Range-wide Brook Trout Regulations and Reintroduction Projects

[silverfox]

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.

Mike, I posted this in another thread but there's a section in the middle that illustrates that the 7" limit being scientifically sound and specifically for brook trout is understood by some. This was written about a year ago or so.

Mixed Messages Work Against Us... — Native Fish Coalition

In all matters of trout management, we want to know that we are substantially correct, both morally and biologically…

nativefishcoalition.org

 

[silverfox]

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).

NY was one of the first states to embark on removal/reintroductions. This slideshow has a lot of great information.

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

 

[silverfox]

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.

That's exactly the point.

 

[FarmerDave]

PFBC still seems to think that PA anglers are not smart enough to tell the difference between trout species. So they still lump them all together when it comes to regulating.

 

[silverfox]

PFBC still seems to think that PA anglers are not smart enough to tell the difference between trout species. So they still lump them all together when it comes to regulating.

There's likely some degree of truth to that. When Maryland was working on implementing the statewide regs, they sent out a survey to anglers. I don't know how many survey responses they got, but I got it as a nonresident so it probably went out to a lot of people. I don't remember off the top of my head the exact amount, but I think it was 80 some % of respondents correctly identified the 3 trout species in the survey. The survey was very well done. They had multiple photos of the 3 primary trout species and some of them were very unique looking fish.

Shameless plug... These signs were developed and installed all over Maryland to help anglers identify the species and understand the regulations.

 

[FarmerDave]

Well, Brook trout in Ohio are an endangered species. So yea, they have a brook trout specific regulation. Leave then alone.

I am a little bit familiar with the ST re-introductions in OH. OH was "officially" down to one stream left with ST that were genetically tested and found to be heritage strain. There was a second stream with wild ST that were not native. I am familiar with that stream. They looked native to me, but I found out they were raised by a rich private school nearby. Anyway, the native strain was a very small population. So they started propagating then in a couple hatcheries so they didn't put all their eggs in one basket. Pun intended. One of them was the same school. Later, the entire population was lost at one of the hatcheries. Probably a Browns fan.

A few years back I fired up google to see how the reintroductions went. They did have some success, and some failures, which equates to some success.

There are a few very small streams in my area which have been tested and likely would support brook trout, but I don't think anything was done. Maybe it's because they run into streams that are really just slow moving mud holes.

 

[FarmerDave]

Silverfox, I realize there is some truth in what I said earlier. So what? Others states are doing it, are their anglers any smarter? Back in the day, it could be difficult to tell the difference between the varieties of freshly stocked trout. Maybe that is why they are still afraid of having different regs between species. But the different between the wild ones are significant. Doesn't PA have different regulations for Northern Pike, Musky, and Pickerel? How about walleye and sauger? I likely can't tell the difference there, but by God, I'd figure it out, or treat them all like walleye.

 

[silverfox]

Silverfox, I realize there is some truth in what I said earlier. So what? Others states are doing it, are their anglers any smarter? Back in the day, it could be difficult to tell the difference between the varieties of freshly stocked trout. Maybe that is why they are still afraid of having different regs between species. But the different between the wild ones are significant. Doesn't PA have different regulations for Northern Pike, Musky, and Pickerel? How about walleye and sauger? I likely can't tell the difference there, but by God, I'd figure it out, or treat them all like walleye.

Good point. Ignorantia juris non excusat. In fact, I think an argument could be made that failing to manage species differently reinforces that there's no need to try to properly identify species. If a trout is a trout and there's no regulatory difference in the rules of harvest, then who cares what goes on the stringer as long as it meets length and season requirements.

It's worth pointing out that until very recently, stocking brook trout was common practice and it would be impossible to implement C&R regs for brook trout when we're still stocking brook trout. Credit where credit is due that the state has been winding down brook trout stocking. The cart and the horse and all that.

 

[GANGGREEN]

I have mixed emotions about these issues and admit that I'm far more ignorant of the issues than many who have posted here in this thread. I do know that Lyman Run in Potter County has some sort of "Heritage Brook Trout" regulations and I don't think it's the only stream in the state that does. If I'm not mistaken, harvest of brookies is prohibited and harvest of other species of trout is encouraged. That said, I'm not sure I know of anyone that fishes the stream who actually do harvest the wild browns that live there or the rainbows that occasionally run upstream from stocked Lyman Lake.

I really would love to see whole streams or watersheds that have our native trout in them and suspect that the densities would improve, possibly the size or age structure as well (although again, I have no scientific proof and I'm only guessing at this). Historically some of these streams "ran black" with brook trout and we've all seen photos from back in the day of dudes with stringers full of relatively large brook trout. What has changed since then from a biological standpoint?

On the other hand, I'm OK to some degree with stocked trout and I suppose I'm glad that the hordes of anglers who want to kill fish have some nursery trout to kill. I live in an area that has some fairly high quality wild brown trout streams and don't really care to see them stocking over those wild fish, even if they are "invasives". Just keep them out of the high quality brookie streams if at all possible. I think the short answer is that we humans have never been capable of leaving well enough alone and bucket biologists have caused tons of damage to all sorts of fisheries.

 

[silverfox]

I have mixed emotions about these issues and admit that I'm far more ignorant of the issues than many who have posted here in this thread. I do know that Lyman Run in Potter County has some sort of "Heritage Brook Trout" regulations and I don't think it's the only stream in the state that does. If I'm not mistaken, harvest of brookies is prohibited and harvest of other species of trout is encouraged. That said, I'm not sure I know of anyone that fishes the stream who actually do harvest the wild browns that live there or the rainbows that occasionally run upstream from stocked Lyman Lake.

I really would love to see whole streams or watersheds that have our native trout in them and suspect that the densities would improve, possibly the size or age structure as well (although again, I have no scientific proof and I'm only guessing at this). Historically some of these streams "ran black" with brook trout and we've all seen photos from back in the day of dudes with stringers full of relatively large brook trout. What has changed since then from a biological standpoint?

On the other hand, I'm OK to some degree with stocked trout and I suppose I'm glad that the hordes of anglers who want to kill fish have some nursery trout to kill. I live in an area that has some fairly high quality wild brown trout streams and don't really care to see them stocking over those wild fish, even if they are "invasives". Just keep them out of the high quality brookie streams if at all possible. I think the short answer is that we humans have never been capable of leaving well enough alone and bucket biologists have caused tons of damage to all sorts of fisheries.

Lyman Run "was" part of the experimental "Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Program" which, apparently was a huge disaster and not worth maintaining. I don't know if there might be some remnant signs from that experiment on Lyman Run? As far as I'm able to find any documentation, all of the streams in that study were reverted back to general regulations except for Kettle Creek which was kept as C&R for all species.

Here's the justification for killing the program:
https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Fi...tionOfCatchReleaseRegulationsOfBrookTrout.pdf

 

[Fish Sticks]

I have mixed emotions about these issues and admit that I'm far more ignorant of the issues than many who have posted here in this thread. I do know that Lyman Run in Potter County has some sort of "Heritage Brook Trout" regulations and I don't think it's the only stream in the state that does. If I'm not mistaken, harvest of brookies is prohibited and harvest of other species of trout is encouraged. That said, I'm not sure I know of anyone that fishes the stream who actually do harvest the wild browns that live there or the rainbows that occasionally run upstream from stocked Lyman Lake.

I really would love to see whole streams or watersheds that have our native trout in them and suspect that the densities would improve, possibly the size or age structure as well (although again, I have no scientific proof and I'm only guessing at this). Historically some of these streams "ran black" with brook trout and we've all seen photos from back in the day of dudes with stringers full of relatively large brook trout. What has changed since then from a biological standpoint?

On the other hand, I'm OK to some degree with stocked trout and I suppose I'm glad that the hordes of anglers who want to kill fish have some nursery trout to kill. I live in an area that has some fairly high quality wild brown trout streams and don't really care to see them stocking over those wild fish, even if they are "invasives". Just keep them out of the high quality brookie streams if at all possible. I think the short answer is that we humans have never been capable of leaving well enough alone and bucket biologists have caused tons of damage to all sorts of fisheries.

I will have to look into that had not heard about those regs before. If they were encouraging protection of native brook trout and harvest of browns in Lyman that would be pretty awesome. Don’t think fly fishing community would have a problem with such regs on stream like that its not a factory for 20” browns and people probably don’t drive past big fishing creek, penns, spring, ect on their way to lymans to fish for 10” browns im assuming.

West virginia and maryland are managing whole watersheds for brook trout and not only is it a huge win for conservation but from a fishing perspective, a lot of very large brook trout.

As for what has changed biologically, we all know about deforestation, mining, development, and acid rain.

Forests are doing very well in many SGL and state forests (kill/freeze rate in winter on wooly adelgids i think pretty good near you?) given its not the same as an old growth forest of hemlocks its much better than than it was.

AMD is being remediated in many places, this can have thermal impacts and warm things up depending on the treatment systems. Also side effect of cleaning AMD up is brown trout can in some cases invade when ph raises. Still totally worth remediation and it sounds like better ways of remediation on horizon with microbes doing the work. Psu testing this on moshannon creek i found out yesteray.

Development heading the wrong direction probably but not in your neck of the woods thank god.

Alot of the acid rain stuff has improved to an extent compared to what it used to be I have heard but have not read about that specifically.

The only thing in lyman thats still going the wrong direction for brook trout that I am aware of is climate change and invasive species. These two factors can actually compound each other exponentially and I think this research article explains why in not too technical jargin. Basically your brookies can survive warmer temps( Hitt et al. ) survive further downstream, take advantage of larger food sources(petty et al.) , get bigger(hoxmeier and deiterman coolidge creek michigan brookies migrated to downstream food rich habitat and got bigger with removal of browns), and not get eaten as often if invasive trout aren’t present (tom clark srbc study kratzer run shows enourmous predation of brook teout by browns and we know this is just how it works).

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311633920_Brook_trout_use_of_thermal_refugia_and_foraging_habitat_influenced_by_brown_trout

(PDF) Long-term population demographics of native brook trout following manipulative reduction of an invader

PDF | Although laboratory studies have provided evidence for negative interactions between brook trout and brown trout, it is unknown how these... | Find, read and cite all the research you need on ResearchGate

www.researchgate.net

From a fishing perspective i totally agree with you I don’t like to get stock-blocked with hatchery trout when I am fishing for either wild invasive browns or native brook trout. From a fishing perspective potter county makes so many of its own trout its just silly to stock it and very dangerous to our state fish. I agree with you that catching a stocked trout in streams like that hurts. feels like when ya hike in and find trash on the bank.

 

[pcray1231]

I supported the brook trout enhancement program. They chose a number of already very good primarily brook trout streams across the state. I mean, these were pretty much our shining stars in each region. Put up posters helping anglers tell the difference between brookies and browns. Made the brookies C&R, but not the browns.

We had debates on this board. Pretty much everyone said it would hurt the streams by drawing attention, nobody said it would help. Support was mixed. Many were mad they put posters saying "fish here" on their favorite streams. Others were like, yeah, well, it's true it won't help these streams, but it won't hurt bad either, and there are 3000 of these streams. The value is education. It is a wild trout specific reg, a first I believe. Where the PFBC is actually calling attention to an unstocked water. It says to a bunch of truck chasers "try this place" and may introduce them to a whole new experience, and then they can go find more...

I saw it more as a social education program, I did not realize they were using it as a serious study. If so, I think they missed the mark by choosing already excellent streams. If you are studying if harvest degrades native trout fisheries, you don't choose the most remote, highest population, non-stocked least degraded streams to do your study on. You pick more accessible, popular, stocked streams that have wild trout, and study the stocked areas, where harvest is heavier. Stock only bows, and make the brookies C&R, and see if it helps!!!

 

[GANGGREEN]

Yep, I can't think of a single stream in Potter County that needs to be on the stocking list. I'm not a biologist and perhaps the lower end of the larger drainages may not hold many wild trout, but the headwaters of all of them obviously do and there are other species (like Smallmouth bass) for areas that aren't able to support wild trout. And yes, you're correct about Lyman, nobody is going there as a destination trip for big wild brown trout. The problem with Lyman is that as long as they continue to stock the lake (and they will), it seems pointless to try to protect the Brookies with that sort of regulation unless the browns were killed and some impediment was in place to prevent the lake fish from simply moving upstream.

 

[silverfox]

I supported the brook trout enhancement program. They chose a number of already very good primarily brook trout streams across the state. I mean, these were pretty much our shining stars in each region. Put up posters helping anglers tell the difference between brookies and browns. Made the brookies C&R, but not the browns.

We had debates on this board. Pretty much everyone said it would hurt the streams by drawing attention, nobody said it would help. Support was mixed. Many were mad they put posters saying "fish here" on their favorite streams. Others were like, yeah, well, it's true it won't help these streams, but it won't hurt bad either, and there are 3000 of these streams. The value is education. It is a wild trout specific reg, a first I believe. Where the PFBC is actually calling attention to an unstocked water. It says to a bunch of truck chasers "try this place" and may introduce them to a whole new experience, and then they can go find more...

I saw it more as a social education program, I did not realize they were using it as a serious study. If so, I think they missed the mark by choosing already excellent streams. If you are studying if harvest degrades native trout fisheries, you don't choose the most remote, highest population, non-stocked least degraded streams to do your study on. You pick more accessible, popular, stocked streams that have wild trout, and study the stocked areas, where harvest is heavier. Stock only bows, and make the brookies C&R, and see if it helps!!!

The irony for me is that the study essentially proved that nobody is disenfranchised by making brook trout C&R. If all the talk about low angler use is true, and nobody is harvesting brook trout anyway, then why not at a minimum leave the experimental regs in place? Nobody should be upset about it, right?

I think you hit the nail on the head about education. Look at American Eels. Exelon is spending untold amounts of money to trap and transport Eels above Conowingo and the dams in PA. There's no question Eels are imperiled because of the dams. Yet our harvest regs are; open year round, 9 inch minimum, and a 25 daily bag limit. Doesn't really convey a message of "hey, this fish is in trouble". So you get wanton waste by anglers fishing for invasive catfish behind the dams because they view the Eels as "trash fish", and hey, the state says you can kill 25 a day, so they must not be in any trouble.

It's odd to me that brook trout are listed as a species of greatest conservation need and we don't really treat them any different than nonnative stocked trout from an angling regulation standpoint. Same size limit, same bag limit, the same season as any other trout. That doesn't convey to the public that brook trout are any different than a stocked rainbow trout.

 

[bdhoover77]

I’m not sure which thread is the best one to share this, but I found this podcast with Bob Mallard and Dr. James Suleski from the Native Fish Coalition very interesting. They spent a good portion of the podcast discussing the loss of native brook trout populations and failure to address the issue in Pennsylvania, particularly compared to surrounding states like Maryland and West Virginia.

Native Fish Coalition Part One With Bob Mallard & James Suleski

Podcast Episode · Fly Fishing Consultant Podcast · 07/21/2022 · 1h 18m

podcasts.apple.com

 

[Fish Sticks]

I’m not sure which thread is the best one to share this, but I found this podcast with Bob Mallard and Dr. James Suleski from the Native Fish Coalition very interesting. They spent a good portion of the podcast discussing the loss of native brook trout populations and failure to address the issue in Pennsylvania, particularly compared to surrounding states like Maryland and West Virginia.

Native Fish Coalition Part One With Bob Mallard & James Suleski

Podcast Episode · Fly Fishing Consultant Podcast · 07/21/2022 · 1h 18m

podcasts.apple.com

Thanks for posting!
Full disclosure I’m a Medical Doctor not a PhD of fisheries science, I just like to share their findings with you guys.

The biggest thing I wanted to communicate was that theres a lot of awesome fisheries management changes and projects for native brook trout happening outside of our borders in PA and we are really behind as far as managing for life histories/transfer of genes between streams, reintroductions, and the few select areas above barriers where removals are indicated/possible(not the big blue ribbon brown trout streams people love, it wouldn’t even work in those places as I understand it).

We should be not stocking invasive trout, implementing catch and release regs for native brook trout only, and doing these things in all the water the fish need to use(entire watershed) in the 4 seasons of the year where we decide we are going to manage brook trout. DAvid Thorne of WV DNR was quoted as saying they did the above in their state because its what the research and the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture are recommending, they get it. Otter creek in WV is 150-200 miles of all managed for native brook trout. They have 3 other watersheds managed similarly. Savage has done basically the same thing, fish live 7 years and get up into mid teens, they get it.

 

[wildtrout2]

West Virginia has some amazing native brook trout fishing! I think a lot has to do with blue line streams not being put on a list for public consumption.

 

[silverfox]

West Virginia has some amazing native brook trout fishing! I think a lot has to do with blue line streams not being put on a list for public consumption.

The big WV brook trout "preserves" (for lack of a better word) are C&R, and most are managed with no stocking. They're neither promoted nor hidden, but there if you look for them. I think the critical aspect of these projects is brook trout's access to larger water bodies, angling regs, cessation of stocking, and lack of nonnative fish. You can draw attention to areas/streams like this if you're protecting the species they're meant to protect via regs, focused management, and education.

 

[Tom1980]

The big WV brook trout "preserves" (for lack of a better word) are C&R, and most are managed with no stocking. They're neither promoted nor hidden, but there if you look for them. I think the critical aspect of these projects is brook trout's access to larger water bodies, angling regs, cessation of stocking, and lack of nonnative fish. You can draw attention to areas/streams like this if you're protecting the species they're meant to protect via regs, focused management, and education.

You can also factor in AMD and the acidic nature of many WV streams that have not been favorable for BT expansions.

Brook trout however are less bothered by such.

 

[Tom1980]

WV isn't immune though.
The stocking of Seneca Creek for tourists attractions and the expansion of wild rainbow trout has been a shame for example.