Size change?

[Fish Sticks]

And now you are making my point…that harsh environmental effects and habitat override the effects of harvest in almost all Pa freestone ST streams. Changing the statewide regs will be insignificant in the vast majority of these streams. Find the rare ones where overharvest is problematic and address those specifically. Leave the other ones and the anglers who utilize them alone.

For those who have a concern about the impact of angling on the fish entering the stocked receiving streams of the Class A’s, suggest that creel surveys be designed to measure spring wild ST harvest from those seasonally warmer streams similar to the one that was designed for Bald Eagle wild BT in the lower adult stocked section

No I am not making your point because I never said that the study DID prove C & R had a positive effect on brook trout either. Remember that my position was that it was worthless given what we know about them. And even so if you don’t measure the population( just 310 yrd stretch) you can’t even say stochastic events overrided the effect of any variable. Did drought force fish downstream out of study reach? Did wet summer and colder temps make a life history down stream in more food rich waters more viable? All you can essentially assert from that study is that, given what we now know about brook trout management, actions like Jason’s masters project can have effects at watershed scale (like Dr. White’s above quote) thus you must measure them at such scale and if not you cannot comment on what they did or did not prove.

Want to see what happens to population? measure the actual population, its that simple. Thats what Dr. White did.

Also in this day and age you better have some fin clips/genetic data or any assumptions you make about management for the most part based on demographic data are not worth much if you can’t reverse estimate effective population size, evaluate adaptive potential/genetic diversity, and measure gene flow.

 

[Mike]

Want to see what happens to population? measure the actual population, its that simple. Thats what Dr. White did

It’s not necessary. That’s why biometricians emphasize appropriate sample sizes and estimates with attendant standard errors and confidence intervals to represent populations. There is a point at which cost in dollars and time exceeds the value of larger samples.

The primary concern was what was happening to the length distributions and abundance over a period of years and that question was answered. You can talk about receiving streams and the watersheds as a whole, but the question remained what happened to the fish populations in these waters under the special regs and what happened in the control waters by comparison. Those were the fish populations under study.

Conducting the study over a period of years and more than one generation took weather events into account. You can’t afford to conduct a study forever and the results were essentially predictable based on what was known anecdotally (about low use on most wild trout streams) and through the statewide study of angler use and harvest. Slightly better results on Kettle were handled individually, which is what I have said such situations should be handled and not with swooping statewide reg changes Cameras placed along access points to upper Kettle during the special reg study showed angler use to be nearly the same as that recorded in the statewide wild trout angler use and harvest study.

I have little concern about gene flow in such systems. Without physical, chemical, or distance barriers, it will take care of itself through trout movement.

 

[silverfox]

All the PA positions on the impact of C&R on brook trout are based on A) theoretical results based on limited survey data on harvest, B) a poorly designed C&R experiment applied to short, isolated, 2nd and 3rd order streams. The MD results are based on the actual implementation of C&R regs on an entire watershed with over 100 miles of streams.

I'm sorry, but all the PA theories and flawed C&R experiments are worthless when there's an example just over the Mason Dixon that proves the opposite. MD has well over a decade of dedicated study on brook trout specifically and the results of the regs on an appropriately sized area. PA doesn't.

 

[Fish Sticks]

It’s not necessary. That’s why biometricians emphasize appropriate sample sizes and estimates with attendant standard errors and confidence intervals to represent populations. There is a point at which cost in dollars and time exceeds the value of larger samples.

The primary concern was what was happening to the length distributions and abundance over a period of years and that question was answered. You can talk about receiving streams and the watersheds as a whole, but the question remained what happened to the fish populations in these waters under the special regs and what happened in the control waters by comparison.

Conducting the study over a period of years and more than one generation took weather events into account. You can’t afford to conduct a study forever and the results were essentially predictable based on what was known anecdotally (about low use on most wild trout streams) and through the study of angler use and harvest. Slightly better results on Kettle were handled individually, which is what I have said such situations should be handled and not with swooping statewide reg changes Cameras placed along access points to upper Kettle during the special reg study showed angler use to be nearly the same as that recorded in the statewide wild trout angler use and harvest study.

Sorry, but I have little concern about gene flow in such systems. Without physical, chemical, or distance barriers, it will take care of itself through trout movement.

First off you don’t have to shock every fish and Dr. White didn’t. But she sampled the spatial scale of the loyal sock and got genetic data to get information about the population sampling that demographic data could not easily obtain as accurately(effective population size). And she did not have to study the fish forever she just chose multiple relevant parameters to effectively answer her research question.

Choosing to see if the regs created a brook trout big enough to film an episode of river monsters in a 310 yard section and then extrapolating that to “c and r has no benefits for brook trout” is lunacy.

Many are shocked that enhancement study even past peer review in 2014 six years before white’s riverscape genetics study even came out making measure management actions at ONLY fine scale obsolete.

“The results (of a poorly designed study) showed what you would expected” thats called a confirmation bias.

Well Mike you would be the only person these days not concerned with conservation genetics in brook trout streams. You should tell the world experts who attended the Chesapeake Bay STAC Brook trout conservation genetics conference that. If conservation genetics are not absolutely mission critical I guess culverts aren’t that hot right now in native brook trout conservation huh? Why is that like the huge thing EBTJV is funding right now?

This is from Dr. David Kazyak’s presentation at the STAC conference. Just tell these below listed subject matter experts that conservation genetics is not important in those watwrsheds mike.

Oh by the way one of those researchers assessing genetics of Pa is the lead authors wife of the study that does not include genetics! Guess she thinks conservation genetics are essential to brook trout management mike.



You can manage a high density small tributary with excellent demographic data all you want mike but if its also high fragmented due to physical, thermal, chemical, or biological barriers you will have no idea your lording over a highly inbred population with limited genetic tool
Belt for survival thats one stochastic event away from extirpation

 

[Mike]

First off you don’t have to shock every fish and Dr. White didn’t. But she sampled the spatial scale of the loyal sock and got genetic data to get information about the population sampling that demographic data could not easily obtain as accurately(effective population size). And she did not have to study the fish forever she just chose multiple relevant parameters to effectively answer her research question.

Choosing to see if the regs created a brook trout big enough to film an episode of river monsters in a 310 yard section and then extrapolating that to “c and r has no benefits for brook trout” is lunacy.

Many are shocked that enhancement study even past peer review in 2014 six years before white’s riverscape genetics study even came out making measure management actions at ONLY fine scale obsolete.

“The results (of a poorly designed study) showed what you would expected” thats called a confirmation bias.

Well Mike you would be the only person these days not concerned with conservation genetics in brook trout streams. You should tell the world experts who attended the Chesapeake Bay STAC Brook trout conservation genetics conference that. If conservation genetics are not absolutely mission critical I guess culverts aren’t that hot right now in native brook trout conservation huh? Why is that like the huge thing EBTJV is funding right now?

View attachment 1641231795
This is from Dr. David Kazyak’s presentation at the STAC conference. Just tell these below listed subject matter experts that conservation genetics is not important in those watwrsheds mike.
View attachment 1641231796

Oh by the way one of those researchers assessing genetics of Pa is the lead authors wife of the study that does not include genetics! Guess she thinks conservation genetics are essential to brook trout management mike.



You can manage a high density small tributary with excellent demographic data all you want mike but if its also high fragmented due to physical, thermal, chemical, or biological barriers you will have no idea your lording over a highly inbred population with limited genetic tool
Belt for survival thats one stochastic event away from extirpation

I think I defined and qualified pretty well where the limits of my concerns exist when I said “I have little concern about gene flow in such systems. Without physical, chemical, or distance barriers, it will take care of itself through trout movement.”

Why the faith? Work 40 yrs with and observe anadromous species, American eels, resident migrants. Their instinctive migratory behavioral “drive” is not easily deterred. Heck, Penns Ck brown trout annually move farther to a spawning trib than many of the state’s ST have to move to get to another ST trib.

As for “confirmation bias,” you should have first checked to see if I was involved in the study. I wasn’t; therefore I could privately express my opinions based on past observations and data without entering one smidgen of bias into the study.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I think I defined and qualified pretty well where the limits of my concerns exist when I said “I have little concern about gene flow in such systems. Without physical, chemical, or distance barriers, it will take care of itself through trout movement.”

Why the faith? Work 40 yrs with and observe anadromous species, American eels, resident migrants. Their instinctive migratory behavioral “drive” is not easily deterred. Heck, Penns Ck brown trout annually move farther to a spawning trib than many of the state’s ST have to move to get to another ST trib.

As for “confirmation bias,” you should have first checked to see if I was involved in the study. I wasn’t; therefore I could privately express my opinions based on past observations and data without entering one smidgen of bias into the study.

Ahh yes of course no mention of biological barriers(invasive brown trout). Even if there are no apparent obvious visual barriers, the removal of fish from the population via harvest would be an effective barrier to movement for that individual fish. If you wanted to see if catch and release had any benefit for brook trout in those systems you would have measured more than just if it made a trophy brook trout or not.

Penns creek’s brown trout don’t get eaten by taimen or bull trout. Your making a comparison between a species that does not encounter other wild invasive salmonids as a biological barrier, not the native brook trout’s situation.

Tell me the author of the study did not want to confirm regs were not needed lol. Even the people tired of hearing about this issue have stated multiple times on here that if you wanted to see the effects of C and R on brook trout you would have actually done a study where there is real angler effort and brook trout over lap with stocking in downstream waterways where harvest actually happens. It would be like studying the effects of hurricanes in Dubai.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

If biological barriers are so effective at shutting down successful brook trout movement, why does Shannon White's work show connectivity throughout tributaries to one of the heaviest stocked streams in the state that also has a dam in the middle of the study and where there are also large brown trout, walleye and smb waiting to eat the brook trout? Not looking to enter the debate just stating an observation.

 

[Fish Sticks]

If biological barriers are so effective at shutting down successful brook trout movement, why does Shannon White's work show connectivity throughout tributaries to one of the heaviest stocked streams in the state that also has a dam in the middle of the study and where there are also large brown trout, walleye and smb waiting to eat the brook trout? Not looking to enter the debate just stating an observation.

Good question. People use gene flow as a surrogate for adaptive capacity which is our goal. So this gene flow is a spectrum. The low bar here is simply avoiding inbreeding depression the pie in the aky or high bar is maximizing adaptive capacity to stressors. So her study showed there was a genetic linkage between tributaries however more gene flow means higher adaptive capacity. Simply avoiding inbreeding depression is a low bar and one can have genetic intermixing between tributaries that is at a level of gene flow below that which would drive maximal adaptive capacity which would give brook trout a better chance to suit their genes to survive the stressors they face. It would be interesting to repeat her sStudy and measure gene flow after stocking reform that eliminated the presence of invasive trout in stupid high quantities of biomass that stream could probably never even produce 500 years ago.

 

[Fish Sticks]

If biological barriers are so effective at shutting down successful brook trout movement, why does Shannon White's work show connectivity throughout tributaries to one of the heaviest stocked streams in the state that also has a dam in the middle of the study and where there are also large brown trout, walleye and smb waiting to eat the brook trout? Not looking to enter the debate just stating an observation.

And Clayton incase you were curious about the research identifying invasive trout as biological barriers here is the PSU dissertation of Dr. Thomas Casey Weathers.

https://etda.libraries.psu.edu/files/final_submissions/19258

This is a slide from Dr. David Kazyak’s presentation at the STAC chesapeake brook trout genetics conference. Of note Dr . Eric Hallerman a distinguished fisheries scientist and native brook trout expert from VA tech chimed in and said “we know these non-natives are a barrier to gene flow” when this slide was presented. Dr. Kazyak has since presented this slide in EBTJV lunch and learn as well. Not to mention that when doug dieteman removed brown trout from lower Coolidge creek
In Minnesota brook trout immigrated downstream to reclaim that habitat once released from competition via brown trout removal so there is a little proof of concept in that study as well.

 

[silverfox]

If biological barriers are so effective at shutting down successful brook trout movement, why does Shannon White's work show connectivity throughout tributaries to one of the heaviest stocked streams in the state that also has a dam in the middle of the study and where there are also large brown trout, walleye and smb waiting to eat the brook trout? Not looking to enter the debate just stating an observation.

That’s the same issue as “the stream became class A while being stocked.” Or, “brook trout exist, so the species must be doing fine.” Or, “I caught brook trout and brown trout in the same stream, so they must coexist.” Or, “brown trout were present with brook trout from when I was a kid, and there’s still brook trout, so brown trout must not have an impact.”

Unless we study what happens with, or without impacts, we don’t know the extent of the impacts.

 

[Prospector]

10” limit seems fine. I keep less than 20 per year anyway. Although I love to eat them.

I do like the thought about C&R on all unstocked streams although there would be some loopholes to consider. For instance, The Allegheny River is a small stocked stream in Coudersport. It flows downstream to Pittsburgh and along the way it morphs into a huge reservoir then it tumbles through a dam, remains a tailrace for a while then has many miles of a warm water fishery. Some thought would need to be given to those scenarios.

The last thing we need is someone keeping a huge trout caught in a stream no one ever suspected would hold trout and keeping it for a nice mount, only to be cited.

 

[sixfootfenwick]

I'm all for it.
It's long over due.

 

[silverfox]

My only issue on the size limit issue specifically is, once again, we're going out of our way to include all species. There's this insistence on treating all salmonids the same.

We have a species in PA that is by all accounts imperiled, losing ground, and reducing in numbers, however you want to phrase it. There was a plan written 20 years ago to address the conservation of this species specifically. There was another agreement with a large regional body to focus on this species from a conservation standpoint. There were several line items dedicated to this species in the last TMP. There is a range-wide coalition dedicated to the conservation of the species. The species is listed in the natural heritage program and is earmarked for conservation in the state's wildlife action plan.

This size limit may very well be designed to primarily benefit brook trout like the previous size limit change was. However, once again, we're doing everything we can to avoid saying that's what it's for. God forbid we let anyone know that the species may need better protection than some other species, or we attempt to educate anglers about the plight of our state fish in any way.

Obviously because the size change would benefit brook trout I think is great. I just don't understand the reluctance to do anything specifically for the species.

 

[troutbert]

A long time ago, probably in the late 1980s or early 1990s, I asked a PFBC biologist whether the change in the size limit from 6 inches to 7 inches made a noticeable difference with the brook trout they were seeing in the surveys. The answer was "Yes."

So changing the size limit from 7 inches to 9 inches would probably also make a difference for the brook trout.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Troutbert,

Just a guess that back then many more wild trout streams with wild brook trout were also stocked than are today.

 

[6xAdams(Jones)]

(Just an opinion based on very limited non-expert knowledge.)
Most years, I'll kill maybe 5 trout at the most. It's typically way less than that since we only have one family member who even likes to eat trout (and she won't' even cook it).
I expect this new minimum to only increase C&R mortality on 7-10" fish. The first-day limit-fillers like to use tackle that doesn't lend itself to fish survival after release. Trebles and offset J-hooks don't let go of a fish's insides, even a little bit gently.
Higher minimum may increase average trout size (across all species) but only if they bigger fish are dumped out of the stock trucks.

 

[silverfox]

(Just an opinion based on very limited non-expert knowledge.)
Most years, I'll kill maybe 5 trout at the most. It's typically way less than that since we only have one family member who even likes to eat trout (and she won't' even cook it).
I expect this new minimum to only increase C&R mortality on 7-10" fish. The first-day limit-fillers like to use tackle that doesn't lend itself to fish survival after release. Trebles and offset J-hooks don't let go of a fish's insides, even a little bit gently.
Higher minimum may increase average trout size (across all species) but only if they bigger fish are dumped out of the stock trucks.

Excellent point. What's worse, an angler going to harvest, catching 5 fish and keeping them, or an angler going to harvest, catching 25 fish to get legal-sized fish, keeping 5 of those, and mortally wounding another 4 (20% of 20)?

 

[6xAdams(Jones)]

Excellent point. What's worse, an angler going to harvest, catching 5 fish and keeping them, or an angler going to harvest, catching 25 fish to get legal-sized fish, keeping 5 of those, and mortally wounding another 4 (20% of 20)?

I've come to a similar conclusion about The Stretch on Pine Creek going to All Tackle Catch and Release. There are a lot of crawfish and other critters eating dead trout between Slate Run and Ross Run.

 

[CRB]

Watch out and think through, or...
CR=will become NO FISHING.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Watch out and think through, or...
CR=will become NO FISHING.

Thats total fear mongering and extremely unrealistic. The most likely thing to lead to no fishing is if we keep doing what we are doing and stocking brook over trout to oblivion or other fish/amphibians and then they get listed as threatened or endangered at state level.