Some stocked wild trout streams populations still grow to become Class A

[Mike]

That’s the second time that you have mentioned the Hudy et al quote and really isn’t relevant for making the comparisons among states. Of course Pa has the greatest number of watersheds (really sub-watersheds) in those classifications because it has the greatest number of subwatersheds of any of the states or state groupings that are presented in the EBTJV. The data need to be adjusted to standard units to make direct comparisons among the states, such as the percentage of subwatersheds within the ST previous range where ST have been reduced, severely reduced or extirpated. The “unknown” category is probably not valid now for Pa since the unassessed waters program has been active since the EBTJV was written.

What’s different between us and all of our neighbors? Try the historical AMD combined with the amount historical agriculture, our number 1 industry. Then tack on the previous problems with acid precip and the existing low buffering capacities of a number of watersheds.

Note:Brown Trout are not even close to being #1 in the top 10 list of problems for ST presented by the EBTJV. They are #7.

I’ve answered the question about MD before (the same goes for NJ)...it’s biogeography. ST are much more common in Pa than either of those states or the combination of the two. I don’t know what kind of angler use their ST streams receive, but Pa’s is low and harvest is even lower, so no across the board fishing reg changes are needed.

 

[jifigz]

silverfox wrote:

Taking a step back, again, according to Hudy et. al, “Pennsylvania had the greatest number of watersheds with brook trout populations classified as reduced, severely reduced, extirpated, or unknown”.

How is it that our neighbors to ur south, east, and north didn't end up with that classification? Is Pennsylvania really an island when it comes to the impacts to brook trout? Is everything fine here or isn't it? When you see MD and NJ creating brook trout specific regs, it really makes you wonder. Or it should I think.
.

Have you ever heard of persuasive writing? Skewed statistics? Etc? Look at the way that the study/article is worded. We have "the greatest number of watersheds" with reduced brook trout populations, or harmed habitat, or whatever. It DOES NOT say that "of the known percentage of native brook trout waters in the Mid-Atlantic, pennsylvania has lost the highest percent of native brook trout habitat considered historic in it's state." This is an extremely important distinction to make. When they say "number" it could mean we have reduced habitat/stream degradation of receding populations in 200 streams, Maryland may in 35 streams..

Those numbers are bogus and I made them up, but that isn't the point. The point is that it is easy to have the highest "number" of screwed up brookie fisheries because we had so many more brookie waters than MD or NJ to start. It is easy to write studies and articles to convey your point in a persuasive manner. PA has roughly 86,000 miles of streams (many of which historically held brook trout) and Maryland has less than 9,00 miles....of course lost a higher "number" of brookie waters. It isn't even possible for Maryland to compare.

I am not saying our management practices are great for brookies..MD is doing old by stocking ZERO brook trout into their waters, and I'm not saying that things are "okay," but things change. Sometimes to never return the way they were, ever, and I think that is what we have on our hands.

 

[tabasco_joe]

silverfox wrote:
Boiling this down, there seems to be two camps. A) everything is fine. Let's just keep plugging along and B) there's a concerning trend in this state and something needs to change.

Taking a step back, again, according to Hudy et. al, “Pennsylvania had the greatest number of watersheds with brook trout populations classified as reduced, severely reduced, extirpated, or unknown”.

How is it that our neighbors to ur south, east, and north didn't end up with that classification? Is Pennsylvania really an island when it comes to the impacts to brook trout? Is everything fine here or isn't it? When you see MD and NJ creating brook trout specific regs, it really makes you wonder. Or it should I think.

What is different about PA that we've lost more brook trout than any of our neighbors? Why are our neighbors focusing on brook trout protection and enhancement and we're not? If it's not stocking, what is it? Why did this happen here and not to our neighbors? Serious questions.

Consider a third camp. One that is more focused on overall habitat improvement which benefits all wild trout.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

silverfox wrote:
This defense of stocking over wild trout is alarming. I don't want anyone arguing that I have to focus on ending the stocking over wild trout thing again. Maybe in 100 years someone else can take this issue up. Maybe by then this state will have progressed to a point where there's more appetite for it.

I support the overall goal to stop stocking over native brook trout. The fact of the matter is that its easy to make this statement, but much more difficult to put it into practice. Wild trout, brook and brown alike, move around a lot. If a body of water supports aquatic life and there are cold water tributaries that provide spawning habitat to sustain a naturally reproducing trout population chances are there are wild trout present somewhere in the larger water body at some point in the year. What number of individuals or biomass threshold is used to determine the threshold for which brook trout or wild trout populations shouldn't be stocked over?

The PFBC this year stopped stocking two smaller freestone, mountain streams that support brook trout, Freeman Run and Asaph Run. There is progress being made.

My overall point is that we have vastly different resources that support wild trout across the state. Small brook trout streams should not be stocked in my opinion, however, as examples have been provided larger streams that have a much larger forage base, stocking seems to have a less significant effect on wild trout (although these are mostly brown trout streams). It is easy to make sweeping, generalized statements; it's an entirely different matter for an agency such as PFBC to act on said statements.

 

[silverfox]

lycoflyfisher wrote:

silverfox wrote:
This defense of stocking over wild trout is alarming. I don't want anyone arguing that I have to focus on ending the stocking over wild trout thing again. Maybe in 100 years someone else can take this issue up. Maybe by then this state will have progressed to a point where there's more appetite for it.

I support the overall goal to stop stocking over native brook trout. The fact of the matter is that its easy to make this statement, but much more difficult to put it into practice. Wild trout, brook and brown alike, move around a lot. If a body of water supports aquatic life and there are cold water tributaries that provide spawning habitat to sustain a naturally reproducing trout population chances are there are wild trout present somewhere in the larger water body at some point in the year. What number of individuals or biomass threshold is used to determine the threshold for which brook trout or wild trout populations shouldn't be stocked over?

The PFBC this year stopped stocking two smaller freestone, mountain streams that support brook trout, Freeman Run and Asaph Run. There is progress being made.

My overall point is that we have vastly different resources that support wild trout across the state. Small brook trout streams should not be stocked in my opinion, however, as examples have been provided larger streams that have a much larger forage base, stocking seems to have a less significant effect on wild trout (although these are mostly brown trout streams). It is easy to make sweeping, generalized statements; it's an entirely different matter for an agency such as PFBC to act on said statements.

I get that and I hate that some specific limits of acceptance might be a hangup. Please understand that I have to work within the framework, bylaws, and mission of the organization that I belong to and represent.

Native Fish Coalition does not support the practice of stocking over self-sustaining populations of wild native brook trout. I have no latitude here. If PFBC wants to create some more aggressive biomass limit where stocking is ended, that is their prerogative. I can't personally condone it regardless of how many fish they're willing to sacrifice.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

I can all but guarantee you that brook trout can be found certain times of the year in Big Pine Creek below slate run, Kettle Creek below Cross Fork etc etc. We know those streams get way too warm for brook trout several months out of the year and likely do not have appropriate spawning habitat. If a few adult fish are found in those streams or similar streams would you say they shouldn't be stocked?

How do you define a self sustaining population? 2 adult fish? yoy? multiple age classes?

I know your limited based on your NFC affiliation, perhaps that affiliation is what limits your petition.

 

[Swattie87]

Swattie87, you can probably guess the stream. You had messaged me about it years ago and I replied truthfully.

Yep, I remember. I fished it just that once, but probably should go back. It fished well. Though I did catch a large (by small stream standards) Brown, maybe 12”, and spooked another similar one. Caught all Brookies otherwise. But the best two holes did have fairy big Browns in them. Different discussion, I know.

 

[silverfox]

lycoflyfisher wrote:

I know your limited based on your NFC affiliation, perhaps that affiliation is what limits your petition.

I just wish people could accept this for what it is. A statement that you disagree with the practice. Whatever may or may not result from it is not up to us to decide. We're not the decision-makers. Simply advocates and concerned anglers/conservationists. You're not agreeing to a regulation, simply a principle.

 

[jifigz]

Swattie87 wrote:

Swattie87, you can probably guess the stream. You had messaged me about it years ago and I replied truthfully.

Yep, I remember. I fished it just that once, but probably should go back. It fished well. Though I did catch a large (by small stream standards) Brown, maybe 12”, and spooked another similar one. Caught all Brookies otherwise. But the best two holes did have fairy big Browns in them. Different discussion, I know.

Yeah, I have turned up wild browns in there over the years, too. Not many, and they don't seem to be displacing the brookies.

(I know, this is a different discussion.)

 

[lycoflyfisher]

silverfox wrote:

I just wish people could accept this for what it is. A statement that you disagree with the practice. Whatever may or may not result from it is not up to us to decide. We're not the decision-makers. Simply advocates and concerned anglers/conservationists. You're not agreeing to a regulation, simply a principle.

Great point, I just think a lot of folks are looking at all of the citations included and then are looking into NFC, the backing information. These last few comments should probably be in the petition post.

I think if your group would have just presented the opening statement about not supporting stocking over native brook trout populations you would likely get wide support. I understand what you were trying to do with all of the citations, but it is very confusing for the general angler. A smaller, more specific list of citations may have been more helpful to your cause. The brown trout petition was a joke in my opinion. It proposed a reg change while also proposing a study to study said reg change along with studying a number of different topics pertaining to wild brown trout management.

 

[silverfox]

lycoflyfisher wrote:

silverfox wrote:

I just wish people could accept this for what it is. A statement that you disagree with the practice. Whatever may or may not result from it is not up to us to decide. We're not the decision-makers. Simply advocates and concerned anglers/conservationists. You're not agreeing to a regulation, simply a principle.

Great point, I just think a lot of folks are looking at all of the citations included and then are looking into NFC, the backing information. These last few comments should probably be in the petition post.

I think if your group would have just presented the opening statement about not supporting stocking over native brook trout populations you would likely get wide support. I understand what you were trying to do with all of the citations, but it is very confusing for the general angler. A smaller, more specific list of citations may have been more helpful to your cause. The brown trout petition was a joke in my opinion. It proposed a reg change while also proposing a study to study said reg change along with studying a number of different topics pertaining to wild brown trout management.

I can't win. :-D I know the citations are tough. We wanted solid facts to back up why stocking over brook trout is bad. I feel like if I just said "stop stocking over wild brook trout" people would just say it's based on our "feelings" or whatever other "lack of evidence" attack would result from that approach.

Now the citations are bad. I guess because they don't paint a pretty picture of brook trout and brown trout sitting around a campfire singing kumbaya and coexisting in harmony. That's really not the intent. I can't sugarcoat what happens in nature and those interactions are exactly why continuing to stock over them is bad.

I do appreciate the feedback and see where you're coming from.

 

[Stenonema]

What is stocking to a wild trout? In my eyes it would be a sudden un-natural population density increase that induces stress. Suddenly the stream is above carrying capacity. It is entirely impossible to ascertain any guess on the potential of a stream and the wild trout therein, if it is stocked.

Only when a natural carrying capacity and population dynamic of age structure is accomplished can potential be demonstrated and that will continually change year to year based on and infinite number of natural variables.
How many years would it take to achieve the greatest most natural carrying capacity and age class structure once stocking is stopped? That would be valuable information.
I guess it would depend on the adaptability of the fish and the number of variables necessary for adaptation to achieve optimization of fitness.
What if we haven't discovered or scientifically proven the greatest impact that stocking has to our wild trout populations?
I don't think you need any new science to prove that the larger the tank the larger the fish. The smaller the tank the smaller the fish.
The density or carrying capacity can be 100, 8 inch fish or it can be an equal amount of mass distributed through an age class structure that includes two foot wild fish.
Only when we understand the greatest negative impact of stocking over wild trout can we stock with the least negative impact to wild trout.

 

[Stenonema]

On the current follow up petition by the nay sayers to the successful petition for the amendment of the Extended season regulation, it is the sorry, sour grapes answer to the fact that they have no plan to achieve the goal of stopping the biggest threat to both the wild trout and the native trout in Pennsylvania which is stocking. Both sides want stocking stopped over our native trout populations. One side chooses to be a stick in the mud yelling invasive with no plan, that finds themselves eating crow because the other was successful... Talk about a sad state of affairs.. Attempting to blow one candle out to make yours burn brighter is born from human competition and has no place in conservation of our natural resources. Look no further than the mirror for the reason that anglers in PA have not been able to help the PFBC move forward confidently.

 

[silverfox]

Stenonema wrote:
On the current follow up petition by the nay sayers to the successful petition for the amendment of the Extended season regulation, it is the sorry, sour grapes answer to the fact that they have no plan to achieve the goal of stopping the biggest threat to both the wild trout and the native trout in Pennsylvania which is stocking. Both sides want stocking stopped over our native trout populations. One side chooses to be a stick in the mud yelling invasive with no plan, that finds themselves eating crow because the other was successful... Talk about a sad state of affairs.. Attempting to blow one candle out to make yours burn brighter is born from human competition and has no place in conservation of our natural resources. Look no further than the mirror for the reason that anglers in PA have not been able to help the PFBC move forward confidently.

The constant verbal abuse really doesn't bother me. I've got thick skin and fully accept the ramifications of going down the road I've chosen. So carry on. Explain how I'm the devil for what I do.

 

[Mike]

silverfox wrote:

lycoflyfisher wrote:
We have way more fisheries data available now than in 2005. You have to be well aware of the Unassessed Water program by now and that started in 2010. The PFBC has documented thousands of wild trout stream miles in the last decade. I know there are watersheds where populations may be gone and trending down, however there are many others that continue to thrive and others that are on the rebound following restoration activities.

Apples and oranges. One study looked at historical population levels across the entire range. The other is created by a state agency with an agenda to keep a hatchery/stocking machine running. Are you suggesting that the Hudy study was able to nail down the situation in all the other states except PA was an outlier and somehow came off unscathed and has far more brookies than represented?

Who provided the info on the ST populations and impacts in each of the watershed units on the Pa map generated by the EBTJV? It was the PFBC AFM’s in the Fisheries Management Division. The EBTJV rep visited our offices to review the ST population info in each watershed unit. That was the situation in my former mgmt area and I believe across the rest as well. Who initiated and ran the Unassessed waters program? The PFBC Fisheries Management Division. The stocking program had no influence on either effort to document wild trout.

 

[Susquehanna]

"The brown trout petition was a joke in my opinion. It proposed a reg change while also proposing a study to study said reg change along with studying a number of different topics pertaining to wild brown trout management."

Agreed.

Attempting to blow one candle out to make yours burn brighter is born from human competition and has no place in conservation of our natural resources. Look no further than the mirror for the reason that anglers in PA have not been able to help the PFBC move forward confidently.

Like when someone writes a book and someone gets upset because it was "their" idea?

 

[k-bob]

Mike earlier in thread:

"There are such natural variations in wild ST (and BT) populations and the legal components of those populations that fishing them during a year when the populations of legal fish are up and then returning the next when they are down is almost undoubtedly blamed on over-harvest, yet I have seen this occur naturally in a longer term study of an unfished, Class A wild ST population (water authority property) as well."

Great post, which later notes that fishing isn't even a strong measure of trout populations relative to a serious survey... and my fishing, dry flies only, must be even worse, tending to miss larger fish...

so with a few blurry snapshots, we think we understand the whole movie...

 

[silverfox]

As anglers, we don't know if what we're experiencing on a stream is the result of bad conditions or lack of fish. There are a lot of subjective ways to talk about this. There are opinions on both sides.

Again, if you take the time to read the 39 research papers listed on the petition site or on USGS's site, I don't know how anyone could seriously argue in favor of stocking over brook trout after reading those studies. Even just reading the summaries should tell the story.

That petition says nothing about the C&R regs. That's just muddying the waters IMO.

 

[silverfox]

Mike wrote:

silverfox wrote:

lycoflyfisher wrote:
We have way more fisheries data available now than in 2005. You have to be well aware of the Unassessed Water program by now and that started in 2010. The PFBC has documented thousands of wild trout stream miles in the last decade. I know there are watersheds where populations may be gone and trending down, however there are many others that continue to thrive and others that are on the rebound following restoration activities.

Apples and oranges. One study looked at historical population levels across the entire range. The other is created by a state agency with an agenda to keep a hatchery/stocking machine running. Are you suggesting that the Hudy study was able to nail down the situation in all the other states except PA was an outlier and somehow came off unscathed and has far more brookies than represented?

Who provided the info on the ST populations and impacts in each of the watershed units on the Pa map generated by the EBTJV? It was the PFBC AFM’s in the Fisheries Management Division. The EBTJV rep visited our offices to review the ST population info in each watershed unit. That was the situation in my former mgmt area and I believe across the rest as well. Who initiated and ran the Unassessed waters program? The PFBC Fisheries Management Division. The stocking program had no influence on either effort to document wild trout.

Fair enough. Was the Hudy study done the same way? Did PFBC provide the data to Hudy?

One other thing I've wondered for quite some time that is relevant to this, what happened with the below strategy from the 2005 (I think) Pennsylvania’s Brook Trout Conservation Strategies?

Strategy 3.2.2. Produce a prioritized listing of five waters where brook trout
populations have been extirpated and implement wild brook trout restoration
efforts by 2015. Periodically monitor these waters to examine progress of
restoration efforts.

Do you know if this ever happened?

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Silverton, Mike's post says that pfbc provided data to ebtjv or Hudy. His study from from understanding was not based on his own data collection. They pulled data from each state, many of which follow different sampling protocols etc. I am sure there are still more brook trout streams out there in PA with no formal fisheries surveys completed on them. I believe a goal in the most recent pfbc trout management plan included setting up methodologies to better track wild trout population trends across the state. It will be interesting to see what develops.