.

I know that this is not the question you asked, but my reply is at least related to your original question and I needed to bag off about all this. Now, I feel better…

 

[troutbert]

I don't do Facebook, or other social media stuff.

But those who do, please spread the petition to those who might be interested.

 

[LetortAngler]

Stenonema,

Well said. And thank you for all that youre doing, and everything that you have done to help protect our wild brown trout.

 

[silverfox]

LetortAngler wrote:
Stenonema,

Well said. And thank you for all that youre doing, and everything that you have done to help protect our wild brown trout.

I love how any discussion about brook trout protection gets hijacked and turned into a discussion about brown trout protections. :roll:

At least we have all those C&R brook trout only streams throughout the state.

 

[troutbert]

Both the brook trout and the brown trout petitions show the PFBC that some people care about wild trout.

No need for wrangling between the two.

This thread, though, is about the brookie petition. I hope a lot of people sign it.

 

[sarce]

2 example streams that quickly come to mind in central PA:

South Fork Beech Creek
Standing Stone Creek

 

[troutbert]

The number of signatures is up to 492.

Very close to 500.

I didn't know what to expect.

But especially considering that the petition has probably not been distributed all that widely, I think it's pretty good!

 

[KenU]

I tried to sign on and date a few bucks, but it doesn't seem to be working.

 

[troutbert]

KenU wrote:
I tried to sign on and date a few bucks, but it doesn't seem to be working.

Ken, it's now at 498, so it's gone up a few more since mid-day, so must still be working.

Try signing it again.

Maybe they just don't want your money!

 

[silverfox]

I was just poking around the GIS layers while killing some time before having to run out to run errands. One of the things I've heard PFBC mention a few times recently during discussions about exemptions for stocking Class A's is that they do not grant exceptions for stocking Class A brook trout waters.

What makes this such a muddy argument is the way waters are broken up into sections. So a headwater section may be classified as Class A brook for about 1 mile or so, then it becomes STW. So it is technically accurate to say "we don't stock over Class A brook trout". There are still several streams across the state where they are stocking right up to the boundary of the Class A brook. In some cases still with brook trout and brown trout.

I have to question the intent here. Saying you don't "stock over Class A brook trout" while stocking right up to the line w/ brown trout defies logic to me. It seems underhanded.

I have an issue too with the latest TMP where they did revise the language to say that they consider the species of the water when choosing which species to stock. They're not supposed to be stocking brook trout where wild native brook trout exist. Yet according to the stocking schedule and stream classifications, they certainly still are.

All the NR brook trout streams aside, these are the Class A brook trout streams that still get stocked immediately below the Class A line. These are just the Class A brook trout, not Class A mixed. Again, there is plausible deniability I guess because these technically aren't "stocked class A", but realistically, what is the argument for why this should continue or how stocking brown trout couldn't result in a population of naturally reproducing brown trout which could ultimately end up displacing the brook trout or at best, converting class a brook to class a mixed?

Clearfield
Moose Creek - stocked with rainbows

Columbia/Schuylkill
Little Catawissa Creek - stocked w/ brook, brown

Jefferson
Rattlesnake Run - stocked with brown trout

Perry County
Sherman Creek - stocked w/ brown, rainbow, golden

Warren
Fourmile Run - stocked with rainbows

Also, this is just the state's record of stocking. It doesn't account for the unknown stocking situations where people dump fish without permits and nobody knows about it. Or the rogue Co-ops that apparently decide to stock streams not listed as STW.

This also doesn't account for streams like the Nescopeck where most of the tribs are Class A brook but the mainstem itself is stocked.

 

[troutbert]

silverfox wrote:

Or the rogue Co-ops that apparently decide to stock streams not listed as STW.

The PFBC allows the coops to stock streams not listed as STW.

The STW listings and GIS layer is just where the PFBC stocks. It does not include the waters stocked by the coops.

At least that is how it was in the past. If anyone knows that has changed, please let us know.

 

[RLeep2]

>>I have to question the intent here. Saying you don't "stock over Class A brook trout" while stocking right up to the line w/ brown trout defies logic to me. It seems underhanded.>>

FWIW, I don't think you do your cause any favors by repeatedly implying malicious or "underhanded" intent on the part of the PFBC.

Additionally, as I am sure you are aware, streams are dynamic systems and species colonization has a lot more to do with agreeable physical and chemical conditions than who dumped a bucket of brown trout 17 feet downstream from the bottom of the Class A ST section.

Four Mile in Warren County is probably a good example of this. Sec 01 has, so far as I am aware, been Class A for ST dating almost all the way back to the original Operation Future surveys of the late 70's. The lower portion of the Class A section has always had a residual wild BT population as has (at least) the top half of Sec 02. So far, based on the information we have, this has not resulted in Sec 01 being overrun with wild brown trout even after close to 40 years of Class A management. And again, my guess would be that this is much more about the strength of the current ST pop in Sec 01 and maybe some other factors like alkalinity and low sediment load than anything to do with stocking. The browns are already there or at least well within range. If someday, they become dominant, it won't be because of stocking unless we are talking about the act of Original Sin which brought the BT in the first place and that train left the station a long time ago..

I have to admit to being somewhat confused as to what you folks want to do or see as your goal. To my way of thinking, you seem to tilt at a lot of windmills such as this sectional border stocking stuff.

All offered not so much as criticism as an effort to understand. Thanks!

 

[troutbert]

I think that if stocking was ended on Fourmile Run that the brook trout population would increase.

It would remain a mixed population. But with more brook trout and larger brook trout then is the case now, with stocking.

This is based on what I've seen on other streams, when stocking was ended over mixed populations.

I think many fisheries biologists in the PFBC would be happy to end stocking small wild trout streams like this. And probably the Allegheny National Forest biologist also.

The whole point is to improve brook trout populations.

And ending stocking on small wild trout streams like this would make more hatchery trout available for Tionesta Creek, or other places.

 

[silverfox]

RLeep2 wrote:
>>I have to question the intent here. Saying you don't "stock over Class A brook trout" while stocking right up to the line w/ brown trout defies logic to me. It seems underhanded.>>

FWIW, I don't think you do your cause any favors by repeatedly implying malicious or "underhanded" intent on the part of the PFBC.

For years I've asked these questions directly and gotten nowhere. Most times without even a response. I started trying to simply ask questions and ask for an explanation so I could understand the situation better. There's never an answer as to why they continue doing things like stocking 5lb brown trout right up to the imaginary line on skinny Class A water.

I just can't, for the life of me understand how that seems like a good idea. I guess they just assume someone will catch it and kill it, but then they put out things saying that everyone already practices catch and release so there is no reason for C&R regs. So if everyone is practicing C&R and there's no reason for regs, why stock something like that in a Class A stream? Whether it's predation or the likelihood of spawning success from a breeder age/size fish, it doesn't seem like a great idea.

RLeep2 wrote:
Additionally, as I am sure you are aware, streams are dynamic systems and species colonization has a lot more to do with agreeable physical and chemical conditions than who dumped a bucket of brown trout 17 feet downstream from the bottom of the Class A ST section.

I also understand that sometimes our theory on why nonnative fish shouldn't start a self-sustaining population is nothing more than a hunch. Clear Shade Creek, Cub Run and Piney run are good examples of this. Inert base, low alkalinity/carbonate hardness, pH swings, sediment, pollution, and lower temperatures "should" mean that brown trout would have a hard time with natural reproduction. Yet they're naturally reproducing there.

RLeep2 wrote:
Four Mile in Warren County is probably a good example of this. Sec 01 has, so far as I am aware, been Class A for ST dating almost all the way back to the original Operation Future surveys of the late 70's. The lower portion of the Class A section has always had a residual wild BT population as has (at least) the top half of Sec 02. So far, based on the information we have, this has not resulted in Sec 01 being overrun with wild brown trout even after close to 40 years of Class A management. And again, my guess would be that this is much more about the strength of the current ST pop in Sec 01 and maybe some other factors like alkalinity and low sediment load than anything to do with stocking. The browns are already there or at least well within range. If someday, they become dominant, it won't be because of stocking unless we are talking about the act of Original Sin which brought the BT in the first place and that train left the station a long time ago..

I'm sure there are places where it works out like that. To be clear, all brown trout populations are due to stocking. I've said before that the continued stocking only increases the likelihood of a self-sustaining population. Places, as I mentioned above, are the result of constant recent stocking. Those fish didn't migrate there. If browns were never stocked there then there would be no wild population of them. All I'm asking for is that we stop trying to create more wild brown trout populations where they don't currently exist and might displace brook trout. Why tempt fate? Why not stick with triploid rainbows and yellow trout in sensitive brook trout waters?

RLeep2 wrote:
I have to admit to being somewhat confused as to what you folks want to do or see as your goal. To my way of thinking, you seem to tilt at a lot of windmills such as this sectional border stocking stuff.

All offered not so much as criticism as an effort to understand. Thanks!

As I said in that last paragraph, let's stop putting brown trout where they might expand and displace brook trout. The studies linked in the petition explain why and how.

 

[JeffP]

I have seen bass chase a tiny brookie on to the bank of Hammer Creek. I saved him. I am sure the trout stocked there do a number on them as well.