Possible new regs..

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Brook trout or brown trout Mike?
Seems to me most times you pointed this out it is brown trout.

The comment being mocked us PA has not lost 50 percent of its historical brook trout populations unlike Maryland.

http://paenvironmentdaily.blogspot.com/2019/09/bay-journal-brook-trout-gone-from-34-of.html?m=1
I suppose if you play semantics sure, we havent lost 50 percent, just 34 percent :roll:

Are you saying this isnt the case and conditions have improved since the settlers came?

 

[silverfox]

lycoflyfisher wrote:
Just an FYI the EBTJV map you speak of to my knowledge does not take into consideration actual fisheries data atleast in Pennsylvania. It is a model taking into consideration landuse, land cover, elevation, weather models etc. If I remember correctly from looking into it during college it is heavily weighted on climate change models. I do not know this, but perhaps PFBC believes their fisheries data shows stronger brook trout strongholds than predicted by certain models? Think about how many streams have been added to the Class A list in the last decade...

There are numerous streams that were inhabitable a couple decades ago due to AMD and to some extent acid precipitation that have developed brook trout populations as water quality improved.

IMO the taking care of habitat through improving aquatic connectivity, riparian buffer enhancement/ protection, floodplain connection and water quality protections will have a greater benefit than special regulations. Stocking over wild fish is another issue that is obvious. However, based on the recent management plan, I am interested in seeing how not stocking brook trout and the development of stocking permits plays out.

That is correct. The issue I have is that they used Maryland's data which is actually derived from heavy ongoing field surveys to look at population trends. Then PFBC uses an algorithmically generated map based on assumptions. There are holes in the EBTJV rangewide assessment map. There are areas shown as extirpated that still hold fish. It's a general overview based on computer modelling based on a variety of factors. It's not the same thing as historic sampling data.

The apples and oranges comparisons they're using to justify inaction is alarming.

You're absolutely right about habitat improvement. Again, as one of the commissioners mentioned, why can't they do both? Again, again, to me, regulations would send a message to the public that the fish are in trouble. That would further public support of other initiatives to protect and enhance the species.

PFBC does a terrible job of promoting brook trout. Their social media is almost completely devoid of brook trout specific content. I think the problem they have is that if the general public understood the negative impacts of stocking and/or harvest, they'd be more vocal, or at least supportive of reduced stocking and harvest. That's counter to the hatchery/stocking machine they've built, the money they've sunk in hatcheries and the jobs that rely on stocking. Pretty clear where their priorities lie IMO.

I personally still strongly believe that habitat improvement projects can have a dramatic negative effect on brook trout as well. Again, I'm completely convinced that in 2 cases local to me, the structures installed actually favored brown trout which moved in and severely reduced the brook trout populations in those streams. Of course, without the state actively tracking population trends, there's no way to prove that.

 

[silverfox]

Mike wrote:

I have reported here a number of times about trout populations that have expanded in a downstream or upstream direction based on comparisons with previous surveys. Not only that but in response to queries I have with greatest frequently described the reason as being cooler water temps due to improved shade resulting from added growth over time or new types of riparian vegetation, such as shrubs and trees instead of grasses. Additionally, some of these populations have gone from no trout or few trout in these reaches to Class A, all while climate change has been occurring in this, already the warmest part of the state. I have been seeing wild trout population growth and expansion, not population declines and contraction in the warmest region and most anthropogenically impacted part of the state. That should give the modelers pause.

There is no doubt that we've gained populations as we've recovered historically unsuitable habitat. I'm actively involved in recovery projects in the center of the state. My problem is messaging. Nihart chose to focus on the positive increases in populations while completely ignoring the fact that there are places in PA that are likely trending the opposite direction.

That speaks to the bigger problem with how PA is managed. We have such a diverse aquatic landscape that to use a trend in one small region and then apply that to the entire state is laughable. We have more flowing water than 49 other states and decide to apply observations from one stream to the entire state. I understand the monumental challenge in monitoring and modelling the nearly 16,000 miles of streams. The problem I have is when management decides to assume things are fine without having all the data to back it up across the entire state. It's illogical to assume that the pressures in Eastern Maryland magically disappear when you cross an imaginary line. Much like PFBC refuses to accept the reality that wild trout classification boundaries don't prevent fish from moving between them.

 

[troutbert]

silverfox wrote:


In the fisheries and hatcheries committee meeting the other day Mr. Nihart talked about how Eastern Maryland has lost almost 50% of it's brook trout population, then went on to say that PA doesn't have that problem.

As if the Mason Dixon line is a real thing and the pressures and effects that have caused the decline in brook trout populations magically disappear once you drive across the border.

He even showed a map from EBTJV that showed populations at high risk and it included large portions of PA. One of the commissioners noticed and called him out on it.

Again, listening to someone who should be concerned with protecting our state fish arguing with really shaky logic on why they shouldn't is more than concerning.

50% reduction in what time frame?

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Dwight,
From my link:

Pennsylvania
-- Gone from 34 percent of watersheds
-- 39 percent of watersheds that still hold brook trout have populations half their original size.
-- 16,000 miles of streams have wild trout; much of that includes brook trout.

Maryland
-- Gone from 62 percent of their historic range
-- Found in 151 streams. Significant populations found in only three parts of Maryland: Garrett County in Western Maryland, Baltimore County in the Upper Gunpowder Falls watershed and Frederick County in Catoctin Mountain Park
-- One wildlife group predicted brook trout could disappear from all streams in the state with the exception of some in Western Maryland, by 2100.

Virginia
-- Gone from 35 percent of their historic range
-- Found in 614 streams
-- One climate change model predicted the elimination of brook trout from the entire state by 2050.

Since they are discussing historical ranges i would say from the time settlers came to now.
Looks like its 60+ percent for Maryland, not 50.

 

[Mike]

Apparently, two paragraphs that I wrote in addition to the one above were deleted as the system timed out. I’m not doing that all over again. I’ll add though that I saw two ST population declines and one ST population extirpation in SE Pa, but none was related to temperature increases associated with climate change. I also recently heard of a second possible extirpation, at least that’s what the data suggest, probably due to substantial sedimentation. That was no surprise as years ago I wondered how that population was hanging on. That population has been replaced by BT.

The population expansions in the upper Schuylkill basin (Schuylkill Co) were either exclusively or almost exclusively water quality related insofar as I could tell and not due to water temperature improvements, at least any of which I am aware. Looking at the old fields now grown over, there probably was some expansion of ST, but none that could be identified from just a single sample. Known expansions elsewhere in the SE region were BT, including some going from no BT or very few BT, depending upon the stream section being considered, to Class A.

The fact that those were BT does not diminish the idea that temps cooled with riparian vegetation/land use changes in a warming climate in the warmest and arguably most anthropogenically impacted region of the state. Had there been ST populations in these streams, it is likely that they would have expanded their local ranges as well, assuming a lack of competitors and that habitat characteristics would have been suitable.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

So, Brook Trout are NOT expanding.
Amirite?

 

[silverfox]

troutbert wrote:

50% reduction in what time frame?

So you understand where this stuff is coming from: https://dnr.maryland.gov/fisheries/Documents/Reg_Changes/BrookTrout_Catch_Release.pdf

Of note:

Catch-and-release of brook trout from put-and-take waters will reduce the harvest of brook
trout in these areas by anglers who are targeting stocked trout. Forty-five percent of trout anglers
indicated harvest is a motivating factor to angling in stocked streams, thus more brook trout
caught in these streams may be harvested than would normally occur if no trout were stocked.

Harvesting any brook trout in the central part of the state could have adverse impacts on
population recruitment, genetic fitness, and future existence.

Recent results from a five-year statewide brook trout survey (2014-2018) indicated an
overall 27 percent additional loss in occupied brook trout watersheds since 1987. The central part of
the state, east of I-81, experienced the greatest decline, with a 20.1 percent loss in the Catoctin
Mountain region and a 50 percent loss in the Piedmont region. The Piedmont region is generally an
urban and densely populated area susceptible to a warmer climate given its lower elevation, all of
which put additional stressors on the remaining brook trout populations.

Additionally, Maryland is a signatory partner of the
Chesapeake Bay Agreement. The Agreement includes the Brook Trout Outcome, which calls for an
eight percent increase in occupied habitat by 2025.

Catch-and-release regulations for brook trout were implemented in the upper Savage River
in Garrett County in 2007. An anticipated benefit from the regulation was to protect the largest fish
(most fecund, best spawning success) during low flow and poor reproduction years to sustain brook
Page 2 of 3
trout in subsequent years when conditions are better. Annual brook trout population monitoring has
indicated that the upper Savage River supports a stable population even with the normal
environmentally driven annual fluctuations. Furthermore, compared to pooled sites open to harvest
by anglers (2 fish per day, no closed season) from around the state, the upper Savage River has
maintained statistically significant greater brook trout densities for each year of monitoring
following the regulation change.

Results from the department’s 2016 wild trout angler preference survey indicated 85.7
percent of respondents support more restrictive regulations to conserve brook trout, and catch-andrelease was the most popular option.

 

[silverfox]

PA has done a terrible job of achieving target goals for the Chesapeake. In fact, Maryland has threatened to sue Pennsylvania over our abysmal results in improving water quality in the Susquehanna.

IMO, that's because our priorities are all out of whack. We spend so much money on stocking and hatcheries that we can't spend enough through gov agencies to actually improve water quality. So it's left to nonprofits to drum up money and try to fix the problems from agriculture and mining.

With the riparian issue, most of our 2nd, 3rd order etc. streams are either stocked or invaded by brown trout. So what good is it going to do to plan trees in 1st order streams that are almost all in heavily forested high elevation areas?

We've got issues with aquatic passage and connectivity that should help correct population loss due to lack of resiliency from inaccessible migratory corridors but we can't fix them because in a lot of cases, removing barriers would allow invasive brown trout to enter those streams.

A stream near me is a perfect example of this. The WPC recently approved a limestone dosing project in the headwaters because the stream bed is largely inert dissolved quartzite. That's great, but the 2 culverts that prevent fish passage are the only things preventing wild brown trout from entering that headwater area. If they limestone dose AND remove those culverts, they'll likely wipe out an unsurveyed class a population of brook trout.

On top of the water quality and passage issues, the state and a local club also stocks below those culverts. We can't even fix the problem affecting the ST population there because the solutions would likely lead to the extirpation of the ST population.

 

[silverfox]

double post

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

That speaks to the bigger problem with how PA is managed. We have such a diverse aquatic landscape that to use a trend in one small region and then apply that to the entire state is laughable. 

Ive been bi@#!ing about this for years.
Blanket regs and blanket management just isnt scientific. It relies heavily on dogma and has no place in the scientific realm.


Brown trout are not brook trout and while they require many of the same things, they are different animals with some different needs.
I cant even believe what just happened in this conversation.

The justifications are staggering.

I did however laugh, so you are right about that Phillip.

 

[troutbert]

What do you think the percent loss of brook trout populations in PA is, from pre-settlement times to the present?

 

[Mike]

Same basic needs as they pertain to climate change. ST just need cooler water temps.

As for applying one region’s observations to the rest, when you have the warmest temps in the state and the issue is temp increases due to climate change, what is occurring in that region is certainly a big window to what will most likely occur elsewhere. It is the regional equivalent to the canary in a coal mine.

 

[silverfox]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:

That speaks to the bigger problem with how PA is managed. We have such a diverse aquatic landscape that to use a trend in one small region and then apply that to the entire state is laughable. 

Ive been bi@#!ing about this for years.
Blanket regs and blanket management just isnt scientific. It relies heavily on dogma and has no place in the scientific realm.


Brown trout are not brook trout and while they require many of the same things, they are different animals with some different needs.
I cant even believe what just happened in this conversation.

The justifications are staggering.

I did however laugh, so you are right about that Phillip.

That's one of the biggest issues at play here. PFBC and frankly, a lot of anglers, want to have their cake and eat it too. One species will displace the other. Yet PFBC seems to want to manage them as if they're the same animal.

To me, that was one of the most depressing elements of listening to this meeting. It was heavy on brown trout protections, justifying stocking over class a (I know that means browns in this case) regardless of how small the issue AND essentially saying that they have no intention of focusing on brook trout through regulations.

I wonder how their counterparts in MD would feel if they knew that PFBC was effectively saying they don't know what they're talking about despite MD providing scientific evidence, surveys and studies to support their actions?

Where is Pennsylvania's Upper Savage River project? Where is Pennsylvania's angler harvest survey to identify public support of C&R regs for brook trout? Where is Pennsylvania's multi-year survey data on brook trout population trends? Where's PA's data on the number of wild brook trout harvested in stocked trout streams?

Maryland supplied all that data and PFBC's response was that some imaginary line excludes PA from suffering the same fate. It's ridiculous.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

So wait....

Climate change increases the air temperature due to which freshwater ecosystems gets warm up. Most of the lakes and streams have experienced decline in water level during summer droughts. These changes are expected to continue and accelerate in the future.


The optimal feeding temperatures for Brook Trout varies from 44 degrees to 64 degrees. The temperature that a Brook Trout begins to stress at is 65 and the water temperature at which could be lethal to Brook Trout is 70 degrees.


Brown trout favor clean, clear, cold streams, but are more tolerant of temperature variations and turbidity than brook trout and other less adaptable trout species. They also survive in temperatures higher than brook trout.

So a more adaptable species of fish that can tolerate slightly higher temperatures than brook trout are comparable when it comes to climate change?

Yeah not buying into that.

 

[silverfox]

Mike wrote:
Same basic needs as they pertain to climate change. ST just need cooler water temps.

As for applying one region’s observations to the rest, when you have the warmest temps in the state and the issue is temp increases due to climate change, what is occurring in that region is certainly a big window to what will most likely occur elsewhere. It is the regional equivalent to the canary in a coal mine.

Right, but by saying that Pennsylvania as a whole is a stronghold is ignoring the fact that our own state has vastly different regional differences in terms of elevation, climate, water parameters, temperature fluctuations, population density and expansion etc. To say that the Cumberland valley is in the same boat as the Alleghany front region is insanity. Yet that's effectively what they're saying.

That defies logic. You don't have to be a biologist to understand that. One of the commissioners commented on this and questioned the same thing I'm saying here. They used the EBTJV range-wide assessment map to say that PA is more secure for brook trout survival while ignoring that the map showed the same threats in the Southeast and Northwest as eastern MD.

A proper response would have been to say that maybe we do need to explore further protections regionally. That's the same thing NJ did and MD did. Neither state just came out and said the whole state is exactly the same. They acknowledged the difference in pressures regionally and put protections in place in the regions with the greatest threat. PFBC is apparently not even willing to do that!

 

[silverfox]

Here's what I think is going on. PA is way behind the 8 ball on this. They've largely ignored focusing on brook trout specifically. Again, our culture of stocking and lack of resources in biology have created a situation where we've not focused on the things we should've been focusing on.

Meanwhile, MD created the USR in 2007. They've carried out statewide surveys and gathered data specifically on brook trout. We have not. There's likely a reluctance to admit this because it would mean that some hard decisions will have to be made to change course. We're also now so far behind on this issue that even if we start now we'll likely be in such a difficult position in 50 years that nothing we do will make a difference.

PFBC's lack of focus on brook trout and admission of the threats they face is beyond disturbing. As an example, PFBC social media mentions brook trout 43 times from 2014 to 2020. On average they post 2 to 3 times per day. From 2014 to 2020, posts by PFBC should be approximately 6,570. In all 43 posts that mention brook trout, they almost all are about stocked brook trout. Nowhere is there any mention of the threats facing brook trout. 2 posts deal with brook trout being our state fish and mention their sensitivity to water quality. Below is an accounting of all 43 times PFBC has mentioned brook trout in social media.

May 6 2014 Grier TIC brook trout in tank
Nov 7 2014 two spawning brook trout video
Nov 6 2015 cold water conservation raising brook trout TIC
Nov 6 2015 TIC article raising trout in aquariums
Mar 7 2016 brook trout state fish
Mar 9 2016 article mentions brook trout as state fish
Apr 18 2016 stocked brook trout
Apr 18 2016 stocked brook trout
Apr 18 2016 stocked brook trout lake
June 1 2016 TIC article raising trout in aquariums
April 1 2017 stocked brook trout
April 8 2017 stocked brook trout youth fishing day
Sep 15 2017 brook trout painting
Mar 25 2018 stocked brook trout little schuylkill
Apr 7 2018 stocked brook trout lake
May 4 2018 stocked trout
Mar 11 2019 reynoldsdale hatchery mentions brook trout
Mar 28 2019 stocked thousands of brook trout and brown trout
Apr 8 2019 brook trout are stocked throughout pa promoting pautzke bait
April 10 2019 stocked brook trout in Whipple lake promoting pautzke bait
Apr 24 2019 stocked brook trout
May 3 2019 stocking laurel run with brook trout
May 8 2019 stocked brook trout at Whipple lake
Sep 17 2019 fall winter stocking brook trout
Oct 10 2019 stocking lake with brook trout
Oct 17 2019 stocking article mentions stocked brook trout
Nov 5 2019 wild trout survey mentions brook trout along with brown trout
Nov 6 2019 brook trout in TIC
Jan 31 2020 stocking article mentions stocked brook trout
Feb 19 2020 stocking article brook trout stocking
Feb 20 2020 hatchery article mentions stocked brook trout
April 28 2020 - brook trout coloring page
May 2 2020 brook trout coloring page
May 10 2020 trout stocking mentions brook trout as stocked species
May 15 2020 keystone select mentions stocked brook trout
June 4 2020 hatchery article mentions stocked brook trout
June 16 2020 drawing of sea lamprey on brook trout
Sep 4 2020 River otters mentions brook trout as indicator species.
Sept 21 2020 Hatchery raised brown, rainbow brook

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

That social media post list is very telling.
Thank you for compiling it.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Phillip,

link

Is any of this happening?

link2

So is climate change effecting them or not?
Since we are comparing apples to oranges and saying the apples are not effected so neither should the oranges, but the agency as a whole is saying they are, i believe one should be naturally confused.

In the end, to think that because brown trout have expanded in a part of the state that is warmer with more limestone influenced streams than the northern tier, so brook trout have likely expanded across the board is lunacy. It has no basis in fact or reality.
It does however point to agendas and money in my eyes.

Enjoy the new state fish, the brown trout because with these attitudes, money wasted on stupid regulation experiments and the like, that is what you are going to get.

Might as well dump Rotenone in the "strongholds" and call it a day.

Stock away Meryl.

 

[silverfox]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
Phillip,

link

Is any of this happening?

link2

So is climate change effecting them or not?
Since we are comparing apples to oranges and saying the apples are not effected so neither should the oranges, but the agency as a whole is saying they are, i believe one should be naturally confused.

Again, this is where the message of regulations could have a greater impact than the regulations themselves.

With the lack of transparency and refusal to disclose these things, this is what I'm aware of from looking for every breadcrumb I can find over the last 20 years.

1.1. Protect brook trout habitat.

No. Habitat protection is based on biomass and is not species specific. i.e., class a brook trout has no higher habitat protection than class a brown trout. EDIT. I still stand by this. Aside from the handful of remote WTS designations, most streams aren't really protected based on species. Even the WTS designation is promoted as: "Wilderness trout stream management is based upon the provision of a wild trout fishing experience in a remote, natural and unspoiled environment where man's disruptive activities are minimized." It doesn't convey a message of protecting brook trout. It sounds like it's promoting the angling experience in those places. Messaging should be much better here IMO.

1.2. Improve brook trout habitat.
Probably. This is probably handled through BMP (best management practices) manuals etc.

2.1. Inventory unassessed waters to confirm presence of brook trout.
yes, but this is just part of a larger goal.

2.2. Monitor status of existing brook trout populations.
I doubt this is done with any significance. I'm sure they've supplied data on this to EBTJV and I'm sure there is some level of data that exists. The fact that this came up in the current TMP implies that they either haven't done it or not done it widely.


2.3. Develop a comprehensive GIS brook trout data layer.
again, I'm pretty sure this was driven by EBTJV back when they were building the range-wide assessment tool.

2.4. Develop brook trout genetic assessment.
This likely resulted in Shannon White's studies in the Loyalsock. To be clear, that was carried out by PSU and USGS (and others) likely with support from PFBC.

3.1. Protect existing brook trout populations from future degradation.
[d]Again, I'd argue no. There are no DEP protections tied to brook trout specific waters. Protections are based on wild trout biomass, not specifically brook trout.[/d] I mispoke here. This is the WTS designation and EV protections from DEP. Though when was the last time a stream was added to this list? What's the total stream miles of WTS designation vs others? This also ignores migration or seasonal movements of brook trout. That's heavily part of Maryland's reg change. They know they move down into stocked trout waters. Also, these WTS are so remote and wild that there is already zero chance of these areas being developed or impacted by human activity. Most if not all of them are on state owned land so it's not like they're protecting some important brook trout habitat from having a Walmart built on top of it in the first place.

3.2. Restore and Enhance Brook Trout Populations.
No idea. They may have handed down prioritized waters to nonprofits to guide the prioritization of enhancement projects.

Priority 4: Outreach
No. Frankly, no. If anything was done it failed because I'm unusually interested in it and I can't find it even by searching heavily for it.

4.2. Develop relationships that foster brook trout enhancement, protection and
restoration.
Likely yes, but again, this isn't really promoted so who knows.

Priority 5: Recreational Fishing

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

No. Again, this is a complete failure in my opinion. See my last post.


5.2. Comprehensively manage brook trout fisheries.
Yes, and ironically, it's apparently being used to justify refusing any further action from a regulatory standpoint.

As for the climate change issue. I'm sure they're using some level of regional classification to drive data dissemination or help other agencies prioritize conservation efforts. It's not widely promoted or discussed outside of those organizations though.

Again, I'm keenly interested in this stuff and I struggle to find any of this information through incessant searching. As I said before, I've asked a lot of these questions and just get ignored, so not only are they not forthright, they seem to be pretty defensive about even discussing it. I'm sure they can't wait to get back to in-person meetings so nosey people like me don't see what's going on. Though I plan on attending every public meeting they hold when the pandemic restrictions are lifted.