Should we trust PA fish and Boat with 17 million R.A.W.A dollars a year????

[Fish Sticks]

Policy Column: Crossing the Finish Line: Help Pass the Recovering America’s Wildlife Act this Congress | American Fisheries Society

fisheries.org

If you guys are not familiar with the recovering americas wild life act(R.A.W.A), its a bipartisan bill that would provide a once in a generation funding opportunity for high conservation need/at risk native species. It could mean 17million bucks EVERY YEAR for PAFB to be spent on conserving species of greatest conservation need identified in the PA wildlife action plan. If you guys want this you need to contact your united states senators and congressmen and tell them you want them to push this across the finish line. This may also translate into more angler access possibly. Its great legislation, please take time to write your U.S elected officials in support.



However, there are serious concerns about how PA fish and Boat will spend this momey if the bill is passed given they are currently spending around 12-13 million dollars a year on stocking invasive trout species with documented negative effects or likelyhood of negative effects on native fish/amphibians outlined in the scientific literature.

There are also many threatened or endangered species where there are concerns about effects of invasive trout stockings occuring in proximity with no known serious effort to look into the likely potential harms stocked invasive trout are causing.

The below is an article from Tim Schaefer about Recovering Americas Wild Life Act funds.

https://www.fishandboat.com/Transact/AnglerBoater/AnglerBoater2019/Documents/2019-0506mj01-recovering.pdf

He mentions spending the money on the Pa Wild life action plan. BUT THEIR NOT EVEN FOLLOWING THEIR OWN WILD LIFE ACTION PLAN NOW FOR SPECIES OF GREATEST CONSERVATION NEED IN CERTAIN INSTANCES. See native brook trout example:

Thats their OWN wild life action plan. It calls for REMOVAL of brown trout in brook trout managment areas. WE CAN’T EVEN STOP STOCKING OVER THIS ICONIC SPECIES!!!

1. We don’t have brook trout managment areas(iAny thing in Pa is just “wild trout” no distinction)

2. We actively stock (often with brown trout and rainbows aren’t much better) in the majority of native brook trout stronghold areas in the state!


funding is not a barrier to discontinuing stocking over brook trout, its actually cost saving obviously.

Is giving PAFB 17 million a year when their funding 12-14 million worth towards the demise of these same sensitive species responsible when they are currently ignoring critical parts of their own wildlife managment plan as pictured above?

Maryland has stopped stocking browns in any watershed with native brook trout and doesnt stock at all in many. West virginia stopped stocking brown trout over endangered guyandotte cray fish and candy darters due to detriment from the invasive brown trout. Tennessee, maryland, new york, and other states are removing these fish from select small areas where native brook trout and rare sculpins live. Maybe they should get our 17million a year? That would break my heart because Pa needs it.

I want PA to get this money BUT
I am going to be writing my US and state elected officials and demmanding, going forward,more accountability and oversight when it comes to PA Fish and Boat’s failure to not jeapordize these species of greatest conservation need with their stocking program. I recommend you all do the same.

Examples:

Dr. Peter Petokas wrote a letter requesting Pa fish and boat not stock invasive trout over a sensitve population of hellbenders in potter county, they ignored his concerns and stocked anyway.

We have stocking going on over threatened chesapeak log perch with no idea how harmful it is.

We stock invasive trout species over native brook trout counter to a mountain of literature and experts telling us to do otherwise.

There are many more examples where data exists or serious concerns are present. (Sclupins, darters, shiners, suckers ect.)

 

[silverfox]

If you read between the lines in the action plan, it's pretty easy to see where the money will go.

1. More barrier assessment both in-house and via grants to "partners".
2. More telemetry surveys to document movement.
3. More population surveys.
4. More office time to develop plans.
5. More DNA sequencing.

In other words, a whole lot more research. Note that despite the known threats, there's no mention of reclamation or removal efforts. So we know what needs to be done, but we'll spend a whole lot more money to find anything else to do aside from the obvious because we think it's too controversial to do what really needs to be done.

Cessation of stocking and species-specific harvest regs are free, or even cost-saving. We don't need 17 million dollars to make those changes, even if they're largely symbolic and educational in nature. So if we can't find a way to do any of those things, my hopes for funding removal/reclamation projects are nonexistent. What better way to shift public perception to favor brook trout conservation than to make them more visibly important via angling regs and stocking changes?

Tiptoeing around this issue only reinforces to the public that it's not really an issue. Continuing to stock over brook trout only further reinforces that there are no biotic issues. It sure seems like the assumed path forward is to focus entirely on environmental issues while staying as far away from the biotic issues as possible.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I think your right that if we can’t just stop paying 12-13 million a year to cause damage to theses native fish of greatest conservation concern, the 17 million and a historic opportunity is going to be sabotaged.

I am glad that genetic studies and connectivity could be a focus with that money as thats critical to building the ability for these fish to adapt their genes to almost all stressors in the watershed over time, however we know from Dr. Thomas Casey Weathers thesis paper that invasive trout are likely a barrier to gene flow and significant impairment to that ability to adapt genes to stressors(temp, drought, and too many more to mention).

eTD Explore

etda.libraries.psu.edu

It’s time to do something about the invasive barriers to gene flow that WE PAY(non consensually in many cases as anglers) to stock. We know Pa fish and boat won’t listen to us or the fisheries science experts who have talked to them about this harmful stocking for many years. Its time to contact tour legislators and if this makes you concerned like it does me, tell them you want to see resource first in action not just PDF’s online coupled with real world failures.

 

[Dave_W]

RAWA is great news and, while we can debate the details, I certainly hope this comes through for the PFBC.

And yes, I trust the PFBC to utilize these funds appropriately.

 

[bigjohn358]

I look at this from another prospective. The Susquehanna River is in desperate need of help. The invasive flatheads and now potential snakeheads are drastically changing our river along with other unknows that are effecting the smallmouth populations. That being said smallmouths in the river are not native either. Does this mean they aren't going to care about smallmouth and are now just going to concentrate this money on shad populations (which I have next to no interest in, heck I am more interested in the eels even)? You make access around the dams in the southern parts of the Susquehanna and here come the snakeheads. Also on the Susuehanna (many other waters also) would any of this money deal with the cormorants (the large invasitve black ducks) that are extremely hard on fish populations?

In all honesty I wish the PFBC would try to push more educatinal stuff onto everyone who purchases a license. Teaching the correct ways to handle fish, benefits of catch and release, identifying fish species, the importance of wild/native fish, etc. I'd like to see more of a push for catch and release of wild/native trout and trying to shake the traditions of the kill kill kill mentality. I feel the traditional kill kill kill mentality is still one of the biggest impacts on our wild/native trout.

Oh and as long as the public can purchase fish from private hatcheries and basically stock them wherever they want there are always going to be issues. This needs to be stopped! You should need some kind of permit to purchase fish for stocking and the exact place you plan on stocking the fish. I'm finding privately stocked fish so many places they shouldn't be.

I just have little faith in the PFBC doing the correct thing. This is why I refuse to pay for those extra voluntary permits license or whatever they are.

 

[silverfox]

I look at this from another prospective. The Susquehanna River is in desperate need of help. The invasive flatheads and now potential snakeheads are drastically changing our river along with other unknows that are effecting the smallmouth populations. That being said smallmouths in the river are not native either. Does this mean they aren't going to care about smallmouth and are now just going to concentrate this money on shad populations (which I have next to no interst in, heck I am more interested in the eels even)? You make access around the dams in the southern parts of the Susquehanna and here come the snakeheads. Also on the Susuehanna (many other waters also) would any of this money deal with the cormorants (the large invasitve black ducks) that are extremely hard on fish populations?

In all honesty I wish the PFBC would try to push more educatinal stuff onto everyone who purchases a license. Teaching the correct ways to handle fish, benefits of catch and release, identifying fish species, the importance of wild/native fish, etc. I'd like to see more of a push for catch and release of wild/native trout and trying to shake the traditions of the kill kill kill mentality. I feel the traditional kill kill kill mentality is still one of the biggest impacts on our wild/native trout.

Oh and as long as the public can purchase fish from private hatcheries and basically stock them wherever they want there are always going to be issues. This needs to be stopped! You should need some kind of permit to purchase fish for stocking and the exact place you plan on stocking the fish. I'm finding privately stocked fish so many places they shouldn't be.

I just have little faith in the PFBC doing the correct thing. This is why I refuse to pay for those extra voluntary permits license or whatever they are.

In general, we've got a big "messaging" problem when it comes to nonnative/invasive fish. On one hand, we're stocking a few million of them a year, on another we're protecting them, on one foot we're protecting nonnative fish in a watershed they aren't native to, but are native to the state (smallmouth), and then on the other foot we're saying "don't move fish around, don't release your bait in the water alive, clean your waders, don't release invasive fish, clean your boat and trailer" etc. etc. etc.

We either care about invasive species or we don't. Right now we're playing favorites and any logical person can see right through it.

Amen to the educational messaging. People will be concerned about what you tell them to be concerned about. If your message is 95% stocked trout, guess what people will care about.

To their credit, they are working on the private stocking thing, but in my opinion, far too late, and far too slowly. All I heard about during the committee meeting and the board meeting was how important it was to work w/ the dept of ag to not upset the aquaculture folks. Resource first?

My problem with all of this is the constant pursuit of increased revenue while the reduction in husbandry/stocking (expenditures) is completely off the table. You've got a cost-saving measure that dovetails directly into conservation needs and nobody wants to address it.

I guess we'll find out what the license/permit fee increases will be on Friday.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Yea and I agree with Dave that I rather see the money come to PA than not. However, to your point John, even if PA fish and boat restores all 86,000 stream miles to exceptional value status(impossible) and fixes all impassible culverts this below body literature shows they are almost guaranteed to NOT protect/restore any significant amount of brook trout where these invasive trout species(that they also stock around 9 million annually) are present. That is an UNDENIABLE FACT.

1.
https://www.kiaptuwish.org/wp-conte...tion-Manuscript_Wild-Trout-Symposium_0917.pdf

2.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdfdirect/10.1111/rec.12925

3.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/rec.13678

4.

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

the above research shows their current plan is to fail brook trout in every single stream where brown and rainbow trout exist in this state. Even streams listed as “class A brook trout” have these invasive species in them. We plan to fail almost all the brook trout in our state because the entire scientific community and the above research shows how obvious it is that if we stock invasive species over our native brook trout we have little to no chance of keeping them except in the very rare cases where NO invasive salmonids exist. The truth is if we just stopped stocking them there would very likely atleast be some wateraheds(acidic, temp, other unknown factors) where brook trout’s numbers and biotic resistance would hold.

We know we can’t go rotenone penns, big fishing all those big great places to fish. No one is proposing that and its just not possible for anyone who thinks that is what I am trying to propose. I’m not NO ONE IS.
But not stocking on or “on the doorstep” of where brook trout, threatened chesapeake log perch, hellbenders, rainbow darter, or high conservation need chubs/shiners/madoms/suckers is just common sense we cannot excersise for some reason. There is evidence this stocking is harmful for these non game species to in some cases or just none at all for many others……..but we still drop insane invasive biomass on them from stocking trucks none the same.

To be clear. THIS IS NOT SOLEY CLEAN WATER/ SAVE THE BAY MONEY. This is for the species themselves. Habitat/ stream bank projects that completely ignore invasive threats is growing greener, 319, NFWF, or PAFB stream work grants NOT R.A.W.A.

That won’t fly with this money and knowing PA fish and boat is planning to fail native brook trout based on the small sample of the mountain of evidence kn this topic posted above, why does ANYONE have any confidence in their ability to use this money? You cannot ignore what they ignore, invasive species. Their building the entire car with no plan to put gas in the tank!

We are in vote of no confidence territory with PA fish and Boat in regards to the species they are responsible for protecting.

 

[bigjohn358]

Fish Stick: Other than these culverts is there really much more we can do with habitat and our native brook trout? I mean I live right in the heart of a lot of the brook trout waters. The habitat to me seems fine. One thing I feel needs addressed is property owners along class A waters. I've seen a lot of bank tree cutting along BFC (The entire creek is all class A). I know this is on private land but I also feel that the land owner has the responsibility to protect the water just as much.

 

[Mike]

The “native brook trout example” above is the only one that is a priority 2 item for brook trout. Here are the priority 1 items in the plan for brook trout….
Eliminate or reduce acid precip
Increase stream connectivity
Restore H2O quality in historical ST streams
Erosion/sedimentation: no increase in pollution events or turbidity
Habitat: no reduction in habitat or H2O quality
Temperature and drought: reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Require Best Management Practices to protect streams: no reduction in habitat or H2O quality.
Riparian Buffers: maintain or increase coldwater environs

 

[silverfox]

Fish Stick: Other than these culverts is there really much more we can do with habitat and our native brook trout? I mean I live right in the heart of a lot of the brook trout waters. The habitat to me seems fine. One thing I feel needs addressed is property owners along class A waters. I've seen a lot of bank tree cutting along BFC (The entire creek is all class A). I know this is on private land but I also feel that the land owner has the responsibility to protect the water just as much.

I doubt many places couldn't use some "tweaking" if we've got the time and money. Large Woody Debris (or strategic wood additions nowdays) is great. Manmade structures like log vanes and mud sills can improve habitat and reduce sediment. Riparian plantings. AMD remediation. etc. etc. etc.

Basically, all of the habitat/water quality work is great for brook trout, but as Fishsticks has posted several times, if there are nonnative fish, it may not benefit brook trout specifically, or could even negatively impact brook trout if the resulting habitat favors nonnative fish more than brook trout.

All of this makes me wonder how this RAWA money would work in sympatric populations. How can you say that the habitat work will benefit brook trout or is specifically for brook trout if you're doing nothing with the nonnative fish. As discussed extensively in another thread recently, we don't have a lot of allopatric (brook trout only) waters. So I'd be very skeptical about funds used for habitat improvement with a stated goal of improving brook trout habitat if there are other salmonid species present.

The allopatric populations that do exist probably don't need $17million annually to improve anything. So PFBC would have to face the nonnative fish thing or just use it for more research to prove that something does or doesn't need to be done. In other words, basically nothing will happen except we'll get a clearer picture of where things are at.

 

[silverfox]

The “native brook trout example” above is the only one that is a priority 2 item for brook trout. Here are the priority 1 items in the plan for brook trout….
Eliminate or reduce acid precip
Increase stream connectivity
Restore H2O quality in historical ST streams
Erosion/sedimentation: no increase in pollution events or turbidity
Habitat: no reduction in habitat or H2O quality
Temperature and drought: reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Require Best Management Practices to protect streams: no reduction in habitat or H2O quality.
Riparian Buffers: maintain or increase coldwater environs

That's exactly my concern. Just ignore this nonnative fish thing at all costs. Kick the can. Dump all the resources into fixing habitat regardless of what lives there and call it a win. Even if in reality it means we're doing further damage to brook trout specifically.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Fish Stick: Other than these culverts is there really much more we can do with habitat and our native brook trout? I mean I live right in the heart of a lot of the brook trout waters. The habitat to me seems fine. One thing I feel needs addressed is property owners along class A waters. I've seen a lot of bank tree cutting along BFC (The entire creek is all class A). I know this is on private land but I also feel that the land owner has the responsibility to protect the water just as much.

I absolutely agree with you that when your talking about these streams on forested SGL/state parks that the dominant limiting impairment is usually not water quality/habitat.

Private property owners on class A’s can be a big issue and often these streams house super high need non game fish/amphibians/reptiles. I know these stream designations come with protections through DEP but am not knowledgeable on specifically what they are in each case. Enforcement/logistics seems to be a big issue too because pollution events can be silent, intermittent, or damage/mistreatment of the stream can go unnoticed.

As far as what the best thing we can do for these brook trout in totally forested streams with decent habitat and water quality, consider this.

1. Slate run, one of the longest forested freestoners that holds wild native brook trout in the eastern united states I believe. Awesome habitat, good connectivity, water quality is great. Why are native brook trout stillbe displaced from the prime lies and best habitat? Why have brook trout lost so much ground to brown trout there? Well theres no doubt wild brown trout in slate run. But you also have PA fish and boat, slate run tackle shop, and another club or two stocking invasive trout on its doorstep. To be clear we are talking abkut a stream in the eastern brook trout joint venture stronghold category(good candidate to be Noah’s Ark for brook trout through climate change and other stressors). Its the best of the best no significant stream restoration needs to be done really. But stocked and wild invasive species are seriously harming that population. Yet we cannot stop stocking right on its doorstep. I catch rainbows and those brown trout club fish up there all the time. If we stopped stocking truely insane amounts of fish right at the mouth AND PROTECTING THEM FOR CHRISTS SAKE WITH REGS WE WONT EVEN MAKE FOR BROOK TROUT, those slate run brook trout would have less invasive species to deal with. Then angling regs to encourage brown trout harvest could further reduce that. This all or nothing mentality is killing us with invasive species. Just because eradication isn’t possible doesn’t mean mitigation/limiting impact isn’t.

2. We know how bad barriers to connectivity and gene flow are right? I harp on that stuff all the time because so does the scientific literature. Well, here is a study that looked at the effects of PA fish and boat’s very own stocked brown trout in about 73 Pa streams. The presence of a barrier between the nearest brown trout stocking location and the stream being sampled made it 12x more likely that brook trout would be found in the stream being sampled.
Study below

https://afspubs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/tafs.10078

So even though barriers are terrible for brook trout PA fish and boats stocked brown trout were obviously worse in that study. What does that tell us about what we could be doing by stocking more responsibly. IT COULD BE A GAME CHANGER. most people know stocked invasive species are bad but they don’t know just how bad they are. It’s terrible. I heard a recording of an EBTJV meeting and a few people basically said its obvious we should not be stocking these thjngs anywhere near brook trout anymore. Other states are making big changes. PA fish and Boat is protecting status Quo and ensuring demise of our state fish.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The “native brook trout example” above is the only one that is a priority 2 item for brook trout. Here are the priority 1 items in the plan for brook trout….
Eliminate or reduce acid precip
Increase stream connectivity
Restore H2O quality in historical ST streams
Erosion/sedimentation: no increase in pollution events or turbidity
Habitat: no reduction in habitat or H2O quality
Temperature and drought: reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Require Best Management Practices to protect streams: no reduction in habitat or H2O quality.
Riparian Buffers: maintain or increase coldwater environs

Its priority 2 because Pa fish and boat doesn’t want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. It’s not priority two in those EV streams of potter and Tioga counties. Most are almost totally connected with top water quality in the state, why are we losing brook trout water to invasive species there?

 

[bigjohn358]

I doubt many places couldn't use some "tweaking" if we've got the time and money. Large Woody Debris (or strategic wood additions nowdays) is great. Manmade structures like log vanes and mud sills can improve habitat and reduce sediment. Riparian plantings. AMD remediation. etc. etc. etc.

There is nothing I HATE more than going to a stream especially one in the wilderness and seeing man made structure that is supposed to enhance the stream conditions. There is just something about seeing man made features in wild areas that bothers me to no end! I know their purpose is good but I just do not enjoy seeing that stuff. No matter how much anyone tries to hide that its man made they still seem to fail miserably.

 

[bigjohn358]

The “native brook trout example” above is the only one that is a priority 2 item for brook trout. Here are the priority 1 items in the plan for brook trout….
Eliminate or reduce acid precip
Increase stream connectivity
Restore H2O quality in historical ST streams
Erosion/sedimentation: no increase in pollution events or turbidity
Habitat: no reduction in habitat or H2O quality
Temperature and drought: reduce greenhouse gas emissions
Require Best Management Practices to protect streams: no reduction in habitat or H2O quality.
Riparian Buffers: maintain or increase coldwater environs

How would money in this state be used to stop acid precipitation? That is something that mainly comes from across the country or other side of the world and dumps on us here. No matter how much money is given to PA its not going to be able to fix that issue. I also doubt any of the money given will do anything to the green house gas emissions either. It would be great to fix those problems but no amount of money given to our state would ever fix those issues.

 

[wildtrout2]

There is nothing I HATE more than going to a stream especially one in the wilderness and seeing man made structure that is supposed to enhance the stream conditions. There is just something about seeing man made features in wild areas that bothers me to no end! I know their purpose is good but I just do not enjoy seeing that stuff. No matter how much anyone tries to hide that its man made they still seem to fail miserably.

Couldn't agree more. I'm fortunate I don't encounter them on most of the streams I fish. It's just one of a lot of reasons I fish remote unstocked wild streams.

 

[silverfox]

There is nothing I HATE more than going to a stream especially one in the wilderness and seeing man made structure that is supposed to enhance the stream conditions. There is just something about seeing man made features in wild areas that bothers me to no end! I know their purpose is good but I just do not enjoy seeing that stuff. No matter how much anyone tries to hide that its man made they still seem to fail miserably.

I agree completely. I'm also highly skeptical of their long-term effectiveness.

 

[silverfox]

Its priority 2 because Pa fish and boat doesn’t want to touch it with a 10 foot pole. It’s not priority two in those EV streams of potter and Tioga counties. Most are almost totally connected with top water quality in the state, why are we losing brook trout water to invasive species there?

There's an entire classification in the range-wide assessment for streams with no environmental impacts where nonnative fish are the #1 issue. I brought up East Licking Creek in another thread. That's a perfect example of where the prescription is a reduction of nonnative species but we're still dumping brown trout in on top of the brook trout.

That stream doesn't need LWD (or SWA I guess) and the barrier could function as a species barrier, but because barriers are priority 1 and species are priority 2, I guess an argument could be made to tear the dam out regardless of what that means to priority 2. We'll spend a bunch of money before we even consider saving fuel in hauling a truckload of trout though.

 

[Mike]

Bigjohn, Given the time taken to search through the document, familiarize myself with sections thereof, and then review a few species plans, including ST, I listed the priority one ST items in their basic form, primarily to show that there were important items that fell within a priority one category, not just priority two. Your questions per the document deal with ensuring that state and fed air quality regs are met and setting up monitoring programs, but if you look at the document there is additional info that will further answer your questions.

 

[silverfox]

To assist. https://www.fishandboat.com/Resource/Documents/SWAP-CHAPTER-1-apx14e-fish.pdf

Page 158.