afishinado
Moderator
Staff member
PennKev
Well-known member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 3,300
I'm happy to see some of my permit money going towards work on W.B. Susquehanna. There is a lot of potential there and physical habitat improvement might go a long way in some areas.
Dave_W
Moderator
Staff member
This is great to see. Thanks for the link.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
The west branch has a lot of potential for native brook trout for sure. A lot of these projects have certainly been shown to create the kind of habitats that native brook trout need. The only issue is that these habitats benefit brook trout when they are the are allopathic pops (alone) but when you throw brown trout considered by scientific community to be invasive here into the mix these projects can actually allow the brown trout to push the brook trout out of the newly created habitat and can lead to brown trout overtaking the stream which is a problem from a native species conservation standpoint. This belief within the scientific community first came from observations made by Dr.’s Faust and deiterman but was later seen in this case study here: https://www.kiaptuwish.org/wp-conte...tion-Manuscript_Wild-Trout-Symposium_0917.pdf
On the stream that I am restoring I consulted some fisheries PhD’s and they recommended only way to ensure brookies benefit from the habitat was to remove brown trout since it he stream was above an impassible barrier. No easy quick simple answers here for the whole state though as removal is not possible at that scale and no one is even going to try to do that so majority of the great fishing for brown trout not at risk of that. Most brown trout pops in smaller streams near brookies that would be candidate are not that great anyway in my experience from fishing standpoint. Overall I’m glad these projects are cleaning up water quality and there is an interest in native brook trout though. And from a fishing standpoint I do enjoy catching wild brown trout and admire them before I release them, I think how nice it would be to catch one where it’s native. This topic of competition at stream project sites is an area of active research so likely more guidance coming soon. Thanks for whoever posted its interesting seeing where they were done!
W
Wet_Fly78
New member
I really enjoy the fact that the PFBC puts all money received from the voluntary permits towards the permits bought vs into the general fund. It gives anglers confidence that they can put their money, where their passion lies. My friends thought I was nuts for spending the money I did on my 10 year license. That was until I did a "Right To Know" inquiry and they saw what the PFBC is actually doing with the funds from the voluntary permits. I encourage people to buy what they can, even if they don't fish for that species, because they do put the money towards it. I bought voluntary permits that I don't even fish for to support PA fishing. And encourage others to do the same.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
It makes me happy as well, especially the ones that work on culverts/connectivity in native brook trout streams. I found a 2009 doc that said agency stocking machine costs average of about $12.4 million a year. Lol they also used growing greener conservation grant money to fix hatchery effluent water quality issues I think.
Imagine what the full allotment of the money for the stocking machine spent on conservation easements that doubled as angler access and project sites could have done over the past 50 years instead of dropping a few conservation crumbs here and there. Glad to see some money going to it though, it’s better than nothing!
W
Wet_Fly78
New member
When I see so called "greener", I get skeptical. But from what I have seen, large portion is going where it belongs. And unfortunately, I love in a district where a Representative is on the Game and Fisheries Committee, but won't answer my requests.
L
lycoflyfisher
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 15, 2014
- Messages
- 1,359
I would love to hear more about this project and your role in it. Are you a property owner, financial funder, design consultant? You have been quick to call into question every restoration/ bank stabilization/ habitat enhancement project in the state. I and many others are excited to see your cutting edge project and monitoring results to show your desired outcomes have been achieved.
I am not trying to be confrontational, I am geniunely curious about your project location, existing conditions, design, goals and funding sources. You seem to have spent a lot of time in literature and talking to experts, so it seems fair to have high expectations.
As a purchaser of the wild trout voluntary permit, I am happy to see the money going to on the ground conservation efforts.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
It makes me happy as well, especially the ones that work on culverts/connectivity in native brook trout streams. I found a 2009 doc that said agency stocking machine costs average of about $12.4 million a year. Lol they also used growing greener conservation grant money to fix hatchery effluent water quality issues I think.
Imagine what the full allotment of the money for the stocking machine spent on conservation easements that doubled as angler access and project sites could have done over the past 50 years instead of dropping a few conservation crumbs here and there. Glad to see some money going to it though it’s better than nothing!
If you read what I said it was that “these projects tend to be good for brook trout when their allopatric” and I said “I’m glad their improving water quality”. But what I also said is that there is real concern that these stream projects, when done in sympatric populations (brook/brown trout) can cause brown trout to take over like in that case study. Sadly there are many people who have seen brook trout disappear after the construction of jack dams, lunker bunkers, mudsills and other common habitats structures. And it’s tragically ironic that you mention pre and post construction monitoring because I don’t think this outcome is really being captured where it does occurs. Lyco I do not claim to have all the answers I just claim to be trying to read the work of and partner with those experts that might have some of them. I will be doing block net/ triple pass electro surveys before hand, water quality analysis before hand, macro surveys before hand with plans to repeat those post construction on a larger project I am working on currently as a volunteer. The designs are not finalized yet but will be alot of the same traditional stream restoration techniques I have mentioned above that cause issues with sympatric brook tro it populations hence why the recommendation was removal post construction so the brook trout can benefit from it. I’m sure you know that’s going to be an uphill battle in this state. As you can see I’m not doing too much different I’m just looking for solutions to a problem that I’ve never heard PAFB mention. Did you read the above case study on pine creek? What are your thoughts on that? Do you deny that things like that are happening in Pa post construction? And if they are should we not be critical of the outcome to avoid hurting peoples feelings?
allan_s
Member
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2013
- Messages
- 444
You can buy one anytime
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
I was happy to see what the money went to as well. I think when anglers can see the results it makes them more likely to purchase, atleast for me. It’s kind of ironic that if they just stopped spending the money to stock certain waterways it would likely be tremendously more impactful than some of these individual projects as far as wild trout but I’ll take it what I’m an get.
Nymph-wristed
Well-known member
thanks for that. I bought one the first year, but I did not purchase this year. I also start fishing in January, so I bought a license long before the Commish probably published any results. I may go back in and do my duty.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
I’m just a conservation volunteer not a restoration design practitioner. I am a liaison to land owners, coordinate monitoring pre post construction, involved in triage of watershed to some extent, help write grants, take the restoration specialists on private land and record data on their surveys, do community/ watershed public education events to promote efforts, and coordinate with some brook trout PhDs to try to inform design as best as possible given restoration and brook trout ecology usually in two different silos.
Acristickid
Well-known member
Most native trout are in a fraction of their of their native range not only in PA but all across America. Most trout populations have been hybridized and or pushed out by nonnative species- again everywhere.
However unfortunate all native projects- reintroduced species , habitat improvements etc will be fruitless unless all non natives can be removed and a permanent impassable barrier is in place.
I’ve studied and fish for numerous trout species that without the above being completely done has ended in failures despite millions of dollars and list of volunteer time wasted.
Who can know but based on scientific hypotheses many species of trout will be expatriated and lost in 30-50 years due to drought, fires, hybridization. These are trout in the west where there are dozens and dozens of species that have small populations Not to be discouraging from anyone in trying to help out native trout. I know of a couple that have been off limits to angling but there are successes too. Such as Gilas in NM-AZ, Piaute cutthroat in CA has improved but off limits in their native drainage, greenback disaster in CO is getting better. Several successes and it’s worth saving but it’s got to be done right or it will ultimately fail.
I buy the wild permits. If we don’t do that , who is supposed to?
However unfortunate all native projects- reintroduced species , habitat improvements etc will be fruitless unless all non natives can be removed and a permanent impassable barrier is in place.
I’ve studied and fish for numerous trout species that without the above being completely done has ended in failures despite millions of dollars and list of volunteer time wasted.
Who can know but based on scientific hypotheses many species of trout will be expatriated and lost in 30-50 years due to drought, fires, hybridization. These are trout in the west where there are dozens and dozens of species that have small populations Not to be discouraging from anyone in trying to help out native trout. I know of a couple that have been off limits to angling but there are successes too. Such as Gilas in NM-AZ, Piaute cutthroat in CA has improved but off limits in their native drainage, greenback disaster in CO is getting better. Several successes and it’s worth saving but it’s got to be done right or it will ultimately fail.
I buy the wild permits. If we don’t do that , who is supposed to?
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
Oh I’m buying the permits I’m just saying the other avg 12.4 million a year is being spent undermining the permit and doesn’t have to be. And there are plenty of impassible barriers present already awaiting eradication(kettle), as well as new exciting techniques that don’t rely on rotenone or electroshocking at all or alone(XXY supermales coming relatively soon). In the future there will likely be more effective techniques than that too and I do not know if barriers will still be a requirement. For example selective pathogens have been used in invasive mosquitos ect. Gene editing is a thing now too, maybe it could be a thing for trout? I would be interested to see if anyone has studied if “mowing the lawn” so to speak with manual removal as a bridge to more effective removal techniques is viable. I do not know if any such studies but am not an authority maybe will ask some people who are.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
All I am saying is that what we have now is now what we will have in the future as far as removal techniques, like everything else there will be advances. Hopefully the field of conservation genetics can help bank these native salmonid genes until then.
