Size change?

[Tom1980]

IMHO Someone who is harvesting a 7 inch brook isn’t going to care what the regulations are, they are going to continue to do what they do.

Then why have any size limit at all?

 

[HopBack]

Then why have any size limit at all?

If you read my previous comment, I think the size limit has zero effect at all on brook trout. They are what they are because of genetics and general fertility of the streams they inhabit.

I know it’s practical to have a size limit, just not for the reason that is being portrayed in this thread.

 

[Tom1980]

I disagree based on the PFBC data of the amount of brook trout being harvested from the top 10 percent of brook trout streams a year .

It will improve those populations

 

[Tom1980]

These were the graphics used in another thread

 

[Fish Sticks]

If you read my previous comment, I think the size limit has zero effect at all on brook trout. They are what they are because of genetics and general fertility of the streams they inhabit.

I know it’s practical to have a size limit, just not for the reason that is being portrayed in this thread.

There may be some genetic benefit to being smaller and surviving in headwaters but their genetics don’t have as much to do with their size(that we know of) compared to of they can use larger habitat that is free or at least not saturated with invasive trout or other invasive predators. The common myth that “they can’t get bigger than that” is false. research shows invasive trout species are large part of why they are trapped in infertile headwater streams and cannot utilize the more food rich streams downstream to grow.

They can actually even summer in alot of these larger warm streams in thermal refuges and still take advantage of more abundant food if not pushed out of thermal refuge by invasive species. This was proven in petty, hansberger, huntsman et al 2012 and nathaniel hitts 2017 study. Also when doug deiterman removed browns from coolidge creek In Minnesota brook trout reclaimed downstream habitat and increased their growth rate.

I just mention this because it ones of the central myths I addressed in the brook trout myths and urban legends podcast and has been spread far and wide OUTSIDE the fisheries science community who knows different.

Said podcast with cited research and explanations

PA NFC Board Member James Suleski Talks Brook Trout with Rob Snowhite — Native Fish Coalition

Pennsylvania NFC board member Dr. James Suleski talks brook trout with Rob Snowhite on Fly Fishing Consultant podcast.…

nativefishcoalition.org

 

[Tom1980]

Little over 19,000 wild brook trout a year are harvested and the majority of those from limestone influenced streams and the top 10 percent of freestone streams.

That is a pretty large number.

At the least, it can't hurt.
In fact, it is likely this increase would mostly benefit brown trout, which can grow larger, faster. And the general public can't tell the difference between the two. Ad to that that the PFBC stocks fish bigger than 7" the increase only makes sense across the board.

If it is beneficial to brook trout good, if not it will still benefit wild brown trout while still being practical.

 

[Nocktavius]

Should not be any harvest in a stream that has wild trout.

I don’t think there’s a significant problem with over harvest in any of our WT streams- populations are increasing if anything to the point where a couple fish being taken might just lead to larger fish. Most of the people who are good enough at catching wild trout already primarily respect the C&R principles. The existing regs (like the slot limit on Penns for example) allow people to have their wild brown trout cooked over the campfire once in awhile.

Now as far as the minimum stockie size? Who cares. It’s directly related to the minimum size mushmouths that the PFBC dumps in the river. Raising larger trout costs more money, so in the end we’ll just get more small fish stocked that can’t be kept (and will therefore probably die once it gets too warm), or a corresponding increase in license prices to keep up with the demand of raising larger pellet pigs. It’s a no win, might as well leave it like it is.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I think what always gets left out of these discussions is conservation genetics and how critical a populations number of individuals are for driving evolution in the fave of climate change and other stressors(best case) or simply avoiding becoming so inbred that they become infertile, un-fit to survive, and blink out as a population.

PA’s brook trout are highly fractionated meaning there is alot of barriers preventing gene flow(gene mixing between populations) that drive’s evolution and increased fitness to environment. These barriers are chemical(AMD), thermal(hot water), biological(invasive trout and other invasive predators/competitors), and physical (dam/culvert/swamps).

So consider this. In a class D stream you may have like 10 fish per mile or something,I don’t know. But lets say effective population size is less than 50 individuals for whole stream. The harvest of your limit of legal brook trout is a very significant removal of genetic material in an already small gene pool that is susceptible to genetic drift(random non adaptation/non beneficial based genetic change small populations susceptible to). What are we doing to those fishes adaptive capacity and genetic fitness?likely reducing both

Now take a class A stream. Well Fish sticks whats the problem we have a large number of individuals so whats the problem with removing a few? Well its definitely not as bad as when you have a very small number of individuals but people do crop brook trout. We have seen forum members post the cooking oil and pan left at a hole with brook trout in a Lanco trout stream. A most recent class A addition for brook trout apparently had tons of bobbers and fishing gear hanging in the trees at a deep bridge hole. Do we think bait fisherman stopping here are releasing. If you stop into the greasy spoons in clinton, tioga and potter your waiter or waitress may tell you “natives are delicious”. Mine have. People keep these things. John Arway the past Commissioner takes his grandkids out and does brook trout fish fries camping. It’s legal so i’m not trying to single him put just pointing out that if even the former head of PA fish and boat with his knowledge of the fishe’s conservation status does it, how rare do we think this behavior is? This isnt happening on all streams but some get hit exponentially harder as troutbert has mentioned. So if a class A gets hit that hard and decreases the number of brook trout but it still meets class A, you still likely decreased genetic diversity and adaptive capacity.

Also in that same class A example, guess what. Those super high densities cause brook trout to move and relocate when habitat and competition for resources get crowded. Do we want to harvest away crowded conditions that may be encouraging gene flow, different life history strategies, and beneficial source/sink dynamics(https://www.google.com/search?q=source+sink+dynamics&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en-us&client=safari)?????

Then in downstream areas the largest most fecund/fertile fish we know are moving and sharing genes are the most susceptible to harvest due to the high consumptive angler effort stocking attracts. This is stated by maryland DNR Tod petty et al. Protecting these fish is a no brainer.

I don’t buy there is no value in regs because some may break them. As Tom pointed out why have regs at all. They have the power to educate as well which is a huge benefit hardly ever mentioned by PFBC. They should be C & R statewide its a no brainer. We don’t even have data on how many brook trout streams we have lost to wild invasive brown trout or other factors. Their in the state wild life action plan and slated to be negatively effected by climate change. If PFBC’s garbage creel surveys say no one eats them then who cares lets give them protections and educate the fishing commonwealth.

 

[HopBack]

These were the graphics used in another threadView attachment 1641231775View attachment 1641231776

This data is from 2003 which is around the same time frame they implemented the wild brook trout enhancement program. No harvest of brook trout was allowed in these streams under this regulation. The majority of the streams, more than just mentioned in the article actually suffered due to the regulation. The average size of the brook trout actually decreased.

 

[Fish Sticks]

This data is from 2003 which is around the same time frame they implemented the wild brook trout enhancement program. No harvest of brook trout was allowed in these streams under this regulation. The majority of the streams, more than just mentioned in the article actually suffered due to the regulation. The average size of the brook trout actually decreased.
View attachment 1641231780

Average 308 or 313 yard sample size- hot garbage sample size

The primary out come and only outcome was 175mm brook trout or not. No other real benefits to pop were measured. -doesn’t tell you much

Pure demographic, dog *hit, data-no conservation genetics assessments

Thats observational data, not even a real study, no controls for stochastic events or other variables

You can print it out incase you run out of toilet paper, thats about its only use

 

[HopBack]

There may be some genetic benefit to being smaller and surviving in headwaters but their genetics don’t have as much to do with their size(that we know of) compared to of they can use larger habitat that is free or at least not saturated with invasive trout or other invasive predators. The common myth that “they can’t get bigger than that” is false. research shows invasive trout species are large part of why they are trapped in infertile headwater streams and cannot utilize the more food rich streams downstream to grow.

Sure Brook trout can get bigger if they are in a more fertile environment like Big spring or a hatchery for that matter, But they are still much smaller in comparison to the rest of the salmonoid family. I view it as a house cat compared to a mt lion. A well fed house cat can exceed 25lbs but a house at will never be anywhere close to the size of a mt. Lion due to its genetic makeup.

There is nothing wrong with brook trout maxing out at 12 inches on freestones or maybe 18 inches on limestone streams.

If you want bigger brook trout on average you have to follow the model that TU did on the monogehela. It’s a larger watershed with problems in the headwaters. Fix the problems in the headwaters, improve the water quality and water temps and you will grow bigger brook trout.

Once you identify a stream with potential and fix the problems enough to sustain brook trout year round, then you can start your arguments of removing invasive sand setting a slot limit.

 

[HopBack]

Average 308 or 313 yard sample size- hot garbage sample size

The primary out come and only outcome was 175mm brook trout or not. No other real benefits to pop were measured. -doesn’t tell you much

Pure demographic, dog *hit, data-no conservation genetics assessments

Thats observational data, not even a real study, no controls for stochastic events or other variables

You can print it out incase you run out of toilet paper, thats about its only use

That’s why I said there is more to this study than what is on this paper. If it worked, the program would still exist today.

In this study only 1 variable was changed. Clearly in the case of infertile streams, simply limiting harvest did not work to improve the fishery.


You cant just pick the studies you want to support your data and ignore all other inputs.


That’s all I really wanted to say, I’m not going to reply to anything else

 

[Tom1980]

This data is from 2003 which is around the same time frame they implemented the wild brook trout enhancement program. No harvest of brook trout was allowed in these streams under this regulation. The majority of the streams, more than just mentioned in the article actually suffered due to the regulation. The average size of the brook trout actually decreased.
View attachment 1641231780

Right but state wide minimums arent putting fish here signs out.

 

[Tom1980]

And to add, one stream had an increase in size, Kettle Creek.

One of the top 10 percent.

I agree it won't do much statewide, but in specific waters, it will actually help.

 

[Mike]

These were the graphics used in another threadView attachment 1641231775View attachment 1641231776

I wrote the first page of text in #44 above and the second page originated from the statewide wild trout stream angler use and harvest study two years later. Note that:

1)The top 10% of the ST streams in the database at the time had 82 legal trout per mile and 11 per mile 9 inches long and longer.

2)Harvest rate of legal wild ST was 8/mi on streams 19.6 ft wide and wider and 6/mi in streams less than 19.6 ft wide.

***What isn’t shown in the text is that a 76 section subsample of the 200 stream sections used in the statewide wild trout angler use and harvest study averaged 76 legal ST per mile in the populations. The harvest rate on these thus averaged 6-8 per mi….about a 10% harvest rate.

This is a very low harvest rate and strongly suggests that harvest is not impacting the angling experience or the populations mentioned above. Average annual total mortality of ST in Pa freestone streams from age 2 onward is 60 percent. With only 6-8% of the annual mortality coming from angler harvest, there’s a lot more mortality when you tack on the considerably higher natural mortality. Given the compensatory relationship between angling mortality and natural mortality, the harvest at such a low level isn’t likely to be making any difference in the populations or the total annual mortality. As a result, more conservative length limits are highly unlikely to help the aforementioned populations.

When I made the presentation from which the first page of the text in #44 above came I poo-poo’d special regs for ST (further length and/or creel limit changes for select waters). Instead I said that based on data analyses the best chance for improving ST populations (as long as the habitat was likely to allow an increase) was to stop stocking over them. The avg increase in legal size ST was much, much greater than with special regs. Not all ST streams showed increases following stocking termination, but most did. Troutbert probably remembers that.

 

[Tom1980]

From the Minutes from the 117th Meeting of the PFBC held on January 21, 2016:

Volume 67 Page 20
January 21, 2016

DESIGNATIONS

C. Designation of Upper Kettle Creek Basin as Catch and Release All-Tackle under Section
65.15.

Commentary:

The upper Kettle Creek basin was managed under the Wild Brook Trout Enhancement
Program through July 2015. As part of evaluating the wild Brook Trout enhancement
regulations, staff monitored 16 treatment and seven control streams (statewide
regulations) throughout Pennsylvania. The goal of the evaluation was to assess the Wild
Brook Trout Enhancement Program as a whole to determine its efficacy. Results of the
program evaluation indicated that the regulation was not effective at increasing the
number of adult (>4 inches) or legal size (>7 inches) wild Brook Trout. As a result, staff
recommended that the wild Brook Trout enhancement regulations be eliminated, and the
Board approved this action at the July 2015 Commission meeting. Staff also indicated
that a subset of the streams managed under the wild Brook Trout enhancement
regulations might be moved to another existing special regulation if the data supported
this management change.

During the review of the Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Program, staff noted that the
upper Kettle Creek basin streams seemed to respond differently than the other streams
included in the study. Staff worked with the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit to analyze the data on an individual stream basis to determine if this was
the case. Results indicated that five of the seven sample sites located on upper Kettle
Creek and four of its tributaries had a significant increase in the number of legal-size
Brook Trout. These were the only streams managed under the wild Brook Trout
enhancement regulations that showed a significant increase. The upper Kettle Creek
watershed is the largest stronghold for Brook Trout in Pennsylvania, is a destination
fishery for anglers, and was the largest system included in the study. These factors may
help to explain why this system responded differently than the other waters in the
program.

Based on the final data review and the ecological importance of the upper Kettle Creek
watershed, staff recommend that the upper Kettle Creek basin from the headwaters of
Kettle Creek downstream to the confluence with Long Run, including Long Run and all
tributaries upstream to the headwaters, be designated as catch and release all-tackle under
58 Pa. Code § 65.15. Staff plan to continue monitoring the wild Brook Trout populations
in this watershed.

A notice of proposed designation was published at 45 Pa. B. 7072 (December 12, 2015)
(Exhibit I). The Commission received a total of 12 public comments regarding the
proposed designation – four prior to and eight during the formal comment period. Eight
of the comments support the proposal; two prefer catch and release artificial lures only;
one prefers catch and release fly-fishing only; and one supports single barbless hooks.
Copies of all public comments were provided to the Commissioners.

 

[HopBack]

From the Minutes from the 117th Meeting of the PFBC held on January 21, 2016:

Volume 67 Page 20
January 21, 2016

DESIGNATIONS

C. Designation of Upper Kettle Creek Basin as Catch and Release All-Tackle under Section
65.15.

Commentary:

The upper Kettle Creek basin was managed under the Wild Brook Trout Enhancement
Program through July 2015. As part of evaluating the wild Brook Trout enhancement
regulations, staff monitored 16 treatment and seven control streams (statewide
regulations) throughout Pennsylvania. The goal of the evaluation was to assess the Wild
Brook Trout Enhancement Program as a whole to determine its efficacy. Results of the
program evaluation indicated that the regulation was not effective at increasing the
number of adult (>4 inches) or legal size (>7 inches) wild Brook Trout. As a result, staff
recommended that the wild Brook Trout enhancement regulations be eliminated, and the
Board approved this action at the July 2015 Commission meeting. Staff also indicated
that a subset of the streams managed under the wild Brook Trout enhancement
regulations might be moved to another existing special regulation if the data supported
this management change.

During the review of the Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Program, staff noted that the
upper Kettle Creek basin streams seemed to respond differently than the other streams
included in the study. Staff worked with the Pennsylvania Cooperative Fish and Wildlife
Research Unit to analyze the data on an individual stream basis to determine if this was
the case. Results indicated that five of the seven sample sites located on upper Kettle
Creek and four of its tributaries had a significant increase in the number of legal-size
Brook Trout. These were the only streams managed under the wild Brook Trout
enhancement regulations that showed a significant increase. The upper Kettle Creek
watershed is the largest stronghold for Brook Trout in Pennsylvania, is a destination
fishery for anglers, and was the largest system included in the study. These factors may
help to explain why this system responded differently than the other waters in the
program.

Based on the final data review and the ecological importance of the upper Kettle Creek
watershed, staff recommend that the upper Kettle Creek basin from the headwaters of
Kettle Creek downstream to the confluence with Long Run, including Long Run and all
tributaries upstream to the headwaters, be designated as catch and release all-tackle under
58 Pa. Code § 65.15. Staff plan to continue monitoring the wild Brook Trout populations
in this watershed.

A notice of proposed designation was published at 45 Pa. B. 7072 (December 12, 2015)
(Exhibit I). The Commission received a total of 12 public comments regarding the
proposed designation – four prior to and eight during the formal comment period. Eight
of the comments support the proposal; two prefer catch and release artificial lures only;
one prefers catch and release fly-fishing only; and one supports single barbless hooks.
Copies of all public comments were provided to the Commissioners.

In all studies there is likely to be an outlier. Let’s look at what is different about this stream compared to others on the list.

1. It’s a large watershed capable of sustaining large brook trout.

2. During this time period there was a huge focus on water quality improvement and stream improvement projects.

3. The attention of larger interest groups and associated funding.


You can’t say it was good for 1 out of 10 creeks so he’ll with it, we’ll just apply the logic to all of them anyway.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Sure Brook trout can get bigger if they are in a more fertile environment like Big spring or a hatchery for that matter, But they are still much smaller in comparison to the rest of the salmonoid family. I view it as a house cat compared to a mt lion. A well fed house cat can exceed 25lbs but a house at will never be anywhere close to the size of a mt. Lion due to its genetic makeup.

There is nothing wrong with brook trout maxing out at 12 inches on freestones or maybe 18 inches on limestone streams.

If you want bigger brook trout on average you have to follow the model that TU did on the monogehela. It’s a larger watershed with problems in the headwaters. Fix the problems in the headwaters, improve the water quality and water temps and you will grow bigger brook trout.

Once you identify a stream with potential and fix the problems enough to sustain brook trout year round, then you can start your arguments of removing invasive sand setting a slot limit.

Thats not accurate you DO NOT need a stream to sustain brook trout year round to manage it for brook trout. Now if its large you cannot do removal but ironically this where regs are MOST valuable. Seasonal corridors.

 

[Fish Sticks]

That’s why I said there is more to this study than what is on this paper. If it worked, the program would still exist today.

In this study only 1 variable was changed. Clearly in the case of infertile streams, simply limiting harvest did not work to improve the fishery.


You cant just pick the studies you want to support your data and ignore all other inputs.


That’s all I really wanted to say, I’m not going to reply to anything else

I do not “pick” studies. The brook trout enhancement program was not really a study. It’s important to know the difference between observational data and a real controlled study. I look at the cumulative whole of the studies I read and discuss with their authors and I follow the findings of the world’s most productive brook trout fisheries scientists.

Your focusing too hard on the water quality of tiny headwater streams which is important but the majority of peer reviewed fisheries science has shown that focusing management on tiny streams brook trout can stay in year round is a tragic mistake.

I welcome debate but people need to do a serious literature review to do so because we are arguing about already very well established fisheries science.

 

[Tom1980]

In all studies there is likely to be an outlier. Let’s look at what is different about this stream compared to others on the list.

1. It’s a large watershed capable of sustaining large brook trout.

2. During this time period there was a huge focus on water quality improvement and stream improvement projects.

3. The attention of larger interest groups and associated funding.


You can’t say it was good for 1 out of 10 creeks so he’ll with it, we’ll just apply the logic to all of them anyway.

Actually I can.

My entire point since the beginning is raising the minimum size could benefit some select waters for brook trout, benefit brown trout in many waters and is practical since the PFBC hardly stocks 7" fish.

Thinking about it, I can think of 3 other larger watersheds, that hold brook trout year round, that would likely benefit from a minimum size increase. All 3 of I named people will flip out.

What YOU can't do is say it was good for 1 out of 10 brook trout waters so to hell with it, we will just apply the logic that it benefits nothing.