Possible new regs..

[Mike]

I had forgotten that there is a recently documented, “very” freestone brook trout population that has expanded a mile or more downstream in SE Pa. It was anticipated that it could happen, but it took about 20-30 yrs to do so. Working against it were a couple of land use factors.

The whole point about brown trout populations expanding as stream sections that were transitional based on fish species composition shift to supporting coldwater fish communities was that a number of streams are getting cooler rather than warmer. More evidence in a couple of these now colder stream sections is that rock bass have disappeared. Whether brook trout populations expand downstream in the SE or elsewhere remains to be seen. It does mean, however, that with respect to temperature the brook trout streams are probably holding their own except perhaps where shade has been lost. As I think I mentioned, despite being in the warmest part of the state, Area 6 never saw a reduction in brook trout numbers over a 40 year period related to water temperature increases not associated with anthropogenic factors.

 

[troutbert]

In SE PA the native brook trout populations are probably less than 1% of what they were pre-settlement.

 

[silverfox]

Mike wrote:
I had forgotten that there is a recently documented, “very” freestone brook trout population that has expanded a mile or more downstream in SE Pa. It was anticipated that it could happen, but it took about 20-30 yrs to do so. Working against it were a couple of land use factors.

The whole point about brown trout populations expanding as stream sections that were transitional based on fish species composition shift to supporting coldwater fish communities was that a number of streams are getting cooler rather than warmer. More evidence in a couple of these now colder stream sections is that rock bass have disappeared. Whether brook trout populations expand downstream in the SE or elsewhere remains to be seen. It does mean, however, that with respect to temperature the brook trout streams are probably holding their own except perhaps where shade has been lost. As I think I mentioned, despite being in the warmest part of the state, Area 6 never saw a reduction in brook trout numbers over a 40 year period related to water temperature increases not associated with anthropogenic factors.

So you're saying MD DNR is full of it? You're saying someone has been carrying out a brook trout specific surveys on SE PA streams for 40 years and brook trout aren't being reduced? I'd love to see the results of those surveys. That's fascinating that the mason dixon has created a magic boundary of protection for the brook trout in PA. I guess you learn something new every day.

If it's all about water temperature, it's peculiar that the Letort doesn't have a huge population of brook trout by now.

 

[silverfox]

I'm sorry Mike, something doesn't add up here. Catoctin is 5 miles from the PA/MD border. You're telling me that MD documented a 20% decline in populations and 5 miles to the north that effect disappeared? If not reversed? Come on.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Dont leave out the Forest Service, USDA, DNR and virtually every single environmental agency in the US.
Hundreds if not thousands of links on the subject come up when researching brook trout loss and climate change.

Apparently one can easily conclude that what happens on one stream with different hydrologic cycles, geology, temperatures, pool to riffle ratios, fertility, macro life , land uses etc ....will happen else where in a different region of PA but once you cross those state lines its a totally different ballgame.

Science of those watersheds need not apply to the dogmatic traditions of PA fish management because the golden cow of stocked trout must be left to graze. :lol:

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

“The threat of warming temperatures from climate change is the number one threat. No question about it,” said Jason Detar, an area fisheries manager for the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, which has seen the state's watersheds holding brook trout shrink by one-third.Sep 27, 2019

:-o :hammer: int:

 

[silverfox]

int: int: int: int: int: int: int: int:

Among the North Atlantic states of New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, New York
contained the most present brook trout subwatersheds (26). Pennsylvania had the greatest
number of subwatersheds with brook trout classified as reduced (118), severely reduced (507),
extirpated (449), and unknown (218).

The introduction and spread of competing fish species has a substantial impact on trout
populations (Dunham et al. 2002; Peterson and Fausch 2003; NCWRC 2003; Dunham et al.
2004). Brook trout are extremely vulnerable to the effects of predation and competition from
other fishes, particularly in the first years of life (Bonney 2001). The potential impact of
stocking hatchery-reared trout on top of self-sustaining brook trout populations include genetic
alteration due to interbreeding or altered selection pressures (Hindar et al. 1991; Kruger and May
1991; Allendorf et al. 2001); displacement (Waters 1983; Larson and Moore 1985; Hindar et al.
1991), and introduction of diseases (Goede 1986; Hindar et al. 1991; Kruger and May 1991;
Stewart 1991).

https://www.njfishandwildlife.org/pdf/tic_cons_eastern_bkt.pdf

Pay no attention to all these other people. Everything is fine! Great even!

 

[Mike]

That meant 40 yrs of surveys, not 40 yr surveys.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

The Steelers losing to the Browns the way they did is almost as bad as these reg changes and explanations.

 

[inthedrift]

I can appreciate the change to the TT regs, because something is better than nothing, but that program needs a complete overhaul. While an 18” fish may be considered a trophy on smaller waters, and 18” on the Yough is just a “nice one”. It seems like slot limits would be a really good fit here.

Does anyone know if these are going to be published for public comment?

 

[lycoflyfisher]

I believe the regs in question are targeted management of wild trout... I am not sure large stocked and or holdover fish in streams like the Yough are where these potential changes are being considered.

 

[jifigz]

I admittedly didn't read everyone's post up until this point, but I see that Kish, section 5 is still being stocked and is once again a special consideration. I just want stocking there to STOP!!

 

[pcray1231]

Frankly, during my lifetime, brook trout populations have clearly improved overall in PA.

That doesn't mean EVERY one has. There are thousands of streams, some got better, some got worse.

That doesn't mean I don't believe there are threats. And that in the long, multiple hundreds of years view, this increase isn't a blip and the long term negatives don't take back over.

It also doesn't mean the documented improvement isn't a lot of illusion (we find more brookie streams now because we look for them, not because they weren't there before).

I think climate change is a major long term threat. I think increased population, land use, and deforestation is perhaps a bigger threat. I think Hemlock Wooly Adelgids are a major threat.

But there has been a substantial improvement, in a short time, to other threats as well. Namely, acid rain and AMD. AMD remediation has been nothing short of phenomenal and is ongoing. Acid rain is an entirely different issue and acid deposition has decreased substantially over the last 20 years or so. Personally I think these factors, combined with improvements in general pollution, sediment controls, etc, has overwhelmed the longer term negative pressures. Although probably temporarily. We have to stay vigilant.

Regarding climate change, yes, major threat over decades to come. But temperature changes come with precipitation changes too. How will precip change? I dunno. But a few degrees warmer but less droughts, more summer rain may actually be good. More droughts on the other hand would be disastrous.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

One of my biggest fears for climate change and changes in precipitation rate is if the pattern for extreme rain events continues. Especially in the glaciated watersheds as well as those with unconsolidated geology. The amount of bed load in these systems is unfathomable and when some of these watersheds experience multiple 5-10in rain events in less than 24hrs several times in a thw course of a decade you wonder how much more those streams can take. This is ultimately an entirely different topic.

 

[silverfox]

There's no doubt habitat and water quality are the two biggest factors for brook trout. I personally put invasive species at either 2nd or 3rd place though.

I think a lot of what we individually perceive is based on our location. Near me, of the 5 brook trout streams within 30 min or less of my house, all 5 have lost population size in my lifetime.

Of those 5 streams, I can safely say that 3 of them have been the result of the expansion of brown trout and/or stocking. Of the other 2, 1 is at threat of losing to brown trout if culverts are removed. The other is likely safe from invasive species, but susceptible to loss from environmental factors.

Even that last one that is somewhat "safe" has been degraded due to habitat modification for road construction. A large beaver dam that used to host a lot of brook trout was removed due to road flooding that occurred from the existence of the beaver pond. It's now a silty channel through scrub brush where it used to be a large pond full of brookies.

Saving brook trout from extirpation or even extinction throughout the native range is going to require every possible solution available. There's science behind the C&R regs and strong evidence that it has a significant impact. Will it in all parts of the state? Probably no. Will it in some watersheds? Absolutely. Does it disenfranchise the majority of license buyers? No. Is it hard to implement? No. It's arguably the easiest thing we could do even if it has minimal impact in most areas.

It's not like I'm arguing that we should stop trying to fix the habitat and water quality issues, just make them C&R statewide and wash our hands of the problem. Again, the mere existence of the regs may increase public interest and result in more habitat improvement. Saying everything is fine and they're actually better off now than ever doesn't help anything. Especially when science says that's not true.

 

[troutbert]

lycoflyfisher wrote:
One of my biggest fears for climate change and changes in precipitation rate is if the pattern for extreme rain events continues. Especially in the glaciated watersheds as well as those with unconsolidated geology. The amount of bed load in these systems is unfathomable and when some of these watersheds experience multiple 5-10in rain events in less than 24hrs several times in a thw course of a decade you wonder how much more those streams can take. This is ultimately an entirely different topic.

What do you mean by "unconsolidated" geology?

 

[Mike]

I assume limited stability in the stream bed, stream banks, and the flood plain with respect to resisting the forces of exceedingly high flows with greater than normal frequencies. These events then lead to braided channels, shifting substrate, and natural channelization.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

I am not a geologist so perhaps there is a better term, but I am referring to unconsolidated valleys that provide for exceptional bed load movement outside of the glaciated region. I will use a watershed that you are familiar with, Bald Eagle Creek in Centre and Clinton Cos. Many of the tribs move extraordinary amounts of substrate during storm events, ie Wallace Run, Steel Hollow, Masden Run etc.

Significant late fall early winter rain events in similar watersheds can be very tough on that particular spawning cycle as well as adult fish.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

I would add streams within glaciated areas, depending on the specifics. For example, when Ivan came through, Hickory Run between the dam/bridge and the church pool looked like a bulldozer came through the stream bed. The hillside was laid bare on the left (looking downstream). It was ugly.

Prior, I could count on a good number of brookies there. After, nada.

Granted, this was a "hundred year flood". But we seem to get a few of those a decade now.

 

[Mike]

Just like reported for Hickory Run, we saw the same effect immediately after hurricane type flows had hit a wild brook trout stream on the Blue Mountain in Berks Co. We just happened to be there doing an unassessed wild trout stream survey after the water receded. It took a lot of electrofishing effort just to find three brookies. A few years later there were fair numbers present again.