PFBC Meeting regarding proposed fee increases - Friday June 10 2022

[FarmerDave]

Yea the class system is irrelevant for management of the species long term. Density can be more of a statement about the stream sometimes rather than the priority of the native brook trout for conservation genetics wise. If you have a small population of native brook trout rated “Class C” by PAFB that are eeking out an existence in a stream that has higher temps, known invasive species, siltation problems or any stressor ect. there may be valuable genetic adaptations or genes/gene complexes that are a big part of the reason those fish are there. This concept is in the literature if i am remembering correctly is called “rear edge” native brook trout to denote that these fish are on the fringe as far as where impairments are really damaging populations(not strongholds) and this selection in areas with good connectivity can actually cause natural selection for some highly valuable genes that can help the species if they don’t blink out and the genes stay on the landscape and are not extirpated.

Agreed, but I have to say that stream density is almost always a statement about the stream. And I say almost because there might be one of two exceptions (covering my butt).

My point was that in parts of the state where there is very little buffering, you just do not find class A. Even Class B are rare. Take the ANF for example. Why stock everything. I cut my teeth fishing tiny blue lines for natives which have been identified more recently as class C and D. I don't count fish, but I have had many outings where I caught dozens in such streams. I've even fished streams I can step across in most places.

So why stock everything if the best in an area is class B or C?

The answer is often because the local economies do make a fair amount of money for a short period of time during the early season off of angers targeting the stocked trout. Its about the money. But I still don't like it. Besides, I am just getting too old to walk miles to fish a tiny blue line.

About the "rear edge" brook trout populations... I do know of more than one small isolated populations of brook trout that are totally isolated by AMD and have been for a very long time. I thought I knew something special, but checking the PFBC website showed me that they know about most of them too. So, they certainly are not lost.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Agreed, but I have to say that stream density is almost always a statement about the stream. And I say almost because there might be one of two exceptions (covering my butt).

My point was that in parts of the state where there is very little buffering, you just do not find class A. Even Class B are rare. Take the ANF for example. Why stock everything. I cut my teeth fishing tiny blue lines for natives which have been identified more recently as class C and D. I don't count fish, but I have had many outings where I caught dozens in such streams. I've even fished streams I can step across in most places.

So why stock everything if the best in an area is class B or C?

The answer is often because the local economies do make a fair amount of money for a short period of time during the early season off of angers targeting the stocked trout. Its about the money. But I still don't like it. Besides, I am just getting too old to walk miles to fish a tiny blue line.

About the "rear edge" brook trout populations... I do know of more than one small isolated populations of brook trout that are totally isolated by AMD and have been for a very long time. I thought I knew something special, but checking the PFBC website showed me that they know about most of them too. So, they certainly are not lost.

Those AmD stream native brook trout always surprise me.

Looking back and double checking myself “rear edge” in the paper I was referring to, brook trout at the edge of their range. In southern brook trout they are experiencing the temperature maximum stressors earlier than their northern counterparts will so there is useful knowledge to gain by looking at their adaptations/genetics. Its not as simple as transplant or stock more thermally tolerant brook trout everywhere because then you lose northern regional local genetic adaptations to a process called out breeding depression(breeding out good genes for local survival to southern non thermal tolerance genes in that example). Who knows, people starting to talk CRSPR gene editing for fish, might be able to insert the thermal tolerance genes without too much outbreeding depression? I don’t know. Couple of us kicked in a small amount of money to fund some research on this topic at Michigan state and it will be really interesting to see if they can identify thermal tolerance genes. Anglers can and do fund this research theres my plug for crowd funded native brook trout research.

But back to the class C example in Pa brook trout holding on in those streams through stressors that have made it that far may have some pretty valuable genes. Or it could be you have less fit genes or inbreeding depression isolation is extirpating them but that they could improve with a genetic rescue. Instead often the kiss of death to their population comes from stocked invasive fish because we don’t see their value and how class C populations represent valuable genetic diversity on the landscape.

 

[silverfox]

And now for the big white elephant that many are avoiding. I don't give the private clubs as much credit as some of you do. Yea, they are part of the problem. but lets talk about the white elephant in the room. It seems to me that many members of this choir, including TU favor brown trout over brookies. This isn't going to shift in favor of the natives as long as our loudest voices are not unified, and seem to care more for the invasives.

You're exactly right. Whether people admit it outright or just think it and it guides how they prioritize what they do. Brook trout are listed as a Species of Greatest Conservation need in Pa, and one of the known threats is nonnative trout and specifically brown trout. Instead of focusing on the species that needs help, we're trying to protect both and hope for the best.

On Bob's creek and Wallacks branch, I'm sure the stated goal of all the habitat improvement was to help brook trout. I know for certain that was the stated goal for the Wallacks branch work. Ironically, I'm convinced that the habitat work probably expedited their displacement in both streams. All the habitat work created habitat that favors brown trout over brook trout (deep pools and ambush points).

Now we've got a serious messaging problem because we've got more protections designed for brown trout than brook trout. We've got people claiming the species live in harmony despite scientific evidence to the contrary. In 9 out of 10 streams the outcome is likely displacement and we've got people pointing to the one case where populations remained relatively stable and saying "see, there's no problem here".

We'll point to the economic impact from stocking and brown trout as justification for continuing to manage the way we have in the past. Brook trout will never generate the revenue that stocked trout or brown trout do. If that's our measure of resource management then brook trout are doomed. I will say that I don't drive 2 hours to Potter county to fish for stocked rainbows and wild brown trout. I have plenty of those options 10 minutes from my house. People like me are the minority though, so it doesn't really matter.

 

[Fish Sticks]

You're exactly right. Whether people admit it outright or just think it and it guides how they prioritize what they do. Brook trout are listed as a Species of Greatest Conservation need in Pa, and one of the known threats is nonnative trout and specifically brown trout. Instead of focusing on the species that needs help, we're trying to protect both and hope for the best.

On Bob's creek and Wallacks branch, I'm sure the stated goal of all the habitat improvement was to help brook trout. I know for certain that was the stated goal for the Wallacks branch work. Ironically, I'm convinced that the habitat work probably expedited their displacement in both streams. All the habitat work created habitat that favors brown trout over brook trout (deep pools and ambush points).

Now we've got a serious messaging problem because we've got more protections designed for brown trout than brook trout. We've got people claiming the species live in harmony despite scientific evidence to the contrary. In 9 out of 10 streams the outcome is likely displacement and we've got people pointing to the one case where populations remained relatively stable and saying "see, there's no problem here".

We'll point to the economic impact from stocking and brown trout as justification for continuing to manage the way we have in the past. Brook trout will never generate the revenue that stocked trout or brown trout do. If that's our measure of resource management then brook trout are doomed. I will say that I don't drive 2 hours to Potter county to fish for stocked rainbows and wild brown trout. I have plenty of those options 10 minutes from my house. People like me are the minority though, so it doesn't really matter.

Really want to see when the next time some one does a serious inventory of brook trout in our state. I almost guarantee we are operating on assumption we have more brook trout than we do providing false sense of security. Segloch run a prime example

 

[silverfox]

Really want to see when the next time some one does a serious inventory of brook trout in our state. I almost guarantee we are operating on assumption we have more brook trout than we do providing false sense of security. Segloch run a prime example

What concerns me is there's little to nothing we can do in a lot of places at this point. Bob's creek is a good example. Those brook trout are gone and they aren't coming back. There's nothing that could fix that mess at this point.

 

[Fish Sticks]

What concerns me is there's little to nothing we can do in a lot of places at this point. Bob's creek is a good example. Those brook trout are gone and they aren't coming back. There's nothing that could fix that mess at this point.

The negative habitat alterations that were permitted on that creek that likely favor brown trout and actively stocking brown something we know at this point is almost a sure fire way to get rid of brook trout. The fact that it had brook trout as a project objective makes me want to vomit.

 

[jdaddy]

Increase of $10 for my Permit for use of explosives. I'm good with that.

 

[Stenonema]

What is the one thing that we have complete control over that has the greatest potential positive impact for our wild trout (to include wild brook trout?) The answer is an obvious one for us in Pennsylvania, it's Stocking adult trout over our wild trout in our cold water streams. Until relatively recently the consensus with the people in positions of influence in wild trout management believed that there was no evidence that stocking over our wild trout had any negative impact. I believe we have come to a time finally where there has been a shift in this understanding throughout the community both up and down the ranks from the PFBC to the anglers and right and left from the spin anglers to the fly anglers. The connection growing to a vision of different potential for our wild trout resources with an altered mangement. This fight is not new or new for me. What divides us has changed and at a bad time. A time when the ceiling in this fight has been cracked.
With a focus of changing the management practice of stocking over wild trout and that being the common ground, we must make that our target. To accomplish hitting a target it requires a focus of will. I shoot bow with no-sights or instinctive. The act is a total matter of focus. When the mechanics are right and the target is achieved what remains is focus. Focus is the ability to separate the goal or target from all other thoughts. All other thoughts become distractions. The soldier in war is able to exclude thoughts of self preservation and is viewed as courage. Do we have the courage to put aside all other thought to achieve hitting our target?
We are not ready as anglers in Pennsylvania to display the courage to achieve that goal. Often we speak to our differences first rather than what brings us together and is common. This site is perhaps the greatest most observable documentation of that example.
The issue here of raising the price of licenses is money. Money is important in this game. Without money resources cannot be protected. The PFBC mission is not going to change. We must work with them. Remember our goal. It needs to touch on the fiscal tumbler in this lock to achieve change.
We must consider the angler that wants to catch stocked trout and has a tradition of first days on the stream. The PFBC must and so must we. These anglers are not wrong. We all share these resources and we must find common ground.
No where in the world is there a better opportunity to study the impacts of stocking. No where in the world is there more to gain by that understanding.
Last year a network of anglers worked together to achieve protection for wild trout successfully. A goal was achieved in the direction of our target. Remember what the target is. To be respectful we must speak to the common ground. For the first time in Pennsylvania's wild trout management history the wild trout that move were given value by regulatory protection. Richard Lewis the then President of the Commission spoke to the urgency to enact the regulation prior to years end to protect that years post spawn wild migratory brown trout.
Brown-liners are new group of anglers targeting waters that are not only traditionally un-stocked waters but are also damaged on various levels of pollution and environmental impact. They have made the connection to stocking and it's impact to growth potential. They have made the connection of growth potential to movement.
I know that is a bit of a word salad but please entertain these observations even if they are not your own to the potential that this may be correct. If correct, why is that important?
If correct and the future targeted science demonstrate this observable connection of stocking to movement and growth, stocking becomes the stressor that results in the wild brown trout competing directly with the brook trout year-round as both juvenile and adult.
Who doesn't like large trout? Large trout sell plane tickets. Revenue is needed. The brook trout does not have the fiscal draw that the brown trout does. Keep your eye on the target here........

The brook trout, native vs invasive argument becomes the distraction and the anti-aircraft flack exploding beside our cockpit as we make our dive-bombing run. The discussion divides us when we should be working together.
Silver Fox, I am going to call you out. You and a growing number of others have been very vocal about your position. You and the founding member of your organization have known from the beginning of the goal of cessation of stocking over our wild trout, (to include brook trout).

If you are willing to put aside how you feel about the brown trout as an invasive to protect the brook trout then you will see the other side, not as threat to you, your organization or movement. The rigid argument made that any management of the brown trout cannot be considered conservation stood in the way you and your group.

I apologize for length, grammatical error and run-ons. Please accept importance of time for me as I prepare to leave Pennsylvania for three months for Montana. If you are reading this comment with a hope to find error in it, you will. If you are reading this with an un-obstructed mental focus with the goal of understanding the intended message then it is my hopes that a connection has been made for you.

 

[silverfox]

Who doesn't like large trout? Large trout sell plane tickets. Revenue is needed. The brook trout does not have the fiscal draw that the brown trout does. Keep your eye on the target here........

The brook trout, native vs invasive argument becomes the distraction and the anti-aircraft flack exploding beside our cockpit as we make our dive-bombing run. The discussion divides us when we should be working together.
Silver Fox, I am going to call you out. You and a growing number of others have been very vocal about your position. You and the founding member of your organization have known from the beginning of the goal of cessation of stocking over our wild trout, (to include brook trout).

If you are willing to put aside how you feel about the brown trout as an invasive to protect the brook trout then you will see the other side, not as threat to you, your organization or movement. The rigid argument made that any management of the brown trout cannot be considered conservation stood in the way you and your group.

There it is. What divides is the inability to separate angling desires and money from ecological conservation. If we're going to value things based on what the biggest group of anglers wants, or what generates the most revenue then brook trout will lose that battle on every front. It's exactly why we are where we are right now. Decouple fishing from conservation and this all becomes much clearer.

Nonnative fish as a threat to brook trout is documented everywhere, including in PFBC's own management documents, TU's conservation strategies, and multiple state, federal, and academic agencies' documentation. For a nonprofit organization dedicated to the conservation of native fish, to ignore science and recommendations to conserve brook trout because a group of anglers likes brown trout would be a dereliction and violation of the nonprofit charter.

 

[Stenonema]

Ahhhh, thanks for so clearly and articulately describing the adolescence in a relationship of you, your organization and science that places us far too close to the center in the connection to nature.
Nature is dynamic and holistic, not static and reductionistic.
The disconnect lies at the foundation of what has allowed for us to destroy. Not valuing what we currently have enough to protect it. Not one brook trout was more greatly valued or protected by the dismissal of value of another species. A species that has always been a part of my ecology and quite frankly has altered my life trajectory. An argument could be made to that relationship being a positive influence or negative. It has pushed me into a more close relationship to nature and a desire to protect with a high degree of value to our native species. Non-native species are appearing in multitudes more-so today then ever.
I have a symbiotic relationship to the brown trout which I did not introduce. But, I am wrong. Brown trout according your thinking have no value and are a threat. Therefore they must be excluded.
As a farmer, landowner and wild trout advocate I have learned to accept that invasive species and change are part of this and once here, invasive species are nearly impossible to eradicate. Gypsy moth for example. During flair ups the cost to me to protect native species personally run in the thousands of dollars to spray.
The self centering dismissal of value to the brown trout has led to anglers tossing wild brown trout carelessly onto the banks as coon bait. We fail to learn from mistakes of our past.
The PFBC's mission is not going to change no matter how much you complain or scream to the value of the native species. Accept that. You said it yourself.
I did not wake up one morning and decide I was a conservation angler. At the hands of the experience of loss of a wild trout resource I became a conservation angler
Remember our shared goal. To value our wild trout (to include Native), enough to not stock over them.

I apologize if any of this stings a bit. I am not in the business of protecting how people feel. Nature has zero regard for how we feel.

 

[silverfox]

The Pennsylvania wildlife action plan lists brook trout as a species of greatest conservation need and brown trout as a threat with a recommendation for removal. Unless that directive is changed, as a native fish-centric organization, that's the guidance we'll follow. None of this is my idea. I'm only following established recommendations by reputable organizations, and discussing (or characterized as complaining or screaming) an uncomfortable topic to provide a different perspective.

As it applies to this thread, there is a cost-saving measure in consolidating stocking. That dovetails into brook trout conservation recommendations. A combination of license fee increases with the consolidation of stocking (cessation of stocking over brook trout) could result in a better financial position for PFBC.

 

[Stenonema]

The Pennsylvania wildlife action plan lists brook trout as a species of greatest conservation need and brown trout as a threat with a recommendation for removal. Unless that directive is changed, as a native fish-centric organization, that's the guidance we'll follow. None of this is my idea. I'm only following established recommendations by reputable organizations, and discussing (or characterized as complaining or screaming) an uncomfortable topic to provide a different perspective.

As it applies to this thread, there is a cost-saving measure in consolidating stocking. That dovetails into brook trout conservation recommendations. A combination of license fee increases with the consolidation of stocking (cessation of stocking over brook trout) could result in a better financial position for PFBC.

You describe lines in the sand validated by the Nativism science. We have decided for nature itself what is most natural based on our own existence. On a static time based on our arrival and what was here prior we have made nature as a dynamic of change completely static based on us.

At the birthing of your organization I reached out to you for support to stop the spread of non-native, non-wild invasive and non-wild native species, to use your language. You and your organization chose to draw lines in the sand for identity and validation over supporting a movement that led to non-species specific wild trout centric catch and release regulations that govern all waters outside of stocked sections for nearly six months out of the year in this state.
That fact does not go away because you don't like it.
For many anglers your organization jumped the shark in this state right there. Good thing is we can change. We can learn. We are counting on it after all we are asking it of others. Your organization has locked into something that has caused division and distraction from a shared goal.
The thing about drawing lines in the sand is that you fight for them. A new protection is formed. A protection of a line that isn't about the fish.

Quote: "As it applies to this thread, there is a cost-saving measure in consolidating stocking. That dovetails into brook trout conservation recommendations. A combination of license fee increases with the consolidation of stocking (cessation of stocking over brook trout) could result in a better financial position for PFBC."

This is the exact point that has been pushed by the Network opposed by your group and it's founding member by a word by word critique of a petition written with a targeted audience of the average angler. Take it a step further.... Please
But, why stop stocking over Brook trout? Because someone more reputable than yourself said so? That isn't going to work for anyone. How do you sell the idea? The idea, to be respectable must consider all those who share our resources to which the PFBC must represent. The virtuous stance is not a sell. No-one is sold on the protection of what we had. Let's start by valuing what we have first.

 

[silverfox]

You wanted a native fish centric organization (formed before you think it did) to sign a petition that was explicitly worded to protect brown trout. This would be like asking the American Cancer Society to sign a petition to reduce the price of cigarettes and then demonizing the Cancer Society for refusing to sign it.

The petition mentioned was billed as a means for "protecting migratory brown trout".

Petitioning to Protect and Manage Brown Trout in PA - Doc Fritchey Trout Unlimited

Would you, as a Pennsylvania trout angler, like to see our trout and waters achieve their greatest potential? Would you like to have the opportunity to pursue large wild brown […]

dftu.org

Dave Nihart said during the meeting where the regulation you're talking about was passed:

The one big thing this addresses, is we did receive comments from TU in regard to protecting migratory fish, and this will make those guys feel better, but I will say that this is something staff has been working on for many years, so it is good timing that we received their petition when we did.

That regulation change was in the trout management plan for years and talked about long before that. PFBC didn't do anything "because of the petition".

I agree with the dissection of the petition which I assume you saw as drawing a line in the sand. When Muskies Inc. starts a petition to protect musky in brown trout streams I hope to see you sign on and promote it. As snakeheads expand and start to encroach on brown trout water and the snakehead fans start asking for regulations to protect snakeheads, I'm sure you'll be supporting them right? How about that smallmouth bass and S. salar issue? Do we protect the bass? Blue catfish? That blue catfish thing is going to be interesting. They appear to be exploding at an incredible rate. MD has signs advising anglers to destroy any blue catfish they catch in the Potomac. Won't be long til they're up the Susky and it's tribs. If we're expected to simply accept the presence of whatever species shows up, then I assume you will too.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The stance of focusing on native species that evolved to interact sustainably with their coevolved species is not a virtue statement. Its the only way to prevent massive losses of biodiversity around the globe that are already happening due to many stressors, among them, these invasive species.

No matter what organism your talking about fish, mammal, or plant. Acknowledging something as invasive does not devalue it and actually protects it in its own evolved native range where it interacts sustainably with it’s ecosystem. Brown trout face hydro electric dams, invasive brook and rainbow trout, and habitat degradation in europe. If such an organization devoted to conservation of native fish was present in europe it would be talking about managing for the native brown trout. We have done nothing to deserve this false image that we are some bully on the block who has taken personal vendetta towards brown trout. Who says we don’t value them as much as native brook trout within their native range?

The problem with letting fishing into conservation is it never stops with invasive species culture. The brown trout is a huge part of your life and we are not saying thats a bad thing, in the age of the internet you could be doing great work in their native range. I learned this year that in Iran there is only one human being charged with conserving native brown trout and he is drowning while unique genes on the landscape in shrinking populations that are actually valuable to the species are at risk of being lost. Why not focus energy on that if one really values conservation of brown trout. We are not at risk of loosing hatchery descendent brown trout outside their native range, we have them in almost every state where they can survive. Conservation is protecting something that has conservation need or is at risk of lost by definition basically. Brown trout are on the world domination tour. Its like saying we need to protect jeff bezos from financial ruin. They occupy almost 100% of their global suitable habiatat (macintosh et al 2011). They have caused the loss of numerous native fish, amphibians, crustaceans, macro invertebrates around the world. When you lay the facts out there you can see your characterization of our group ignores the larger picture and how we in PA fit into it.


There are people dedicated to native brown trout conservation in europe and their not saying protect the invasive relatives of hatchery stock on the united states. Johannes Schoffman who spent his whole life traveling to war torn areas in russia, Afghanistan, and slovic countries risking his life to document some of the last genetically unique subtypes of brown trout in their native range(some thought to be extinct), thats love. He STILL has a section at the end of the book that documents brown trout’s impact as an invasive species.

Our organization doesn’t want to go to New Mexico and try to protect invasive brook trout that are wiping out rio grand cutthroats. We are cheering on YY super-males that seem to be on their way to securing that stream for the cutthroat.

There is no such thing as nativism science there is only science. We listen to it and it informs our actions, we are not making this stuff up. Its so sad in this day and age we have seen the death of experts. People devote their entire lives to studying, understanding, and keeping these species around and we dismiss them. When people pick their feelings about a creature over science it causes an immediate loss of coherent mission and sabotages a durable long lasting outcome. If we throw millions of years of evolution aside that have carved out an entire ecosystem of sustainable niches because we go with this false notion that “cats out of the bag”, alot of people don’t understand you have to continue to walk that path no matter what. You may not like where that path takes you. I have seen people complaining about small mouth “encroaching” on brown trout habitat. It starts to get a little silly if we say just anything goes until something……doesn't, in what we are calling conservation. I recently heard bob mallard asking matt supinski about smallmouth bass in the miramichi threatening native atlantic salmon after matt had accused Bob of wanting to wipe out all invasive trout(which isn’t even possible) and when it came down to a fish he liked and an invasive species was threatening it he got a little choked up and couldnt answer, it changed things for him. He obviously just doesn’t care about smallmouth and loves atlantic salmon and seemed like it would be fine with him if they were just removed because it would probably work for him personally. Out organization would support managing for the native atlantics in that scenario. The difference being we chose the ecosystem not our sport. What happens if we find out invasive flatheads are eating large brown trout? The path of invasive species can turn into a plank as seen in that example and many others.

The overwhelming saddening irony to all of this is by taking the recommendations of the scientific community we have drawn so much ire from people who are afraid of what they will lose personally from a fishing perspective and their actually not going to lose anything. The streams they are talking about ever doing removal on are tiny and no 20” brown trout to be found. The browns are the same size roughly or slightly bigger than the brook trout in most cases. The angling public wouldn’t even perceive a drop off yet the way you talk about the scientific communities recommendations, people begin conjuring up images of the president inn acting the defense production act for rotenone and mandating every township in Pa fill their fire engines with rotenone and mount some fantastical war time effort thats not even possible.

I agree that the common goal is stop hatchery fish native and nonnative invasive. But if we do not pick a watershed or two in Pa to listen to the scientific discoveries that shed light on how these fiah actually work in the wild, outside of the human mind or how wed like them too, our iconic state fish along with alot of other native fish, crustaceans, and amphibians will likely be lost too. Its not just one sport fish vs. another its the whole ecosystem at stake in those tiny areas you can actually do something about this in and we are fighting over something that would occur in Magnitudes less than 1% of pa stream miles.

 

[silverfox]

Also, just to clarify a few things. The only reason I'm responding to all this is to set the record straight on 2 things.

1. We opposed your petition because it was explicitly about brown trout. A nonnative fish. We are a native fish organization. We didn't oppose a change to protect brook trout because that's not how it was presented or billed.
2. I support what PFBC did with regard to C&R outside of STW, but I support it because PFBC did it and had planned on doing it for a long time, not because of some petition about brown trout. In fact, I haven't and didn't praise the change, even though I wanted to, because it was made out to be about brown trout when in fact it was for all wild trout.

 

[Stenonema]

Quote: "What divides is the inability to separate angling desires and money from ecological conservation."
This statement is generalized and is really only valid if pointed to the PFBC. I have heard it used in a 'point-to', of the angling community. You do not know for the angler what his desires are. The only ecological conservation that appears to be going on is our own.
Your organization didn't need to support this movement you attempt to discredit. The problem isn't that it didn't support. You know this but yet you continue to deflect. The problem is you opposed it. You didn't need to do that. You are doing it now. What are you protecting?
This has nothing to do with how any of us feels about the musky. This is about stocking over wild trout the target. Please remember the divisive distraction this has all become that I am attempting to point too.

"That regulation change was in the trout management plan for years and talked about long before that. PFBC didn't do anything "because of the petition".

This is a weak effort to dismiss.
Of course Dave Nihart said that... You don't think this was a new fight, Do you? You don't think credit is going to be given to a grassroots initiative by those who feel threatened by the demonstration of influence that it would represent, do you? I don't. That is why I am not surprised and actually predicted that comment that you quoted. How long were you waiting to pull that one. Hung on to that...
You and your organization continue to protect the organization at the expense of a unified effort to protect something much bigger than us all.
That weak dismissal to me is a demonstration of what this is about for you and others, Power, influence and money.
It's a hard thing for those motivated by power, money and influence to elevate their status to accept a grassroots movement of anglers or me personally to be credited with influencing change on that level. In our world, Influence is Power. That is what this is about for many in conservation today and represents how things do not change. Competition for power. Nature doesn't work in the same way.
You continue to attempt to blow one candle out so yours will burn brighter. That is how things are done in the human world, Right? You are applying it to the natural world as well.
Don't hate the brown trout for being a brown trout. We aren't loosing native species to the non-native species. We are loosing them to us.
Stop trying to deflect our own past environmental sins onto an innocent player in the game. That is all you are doing here. There is absolutely no proof that you care any more about the brook trout as a native species than I do. This is about achieving the most achievable ask and the most beneficial thing we can do today for the benefit of the Brook trout. You don't have to agree on how to get to that place where we no longer stock over wild trout and you can continue to hold onto your self protection but how weak is it to claim a falsehood to the man who wrote the petition who has been in this fight longer than you have been alive.
This has all become very predictable. I know where the discussion began and with who. I have heard the dismissals from others that you use. There isn't a limb you can take this discussion that I don't have a pruning shear. I don't have the time anymore for this.
I continue to ask you to sit in a live forum or podcast with me and lets have this discussion as publicly as we can make it.

 

[Stenonema]

The stance of focusing on native species that evolved to interact sustainably with their coevolved species is not a virtue statement. Its the only way to prevent massive losses of biodiversity around the globe that are already happening due to many stressors, among them, these invasive species.

No matter what organism your talking about fish, mammal, or plant. Acknowledging something as invasive does not devalue it and actually protects it in its own evolved native range where it interacts sustainably with it’s ecosystem. Brown trout face hydro electric dams, invasive brook and rainbow trout, and habitat degradation in europe. If such an organization devoted to conservation of native fish was present in europe it would be talking about managing for the native brown trout. We have done nothing to deserve this false image that we are some bully on the block who has taken personal vendetta towards brown trout. Who says we don’t value them as much as native brook trout within their native range?

The problem with letting fishing into conservation is it never stops with invasive species culture. The brown trout is a huge part of your life and we are not saying thats a bad thing, in the age of the internet you could be doing great work in their native range. I learned this year that in Iran there is only one human being charged with conserving native brown trout and he is drowning while unique genes on the landscape in shrinking populations that are actually valuable to the species are at risk of being lost. Why not focus energy on that if one really values conservation of brown trout. We are not at risk of loosing hatchery descendent brown trout outside their native range, we have them in almost every state where they can survive. Conservation is protecting something that has conservation need or is at risk of lost by definition basically. Brown trout are on the world domination tour. Its like saying we need to protect jeff bezos from financial ruin. They occupy almost 100% of their global suitable habiatat (macintosh et al 2011). They have caused the loss of numerous native fish, amphibians, crustaceans, macro invertebrates around the world. When you lay the facts out there you can see your characterization of our group ignores the larger picture and how we in PA fit into it.


There are people dedicated to native brown trout conservation in europe and their not saying protect the invasive relatives of hatchery stock on the united states. Johannes Schoffman who spent his whole life traveling to war torn areas in russia, Afghanistan, and slovic countries risking his life to document some of the last genetically unique subtypes of brown trout in their native range(some thought to be extinct), thats love. He STILL has a section at the end of the book that documents brown trout’s impact as an invasive species.

Our organization doesn’t want to go to New Mexico and try to protect invasive brook trout that are wiping out rio grand cutthroats. We are cheering on YY super-males that seem to be on their way to securing that stream for the cutthroat.

There is no such thing as nativism science there is only science. We listen to it and it informs our actions, we are not making this stuff up. Its so sad in this day and age we have seen the death of experts. People devote their entire lives to studying, understanding, and keeping these species around and we dismiss them. When people pick their feelings about a creature over science it causes an immediate loss of coherent mission and sabotages a durable long lasting outcome. If we throw millions of years of evolution aside that have carved out an entire ecosystem of sustainable niches because we go with this false notion that “cats out of the bag”, alot of people don’t understand you have to continue to walk that path no matter what. You may not like where that path takes you. I have seen people complaining about small mouth “encroaching” on brown trout habitat. It starts to get a little silly if we say just anything goes until something……doesn't, in what we are calling conservation. I recently heard bob mallard asking matt supinski about smallmouth bass in the miramichi threatening native atlantic salmon after matt had accused Bob of wanting to wipe out all invasive trout(which isn’t even possible) and when it came down to a fish he liked and an invasive species was threatening it he got a little choked up and couldnt answer, it changed things for him. He obviously just doesn’t care about smallmouth and loves atlantic salmon and seemed like it would be fine with him if they were just removed because it would probably work for him personally. Out organization would support managing for the native atlantics in that scenario. The difference being we chose the ecosystem not our sport. What happens if we find out invasive flatheads are eating large brown trout? The path of invasive species can turn into a plank as seen in that example and many others.

The overwhelming saddening irony to all of this is by taking the recommendations of the scientific community we have drawn so much ire from people who are afraid of what they will lose personally from a fishing perspective and their actually not going to lose anything. The streams they are talking about ever doing removal on are tiny and no 20” brown trout to be found. The browns are the same size roughly or slightly bigger than the brook trout in most cases. The angling public wouldn’t even perceive a drop off yet the way you talk about the scientific communities recommendations, people begin conjuring up images of the president inn acting the defense production act for rotenone and mandating every township in Pa fill their fire engines with rotenone and mount some fantastical war time effort thats not even possible.

I agree that the common goal is stop hatchery fish native and nonnative invasive. But if we do not pick a watershed or two in Pa to listen to the scientific discoveries that shed light on how these fiah actually work in the wild, outside of the human mind or how wed like them too, our iconic state fish along with alot of other native fish, crustaceans, and amphibians will likely be lost too. Its not just one sport fish vs. another its the whole ecosystem at stake in those tiny areas you can actually do something about this in and we are fighting over something that would occur in Magnitudes less than 1% of pa stream miles.

How do we get stocking stopped over our wild trout?

 

[CRB]

I don't like a license increase it will hurt the pafb as inflation hits my pocket book. IMHO.

I think the fear of loss of fishing experience will drive the sportsmen of the state to not support conservation methods that will impact the fishability of a said stream.

 

[silverfox]

Once again, if you have an issue with brown trout being identified as a threat to brook trout, directing your anger toward a small nonprofit is barking up the wrong tree.

 

[Stenonema]

Every single person who remotely knows me in the fishing community just said, "You Called that!"
Quote by SilverFox, quoting Dave Nihart.

"That regulation change was in the trout management plan for years and talked about long before that. PFBC didn't do anything "because of the petition".

Exactly when was the first time that amending the Extended season regulation for the benefit of wild trout management was brought up by the PFBC? In any meeting or otherwise when was the first time and by who? When was that. The meetings are viewable. I personally know and speak to biologists and commmiioners with the PFBC and have for years. Well anyone who knows me, knows I talk to everyone about this passion and amazingly some listen.

First time anyone has brought this up. Amazingly predictable. As strong an evidence that our thoughts on the motivations of others who oppose us as a grassroots movement are accurate. The PA Wild Trout Network is the group that will stand as the key that touches on every tumbler to unlock the dogmatic practice of stocking over wild trout with the courage to focus on that goal not to be distracted from it by how we feel about the brown trout.