Snakeheads in Philly area

[silverfox]

DEFINITION: (source - https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/invasive-species/)

An invasive species is an organism that is not indigenous, or native, to a particular area. Invasive species can cause great economic and environmental harm to the new area.

Not all non-native species are invasive. For example, most of the food crops grown in the United States, including popular varieties of wheat, tomatoes, and rice, are not native to the region.

To be invasive, a species must adapt to the new area easily. It must reproduce quickly. It must harm property, the economy, or the native plants and animals of the region.

Many invasive species are introduced into a new region accidentally. Zebra mussels are native to the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea in Central Asia. Zebra mussels arrived in the Great Lakes of North America accidentally, stuck to large ships that traveled between the two regions. There are now so many zebra mussels in the Great Lakes that they have threatened native species.

Introduced Species

Some species are brought to a new area on purpose. Often, these species are introduced as a form of pest control. Other times, introduced species are brought in as pets or decorative displays. People and businesses that import these species do not anticipate the consequences. Even scientists are not always sure how a species will adapt to a new environment.

Introduced species multiply too quickly and become invasive.
_____________________________

My thoughts...
So, brown trout are introduces then outcompete native brook trout. It's situational. Brook trout are invasive out west.

Here's the rub: Just because a fish we revere (smallmouth bass, brown trout, etc.) is invasive, it does not automatically follow that we should ignore the potential damage that can be causes by snakeheads. That's a little bit like saying "I got fat by eating too many burgers. What harm could ice cream do?"

Or, to be more simple and direct: two wrongs don't make it right.

Using already established invasive species as a rational for promoting a new invasive is wrongheaded.

To get more in the weeds on this, I personally attribute a lot of these attitudes toward other invasive species to the historical and even modern support of some invasive species by state and federal agencies. As state and federal agencies attempt to draw more attention to the importance of introducing nonnative species, they're up against a population that has been led to believe that some invasive species should be continually introduced or even protected in the wild for entertainment.

This isn't the first time I've seen a defense of snakeheads. In fact, there's a group on "other social media" that vehemently defends the presence of snakeheads. It's hard to blame anglers when it's the states and federal governments that have promoted other invasive species for so long.

I've seen comments on state agency social media accounts during invasive species week calling out the hypocrisy of the fisheries agency advocating against the introduction of invasive species and then turning around and posting to promote the introduction of invasive species.

On top of all that, anglers have danced around this issue for so long and even still refuse to accept that their favorite fish species is technically invasive. Whether a species is invasive or not is binary. They are or they aren't.

Another source for the definition of "invasive species": https://www.invasivespeciesinfo.gov/what-are-invasive-species

"invasive species" is a species that is:

1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and,

2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.

Brown trout and rainbow trout are both nonnative species in Pennsylvania, so they qualify under #1. There is a mountain of scientific evidence that explains how introduced nonnative salmonids are injurious to brook trout. Here's a list of 38 recent scientific publications compiled by USGS explaining how and why. https://www.usgs.gov/centers/chesap...brook-trout-guide?qt-science_center_objects=0

So brown trout and rainbow trout in Pennsylvania qualify based on 1 & 2 and therefore are invasive species. It's not open for debate. Personal affinity for a species plays no role in its classification as invasive or not.

Brook trout are invasive out west. It's absolutely dependent on location.

Competition isn't the only issue with invasive species. If you want to see how introduced species can cause trophic cascade, read about what happened with introduced lake trout in Yellowstone lake if you aren't familiar:

Non-native Lake Trout Induce Cascading Changes in the Yellowstone Lake Ecosystem - Yellowstone National Park (U.S. National Park Service)

www.nps.gov

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.aav1139

These continued introductions and even protections aren't benign.

 

[Fish Sticks]

DEFINITION: (source - https://www.nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/invasive-species/)

An invasive species is an organism that is not indigenous, or native, to a particular area. Invasive species can cause great economic and environmental harm to the new area.

Not all non-native species are invasive. For example, most of the food crops grown in the United States, including popular varieties of wheat, tomatoes, and rice, are not native to the region.

To be invasive, a species must adapt to the new area easily. It must reproduce quickly. It must harm property, the economy, or the native plants and animals of the region.

Many invasive species are introduced into a new region accidentally. Zebra mussels are native to the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea in Central Asia. Zebra mussels arrived in the Great Lakes of North America accidentally, stuck to large ships that traveled between the two regions. There are now so many zebra mussels in the Great Lakes that they have threatened native species.

Introduced Species

Some species are brought to a new area on purpose. Often, these species are introduced as a form of pest control. Other times, introduced species are brought in as pets or decorative displays. People and businesses that import these species do not anticipate the consequences. Even scientists are not always sure how a species will adapt to a new environment.

Introduced species multiply too quickly and become invasive.
_____________________________

My thoughts...
So, brown trout are introduces then outcompete native brook trout. It's situational. Brook trout are invasive out west.

Here's the rub: Just because a fish we revere (smallmouth bass, brown trout, etc.) is invasive, it does not automatically follow that we should ignore the potential damage that can be causes by snakeheads. That's a little bit like saying "I got fat by eating too many burgers. What harm could ice cream do?"

Or, to be more simple and direct: two wrongs don't make it right.

Using already established invasive species as a rational for promoting a new invasive is wrongheaded.

Oh No I think you misunderstood me,

I completely agree with you that snakeheads are invasive and the fact that brown trout and rainbow trout meet all the criteria in the definition of invasive species and are recognized as invasive by the IUCN and credible fisheries scientists does not mean we should ignore snake heads as invasive such as Pa fish and boat ignores browns and rainbows as invasive(because it stocks them).

You won’t find brown and rainbows on the list of invasive species on Pa fish and boats website and they are not educating the angling public properly because their own practices are FUBAR from a native fish conservation standpoint. They are a social program pretending to be “resource first” as they say. Their current “management “ of native brook trout is scientifically indefensible.

I couldn’t agree more that snake heads are a HUGE problem. They all need to be removed and we have to ignore those who like to fish for them AND want them protected because we do t yet know how bad a tropic cascade this will set off or what kind of food web damage will be done. This kind of stuff takes along long time to play out and we think too short term as far as final verdict on a lot of these invasive fish introductions. For example take lake pend O’rielle in Idaho where native bull trout evolved. Lake trout were introduced but there was not enough food in the deeper waters they inhabited so they stayed at a low level for a time then someone introduced mysiss shrimp that provided a food source at that lower level of the lake and they exploded.


Blain chocklette was in fly fishermen recently talking about “no evidence snakeheads harm native fish.” Blaine is a great fly tier but his claims snakeheads bore no harm to native fish were false as evidenced by this article sighting harms to native fish by snakeheads. We have to stop treating fishing experts as ecology and conservation experts they can really lead us a stray.

Study finds snakeheads are affecting native fish populations

Interestingly enough a researcher named Megan Schall is currently doing a study on flathead stomach contents and we will find out what species of concern their eating here soon. Stay tuned. True or not I get the impression Pa fish and boat is softening on the whole flatheads as an invasive species because of the fishing lobby but would invite anyone to educate me on what pa fish and boat is doing currently for flatheads because I admit to not being as knowledgeable about that subject as I am on their native trout policies or lack there of.

 

[afishinado]

I just roll my eyes whenever the subject comes up about snakeheads being invasive. The snakehead crowd brings up brown trout or rainbow trout or whatever species that has been introduced in the last 100+ years. Yes, brown trout and rainbows are invasive in PA. One just has to fish most trout streams in PA and see how brook trout (the only native salmonid in PA) have been displaced in PA streams.

Back to snakeheads. How does the fact that non-native trout were stocked in streams over 100 years ago justify thinking all is okay with introducing snakeheads to our streams, rivers and lakes.

What's next Goliath Tigerfish.......they'll put a bend in your pole!!

 

[Fish Sticks]

Oh No I think you misunderstood me,

I completely agree with you that snakeheads are invasive and the fact that brown trout and rainbow trout meet all the criteria in the definition of invasive species and are recognized as invasive by the IUCN and credible fisheries scientists does not mean we should ignore snake heads as invasive such as Pa fish and boat ignores browns and rainbows as invasive(because it stocks them).

You won’t find brown and rainbows on the list of invasive species on Pa fish and boats website and they are not educating the angling public properly because their own practices are FUBAR from a native fish conservation standpoint. They are a social program pretending to be “resource first” as they say. Their current “management “ of native brook trout is scientifically indefensible.

I couldn’t agree more that snake heads are a HUGE problem. They all need to be removed and we have to ignore those who like to fish for them AND want them protected because we do t yet know how bad a tropic cascade this will set off or what kind of food web damage will be done. This kind of stuff takes along long time to play out and we think too short term as far as final verdict on a lot of these invasive fish introductions. For example take lake pend O’rielle in Idaho where native bull trout evolved. Lake trout were introduced but there was not enough food in the deeper waters they inhabited so they stayed at a low level for a time then someone introduced mysiss shrimp that provided a food source at that lower level of the lake and they exploded.


Blain chocklette was in fly fishermen recently talking about “no evidence snakeheads harm native fish.” Blaine is a great fly tier but his claims snakeheads bore no harm to native fish were false as evidenced by this article sighting harms to native fish by snakeheads. We have to stop treating fishing experts as ecology and conservation experts they can really lead us a stray.

Study finds snakeheads are affecting native fish populations

Interestingly enough a researcher named Megan Schall is currently doing a study on flathead stomach contents and we will find out what species of concern their eating here soon. Stay tuned. True or not I get the impression Pa fish and boat is softening on the whole flatheads as an invasive species because of the fishing lobby but would invite anyone to educate me on what pa fish and boat is doing currently for flatheads because I admit to not being as knowledgeable about that subject as I am on their native trout policies or lack there of.

I just roll my eyes whenever the subject comes up about snakeheads being invasive. The snakehead crowd brings up brown trout or rainbow trout or whatever species that has been introduced in the last 100+ years. Yes, brown trout and rainbows are invasive in PA. One just has to fish most trout streams in PA and see how brook trout (the only native salmonid in PA) have been displaced in PA streams.

Back to snakeheads. How does the fact that non-native trout were stocked in streams over 100 years ago justify thinking all is okay with introducing snakeheads to our streams, rivers and lakes.

What's next Goliath Tigerfish.......they'll put a bend in your pole!!

View attachment 1641224633

Haha I was actually thinking Arapima, wells catfish, and whale sharks in susky just because I’ve always wanted to fish Spey for them there! And if your pointing out whale sharks and aripima won’t survive for long in central Pa I’m pointing out neither do stocked trout for most part but we still spend about 12.4 million a year to stock em not including private operations.

 

[hooker-of-men]

That's a little bit like saying "I got fat by eating too many burgers. What harm could ice cream do?"

Sure, but if you are stuffing your face with burgers (ie making cowboy posts about chasing MONSTER BROWNZ) but then two minutes later say "Oh, ice cream? I simply couldn't!!", then I am going to laugh at you.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Sure, but if you are stuffing your face with burgers (ie making cowboy posts about chasing MONSTER BROWNZ) but then two minutes later say "Oh, ice cream? I simply couldn't!!", then I am going to laugh at

People continually confuse fishing and conservation as a single entity when they are separate and have different goals. For example I really enjoy fishing for invasive brown trout at times but I still try to communicate to the angling public the negative effects highlighted by the scientific that they have on the native cold water ecosystem and I do not promote or protect them. And in the case of native fish species of high conservation need that I volunteer my time with, pounding them twice a week in my home stream that has small populations with my fishing efforts would not make sense from a conservation standpoint point either. I blame peoples inability to separate fishing and conservation (and the goals of which aren’t always the same) on Pa fish and boats history of “conservation washing” all their activities. “We don’t stock class A native brook trout streams” with no mention that they stock right up to a nonexistent arbitrary line where the class A section starts with no barrier preventing passage. This Ignores shannon whites study and many others that prove we need to manage watersheds for native brook trout, not small stream sections that are a symbolic gesture of conservation on Pa fish and Boats part they can point when lay folks start asking questions. They just want everyone to focus on clean water(which is of high importance mind you) because then they don’t have to defend their irresponsible stocking and lack of managing invasive wild brown trout where feasible like many other states in the US.

 

[hooker-of-men]

The world in which fishing - the literal torturing and sometimes killing of fish - overlaps perfectly with conservation is a fanciful one. I won't deny that many fishing communities do tremendous good, but I have little doubt that the logical conclusion of the committed conservationist would be to stop fishing. I don't think I need to rehearse the somewhat frequent moral arguments for this that come up in the public discourse on (ex)fishing every few years. I, like everyone here I would guess, have made peace about this with my (non-existent) god. Sometimes I hurt things; I try to do as little damage as possible otherwise.

The peace I maintain, though, is mitigated by the practice of doing as little as possible to personally impact natural ecosystems. As much as possible, I'm going to practice catch and release, careful wading, and cleanup of waterways that I frequent. That catch and release practice is neither universal nor species dependent. Sometimes I'm gonna eat a fish - it might be a brook trout or it might be a snakehead. If I'm not going to eat it, it's going back in. Mostly, though, I am going to try to leave the water the f.ck alone - it's unfortunate that that cannot generally be said about society at large, industry, etc. There are much more profound threats to our waterways than someone releasing a snakehead embedded in pretty much every aspect of industrial life.

Are there any advocacy efforts we can point to to stop the spread of an invasive species that have been anywhere near as effective as, let's say, our concerted effort to exterminate the wolf in the western U.S.? Give me some good examples of where active (violent) intervention - rather than restriction - has really helped an ecosystem. Given everything I have learned about literally every moment of human history, I have no confidence in advocating for humans to kill sh.t in the name of preserving some particular historical ecological balance. We are already in the red on any balance sheet I can think of.

 

[Fish Sticks]

The world in which fishing - the literal torturing and sometimes killing of fish - overlaps perfectly with conservation is a fanciful one. I won't deny that many fishing communities do tremendous good, but I have little doubt that the logical conclusion of the committed conservationist would be to stop fishing. I don't think I need to rehearse the somewhat frequent moral arguments for this that come up in the public discourse on (ex)fishing every few years. I, like everyone here I would guess, have made peace about this with my (non-existent) god. Sometimes I hurt things; I try to do as little damage as possible otherwise.

The peace I maintain, though, is mitigated by the practice of doing as little as possible to personally impact natural ecosystems. As much as possible, I'm going to practice catch and release, careful wading, and cleanup of waterways that I frequent. That catch and release practice is neither universal nor species dependent. Sometimes I'm gonna eat a fish - it might be a brook trout or it might be a snakehead. If I'm not going to eat it, it's going back in. Mostly, though, I am going to try to leave the water the f.ck alone - it's unfortunate that that cannot generally be said about society at large, industry, etc. There are much more profound threats to our waterways than someone releasing a snakehead embedded in pretty much every aspect of industrial life.

Are there any advocacy efforts we can point to to stop the spread of an invasive species that have been anywhere near as effective as, let's say, our concerted effort to exterminate the wolf in the western U.S.? Give me some good examples of where active (violent) intervention - rather than restriction - has really helped an ecosystem. Given everything I have learned about literally every moment of human history, I have no confidence in advocating for humans to kill **** in the name of preserving some particular historical ecological balance. We are already in the red on any balance sheet I can think of.

Don’t confuse conservation with PETA either. Conservation is about a working healthy ecosystem of which creature mortality is a part of. It focuses on mitigating stressors, protecting intact ecosystems and pragmatism about what can be improved/ where to apply your efforts. Actually conservation can be removing organisms from a stream or river, that’s why it’s legally required to not put back certain species. And just because you don’t get rid of all of them in that case it can provide a benefit(google propagule pressure). As far as examples where exterminating an invasive species from a water shed worked, this is why we still have golden trout in California and many rare sun species of cuthroat throughout the west. The benefits of removal through chemical, manual or other techniques are not advertised in your local tackle shop but are well known in the scientific community. Read Ted Williams recent article rotenon for chemo-phobes in hatch magazine. Plenty of non game species have been saved around the world by invasive species removal but you won’t hear about that in the tackle shop. You asked for one example of where removal of non native species has helped as if you have read a vast amount of fisheries research but I suspect that’s not the case. Your feelings about your favorite game fish are your own but when it comes to misinformation about conservation techniques, that stops others from making their own decision and knowing what’s possible. The over simplification of all native fishes problems as just water quality/temperature is false and running ramped. The five factor component framework governing salmonid populations used by fisheries scientists has more factors besides water quality and it’s well known in fisheries science that any restoration plan that ignores invasive species does not have a high chance of success. So put all the lunker bunkers, j-hooks, deflectors, and bolder clusters ya want in the river but if you don’t remove invasive species your not recovering your target species in most cases. I would be willing to share roughly 50 articles you could read in full or just the abstract that would highlight how the scientific community views these issues because Pa fish and boat/anglers circles promote a lot of falsehoods leading to unwarranted defeatism when it comes to native fish. If you don’t know about XYY genetic supermales, genetic rescue, preserving adaptive potential my minimizing out breeding depression and fine scale spatial features of habitat/interactions I could see how you could have the current outlook about native fish conservation that you and so many others have sadly. After taking years to read this stuff I am left with optimism for the fish if the people can be educated. PM me if ya want the articles.

 

[hooker-of-men]

I'd love to read some research. It's going to take a whole lot to convince me that casual fisher Gary-Next-Door is smart enough to enact fish genocide or that poisoning streams *just enough* to kill some species is a good idea, but I'm open to learning more.

Please feel free to PM some links; I'd appreciate it. Just keep in mind that I'm a humanities guy and I have limited capacity for fish scale manual stimulation or whatever.

 

[hooker-of-men]

Also, I'm pretty OK with PETA, so...

 

[Fish Sticks]

Also, I'm pretty OK with PETA, so...

Didn’t say I wasn’t ok with PETA, I’m just saying that their goal is how people treat animals not how ecosystems function like in conservation. Just two different goals, I’ll send you the articles.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Also, I'm pretty OK with PETA, so...

And I totally respect that your a humanities guy, I don’t like hurting things either it gives me no pleasure. I personally love brown trout I own books on their conservation status in their native range and would not want anyone putting invasive brook trout in their native range. The native species movement is about increasing life and diversity on our planet because most invasive species are invading multiple distant ecosystem and causing the decline of multiple native species per invasive fish. Ironically brook trout are a threat to browns i Europe. Preserving species and biodiversity is how the humane aspect of me sees native fish conservation.

 

[hooker-of-men]

I can't find the Hatch article, but the second Google result for the Ted Williams reference is this:

An Open Letter to Mr. Ted Williams – Following on his Commentary

My open letter today is written in response to comments made by outdoor writer Ted Williams at the website Conservation Magazine. Among a roster of scientifically inaccurate statements,

www.troutheadwaters.com

I'm not smart enough to take a side, but that's kinda my point. Bickering humans seem too stupid to aggressively manage nature effectively...

 

[Fish Sticks]

I'd love to read some research. It's going to take a whole lot to convince me that casual fisher Gary-Next-Door is smart enough to enact fish genocide or that poisoning streams *just enough* to kill some species is a good idea, but I'm open to learning more.

Please feel free to PM some links; I'd appreciate it. Just keep in mind that I'm a humanities guy and I have limited capacity for fish scale manual stimulation or whatever.

Recently got into a bit of a spirited discussion on the site here about stocking, invasive trout, native brook trout conservation as well as removal of non native species as a conservation method. Some members wanted me to share a lot of the fisheries research I have read over the years that give insight into how fisheries scientists view these issues. The reality the scientific community knows is night and day from the myths circulated in the angling community. If you peruse these studies you will see why invasive trout species are right up there in the top 5 threats to native brook trout with water quality/temp and habitat loss. I wanted to make them available to everyone so they know the truth and can demand better from PA fish and Boat who is grossly mismanaging our native brook trout and not incorporating alot of very important fisheries science into their management. Read on enjoy happy to answer questions if I know the answer.






This is your basic starter pack. Link to 40 articles compile by USGS on harmful effects of introduced invasive trout. If anyone from PA fish and Boat try’s to tell you their stocked or wild browns and rainbows don’t hurt native brook trout you just send em all 40.

Effects of introduced species on native brook trout: a guide to the scientific literature | U.S. Geological Survey

Issue: Native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) are of great ecological, cultural, and economic importance in eastern North America, and their restoration is a focus of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Introduced, non-native species can jeopardize native brook trout, and more information on these...

www.usgs.gov

Eastern Brook Trout Joint venture maintains a bank of articles as well which is helpful and has a wider range of topics than the above specialized one from USGS. I would use this bank as a way to search different aspects of brook trout ecology and conservation since it has so many different topics. Will say if you read about the driftless area hydrology papers you will find out the statement “ you can’t have brook trout with agriculture” falsehood you hear on popular podcasts is Bull crap. We have brookies with Ag in many places in PA a lot are on private property, a lot aren’t.

Brook Trout Related Publications — EBTJV

easternbrooktrout.org

Ok now we are getting into individual articles that are important enough to this discussion that I want to highlight each one.

1. This study shows that brook trout can survive warmer water temps if brown trout are not there to push them out of thermal refuge. It also dives into fine scale features and spatial relationship of habitat. Removing brown trout where feasible to do so would allow brook trout to move downstream into larger streams with more forage base.

USGS Study Reveals Interactive Effects of Climate Change, Invasive Species on Native Fish | U.S. Geological Survey

A new USGS study shows non-native Brown Trout can place a burden on native Brook Trout under the increased water temperatures climate change can cause.

www.usgs.gov

2.this next study shows when brown trout were removed brook trout moved back downstream. This can be beneficial because it allows brook trout to take advantage of larger food sources the browns are using. Everyone thinks brookies can’t get big because we cornered them in infertile headwater trickles with habitat loss and invasive species/stocking. In MD their fish and game understands this and they have brookies in mid to high teens.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Hoxmeier/publication/303669170_Long-term_population_demographics_of_native_brook_trout_following_manipulative_reduction_of_an_invader/links/5c94fe1d299bf1116940889b/Long-term-population-demographics-of-native-brook-trout-following-manipulative-reduction-of-an-invader.pdf

3. This next study was done in the Allegheny national forest and showed brook trout are 12 times more likely to be present if a barrier is present between the stream in question and nearest brown trout stocking location. If PA fish and boat ever tries to tell you managing tiny sections of stream next to each other for different uses is effective(native brook trout vs. stocking/non native fish) this study shows those arbitrary sections only exist in our minds and have little if any ecological significance.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Hoxmeier/publication/303669170_Long-term_population_demographics_of_native_brook_trout_following_manipulative_reduction_of_an_invader/links/5c94fe1d299bf1116940889b/Long-term-population-demographics-of-native-brook-trout-following-manipulative-reduction-of-an-invader.pdf

4. Probably one of the most important articles. This shows Pa fish and Boats current native brook trout management strategy of cram em up in the head waters and stock the crap out of everything else downstream is scientifically indefensible. This is Shannon whites famous study on the loyalsock. Basically shows brook trout need to be managed at a watershed scale not in stream sections, something Pa fish and boat refuses to accept to the detriment of our state fish.

5. There is so little concern about harmful effects of invasive trout on non game native fish, amphibians, crustaceans and macros by PA fish and boat based on their stocking behavior. However, there is litany of data showing invasive brown and rainbow trout have far reaching effects into the whole food web, some even show extremely harmful tropic cascades. This article is one of many examples.
larval Hellbenders can’t detect brown and rainbow trout like they can with native fish they evolved with leading to increased predation. https://www.researchgate.net/public...cognition_and_the_Problem_of_Introduced_Trout

6. How we view what can and can’t be a brook trout stream is heavily influenced by GIS maps of where there are trees or aren’t trees(riparian buffers) in a 2008 assessment. But this ignores hydrology/ ground water so if you look at a brook trout strong hold map there are streams not on the map that have great potential for brook trout conservation due to springs.

These two studies highlight this critical shortcoming in how we view what streams can be brook trout streams and what can’t

Resource Use By Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in a Thermally Complex Environment

Climate change is a pervasive threat to coldwater fish populations, and there r...

afs.confex.com

Next time you hear someone say you can’t have brook trout at all with Ag in watershed send them this. https://easternbrooktrout.org/scien...availability-for-brook-trout-populations/view

7. Genetic rescue gives native brook trout tremendous hope as does the field of conservation genetics. Look at these results! If we can stop shooting ourselves in the foot with stocking and invasive trout species there is potential to reverse some of the damage we have done to brook trouts genetics and get bigger, more fertile, more adaptable to climate change native brook trout. This is exciting stuff and gives us a lot of hope four our state fish.

Experimental test of genetic rescue in isolated populations of brook trout - PubMed

Genetic rescue is an increasingly considered conservation measure to address genetic erosion associated with habitat loss and fragmentation. The resulting gene flow from facilitating migration may improve fitness and adaptive potential, but is not without risks (e.g., outbreeding depression)...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

8. Habitat work typically done on streams for native brook trout is likely in effective if invasive trout are not removed and even worse can actually be harmful if brown trout are left in the same stream giving them the edge over native brook trout. This chilling case study is an example of how fixing physical habitat without addressing invasive species is not effective. This is a hot topic and I suspect we will see more future publications on this.


9. Native fish conservation is not about hating brown trout or loving brook trout. It’s just about protecting all species in their native range. we should want brookies out of Europe, rainbows out of Africa, browns out of the Himalayas. This article explains the paradox between each species being both native and invasive in different areas and how we can learn from that to our advantage.

https://www.montana.edu/mcmahon/Paradox%20book%20chapter.pdf

10. We will likely soon have the ability to remove non native trout selectively and very effectively with combining electroshocking removal and XYY genetic supermale invasive trout that only create male offspring and take out invasive populations. This modeling shows you could completely eradicate in 2-4 years potentially! This is exciting stuff!

USGS Publications Warehouse

Eradication of nonnative Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis populations is difficult to achieve with standard techniques, such as electrofishing removal or piscicides; new approaches are needed. A novel concept is to stock “supermale” hatchery fish with wild conspecifics. Supermales (MYY) have...

pubs.er.usgs.gov

So as you can see PA fish and boat has not even really begun to try to recover native brook trout yet because they still ignore

1. Brook trout need to be managed at watershed scale not in tiny ecologically irrelevant sections.
2. Invasive species are hugely underestimated and not far behind the importance of water temp/quality
3. Stocked fish harm native brook trout and not only is Pa fish and boat still stocking over important populations but they don’t even know where private hatcheries are doing it.
4. The need for public education on the value of native fish and the dangers of invasive species. (Brown and rainbow trout conveniently left out of their invasive species page). They posted about stocking schedules and national invasive species week for like every other post a few weeks ago!! Lol.

Demand Pa fish and boat start actually trying to manage our wild native brook trout by contacting them through “the fishing hole” messaging system on their website and tell them to stop pretending it’s resource first and stop ignoring fisheries scientists and researchers to keep the 12.4 million dollar a year stocking machine going. Think about how much angler access and conservation easements for stream health that much money a year invested in the resource would have amounted to the past 50 years!

I can't find the Hatch article, but the second Google result for the Ted Williams reference is this:

An Open Letter to Mr. Ted Williams – Following on his Commentary

My open letter today is written in response to comments made by outdoor writer Ted Williams at the website Conservation Magazine. Among a roster of scientifically inaccurate statements,

www.troutheadwaters.com

I'm not smart enough to take a side, but that's kinda my point. Bickering humans seem too stupid to aggressively manage nature effectively...

Chemophobia in America: Part I — Rotenone

The most important tool—in most cases the only tool—for saving native fish from being eaten, outcompeted or hybridized into extirpation or extinction by alien fish is the organic poison rotenone. It's derived from roots of such plants as cubé, barbasco and tuba. But before fisheries managers...

www.hatchmag.com

 

[Fish Sticks]

Recently got into a bit of a spirited discussion on the site here about stocking, invasive trout, native brook trout conservation as well as removal of non native species as a conservation method. Some members wanted me to share a lot of the fisheries research I have read over the years that give insight into how fisheries scientists view these issues. The reality the scientific community knows is night and day from the myths circulated in the angling community. If you peruse these studies you will see why invasive trout species are right up there in the top 5 threats to native brook trout with water quality/temp and habitat loss. I wanted to make them available to everyone so they know the truth and can demand better from PA fish and Boat who is grossly mismanaging our native brook trout and not incorporating alot of very important fisheries science into their management. Read on enjoy happy to answer questions if I know the answer.






This is your basic starter pack. Link to 40 articles compile by USGS on harmful effects of introduced invasive trout. If anyone from PA fish and Boat try’s to tell you their stocked or wild browns and rainbows don’t hurt native brook trout you just send em all 40.

Effects of introduced species on native brook trout: a guide to the scientific literature | U.S. Geological Survey

Issue: Native brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) are of great ecological, cultural, and economic importance in eastern North America, and their restoration is a focus of the Chesapeake Bay Program. Introduced, non-native species can jeopardize native brook trout, and more information on these...

www.usgs.gov

Eastern Brook Trout Joint venture maintains a bank of articles as well which is helpful and has a wider range of topics than the above specialized one from USGS. I would use this bank as a way to search different aspects of brook trout ecology and conservation since it has so many different topics. Will say if you read about the driftless area hydrology papers you will find out the statement “ you can’t have brook trout with agriculture” falsehood you hear on popular podcasts is Bull crap. We have brookies with Ag in many places in PA a lot are on private property, a lot aren’t.

Brook Trout Related Publications — EBTJV

easternbrooktrout.org

Ok now we are getting into individual articles that are important enough to this discussion that I want to highlight each one.

1. This study shows that brook trout can survive warmer water temps if brown trout are not there to push them out of thermal refuge. It also dives into fine scale features and spatial relationship of habitat. Removing brown trout where feasible to do so would allow brook trout to move downstream into larger streams with more forage base.

USGS Study Reveals Interactive Effects of Climate Change, Invasive Species on Native Fish | U.S. Geological Survey

A new USGS study shows non-native Brown Trout can place a burden on native Brook Trout under the increased water temperatures climate change can cause.

www.usgs.gov

2.this next study shows when brown trout were removed brook trout moved back downstream. This can be beneficial because it allows brook trout to take advantage of larger food sources the browns are using. Everyone thinks brookies can’t get big because we cornered them in infertile headwater trickles with habitat loss and invasive species/stocking. In MD their fish and game understands this and they have brookies in mid to high teens.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Hoxmeier/publication/303669170_Long-term_population_demographics_of_native_brook_trout_following_manipulative_reduction_of_an_invader/links/5c94fe1d299bf1116940889b/Long-term-population-demographics-of-native-brook-trout-following-manipulative-reduction-of-an-invader.pdf

3. This next study was done in the Allegheny national forest and showed brook trout are 12 times more likely to be present if a barrier is present between the stream in question and nearest brown trout stocking location. If PA fish and boat ever tries to tell you managing tiny sections of stream next to each other for different uses is effective(native brook trout vs. stocking/non native fish) this study shows those arbitrary sections only exist in our minds and have little if any ecological significance.

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/John-Hoxmeier/publication/303669170_Long-term_population_demographics_of_native_brook_trout_following_manipulative_reduction_of_an_invader/links/5c94fe1d299bf1116940889b/Long-term-population-demographics-of-native-brook-trout-following-manipulative-reduction-of-an-invader.pdf

4. Probably one of the most important articles. This shows Pa fish and Boats current native brook trout management strategy of cram em up in the head waters and stock the crap out of everything else downstream is scientifically indefensible. This is Shannon whites famous study on the loyalsock. Basically shows brook trout need to be managed at a watershed scale not in stream sections, something Pa fish and boat refuses to accept to the detriment of our state fish.

5. There is so little concern about harmful effects of invasive trout on non game native fish, amphibians, crustaceans and macros by PA fish and boat based on their stocking behavior. However, there is litany of data showing invasive brown and rainbow trout have far reaching effects into the whole food web, some even show extremely harmful tropic cascades. This article is one of many examples.
larval Hellbenders can’t detect brown and rainbow trout like they can with native fish they evolved with leading to increased predation. https://www.researchgate.net/public...cognition_and_the_Problem_of_Introduced_Trout

6. How we view what can and can’t be a brook trout stream is heavily influenced by GIS maps of where there are trees or aren’t trees(riparian buffers) in a 2008 assessment. But this ignores hydrology/ ground water so if you look at a brook trout strong hold map there are streams not on the map that have great potential for brook trout conservation due to springs.

These two studies highlight this critical shortcoming in how we view what streams can be brook trout streams and what can’t

Resource Use By Brook Trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) in a Thermally Complex Environment

Climate change is a pervasive threat to coldwater fish populations, and there r...

afs.confex.com

Next time you hear someone say you can’t have brook trout at all with Ag in watershed send them this. https://easternbrooktrout.org/scien...availability-for-brook-trout-populations/view

7. Genetic rescue gives native brook trout tremendous hope as does the field of conservation genetics. Look at these results! If we can stop shooting ourselves in the foot with stocking and invasive trout species there is potential to reverse some of the damage we have done to brook trouts genetics and get bigger, more fertile, more adaptable to climate change native brook trout. This is exciting stuff and gives us a lot of hope four our state fish.

Experimental test of genetic rescue in isolated populations of brook trout - PubMed

Genetic rescue is an increasingly considered conservation measure to address genetic erosion associated with habitat loss and fragmentation. The resulting gene flow from facilitating migration may improve fitness and adaptive potential, but is not without risks (e.g., outbreeding depression)...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

8. Habitat work typically done on streams for native brook trout is likely in effective if invasive trout are not removed and even worse can actually be harmful if brown trout are left in the same stream giving them the edge over native brook trout. This chilling case study is an example of how fixing physical habitat without addressing invasive species is not effective. This is a hot topic and I suspect we will see more future publications on this.


9. Native fish conservation is not about hating brown trout or loving brook trout. It’s just about protecting all species in their native range. we should want brookies out of Europe, rainbows out of Africa, browns out of the Himalayas. This article explains the paradox between each species being both native and invasive in different areas and how we can learn from that to our advantage.

https://www.montana.edu/mcmahon/Paradox%20book%20chapter.pdf

10. We will likely soon have the ability to remove non native trout selectively and very effectively with combining electroshocking removal and XYY genetic supermale invasive trout that only create male offspring and take out invasive populations. This modeling shows you could completely eradicate in 2-4 years potentially! This is exciting stuff!

USGS Publications Warehouse

Eradication of nonnative Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis populations is difficult to achieve with standard techniques, such as electrofishing removal or piscicides; new approaches are needed. A novel concept is to stock “supermale” hatchery fish with wild conspecifics. Supermales (MYY) have...

pubs.er.usgs.gov

So as you can see PA fish and boat has not even really begun to try to recover native brook trout yet because they still ignore

1. Brook trout need to be managed at watershed scale not in tiny ecologically irrelevant sections.
2. Invasive species are hugely underestimated and not far behind the importance of water temp/quality
3. Stocked fish harm native brook trout and not only is Pa fish and boat still stocking over important populations but they don’t even know where private hatcheries are doing it.
4. The need for public education on the value of native fish and the dangers of invasive species. (Brown and rainbow trout conveniently left out of their invasive species page). They posted about stocking schedules and national invasive species week for like every other post a few weeks ago!! Lol.

Demand Pa fish and boat start actually trying to manage our wild native brook trout by contacting them through “the fishing hole” messaging system on their website and tell them to stop pretending it’s resource first and stop ignoring fisheries scientists and researchers to keep the 12.4 million dollar a year stocking machine going. Think about how much angler access and conservation easements for stream health that much money a year invested in the resource would have amounted to the past 50 years!

Chemophobia in America: Part I — Rotenone

The most important tool—in most cases the only tool—for saving native fish from being eaten, outcompeted or hybridized into extirpation or extinction by alien fish is the organic poison rotenone. It's derived from roots of such plants as cubé, barbasco and tuba. But before fisheries managers...

www.hatchmag.com

For some reason these articles didn’t show up so I am reposting them here.

You are being redirected...

https://www.kiaptuwish.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Pine-Creek-Case-Study_Final-Presentation-Manuscript_Wild-Trout-Symposium_0917.pdf

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

 

[silverfox]

Sure, but if you are stuffing your face with burgers (ie making cowboy posts about chasing MONSTER BROWNZ) but then two minutes later say "Oh, ice cream? I simply couldn't!!", then I am going to laugh at you.

It's possible to advocate for the conservation of something without being a zealot. I personally realize there are plenty of places in the state where nothing should or could ever be done to change the species composition from what it is today. That doesn't mean there aren't other places where something could and should be done.

As an angler, I fish for whatever is nearby, especially when I don't have the time to journey for brook trout. So for me, that's "monster brownz", musky, pike, smallmouth, and largemouth, none of which are native to the drainage I live in. Believe it or not, it's possible to understand the issues with invasive fish and not want to kill every one you catch in a drainage that is already completely unnatural and the species are well established. It would do nothing to even attempt it. Where the invasive species haven't completely taken over though, there's a benefit to preventing their spread.

I personally have an issue with the continued introduction of certain species and the attitude it's developed in anglers. As I said, that attitude is likely the same reason people release snakeheads or even move live snakheads from one water to another. Frankly, I don't blame these anglers. The state is in a "do as I say, not as I do" situation.

Discussions about whatever the current invasive species issue is, inevitably turn to the numerous other invasive species the state supports or introduces themselves in defense of leaving the invasive species alone or even improving their chances of survival. i.e., this thread.

 

[Fly-Swatter]

It's possible to advocate for the conservation of something without being a zealot. I personally realize there are plenty of places in the state where nothing should or could ever be done to change the species composition from what it is today. That doesn't mean there aren't other places where something could and should be done.

As an angler, I fish for whatever is nearby, especially when I don't have the time to journey for brook trout. So for me, that's "monster brownz", musky, pike, smallmouth, and largemouth, none of which are native to the drainage I live in. Believe it or not, it's possible to understand the issues with invasive fish and not want to kill every one you catch in a drainage that is already completely unnatural and the species are well established. It would do nothing to even attempt it. Where the invasive species haven't completely taken over though, there's a benefit to preventing their spread.

I personally have an issue with the continued introduction of certain species and the attitude it's developed in anglers. As I said, that attitude is likely the same reason people release snakeheads or even move live snakheads from one water to another. Frankly, I don't blame these anglers. The state is in a "do as I say, not as I do" situation.

Discussions about whatever the current invasive species issue is, inevitably turn to the numerous other invasive species the state supports or introduces themselves in defense of leaving the invasive species alone or even improving their chances of survival. i.e., this thread.

Yes, that was the point of my analogy.

I'm not advocating for the aggressive removal of, for example, brown trout from Native brookie streams. But, I do see there is a serious problem with brown trout displacing brook trout. It seems to me there's a relative 1 for 1 tradeoff with browns and brookies. In contrast (although I don't think its been mentioned on this thread), Japanese knot weed does not swap out with a single plant species. It creates a monoculture that seriously harms biodiversity.

My point is that we need to look at things individually while minimizing cognitive bias.

Here is my bias: Fly fishers are, mostly, conservation minded. If we don't get the problem with invasives, what hope is there to win heats and minds of the general public on such things?

 

[hooker-of-men]

As an angler, I fish for whatever is nearby, especially when I don't have the time to journey for brook trout. So for me, that's "monster brownz", musky, pike, smallmouth, and largemouth, none of which are native to the drainage I live in. Believe it or not, it's possible to understand the issues with invasive fish and not want to kill every one you catch in a drainage that is already completely unnatural and the species are well established. It would do nothing to even attempt it. Where the invasive species haven't completely taken over though, there's a benefit to preventing their spread.

This is exactly my position. Well said.

Sorry for throwing fuel on the fire last night. Beer is to blame.

 

[silverfox]

Yes, that was the point of my analogy.

I'm not advocating for the aggressive removal of, for example, brown trout from Native brookie streams. But, I do see there is a serious problem with brown trout displacing brook trout. It seems to me there's a relative 1 for 1 tradeoff with browns and brookies. In contrast (although I don't think its been mentioned on this thread), Japanese knot weed does not swap out with a single plant species. It creates a monoculture that seriously harms biodiversity.

My point is that we need to look at things individually while minimizing cognitive bias.

Here is my bias: Fly fishers are, mostly, conservation minded. If we don't get the problem with invasives, what hope is there to win heats and minds of the general public on such things?

Good points. I have different views on "aggressive removal". Where it might make sense to do it from a social, economic, ecologic, or common-sense perspective, I support the idea. Much like I support "aggressive removal" of brook trout out west to benefit cutthroat above a natural or manmade barrier etc..

This is why I like what MD and NJ have done to manage for brook trout regionally, and VA/NPS on blue ridge parkway waters, and NY in certain waters, and even WV. Identify strongholds or where it makes the most sense, and manage specifically for brook trout. In a state as large as PA, I don't think it's unreasonable to have some brook trout refuges while the rest of the state remains as a species free-for-all.

Species bias seems to prevent any kind of logical discussion about this though. Even amongst conservation-minded fly fishers apparently, as you said.

 

[moon1284]

Brook trout in PA were displaced by loss of habitat, not by competition from browns or rainbows.