Range-wide Brook Trout Regulations and Reintroduction Projects

[silverfox]

Sometimes visual aids help to see where things stand. I put together the map below to help visualize where states stand on Brook Trout specific regulations and reintroduction efforts. I thought the result was interesting.

Notes;

• This map illustrates states that have brook trout specific regulations in their angling regulations.
• The driftless region is excluded because it's excluded in the EBTJV range.
• The map does not count regulations that are for all species of trout. There may be states (including Pennsylvania) where angling regulations benefit multiple species of trout including brook trout. The point is to highlight states that have brook trout specific angling regulations.
• Reintroduction locations are approximate, especially Ohio where the locations are purposefully inaccurate, however, the counts are correct.
• NY has over 125 reintroduction and nonnative species removal projects. The locations shown are estimated based on NY DEC presence data.
• Most states conduct habitat and water quality restoration which benefits coldwater species, and may directly benefit brook trout, and in some cases brook trout alone.

Sources:

Eastern Brook Trout restoration summary table — EBTJV

Compilation of brook trout restoration projects and outcomes from across the EBTJV member states and agencies.

easternbrooktrout.org

Restoration of brook trout across their native range using fish toxicants and electrofishing: are we successful ecologically and socially? — EBTJV

PDF of PowerPoint presentation by Matt Kulp, fishery biologist with the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and coauthors, reviewing historic and contemporary restoration efforts to restore brook trout using toxicants and electrofishing. Matt surveyed state and agency biologists about projects...

easternbrooktrout.org

State angling regulations websites.
National Park Service website.

 

[wildtrout2]

And what's ironic is, of all the states shown that do address the native brook trout specifically, Pa has the most stream miles containing native brook trout, yet we do nothing.

 

[Tom1980]

If that map isn't telling

 

[Fish Sticks]

We can’t even stop stocking on top of our best of the best brook trout watersheds let alone encourage harvest or remove anything. By the way one of those reintroduction effort stars in Pa is bog spring in newville which they actively stock with hatchery brook trout i believe still so they are really risking screwing up the genetics with outbreeding depression big time there. And they won’t even allow harvest of the hatchery descendent raindbows in upper big spring that are reproducing in there threatening/hamstringing the brook trout population . So the star on that map should not get the credit as other more serious reintroduction efforts in neighboring states. The other star is a failed reintroduction on limestone run.

 

[silverfox]

We can’t even stop stocking on top of our best of the best brook trout watersheds let alone encourage harvest or remove anything. By the way one of those reintroduction effort stars in Pa is bog spring in newville which they actively stock with hatchery brook trout i believe still so they are really risking screwing up the genetics with outbreeding depression big time there. And they won’t even allow harvest of the hatchery descendent raindbows in upper big spring that are reproducing in there threatening/hamstringing the brook trout population . So the star on that map should not get the credit as other more serious reintroduction efforts in neighboring states. The other star is a failed reintroduction on limestone run.

I'd like to know where the source stock used on Big Spring came from.

 

[just_jon]

Picture reminds me of this satellite photo of the Korean Peninsula. Suspect the issue of stocking over wild trout will not be resolved in the near term, but immediate action should be taken to increase the minimum length for harvest to 10” statewide.

 

[silverfox]

Picture reminds me of this satellite photo of the Korean Peninsula. Suspect the issue of stocking over wild trout will not be resolved in the near term, but immediate action should be taken to increase the minimum length for harvest to 10” statewide. View attachment 1641225820

1 watershed somewhere in the northern tier of PA focused solely on brook trout is achievable. We'd need 5 of them to 1 up West Virginia. I'm not holding my breath.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Yea nothing has to be statewide absolute with the stocking it can’t be. Stocking isn’t going away for sure but its just crazy we can’t look at one of these potter/tioga eastern brook trout joint venture identified brook trout stronghold habitat patches and just bot sabotage it with stocked invasive trout. You pair that with open harvest on wild invasive species and C and R on brook trout and you could really make a quantum leap in both management and public education on brook trouts conservation value, invasive species threats, and viable conservation strategies. If you combined that with genetic sampling which is not feasible on all streams, hence why EBTJV geographical patches to try to hopefully group regional genetics, you could find out that there is candidacy for genetic rescue to further strengthen the population and increase average size of fish, fecundity and fitness like was seen in the north Carolina pilot study. There is so much we could be doing well beyond what I have mentioned here, even if only in one watershed in the entire 86k stream miles.

 

[Mike]

Sometimes visual aids help to see where things stand. I put together the map below to help visualize where states stand on Brook Trout specific regulations and reintroduction efforts. I thought the result was interesting.

Notes;

• This map illustrates states that have brook trout specific regulations in their angling regulations.
• The driftless region is excluded because it's excluded in the EBTJV range.
• The map does not count regulations that are for all species of trout. There may be states (including Pennsylvania) where angling regulations benefit multiple species of trout including brook trout. The point is to highlight states that have brook trout specific angling regulations.
• Reintroduction locations are approximate, especially Ohio where the locations are purposefully inaccurate, however, the counts are correct.
• NY has over 125 reintroduction and nonnative species removal projects. The locations shown are estimated based on NY DEC presence data.
• Most states conduct habitat and water quality restoration which benefits coldwater species, and may directly benefit brook trout, and in some cases brook trout alone.

Sources:

Eastern Brook Trout restoration summary table — EBTJV

Compilation of brook trout restoration projects and outcomes from across the EBTJV member states and agencies.

easternbrooktrout.org

Restoration of brook trout across their native range using fish toxicants and electrofishing: are we successful ecologically and socially? — EBTJV

PDF of PowerPoint presentation by Matt Kulp, fishery biologist with the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and coauthors, reviewing historic and contemporary restoration efforts to restore brook trout using toxicants and electrofishing. Matt surveyed state and agency biologists about projects...

easternbrooktrout.org

State angling regulations websites.
National Park Service website.
View attachment 1641225806

ACTUALLY there is a Pa statewide specific brook trout regulation…the 7 inch length limit (the limit was upped from six inches to seven inches). It was specifically created to give ST an extra yr of reproduction and it is possible that Pa was the first of the states on that map to have such a reg aimed at wild ST. If so, we were ahead of our time, not behind the times.

I participated in those lengthy discussions among the Fisheries Mgmt staff and it was NW Pa that was most concerned because of slow growth rates/standard high natural mortality expected to limit the availability of legal ST. The BT and RT as part of the reg change just came along for the ride; it was aimed at wild ST. Pa may not match the “letter of the law” according to the map, but it matches the “intent.” As Paul Harvey used to say; “and now you know the rest of the story.”

 

[silverfox]

Actually there is a Pa statewide specific brook trout regulation…the 7 inch length limit (the limit was upped from six inches to seven inches). It was specifically created to give ST an extra yr of reproduction and it is possible that Pa was the first of the states on that map to have such a reg aimed at wild ST. I participated in those lengthy discussions among the Fisheries Mgmt staff.

It's a great move Mike and I'm thankful for that change. However, it was applied to all species, even if it was intended to specifically benefit ST. The map shows states (in green) that have angling regulations written specifically for brook trout, or where brook trout are managed differently than other trout species via angling regulations (C&R zones, or statewide angling/harvest regulations for brook trout vs other species).

 

[wildtrout2]

It's a great move Mike and I'm thankful for that change. However, it was applied to all species...

I'm thankful for that as well. It wasn't mentioned that the creel limit was also changed in 2000, from 8 to 5 trout. That was also applied to all species. I'm appreciative of that change too!

 

[Mike]

The creel limit change was not particularly aimed at wild trout, although it may have had a de facto impact at times. It was predicted to reduce the stocked trout harvest by either 17% or 19% ( forgetting which) , based on statewide stocked trout stream creel surveys done for numerous yrs starting in 1988 and prior to the creel limit change.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

I was talking to an older angler just this weekend, who said he and buddies used to take a few camping trips each year and keep limits of wild trout to eat. He claimed once the size limit was raised to 7in they could rarely catch enough wild st for a meal so their camping trips stopped. He fondly recalled the taste of st over a fire, but admitted the fishing was better now although they do not fish as much.

Just thought this story was fitting based upon the last couple posts.

 

[silverfox]

ACTUALLY there is a Pa statewide specific brook trout regulation…the 7 inch length limit (the limit was upped from six inches to seven inches). It was specifically created to give ST an extra yr of reproduction and it is possible that Pa was the first of the states on that map to have such a reg aimed at wild ST. If so, we were ahead of our time, not behind the times.

I participated in those lengthy discussions among the Fisheries Mgmt staff and it was NW Pa that was most concerned because of slow growth rates/standard high natural mortality expected to limit the availability of legal ST. The BT and RT as part of the reg change just came along for the ride; it was aimed at wild ST. Pa may not match the “letter of the law” according to the map, but it matches the “intent.” As Paul Harvey used to say; “and now you know the rest of the story.”

Appreciate the background here. I think my interest, as should be obvious by my rants, is that regulations likely have an impact beyond whatever it is that they state in words. I think it's implied that when we regulate a species differently than others it implies that there's some greater value to that species. I wonder what would've happened if the size limit was changed for brook trout specifically. That would've been a really minor change that might have had an impact beyond harvest, though extremely difficult to quantify.

I think this is all exactly about the letter of the law. That's kind of the point. Who's explicitly listing brook trout as the beneficiary of some management change and who's lumping them in w/ all the other salmonids.

 

[Mike]

It's a great move Mike and I'm thankful for that change. However, it was applied to all species, even if it was intended to specifically benefit ST. The map shows states (in green) that have angling regulations written specifically for brook trout, or where brook trout are managed differently than other trout species via angling regulations (C&R zones, or statewide angling/harvest regulations for brook trout vs other species

Despite the Pa map color the biological reality is that Brown Trout and Rainbow Trout females do not mature at 7 inches in Pa, so the reg clearly was to the benefit of Brook Trout, the target species of the reg. I doubt you will make much headway with the argument that Pa has done nothing to specifically manage for ST if those in power are aware of the reason for the move from a 6-7 inch length limit yrs ago and are aware of the 3 species’ relative maturity schedules.

 

[silverfox]

I was talking to an older angler just this weekend, who said he and buddies used to take a few camping trips each year and keep limits of wild trout to eat. He claimed once the size limit was raised to 7in they could rarely catch enough wild st for a meal so their camping trips stopped. He fondly recalled the taste of st over a fire, but admitted the fishing was better now although they do not fish as much.

Just thought this story was fitting based upon the last couple posts.

I'll be honest, I've never eaten a brook trout. I'm not fond on the taste of trout at all. I doubt I'd like brook trout any more than wild brown trout which I don't really care for either. I like perch and walley though.

I really don't personally have a problem with people eating a few brook trout on camping trips except for my old neighbor that used to seine net them by the hundreds and grind up into fish cakes. Assuming the population is robust enough to sustain the harvest of a few individuals, I don't think that's the end-all to brook trout's woes. Environment and biotic issues are far more concerning, and I think harvest regs might be a good way to reinforce the need for addressing both.

 

[silverfox]

This is the type of hinkle dreck that limits effectiveness in the political arena of fisheries. With neither Brown Trout or Rainbow Trout females maturing at seven inches, the biological benefit was clearly for Brook Trout yet because Pa didn’t do the Brook Trout specific dance, it can’t attend the party.

I'm not dutch enough (despite a strong german heritage) to know what the heck you said there so I had to look it up.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I don’t get why not do the hinkle dinkle dance with brook trout. If its a just a branding thing for the sake of our state fish then just do it? Fortune 500 companies spend millions a year on branding not out of some namby pamby whim but because it’s effective at changing behavior(like getting you to open up your wallet). Apple wouldn’t drop multiples of Pa fish and boats annual budget on branding if it didn’t work. If we are going to change course on native brook trout we need behavioral change as well because PA has a messaging problem with glorification of invasive species outside their native range and a devaluing problem of native brook trout based on their size which shouldn’t factor into conservation.

 

[pcray1231]

I think the point is, the other states very publicly favor wild native brook trout over browns and rainbows.

PA does plenty in regards to water quality, overall regulations, etc. And some of it's regs may be intended to benefit brook trout. But nowhere, anywhere, in regulation, on any stream in the state, or in any project work, is it publicly acknowledged that brook trout are favored over browns or rainbows. As if it's a political no no to tell the public that brook trout should receive any preferential treatment.

 

[sarce]

Holy Adirondacks. Nice

What's the time frame on the reintroduction efforts? MD had a couple successful ones in Baltimore and Frederick counties (and about 3x as many that didn't sustain long term - but the effort was there).