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

[JeffK]

Stopping stocking worked on Saucon Ck, albeit with browns. Shown in biologist reports on website. PA does have an example.

 

[use2wuz]

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.

Humankind has an annoying tendency to destroy God’s creation with their “ideas”

 

[silverfox]

Stopping stocking worked on Saucon Ck, albeit with browns. Shown in biologist reports on website. PA does have an example.

Dave Nihart did touch on this in the middle of the Freeman Run meeting. That wasn't really the point of the meeting, but that's obviously what it was about. There's evidence to support that the cessation of stocking benefits stream-born salmonids. If Montana isn't enough, we've got data here in PA that points to the same thing.

Getting back to the original question, I think all of this points to a track record of management that makes me highly skeptical of how additional funding would be used. Again, my suspicion is that the money will fund a whole lot more "research" to find answers to things we already know. PA seems unwilling to accept anyone else's scientific research. We have to do the studies ourselves and if there's even the slightest inkling that we can avoid changing the status quo, that's what we'll do (native brook trout enhancement project).

The biggest gap in my opinion is the avoidance of the biotic issues. We'll focus on anything and everything we can if it means we can ignore biotic factors. Then we'll have plausible deniability in the future and just shrug our shoulders and say "well, we fixed all these culverts and environmental issues, but climate change wiped out the brook trout. But at least we have these other species and the habitat is better and the water quality is better".

 

[bigjohn358]

Right. The issue in places like Cross Fork or upper Kettle is that the C&R regs should be to protect brook trout (all wild trout if you deny biotic interactions resulting in the loss of one species) but we just couldn't bear to stop stocking, so the stocked trout end up with the same protections as the wild trout.

The simple solution there is to make brook trout C&R and everything else harvestable. Assuming there's any appetite to actually protect a SGCN as opposed to any species as long as it's born in the wild. Again, we can't get past the species favoritism and the dependence on stocking so it makes these awkward situations that don't make any sense. Nobody is willing to step up to focus on what's important because we don't want to alienate a demographic, yet anyone solely concerned with native fish gets the dirty end of the stick and nobody cares.

Upper Kettle should be release all brookies BUT the average fisherman has a hard time even identifying species. I know the brook trout though is one of the easiest to identify. I'm unsure how far up Kettle sportsmen clubs stock brook trout. I know the Clinton County portion tends to get a large number of brookies stocked. I hope above Olie Bull they do not stock any brook trout.

 

[silverfox]

Upper Kettle should be release all brookies BUT the average fisherman has a hard time even identifying species. I know the brook trout though is one of the easiest to identify. I'm unsure how far up Kettle sportsmen clubs stock brook trout. I know the Clinton County portion tends to get a large number of brookies stocked. I hope above Olie Bull they do not stock any brook trout.

From what I've seen, the only thing the clubs are stocking in Kettle these days are brown trout and yellow rainbow trout. Though, as mentioned previously in another thread, that's assuming the clubs are truthful in their reporting of what they're doing. God only knows what's really going on there.

 

[bigjohn358]

From what I've seen, the only thing the clubs are stocking in Kettle these days are brown trout and yellow rainbow trout. Though, as mentioned previously in another thread, that's assuming the clubs are truthful in their reporting of what they're doing. God only knows what's really going on there.

The Kettle Creek Sportsman Association ALWAYS stocked a ton of small brookies. I never bothered going to Kettle later in the spring to fish it (scenery seems to be better than the fishery in my opinion) but I saw lots of photos of the sportsmen club stocked brookies. That Clinton County section is always loaded with them in May.

 

[silverfox]

The Kettle Creek Sportsman Association ALWAYS stocked a ton of small brookies. I never bothered going to Kettle later in the spring to fish it (scenery seems to be better than the fishery in my opinion) but I saw lots of photos of the sportsmen club stocked brookies. That Clinton County section is always loaded with them in May.

I'm going off the stocking receipts. At least as they were reported. There were no brook trout stocked in Kettle last year, again, at least as recorded. If they're stocking brook trout and not reporting it, that's a serious problem. Not saying that's the case, just that it would look pretty bad for the state to have no control over what's really happening. I do know for certain that this kind of thing happens though.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

A point that should be added to this discussion is that the RAWA funding would go towards work to protect/ restore populations of all t&e species and species of greatest conservation need. Obviously brook trout fit here, but so do hosts of other mussel, fish, amphibian and reptile species.

 

[silverfox]

A point that should be added to this discussion is that the RAWA funding would go towards work to protect/ restore populations of all t&e species and species of greatest conservation need. Obviously brook trout fit here, but so do hosts of other mussel, fish, amphibian and reptile species.

Absolutely, though my concerns about whether we address the biotic issues apply in all cases. Especially where stocking is occurring or we're protecting nonnative species where these sensitive native species exist. Do we just ignore species interactions and focus on everything else? If we prioritize all the habitat work and exhaust the resources to improve habitat and water quality, how can we say we're doing it for the target species if there's overlap?

 

[silverfox]

A point that should be added to this discussion is that the RAWA funding would go towards work to protect/ restore populations of all t&e species and species of greatest conservation need. Obviously brook trout fit here, but so do hosts of other mussel, fish, amphibian and reptile species.

The point with focusing on brook trout specifically is we've got examples all over the state where we are and have been ignoring biotic issues for years. Decades. So now I'm expected to believe that a big influx of cash is going to change that?

I'm sorry, but we know stocking over brook trout and favoring nonnative wild trout is bad for brook trout and we have for quite some time. So I just fail to see how RAWA would magically change how we handle all these places with overlap. Whether it's brook trout or Chesapeake logperch, is it the lack of funding that has resulted in the refusal to stop stocking over these species? We don't need money to change stocking allocations or harvest regulations.

 

[bigjohn358]

A point that should be added to this discussion is that the RAWA funding would go towards work to protect/ restore populations of all t&e species and species of greatest conservation need. Obviously brook trout fit here, but so do hosts of other mussel, fish, amphibian and reptile species.

I do know trout stocking benefits the hellbenders which I believe should be included in the list of species to protect. I bet with the temperatures warming up that they have a never ending supply of dead stockies to eat. I know this is part of the reason you don't see tons of dead stocked trout on streams like Kettle and Lycoming. I remember in my younger days my brother's one friend had a stringer with a few trout on it and there was a hellbender eating his trout at Leidy.

 

[Fish Sticks]

A point that should be added to this discussion is that the RAWA funding would go towards work to protect/ restore populations of all t&e species and species of greatest conservation need. Obviously brook trout fit here, but so do hosts of other mussel, fish, amphibian and reptile species.

Yes but the problem is there is data from all over the country that demonstrates high likelihood or proof invasive trout species are affect alot of these non game species of highest conservation need (sculpins, suckers, candy darter, guyandotte crayfish, hellbenders, all minds of amphibians out-west, and the list goes on and on). Then on too of that if you take the fact that there is so little research on the negative effects of invasive salmonids on these native non game species. You start to realize that basically if it gets studied it shows either concerns or harm. There are not many articles I have found where the outcome of the study shows for “X “native non game species that invasive salmonids show no risk of harm.

Thats the problem its not just brook trout. I just talk about them alot because not too many folks know or care about what happens when you drop thousands of trout over threatened log perch in lanco/york counties, rainbow darters in french creek(onebof most biodiverse streams in the state that deserves better), hellbenders in the northern potter county atream that many of us know peter petokas wrote a letter begging Pa fish and boat not to stock harmful invasive species over and the fish commission did it anyway.

How does 17 million dollars help these non game species of highest conservation need if you give it to an organization with such a derelict pattern of behavior?

 

[silverfox]

I do know trout stocking benefits the hellbenders which I believe should be included in the list of species to protect. I bet with the temperatures warming up that they have a never ending supply of dead stockies to eat. I know this is part of the reason you don't see tons of dead stocked trout on streams like Kettle and Lycoming. I remember in my younger days my brother's one friend had a stringer with a few trout on it and there was a hellbender eating his trout at Leidy.

That's an interesting take. My question is whether the potential food source for adults offsets the predation of larval hellbenders?

 

[bigjohn358]

Yes but the problem is there is data from all over the country that demonstrates high likelihood or proof invasive trout species are affect alot of these non game species of highest conservation need (sculpins, suckers, candy darter, guyandotte crayfish, hellbenders, all minds of amphibians out-west, and the list goes on and on). Then on too of that if you take the fact that there is so little research on the negative effects of invasive salmonids on these native non game species. You start to realize that basically if it gets studied it shows either concerns or harm. There are not many articles I have found where the outcome of the study shows for “X “native non game species that invasive salmonids show no risk of harm.

Thats the problem its not just brook trout. I just talk about them alot because not too many folks know or care about what happens when you drop thousands of trout over threatened log perch in lanco/york counties, rainbow darters in french creek(onebof most biodiverse streams in the state that deserves better), hellbenders in the northern potter county atream that many of us know peter petokas wrote a letter begging Pa fish and boat not to stock harmful invasive species over and the fish commission did it anyway.

How does 17 million dollars help these non game species of highest conservation need if you give it to an organization with such a derelict pattern of behavior?

Thats the problems I brought up with the Susquehanna River. I'm all for smallmouth bass in the river but technically they are invasive and I'm sure they harm some of the native darter and minnow populations some of which are threatened and endangered. At some point you do have to pick and choose even if it doesn't seem right. I still feel better about picking and choosing a fish that naturally can reproduce and maintain its population without the help of stocking unlike the stocked trout population.

 

[silverfox]

Thats the problems I brought up with the Susquehanna River. I'm all for smallmouth bass in the river but technically they are invasive and I'm sure they harm some of the native darter and minnow populations some of which are threatened and endangered. At some point you do have to pick and choose even if it doesn't seem right. I still feel better about picking and choosing a fish that naturally can reproduce and maintain its population without the help of stocking unlike the stocked trout population.

This gets into the anglers as conservationists paradox. As much as I love brook trout, I'm more concerned about ecosystem health & resiliency, trophic issues, and the function of a native assemblage of species than I am about what I can catch on a fly rod. When we manipulate the fabric of species assemblage or the watershed function with barriers then all bets are off about how that system functions long term. We can't be shocked when some introduced species suddenly collapses or disease wipes out the stocks. We'll spend money and resources trying to fix or improve a species that shouldn't be there.

That's what burned me up about the voluntary habitat money being used on 800 feet of spruce creek. At best it may benefit a nonnative species. At worst it's only making a stocked stream more habitable for stocked trout. We've got a SGCN salmonid that should get first priority for habitat improvement money but we decided to spend $20,000 on log vanes on a pay-to-play stream that should be off-limits to stocking while those who benefit financially from the abuse of the resource walk away with the benefit.

 

[bigjohn358]

This gets into the anglers as conservationists paradox. As much as I love brook trout, I'm more concerned about ecosystem health & resiliency, trophic issues, and the function of a native assemblage of species than I am about what I can catch on a fly rod. When we manipulate the fabric of species assemblage or the watershed function with barriers then all bets are off about how that system functions long term. We can't be shocked when some introduced species suddenly collapses or disease wipes out the stocks. We'll spend money and resources trying to fix or improve a species that shouldn't be there.

That's what burned me up about the voluntary habitat money being used on 800 feet of spruce creek. At best it may benefit a nonnative species. At worst it's only making a stocked stream more habitable for stocked trout. We've got a SGCN salmonid that should get first priority for habitat improvement money but we decided to spend $20,000 on log veins on a pay-to-play stream that should be off-limits to stocking while those who benefit financially from the abuse of the resource walk away with the benefit.

Well you should always know up front that the PFBC is going to do what makes money...not whats right for the environment! Money is ALWAYS #1.

 

[Fish Sticks]

To highlight what silver-fox said about picking invasive/non native species and picking instability. I am starting to hear about people getting concerned that wild brown trout fisheries are experiencing “smallmouth” encroachment anecdotally. Small mouth bass fishermen are catching smallmouth with huge flathead bitemarks that narrowly escaped, flathead fishermen are catching flatheads barfing up 20” smallmouth or finding smaller flatheads floating dead on the surface choking on 20” flathead. We now have blue catfish in the Susquehanna who the h*** knows what their going to do. The snakeheads are quickly developing a lobby and you even have people trying to make a case their non invasive without research looking at their entire impact on the ecosystem. The great lakes in new york had invasive alweives enter through man made cannals. What was the answer??? MORE INVASIVE SPECIES-enter the stocked pacific salmon and the Stocked Potamodromous Rainbows now branded as “sTeElHeAd” (the same name as the Anadromous fish that ascends like 6000some feet of elevation and like 800 miles pacific ocean to idaho). Now fast forward to today Pacifics eating the alweives so hard they crashed their populations and NY is about to sustain a serious blow to their sport fishery because if the west coast stockers can’t go out in the lake and grow, no hoards of people coming for the meat in the river. Of course now that the alweives on the decline and disappearing along withthe enzyme they contain, thiaminase, that impairs reproductive ability of Native Lake trout and Atlantic salmon, ITS TIME TO COMPENSATE WITH OUR INVASIVE BROWN TROUT STOCKING PLAN in the greatlakes because they can feed on invasive round goby!!! Then when the one invasive species builds up and destabilizes the other WE JUST ADD ANOTHER. BOOM, CRASH,BOOM, CRASH sound like a good plan to us right?? It never stops with invasive species, wait till the snakehead lobby all gets their guiding license, youtube channels, flys and pro staff deals then someone dumps in wells catfish or an aquarium fish with some snakehead virus. The pipe dream of the ecosystem being the little zen garden each individual angler prefers from a fishing prospective while we ignore millions of years of evolution continues with a big thumbs up from our Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Comission.


Does anyone know how flatheads got in the Susquehanna??

 

[silverfox]

To highlight what silver-fox said about picking invasive/non native species and picking instability. I am starting to hear about people getting concerned that wild brown trout fisheries are experiencing “smallmouth” encroachment anecdotally. Small mouth bass fishermen are catching smallmouth with huge flathead bitemarks that narrowly escaped, flathead fishermen are catching flatheads barfing up 20” smallmouth or finding smaller flatheads floating dead on the surface choking on 20” flathead. We now have blue catfish in the Susquehanna who the h*** knows what their going to do. The snakeheads are quickly developing a lobby and you even have people trying to make a case their non invasive without research looking at their entire impact on the ecosystem. The great lakes in new york had invasive alweives enter through man made cannals. What was the answer??? MORE INVASIVE SPECIES-enter the stocked pacific salmon and the Stocked Potamodromous Rainbows now branded as “sTeElHeAd” (the same name as the Anadromous fish that ascends like 6000some feet of elevation and like 800 miles pacific ocean to idaho). Now fast forward to today Pacifics eating the alweives so hard they crashed their populations and NY is about to sustain a serious blow to their sport fishery because if the west coast stockers can’t go out in the lake and grow, no hoards of people coming for the meat in the river. Of course now that the alweives on the decline and disappearing along withthe enzyme they contain, thiaminase, that impairs reproductive ability of Native Lake trout and Atlantic salmon, ITS TIME TO COMPENSATE WITH OUR INVASIVE BROWN TROUT STOCKING PLAN in the greatlakes because they can feed on invasive round goby!!! Then when the one invasive species builds up and destabilizes the other WE JUST ADD ANOTHER. BOOM, CRASH,BOOM, CRASH sound like a good plan to us right?? It never stops with invasive species, wait till the snakehead lobby all gets their guiding license, youtube channels, flys and pro staff deals then someone dumps in wells catfish or an aquarium fish with some snakehead virus. The pipe dream of the ecosystem being the little zen garden each individual angler prefers from a fishing prospective while we ignore millions of years of evolution continues with a big thumbs up from our Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Comission.


Does anyone know how flatheads got in the Susquehanna??

The solution is simply to pander to the largest demographic of license buyer. Obviously.

 

[silverfox]

Fishsticks posted this in another thread, but I wanted to repost it here.

Brook Trout Restoration

Numerous approaches are used to aid in the recovery of brook trout populations with varying success. Which approaches are working, which are not, and what does recent research tell us about the potential for a more effective way forward in a changing climate?

www.nature.com

I don't know how many have seen this before, but it's from the EBTJV range-wide assessment. I'm always astonished by how few intact watersheds we have and how many extirpated and reduced populations we have relative to our state size.

 

[silverfox]

I wanted to follow up on this and should've posted this sooner, but it's not too late.

To clarify and answer the original question, regardless of the on-topic and off-topic commentary, I do personally fully support PFBC receiving RAWA funding. The nice thing about this funding is that it is to be used specifically for conservation initiatives. We can't complain about PFBC not doing enough and then undermine them receiving funding to do more.

Just making it very clear that I (and any organizations I'm associated with) fully support RAWA and PFBC receiving RAWA funding.

If you have time, it would be good to reach out to your representative and urge them to support RAWA. We've written several letters to our representatives urging them to support RAWA already, and I've called my reps to state my support.

I know this has turtles in the supporting text and images, but this is for RAWA which applies to far more than sea turtles. RAWA should be up for a vote THIS WEEK.

Call Now for Sea Turtles

All species of sea turtles in the United States are threatened or endangered. The U.S. House of Representatives is about to vote on a historic bill that will help struggling sea turtles nationwide. Please call now to urge a YES vote.

support.nwfactionfund.org