Snakeheads in Philly area

Lol on the forage fish thing, again what’s your baseline?? There has been so little research in the effects of these pulse dosed stocked trout explosions every February in these medium to tiny streams that if you are saying with certainly there are no concerns about fish/amphibians of high conservation need I’m going to have a really hard problem taking this discussion seriously .
 
The reference to Class A only had to do with support for my comment that even more fish were being stocked on the Loyalsock basin then than they are today even if the stocking rates per acre had remained the same. Generally speaking, less waters stocked=less fish stocked. Geese!

As for your minority of brook trout moving, among the group of thirty-eight papers that have been referenced and provided here is one that said four streams were stocked with 10 trout each, 5 males and five females, from other wild trout streams. That was enough to generate much greater genetic diversity. So, yes, it does not take much movement based on that study to generate the desired effect. Furthermore, from a practical standpoint, that movement doesn’t have to naturally occur in mass to have the desired genetic effect. Multiple generations gradually making contributions over time will occur and a little movement each year or every so often is good enough, especially if so few fish in the study can infuse such positive results. The persistent and cumulative effect is what is important. And if the genetics of ST in the various tribs studied in the Loyalsock basin are so similar, then there must be enough movement between tribs to limit specialization, supporting my point.

I would also ask, what do you think happens to large year classes that occur every few years in stream species that are territorial? Fish that are present beyond the carrying capacity for various length groups are pushed from one territory to another and gradually out of the system unless they die first (via predation, disease, etc). Some of these fish undoubtedly enter other streams. The territoriality may be more unique to trout, but somewhat similarly, in years when there are large year classes of smallmouth in a Susquehanna trib, the young of year fish spill out into the river. That is not to say that with the trout I was only speaking about YOY being forced out of streams in their search for suitable habitats where they could successfully compete for a territory.

The introgression argument will become weaker over time as ST stockings are phased out. This doesn’t take into consideration the possibility that introgression can naturally be reversed, as mentioned in a recent paper that I read regarding brook trout genetics in the mid-west. I assume that the editors would have flagged that if it were of substantial debate.

As for the generalized comments about impacts on darters and their endangered or threatened relatives, reconcile that with the fact that the largest Chesapeake Logperch population in Pa co-exists with a very good, naturalized wild BT population. In fact, rather than the blacknose dace being the most abundant forage fish in that system, which would be typical for the region the Chesapeake Logperch are the most abundant by far. To my knowledge, this stream was never stocked by the PFC and it is quite possible that its population of wild BT developed through frontier movements within the lower Susquehanna.
 
Last edited:
Mike said:
The reference to Class A only had to do with support for my comment that even more fish were being stocked on the Loyalsock basin then than they are today even if the stocking rates per acre had remained the same. Generally speaking, less waters stocked=less fish stocked. Geese!

As for your minority of brook trout moving, among the thrity-eight papers that you reference is one that said four streams were stocked with 10 trout each, 5 males and five females, from other wild trout streams. That was enough to generate much greater genetic diversity. So, yes, it does not take much movement based on that study to generate the desired effect. Furthermore, from a practical standpoint, that movement doesn’t have to naturally occur in mass to have the desired genetic effect. Multiple generations gradually making contributions over time will occur and a little movement each year or every so often is good enough, especially if so few fish in the study can infuse such positive results. The cumulative effect is what is important.

I would also ask, what do you think happens to large year classes that occur every few years in stream species that are territorial? Fish that are present beyond the carrying capacity for various length groups are pushed from one territory to another and gradually out of the system unless they die first (via predation, etc). Some of these fish undoubtedly enter other streams.

The introgression argument will become weaker over time as ST stockings are phased out. This doesn’t take into consideration the possibility that introgression can naturally be reversed, as mentioned in a recent paper that I read regarding brook trout genetics in the mid-west. I assume that the editors would have flagged that if it were of substantial debate.
Click to expand...
I didn’t say it had to be a mass migration on an extreme end of the spectrum and I’m aware of the time line these things play out over. But what I am saying is how dose one disprove that these stocked non native trout in the mainstem are not significantly effecting the amount of gene flow? All the conservation genetic experts communicate a need for a high level of genetic adaptive potential needed to give these fish the best shot at surviving climate change. What tangible evidence is there that this is not being negative effected to a significant detriment to those genetics in the loyal sock? As you mentioned these things play out over so long todays class A population has no bearing in the future if the fish aren’t equipped with adaptive potential. And just to clarify I am critical of the results and lack of buy in to solid scientific management recommendations(like Shannon’s study which you and I seem to agree on, watershed level management important) but I do want to reinforce that I have spoken to many biologists/fisheries managers/specialists at the commission who are passionate individuals and work their tails off with more territory than should be given to them and want to do the right thing for our state fish. They just don’t get a formal vote unfortunately but I do whole heartedly respect them and what they do. So if I am critical of the results I don’t want it to go unsaid that I value the individuals doing their best to work within the system.
 
On the subject of snakeheads, it will be interesting to see how the founder effect will affect their invasion. Unlike S. trutta, where we added to their genetic diversity manually by continuing to import source stock from their native range which added to their diversity here, Snakeheads have to be from a very limited source population. I'd be interested to see the results of a genetic study on their population. They have to be seriously inbred.
 
Mike said:
The reference to Class A only had to do with support for my comment that even more fish were being stocked on the Loyalsock basin then than they are today even if the stocking rates per acre had remained the same. Generally speaking, less waters stocked=less fish stocked. Geese!

As for your minority of brook trout moving, among the group of thirty-eight papers that have been referenced and provided here is one that said four streams were stocked with 10 trout each, 5 males and five females, from other wild trout streams. That was enough to generate much greater genetic diversity. So, yes, it does not take much movement based on that study to generate the desired effect. Furthermore, from a practical standpoint, that movement doesn’t have to naturally occur in mass to have the desired genetic effect. Multiple generations gradually making contributions over time will occur and a little movement each year or every so often is good enough, especially if so few fish in the study can infuse such positive results. The persistent and cumulative effect is what is important. And if the genetics of ST in the various tribs studied in the Loyalsock basin are so similar, then there must be enough movement between tribs to limit specialization, supporting my point.

I would also ask, what do you think happens to large year classes that occur every few years in stream species that are territorial? Fish that are present beyond the carrying capacity for various length groups are pushed from one territory to another and gradually out of the system unless they die first (via predation, disease, etc). Some of these fish undoubtedly enter other streams. The territoriality may be more unique to trout, but somewhat similarly, in years when there are large year classes of smallmouth in a Susquehanna trib, the young of year fish spill out into the river. That is not to say that with the trout I was only speaking about YOY being forced out of streams in their search for suitable habitats where they could successfully compete for a territory.

The introgression argument will become weaker over time as ST stockings are phased out. This doesn’t take into consideration the possibility that introgression can naturally be reversed, as mentioned in a recent paper that I read regarding brook trout genetics in the mid-west. I assume that the editors would have flagged that if it were of substantial debate.

As for the generalized comments about impacts on darters and their endangered or threatened relatives, reconcile that with the fact that the largest Chesapeake Logperch population in Pa co-exists with a very good, naturalized wild BT population. In fact, rather than the blacknose dace being the most abundant forage fish in that system, which would be typical for the region the Chesapeake Logperch are the most abundant by far. To my knowledge, this stream was never stocked by the PFC and it is quite possible that its population of wild BT developed through frontier movements within the lower Susquehanna.
Click to expand...
And as for the threatened log perch that you suggest are co existing in the sense that brown trout are not harming their populations there, most streams that have a decent amount of spring influence hold brown trout in Pennsylvania. So you saying threatened log perch seem to be doing ok with the presence of invasive brown trout does not mean much. The reason being, where’s the control? Where is the stream that has a large amount of spring influence and no brown trout to say they would be doing just as well without an invasive predator? It’s highly concerning to me that the fish commission is not studying the effect of an known invasive species on a threatened species that’s NOT doing well. They just funded a $500,000 grant for the conservation of log perch but they won’t take a serious look if brown trout which have caused declines of galaxids, Himalayan snow trout , and countless other native small fish species around the planet are harming them? I want to se see data on that and why am I a lay person having that approach and the commission is not concerned. There are brown trout everywhere in this state it’s not like there are all these streams with similar attributes that don’t have brown trout where you can make a statement like that. And by the way, West Virginia just stopped stocking brown trout in certain streams because of endangered candy darters. They also stopped stocking browns because of endangered guyandotte crayfish. Their is research showing browns Negatively effect sculpin populations as well as research showing image predator recognition in larval hellbenders has problems likely leading to higher predation impact on juvenile hellbenders, glad we are stocking that new section of Oswayo creek!! Being a license purchaser in this state and seeing how out of sync the management is with what other states are doing for native brook trout management atleast and not to mention other sensitive conservation species inspires little confidence. There are multiple universities, federal science agencies, conservation NGO’s, and the Eastern Brook Trout Joint venture. Their all made up of subject matter experts/PhD’s or have a PhD chief scientist/advisory making recommendations. They are all calling for not stocking over native brook trout populations(not just class A sections) and addressing invasive species in select situations where possible. They all recognize management at watershed scale for native brook trout to be very important for successful life histories and conservation genetics. So my question is….

Why should I not be concerned that one organization that is focused primarily on the social aspect of fisheries not the conservation aspect, seems to explain away the recommendations of more specialized/qualified individuals who are solely devoted to answering these research questions and management solutions without the biases of social issues related to anglers? Should I not be concerned that PAFB seems to take the Myopic stance of not incorporating large amounts of outside high quality research with management implications and citing only faulty internal outdated studies with serious methodological flaws? How is it that PAFB knows better than all these other reputable previously mentioned organizations calling for better management that are full of PhD’s who have devoted their lives to the study of this topic? You seem to claim this research is an inn-accurate fad that will “pass”? research pointing out the dangers of stocked fish and invasive salmonids has been around since the 70’s-80’s with **** Vincent and Kurt Faust. It seems more like PAFB is sticking its head the sand and hoping it “will pass”.
 
Fish Sticks, please note that I do not work for the PFBC, nor do I speak for that agency.

I would make one general observation. In my view if an agency, any agency, is spending, as you say, $500,000 on a particular species’ conservation, game or non—game, it’s an indication that the agency involved is interested in that species’ well-being.
 
Last edited:
Mike said:
Fish Sticks, please note that I do not work for the PFBC, nor do I speak for that agency.

I would make one general observation. In my view if an agency, any agency, is spending, as you say, $500,000 on a particular species’ conservation, game or non—game, it’s an indication that the agency involved is interested in that species’ well-being.
Click to expand...
$500,000 is great for a non game species I am not unhappy with that investment in the log perch. I just wish they would protect that investment and the threatened species by getting some data on if the presence of a non native predator ranked in the top 30 invasive species world wide is a threat to those fish. That’s a huge unknown to not have sorted out and huge potential negative interaction considering we know what invasive brown trout have done to galaxids and other small native fish around the world. Those streams are even still listed as stocked on the interactive map as well so not only are their invasive wild brown trout, PA fish and boat is stocking over them a threatened species, with more invasive trout no doubt, without knowing the consequences.
 
Fish Sticks said:
$500,000 is great for a non game species I am not unhappy with that investment in the log perch. I just wish they would protect that investment and the threatened species by getting some data on if the presence of a non native predator ranked in the top 30 invasive species world wide is a threat to those fish. That’s a huge unknown to not have sorted out and huge potential negative interaction considering we know what invasive brown trout have done to galaxids and other small native fish around the world. Those streams are even still listed as stocked on the interactive map as well so not only are their invasive wild brown trout, PA fish and boat is stocking over them a threatened species, with more invasive trout no doubt, without knowing the consequences.
Click to expand...
Can you make a bracket of the top 64 invasive species? Then use modeling to determine the final ranking of worldwide invasive species?

Only ranking the top 30 doesn't seem very thorough, and I think it's important to have them ranked in order by a group of experts.
 
moon1284 said:
Can you make a bracket of the top 64 invasive species? Then use modeling to determine the final ranking of worldwide invasive species?

Only ranking the top 30 doesn't seem very thorough, and I think it's important to have them ranked in order by a group of experts.
Click to expand...
well if this satisfies, it’s the top 100 but in alphabetical order. Not what you were so joyously hoping for with ranking against each other but check out No. 82 and No. 63 I think they’ll put a smile on your face.
 
Hmmm I wonder why channa argus didn't make that list could it be that they don't care about media sensationalism and only about research data.
 
Fredrick said:
Hmmm I wonder why channa argus didn't make that list could it be that they don't care about media sensationalism and only about research data.
Click to expand...
I'd assume it's because their invasion is limited so far compared to the other species on the list.
 
silverfox said:
I'd assume it's because their invasion is limited so far compared to the other species on the list.
Click to expand...
Could be, but Its funny though how the state stocks some of those species on the list over native fish or gives other species a pass because it socially acceptable
 
Fredrick said:
Could be, but Its funny though how the state stocks some of those species on the list over native fish or gives other species a pass because it socially acceptable
Click to expand...
Couldn't agree more. That hypocrisy isn't lost on all people. There is a BIG push for public advocacy and education about invasive species. Even if people aren't talking about the "socially acceptable" AIS, it's going to be pretty obvious to a lot of people if they think about it objectively. So this issue will probably become more prevalent.
 
Fredrick said:
Could be, but Its funny though how the state stocks some of those species on the list over native fish or gives other species a pass because it socially acceptable
Click to expand...
You nailed it Fredrick, if you go to fish and boat’s invasive species page they are all missing except for the ones you hear about on the radio and news. The problem lies in if they acknowledged their impacts classify them as invasive in the scientific community they are in fact admitting to stocking an invasive species. It’s easier to double down than admit that for them.
 
Fredrick said:
Hmmm I wonder why channa argus didn't make that list could it be that they don't care about media sensationalism and only about research data.
Click to expand...
It was so awkward during national invasive species week PAFB Facebook was alternating between -dangers of New Zealand mud snails- then -THE WHITE FLEET HAS DUMPED ITS PAYLOAD- then —stop snakeheads- then - NEED STOCKING VOLUNTEERS!!!—-then do you know your invasive species?? —-LOOK AT THESE STOCKED RAINBOWS CAUGHT—— STOP INVASIVE SPECIES
 
Fish Sticks said:
well if this satisfies, it’s the top 100 but in alphabetical order. Not what you were so joyously hoping for with ranking against each other but check out No. 82 and No. 63 I think they’ll put a smile on your face.
Click to expand...
It doesn't satisfy. I want full rankings. I want absolute truth. That's science right?
 
Fish Sticks said:

GISD

description
www.iucngisd.org www.iucngisd.org
Click to expand...
Your experts seem to have a problem discerning BT vs ST.

1649090769105.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages
Wayward Trading”/> </center> </div> </div> </div> <div class=


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top