Stocking on Chesapeake Log Perch and other non game threatened or endangered species: moved from Pigeon Creek thread

[Fish Sticks]

Moved from Pigeon creek thread.



Mike on a related note french creek won ricer of the year award for biodiversity. O have to double check what i read but think it had 2 endangered Darters (Iowa and eastern sand darter) and 4 threatened ones along with hellbenders a species of greatest conservation need (SGCN). Do you know if stocking happens directly over any of these at risk species or in the same streams. I know many tributaries to french creek are stocked. I saw invasive brown trout pose a threat to endangered candy darter and wondered if Pa fish and boat had altered stocking at all for endangered species or at risk in the watershed.

WV DNR seeks bait, stocking changes to protect endangered candy darter

For anglers who use minnows for trout bait, a brightly colored 3-inch fish could spell trouble.

www.wvgazettemail.com

Has anyone studied the effects of stocking in the french creek watershed or invasive trout species in regards to iowa darter or eastern sand darter?

 

[Fish Sticks]

Underwater shot of Candy Darter for those who have not seen a pic

 

[Mike]

So others do not get confused, you are speaking now about the French Ck in NW Pa and NOT the French Ck in SE Pa. I am not familiar with any stocking in French Ck and I only ever surveyed the Coneautee branches within the drainage. I once collected a Sand Darter, but they were not considered to be very common and I don’t recall where I found it in NW Pa. It was 1975. To find out if French Ck is stocked anywhere with trout, check the stocked trout streams by county listing in the rear of the summary booklet.

 

[Fish Sticks]

All orange lines in thag screen shot except oil creek are french creek watershed. 2022 rocer ofnthe year award and most biodiverse stream in PA home to 6 listed darters other listed species and hellbenders is getting stocked extremely heavily with invasive trout species. Quick search of sampling shows some account of Iowa darter in brown trout stomachs. Question is is predation significant and does stocking supra natural densities possibly on or in proximity to these fish pit them at risk? This screen shot doesnt even capture all the orange stocked lines in the wayershed. Not to mention their stocking right on the door step class A brook trout.

If I call up who ever is studying those populations of darters and ask them if current stocking practices are appropriate given above listed species I wonder what they would say?

 

[silverfox]

It's worth pointing out that round goby are making their way through french creek. That invasive species will likely have a larger negative impact on native minnow/darter species than stocking ever will. That said, there are also Class A brown trout tributaries, and stocked trout tributaries to French creek near where the goby was introduced, and within the habitat range for several T&E native fish species.

So in that case, we're protecting and proliferating a nonnative (technically invasive) species in habitat that overlaps endangered species. From what I can gather, there are Longhead Darters (Endangered), Gilt Darter (Threatened), Bluebreast Darter (Threatened), Eastern Sand Darter (Threatened), Iowa Darter (Candidate), Spotted Darter (Endangered), and Tippecanoe Darter (Endangered) present in the French Creek drainage.

French creek would have had a much more "colorful" native predator fish species assemblage compared to the Chesapeake Logperch range. So I'd accept an argument that nonnative salmonids might not cause more harm than the native predator fish would, however, they occupy a different habitat niche than the native predator fish did. I'd like to see a study on the impact of nonnative salmonids on these small Percina and Estheostoma species.

With the Chesapeake Logperch, there wouldn't have been any native predator fish in their range that are anything like salmonids (or the other introduced nonnative predator fish species). In the PFBC Chesapeake Logperch species plan, the "introduced species" section lists the potential issues of competition between Chesapeake Logperch and other similar species. At the very end it mentions: "Interaction between the Chesapeake Logperch and other species has yet to be characterized and would be a useful component of a life-history and status assessment.". Then finally, it mentions invasive flathead catfish and zebra mussels. There's no mention of all the other introduced nonnative species that are popular sportfish. Though the line about the interactions between logperch and "other species", at least implies that there might be some negative impact from other species in their range. At a minimum, even the agency has admitted that they don't know what other species might be impacting the logperch. At least that it hasn't been documented yet.

I think the stunning difference between PA's documents related to Chesapeake Logperch compared to say, WV's with the candy darter is the willingness to even mention that the beloved brown trout might be a threat, or outright list them as a threat. Or, further, that WVDNR stopped stocking brown trout where candy darters exist. I doubt WVDNR would cease brown trout stocking if they didn't have a pretty good indication that BT are a threat to candy darters.

 

[Mike]

“With the Chesapeake Logperch, there wouldn't have been any native predator fish in their range that are anything like salmonids”

Really? Time to do more reading. Here’s the list: striped bass, white perch, yellow perch, American eel, white catfish, brown bullhead, margined madtom, and possibly even blue crabs. Their impacts could have been individually or additively. They also would have co-evolved with brook trout, and that alone may have prepared them for naturalized brown trout. Regarding this species list, recall that across the breadth of the co-evolutionary time period, the dams on the Susquehanna were a recent addition. The Susquehanna basin was “crawling” with eels. We were still catching some remnant large adults in the late 1950’s during our fishing trips in the Lancaster Co portion of the river.

I would add that with the on-going, substantial invasion by banded and greenside darters in many streams in the lower Susquehanna, competition from those species for habitat and forage to me would be more of a unknown than the impacts a number of non-native species with which the logperch have already been sympatric, apparently successfully, for decades.

 

[silverfox]

“With the Chesapeake Logperch, there wouldn't have been any native predator fish in their range that are anything like salmonids”

Really? Time to do more reading. Here’s the list: striped bass, white perch, American eel, and possibly even blue crabs. Across the breadth of the co-evolutionary time period, the dams on the Susquehanna were a recent addition. The Susquehanna basin was “crawling” with eels.

I would add that with the on-going, substantial invasion by banded and greenside darters in many streams in the lower Susquehanna, competition from those species for habitat and forage to me would be more of a unknown than the impacts a number of non-native species with which the logperch have already been sympatric, apparently successfully, for decades.

That's about what I figured for native fish assemblage when I said that. I wouldn't consider any of those species analogs to brown trout. Completely different life histories and habitat preferences.

Absolutely those nonnative darters are likely more of an issue than any other species. I'm just curious what the impact from trout is. It sure seems plausible that brown trout especially could theoretically be an additional stressor. So you'd think controlling a stressor that we have control over would be a priority? Test whether they're an issue and eliminate them if they are. I'm specifically talking about stocking here. That's a potential stressor we have complete control over and at either no cost at all, very little cost, or even cost savings.

This is the same theoretical issue as stocking brown trout in places like East Licking Creek. There are documented prescriptions in that subwatershed to "reduce the impact of nonnative brown trout on brook trout". The simple approach here would be to stop stocking brown trout, yet apparently, that's out of the question.

So we have a documented process to deal with a known stressor in one cast that we seem to be ignoring. Then in another, there's a pretty good chance the same practice is negatively impacting another imperiled species (or several), and again, we apparently aren't even investigating whether that COULD be a problem. Maintain stocking at ALL costs I guess.

 

[silverfox]

Also, native predator fishes aside, one thing we know with 100% certainty is that none of the species coevolved with brown trout. We also do not fully understand how these species interact. As the larval hellbender study showed, there can be responses to native species, and none to nonnative. It's just as possible that brown trout predate on these species to a higher degree than other native species as it is that they have little impact at all. Unless there's a study somewhere I haven't read that answers some of these questions, I'd just as soon err on the side of caution.

 

[RLeep2]

The only stocking I am aware of that takes place in either French Creek proper or the named branches of the stream is in the main stem from Wattsburg up to the NYS line and in the South Branch from roughly Corry to the mouth. The former is preseason only and my understanding is that numbers are pretty low.

I live in the Upper French Creek watershed and am comfortable with current management of stocked trout in the tribs and their potential deleterious impact on native fisheries on the stream. I am even more comfortable with the current designation and management of wild trout within the French Creek watershed and the likely minimal potential for these streams to be impacted by stocked trout from elsewhere in the watershed.

For one thing, trout stocking in the upper watershed (above Meadville) is probably less than a third of what it was up until the mid-80's when at least half of the stocked waters in the upper drainage saw stocking end due to posting (major property rights blowup), Class A designation or other means of attrition.

Secondly, the points in the watershed where there is potentially meaningful exposure of French Creek native species to stocked trout are probably significantly fewer than what is suggested by looking at a map, particularly when we are a couple hundred miles away and perhaps not all that familiar with the area. This is at least partially due to the nature of the watershed, especially in the upper half. Two examples would be Lake Pleasant in Erie County and Muddy Creek in Crawford County. In both cases, there are long buffers of wetlands and beaver dams between stocking points and French Creek proper. Trout can and will negotiate these buffers, but these events are far less likely than in unblocked, direct connections. The Lake Pleasant buffer is roughly 4-5 miles. The Muddy Creek buffer is more like 20-25 miles and is also known as the Erie National Wildlife Refuge. The same sorts of buffers also occur relatively often in the wild trout fisheries in the watershed. Two examples here would be Trout Run (Class A BT) in the Lake LeBoeuf system and Alder Run (Hatch Hollow Run), Class A ST in the upper French Creek drainage. In order for stocked trout to impact either of these, they would have to traverse French Creek from the point they entered to and then traverse 6-10 miles of beaver dams and ponded swale and pothole lakes to get to where there are wild trout. It’s possible, but probably about as likely as being struck by lightning and a meteorite at the same time…

There are, of course, points in the watershed where stocked trout tribs connect directly with French Creek. The two most significant are probably Woodcock Creek in Crawford County and Sugar Creek in Venango County. There is probably some escapement from both into French Creek. Interestingly enough, one of the primary Hellbender breeding/spawning sites in the upper watershed is the long riffle directly downstream of the mouth of Woodcock Creek. I have not heard any alarm bells being rung about the dangers to Hellbenders of this proximity. This despite the presence of the French Creek Valley Conservancy in nearby Meadville. FCVC (an arm of WPC) is probably one of the better tooled watershed associations in the state from a scientific standpoint. If stocked trout were thought to be a threat to French Creek Hellbenders, I’d think FCVC would be on it and making it known.

I’m not a scientist or a fisheries professional. I just live around here and pay attention to these things and what I have written are my views. Sometimes, though, simply looking at a map and drawing largely unsupported inferences can be a tricky business when we are deciding on the next candidate for our dogmatism. Ofttimes, the real story is a bit more complex…

 

[silverfox]

The only stocking I am aware of that takes place in either French Creek proper or the named branches of the stream is in the main stem from Wattsburg up to the NYS line and in the South Branch from roughly Corry to the mouth. The former is preseason only and my understanding is that numbers are pretty low.

I live in the Upper French Creek watershed and am comfortable with current management of stocked trout in the tribs and their potential deleterious impact on native fisheries on the stream. I am even more comfortable with the current designation and management of wild trout within the French Creek watershed and the likely minimal potential for these streams to be impacted by stocked trout from elsewhere in the watershed.

For one thing, trout stocking in the upper watershed (above Meadville) is probably less than a third of what it was up until the mid-80's when at least half of the stocked waters in the upper drainage saw stocking end due to posting (major property rights blowup), Class A designation or other means of attrition.

Secondly, the points in the watershed where there is potentially meaningful exposure of French Creek native species to stocked trout are probably significantly fewer than what is suggested by looking at a map, particularly when we are a couple hundred miles away and perhaps not all that familiar with the area. This is at least partially due to the nature of the watershed, especially in the upper half. Two examples would be Lake Pleasant in Erie County and Muddy Creek in Crawford County. In both cases, there are long buffers of wetlands and beaver dams between stocking points and French Creek proper. Trout can and will negotiate these buffers, but these events are far less likely than in unblocked, direct connections. The Lake Pleasant buffer is roughly 4-5 miles. The Muddy Creek buffer is more like 20-25 miles and is also known as the Erie National Wildlife Refuge. The same sorts of buffers also occur relatively often in the wild trout fisheries in the watershed. Two examples here would be Trout Run (Class A BT) in the Lake LeBoeuf system and Alder Run (Hatch Hollow Run), Class A ST in the upper French Creek drainage. In order for stocked trout to impact either of these, they would have to traverse French Creek from the point they entered to and then traverse 6-10 miles of beaver dams and ponded swale and pothole lakes to get to where there are wild trout. It’s possible, but probably about as likely as being struck by lightning and a meteorite at the same time…

There are, of course, points in the watershed where stocked trout tribs connect directly with French Creek. The two most significant are probably Woodcock Creek in Crawford County and Sugar Creek in Venango County. There is probably some escapement from both into French Creek. Interestingly enough, one of the primary Hellbender breeding/spawning sites in the upper watershed is the long riffle directly downstream of the mouth of Woodcock Creek. I have not heard any alarm bells being rung about the dangers to Hellbenders of this proximity. This despite the presence of the French Creek Valley Conservancy in nearby Meadville. FCVC (an arm of WPC) is probably one of the better tooled watershed associations in the state from a scientific standpoint. If stocked trout were thought to be a threat to French Creek Hellbenders, I’d think FCVC would be on it and making it known.

I’m not a scientist or a fisheries professional. I just live around here and pay attention to these things and what I have written are my views. Sometimes, though, simply looking at a map and drawing largely unsupported inferences can be a tricky business when we are deciding on the next candidate for our dogmatism. Ofttimes, the real story is a bit more complex…

I appreciate the local knowledge. I will say, that I used to spend time in that area, and I've been trying to stay intimately involved in the round goby issue in Lake LeBoeuf and French creek, so I don't think characterizing my familiarity with the area, and issues, as simply from "looking at maps" is quite fair.

Regardless, I'd concede that the French Creek drainage probably isn't the best example of the issue I'm concerned with here. I think it somewhat fits the mold to some degree in that there are multiple imperiled native fish species, and there is stocking.

In general, I'm curious about how seriously anyone is looking at these biotic interactions, and even if an impact was determined what course of action would be taken.

I think it's important to point out also, that what I (or fishsticks) are suggesting isn't something we dreamt up ourselves. As FS pointed out, when WV determined that BT were detrimental to endangered darters, they stopped stocking BT. So when I/we see similarities in PA w/ out the same end result, it makes me/us question why.

As I pointed out w/ the East Licking Creek example, even where we have documented recommendations that explicitly state to "reduce the impact" and the stocking list still shows we're ignoring that recommendation to this day, all of this sort of paints a picture of "approach" with one consistent course of action. To stay the course.

So all of this is sort of a question of "where do we draw the line on the stocking thing"? 20% of stocked trout streams contain wild native brook trout. We're still stocking hatchery-reared brook trout in Big Spring. We are stocking over other imperiled species with no clear answer on whether that is or isn't impacting the sensitive species. Even for the "wild trout" anglers, we're still stocking over wild trout all over the place. Even Class A wild trout in some cases. I fished Yellow Creek night before last and caught stocked brown trout in a Class A brown trout which is against agency policy to not stock Class A's w/ the same species represented in the Class A listing. So there's a clear track record here of preferring to stock fish unless the issue becomes so glaring I guess that we have to stop.

I'm sure if we get into the minutia of each situation, we could find plausible deniability in all cases. Again, there seems to be a propensity here to favor one action over another, even though the "other" is a simple change in how we handle stocking. Heck, on East Licking Creek, changing to all rainbow trout would still be sticking to the prescription while hardly impacting stocking. Same with where there might be overlap in the lower Susquehanna or even French Creek. What is it about stocking brown trout that we're so reluctant to change?

 

[Fish Sticks]

I have talked to Dr. Peter Petokas who is a herpetologist and hellbender expert. He says hellbender recruitment is likely effected at the larval and juvenile stages. There is also research that shows since brown and rainbow trout did not evolve wi the hellbenders that the larval hellbenders cannot chemically detect their presence and threat of predation like they can with brook trout. He wrote a letter to Pa fish and boat asking them not to add a stream that had a singular population left to the stocking list and they ignored him and stocked it anyway.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01718.x

Since there are class A brook trout in those watersheds you mention that is an immediate reason to stop stocking brown trout based on mountains of research plated on here by me and others. I will say that despite not living in the watershed, based on your description of alot of the brook trout streams upstream of barriers, id say thats not coincidence. Dr. Kirk checked 73 streams in Allegheny National Forest and streams sampled with a barrier between a brown trout stocking location were 12 times more likely to support brook trout than streams where no barrier was present. They essentially tested the effects of Pa fish and boats stocking. So you mention brook trout above all these barriers but there are probably areas in the watershed they could be surviving in the stream itself if brown trout were not present. We know brook trout can survive higher general stream temps when brown trout are not present from Than Hitts study and then proof of concept on coolidge creek in Michigan when brown trout were removed brook trout moved doenstream to reclaim the larger river habitat. The eastern native brook trout joint venture has brown trout included in the top threats to brook trout twice! We know we shouldn’t be stocking them alone based on brook trout. The scientific community studying brook trout has overwhelmingly undeniably showed that.

Evaluating the Trade‐Offs between Invasion and Isolation for Native Brook Trout and Nonnative Brown Trout in Pennsylvania Streams

A popular conservation strategy for native trout species in western North America is to prevent invasions by nonnative trout by installing barriers that isolate native trout populations into headwater streams. In eastern North America, native Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis are frequently...

dspace.allegheny.edu

Conservancy’s and watershed groups liek you mentioned have not sounded alarm bells because the person thats educating them whats healthy in regards to stocking practices is Pa fish and boat and their doing a terrible job while fisheries scientists bang their head against a wall because their managment doesnt reflect good fisheries science. People are always angry or shocked when they find out brown or rainbow trout are on the IUCN top 100 worst invasive species world wide list and have decimated native fish and amphibian’s around the world because Pa fish and boat doesnt even list them on their invasive species page. But then they back the stocking truck up right next to a “don’t transport aquatic invaders “ sign for zebra mussels and fire up the fish cannon and pepper a stream or watershed containing native brook trout or other species with top 100 worst worldwide invasive fish species.

 

[Mike]

Re: native predatory fish spp in lower Susquehanna basin…..“I wouldn't consider any of those species analogs to brown trout. Completely different life histories and habitat preferences.”

This underestimates logperch exposure to other predators in the past and/or present on two fronts. First, Chesapeake Logperch in the river and in the very lower portions of the tribs at and near their mouths in a number of cases, would have been exposed to these as well as more recent (past 1.25 centuries) non-native predators. There is often some overlap among predators regarding preferred forage items, so the sum of predator effects needs to be considered. Some of these predators would be likely to enter tribs, at least near their mouths. We see this with striped bass at age 0 and age 1 pretty commonly in stream tribs to the Delaware Estuary and they go above the tidal portions. Likewise for walleye, a non-native, in lower Susquehanna tribs.

Second, American eels represent substantial biomass in streams to which they have full access and their habitat would overlap and at times overrun all wild brown trout habitat and logperch habitat in streams. For example, above tide in the tidal Delaware tribs, it is nothing to see 50-100 eels in 300 m of electrofishing and this represents only a percentage of those actually present in a 300 sampling site. My bet would be no more than 50%. At the other end of the spectrum, I have even seen an occasional American eel in freestone wild brook trout streams. So, before the dams were constructed on the Susquehanna, logperch were no doubt fully exposed to masses of American eels.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Re: native predatory fish spp in lower Susquehanna basin…..“I wouldn't consider any of those species analogs to brown trout. Completely different life histories and habitat preferences.”

This underestimates logperch exposure to other predators in the past and/or present on two fronts. First, Chesapeake Logperch in the river and in the very lower portions of the tribs at and near their mouths in a number of cases, would have been exposed to these as well as more recent (past 1.25 centuries) non-native predators. There is often some overlap among predators regarding preferred forage items, so the sum of predator effects needs to be considered. Some of these predators would be likely to enter tribs, at least near their mouths. We see this with striped bass at age 0 and age 1 pretty commonly in stream tribs to the Delaware Estuary and they go above the tidal portions. Likewise for walleye, a non-native, in lower Susquehanna tribs.

Second, American eels represent substantial biomass in streams to which they have full access and their habitat would overlap and at times overrun all wild brown trout habitat and logperch habitat in streams. For example, above tide in the tidal Delaware tribs, it is nothing to see 50-100 eels in 300 m of electrofishing and this represents only a percentage of those actually present in a 300 sampling site. My bet would be no more than 50%. At the other end of the spectrum, I have even seen an occasional American eel in freestone wild brook trout streams. So, before the dams were constructed on the Susquehanna, logperch were no doubt fully exposed to masses of American eels.

Looking at the mass of fish and location does not speak to coevolved biological defense or evasion mechanisms like innate predator recognition. There are obviously more coevolved interactions between native fish species than we could ever understand. Simply saying there used to be a lot of predators here doesn’t mean a native species can tolerate an invasive species. Case and point, north of the United States in places where big bad northern pike and brook trout coevolved they interact sustainably. Yet invasive smallmouth bass have hurt native brook trout populations in maine. That assumption throws evolution out the window which is not how things work.

 

[Mike]

Your example could be explained by seasonal or year around habitat partitioning. Smallmouth bass hardly seek the same habitat types as northern pike. Furthermore, the effectiveness of bass predation on forage is often dependent upon bass abundance. Introductions of non-natives frequently result in overpopulation for at least a short period of time until some balance (hopefully) is established. This imbalance can persist, however, for long periods of time, especially in lake environments. Bass are also good predators on young members of the pike family and cannibalism by large pike keeps pike populations in balance.

There are basic specific behavioral mechanisms and anatomical structures, particularly the acustico-lateral line system, that aid fish in avoiding predators. Just because they did not co-evolve with a particular predator, it doesn’t mean that the prey are helpless. For example, the structure on a fish’s head that responds to water surface piercing from avian predators by initiating an automatic fright response is not dependent upon the presence of a co-evolved predator in order to function. Learned behavior and the recognition of pheromones released by sliced skin in certain species, as another example, no matter which predator caused it, produce predator avoidance responses. Evolving to avoid a host of natural predators in the Susquehanna basin, including overwhelming numbers of eels at one time, may be why the logperch appear to tolerate brown trout so well. The species has had a lot of practice.

You mention the negative impacts of brown trout on a specific sculpin species elsewhere. Yet here in Pa, two sculpin species, mottled and slimy, which also did not co-evolve with brown trout, do quite well in sympatry with brown trout. Likewise the Tesselated Darter. The point is that just because BT may be hard on one species of sculpin or darter, or its logperch relative, the same may or may not be true for another species. As I said before, if someone wants to do the research on BT/logperch predator/prey relationships, I’d be happy to see the questions resolved.

 

[RLeep2]

I have talked to Dr. Peter Petokas who is a herpetologist and hellbender expert. He says hellbender recruitment is likely effected at the larval and juvenile stages. There is also research that shows since brown and rainbow trout did not evolve wi the hellbenders that the larval hellbenders cannot chemically detect their presence and threat of predation like they can with brook trout. He wrote a letter to Pa fish and boat asking them not to add a stream that had a singular population left to the stocking list and they ignored him and stocked it anyway.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1439-0310.2009.01718.x

Since there are class A brook trout in those watersheds you mention that is an immediate reason to stop stocking brown trout based on mountains of research plated on here by me and others. I will say that despite not living in the watershed, based on your description of alot of the brook trout streams upstream of barriers, id say thats not coincidence. Dr. Kirk checked 73 streams in Allegheny National Forest and streams sampled with a barrier between a brown trout stocking location were 12 times more likely to support brook trout than streams where no barrier was present. They essentially tested the effects of Pa fish and boats stocking. So you mention brook trout above all these barriers but there are probably areas in the watershed they could be surviving in the stream itself if brown trout were not present. We know brook trout can survive higher general stream temps when brown trout are not present from Than Hitts study and then proof of concept on coolidge creek in Michigan when brown trout were removed brook trout moved doenstream to reclaim the larger river habitat. The eastern native brook trout joint venture has brown trout included in the top threats to brook trout twice! We know we shouldn’t be stocking them alone based on brook trout. The scientific community studying brook trout has overwhelmingly undeniably showed that.
View attachment 1641226425

Evaluating the Trade‐Offs between Invasion and Isolation for Native Brook Trout and Nonnative Brown Trout in Pennsylvania Streams

A popular conservation strategy for native trout species in western North America is to prevent invasions by nonnative trout by installing barriers that isolate native trout populations into headwater streams. In eastern North America, native Brook Trout Salvelinus fontinalis are frequently...

dspace.allegheny.edu

Conservancy’s and watershed groups liek you mentioned have not sounded alarm bells because the person thats educating them whats healthy in regards to stocking practices is Pa fish and boat and their doing a terrible job while fisheries scientists bang their head against a wall because their managment doesnt reflect good fisheries science. People are always angry or shocked when they find out brown or rainbow trout are on the IUCN top 100 worst invasive species world wide list and have decimated native fish and amphibian’s around the world because Pa fish and boat doesnt even list them on their invasive species page. But then they back the stocking truck up right next to a “don’t transport aquatic invaders “ sign for zebra mussels and fire up the fish cannon and pepper a stream or watershed containing native brook trout or other species with top 100 worst worldwide invasive fish species.

To a certain extent, I could care less who you've talked to. You make categorical statements and assumptions regarding systems and situations you have no knowledge of or familiarity with. You mistake the completely subjective notion of the primacy or preferentiality of brook trout as an indigenous species for some sort of revealed truth and as the "right" vs. the "wrong" in a binary sense in matters of fishery science and management.. It is neither. It's just what you would prefer. You say that there are probably places in some of the sub basins I mentioned where brook trout could survive if brown trout were not present. So what? It may well be that browns are the better match (admittedly, another subjective measurement) for these waters given current habitat and other practical concerns in these places. I am in favor of limited Affirmative Action on behalf of brook trout, with the emphasis on limited. While it is true that the act of "original sin" that led to brook trout being supplanted by browns in many of our waters is on us and our predecessors, there is also no getting around the fact that in case after case in sympatric populations where habitat has been stabilized to the point where brook trout can again become viable and competitive, browns continue to dominate. Is there a possibility that these outcomes are the way nature would have it or do we need to re-engineer things in such a way as to satisfy our subjective preferences? Isn't mucking around with nature's order in these matters how we got in trouble in the first place?

You also assert that the reason that watershed conservancies do not always see and understand many of these issues as you do (the hellbender question) is due to some insidious lack of proper education or "rightmindedness" on the part of PF&BC. I call nonsense on this assertion. You may think this, but you cannot know it. In general, I greatly resent and disapprove of the manner in which you regularly bad mouth our state fisheries management agency which has much more to do and consider than what would make you happy. I consider it counterproductive, adversarial and I do not see how this constant derision and defamation on your part could possibly be constructive to your native fisheries organizational mission.

Look. You seem a nice enough fellow and I really had no intention of coming a bit unglued on you. I've been around here a long time and I think in general, you'll find that this is not the way I normally respond.
But, I have to tell you that sometimes, observing or interacting with you reminds me of nothing so much as a bunch of religious proselytizers newly wound tight and in a high state of agitation. Not very productive...

Peace...

 

[silverfox]

As I said before, if someone wants to do the research on BT/logperch predator/prey relationships, I’d be happy to see the questions resolved.

This is all I'd like to see as well. We can debate theoretical outcomes based on glass half full's and half empties all day, but unless there's a well-designed study to determine effects, we're all just guessing. Well, you're probably more informed than any of us on this, and you may very well be correct on all counts. It's just something that seems that it could be an issue, and again, something other states are handling differently.

 

[silverfox]

To a certain extent, I could care less who you've talked to. You make categorical statements and assumptions regarding systems and situations you have no knowledge of or familiarity with. You mistake the completely subjective notion of the primacy or preferentiality of brook trout as an indigenous species for some sort of revealed truth and as the "right" vs. the "wrong" in a binary sense in matters of fishery science and management.. It is neither. It's just what you would prefer. You say that there are probably places in some of the sub basins I mentioned where brook trout could survive if brown trout were not present. So what? It may well be that browns are the better match (admittedly, another subjective measurement) for these waters given current habitat and other practical concerns in these places. I am in favor of limited Affirmative Action on behalf of brook trout, with the emphasis on limited. While it is true that the act of "original sin" that led to brook trout being supplanted by browns in many of our waters is on us and our predecessors, there is also no getting around the fact that in case after case in sympatric populations where habitat has been stabilized to the point where brook trout can again become viable and competitive, browns continue to dominate. Is there a possibility that these outcomes are the way nature would have it or do we need to re-engineer things in such a way as to satisfy our subjective preferences? Isn't mucking around with nature's order in these matters how we got in trouble in the first place?

You also assert that the reason that watershed conservancies do not always see and understand many of these issues as you do (the hellbender question) is due to some insidious lack of proper education or "rightmindedness" on the part of PF&BC. I call nonsense on this assertion. You may think this, but you cannot know it. In general, I greatly resent and disapprove of the manner in which you regularly bad mouth our state fisheries management agency which has much more to do and consider than what would make you happy. I consider it counterproductive, adversarial and I do not see how this constant derision and defamation on your part could possibly be constructive to your native fisheries organizational mission.

Look. You seem a nice enough fellow and I really had no intention of coming a bit unglued on you. I've been around here a long time and I think in general, you'll find that this is not the way I normally respond.
But, I have to tell you that sometimes, observing or interacting with you reminds me of nothing so much as a bunch of religious proselytizers newly wound tight and in a high state of agitation. Not very productive...

Peace...

I know this wasn't directed at me, but I think there are some points here that I'd argue from a philosophical standpoint. For me, it's less about some preferential treatment, or even the order of presence, and more about which species is established as "needing" conservation, and more on the merit of the function of intact native ecosystems. We don't see this pushback from PGC, or DCNR, or even other state and federal fisheries agencies. The advocacy for intact native ecosystems isn't some novel pipe dream conjured up by a couple of verbose PA forum posters, and certainly isn't some half-baked notion w/ no ecological merit.

I think looking at what species is "better suited" to a particular environment is a slippery slope. Do we start replacing imperiled species wholesale as the environmental conditions change and seek out the best critter to suit a particular ecological niche? This whole thing is driven by an affinity for a species of fish from Europe. If people were suggesting we remove carp, nobody would care. If we start electro-trawling round goby by the metric ton, I doubt there's going to be a contingent of paflyfish.com members up in arms about it.

USFWS/NPS/MTFWP are going to rotenone a stream in MT to remove rainbows and reintroduce cutthroat. Cutthroat are imperiled, and we have the ability to do it. It's also one agency's mission. Does that mean we shouldn't "meddle" now because we've "meddled" in the past? Do we ignore species that are in trouble because the avenue to conservation means the removal of a popular species? What is the harm in removing a nonnative species that persists all over the planet outside its native range to protect an imperiled species in its native range?

I don't think it's fair to suggest that the advocacy for native species is due to personal preference. That's implying that we've learned nothing from our past mistakes in introducing species where they don't belong. I'd like to point out as well, that I'm not even talking about removal of nonnative fish in PA. I'm simply suggesting we stop adding more nonnative fish on a yearly basis in places where they may have a negative impact on native fauna. A direction outlined in writing by state (including PA), federal, and NGO's.

 

[Fish Sticks]

To a certain extent, I could care less who you've talked to. You make categorical statements and assumptions regarding systems and situations you have no knowledge of or familiarity with. You mistake the completely subjective notion of the primacy or preferentiality of brook trout as an indigenous species for some sort of revealed truth and as the "right" vs. the "wrong" in a binary sense in matters of fishery science and management.. It is neither. It's just what you would prefer. You say that there are probably places in some of the sub basins I mentioned where brook trout could survive if brown trout were not present. So what? It may well be that browns are the better match (admittedly, another subjective measurement) for these waters given current habitat and other practical concerns in these places. I am in favor of limited Affirmative Action on behalf of brook trout, with the emphasis on limited. While it is true that the act of "original sin" that led to brook trout being supplanted by browns in many of our waters is on us and our predecessors, there is also no getting around the fact that in case after case in sympatric populations where habitat has been stabilized to the point where brook trout can again become viable and competitive, browns continue to dominate. Is there a possibility that these outcomes are the way nature would have it or do we need to re-engineer things in such a way as to satisfy our subjective preferences? Isn't mucking around with nature's order in these matters how we got in trouble in the first place?

You also assert that the reason that watershed conservancies do not always see and understand many of these issues as you do (the hellbender question) is due to some insidious lack of proper education or "rightmindedness" on the part of PF&BC. I call nonsense on this assertion. You may think this, but you cannot know it. In general, I greatly resent and disapprove of the manner in which you regularly bad mouth our state fisheries management agency which has much more to do and consider than what would make you happy. I consider it counterproductive, adversarial and I do not see how this constant derision and defamation on your part could possibly be constructive to your native fisheries organizational mission.

Look. You seem a nice enough fellow and I really had no intention of coming a bit unglued on you. I've been around here a long time and I think in general, you'll find that this is not the way I normally respond.
But, I have to tell you that sometimes, observing or interacting with you reminds me of nothing so much as a bunch of religious proselytizers newly wound tight and in a high state of agitation. Not very productive...

Peace...

All I can say is plenty of people are heavily criticizing the regulatory agencies that have let the Susquehanna get so bad in terms of water quality. I am not hearing anglers saying “i really don’t like how your always bad mouthing the EPA”. We can all sing coumbaya about clean water and say the Susquehanna is in terrible shape and something must be done(which i agree with). However, when someone like me suggests we give up a single stream mile of stocked invasive species for conservation reasons the sermons, mental gymnastics, and PA fish and Boat stocking apologists all come out of the woodwork guns blazing because of invasive trout F.O.M.O.

Are we thinking the international union of conservation of nature put brown and rainbow trout in the top 100 worlds most invasive species because fishsticks and silver fox gave them an unfair shake on Pa fly fish??? Or do you think their ranked as some of the most widely ecologically destructive invasive species on planet earth by one of the most highly reputable global conservation collaboratives based on mountains of manuscripts showing harm to everything from fish, amphibians, to macroinvertebrates?

People advocating for native species protection are not the ones protecting/normalizing perpetually pulse dosing these streams with stocked invasive species above any natural density to change their fishing experience at any expense, yet you say we are trying to change things to how we want it ironically.


Protecting and restoring native species is simply about protecting biodiversity. I’m sure that sounds like another hippy buzzword to you but its no more idealistic than putting gas in your car so it works. Native species increase biodiversity(they allow a variety of different species to be present). Invasive species decrease it and leave ecosystems with fewer species. This is very important because ecosystems that are less Biodiverse(only made up of a few species) are alot more unstable and a lot more susceptible to pathogens, extreme weather events, and other stressors. Invasive species create Boom and Bust changes in the fisheries then even people who openly admit they only care about angling, not conservation, complain. Like all the people pissed off that after invasive blue catfish were introduced they started out as 100lb trophies and now they all stunt out 20” and make up 75% biomass in the james river due to competition and not enough prey base.

If you think I am making this stuff up or its my own selfish agenda please listen/watch the two below links. I saw what fisheries science, NPS, and the eastern brook trout joint venture were saying and realized fish and boat was derelict as a manager. They didn’t read fish sticks posts on Pa fly fish and decide Stocking invasive species was a bad idea.

I recorded this podcasts to organize the quality research highlighting the dangers of stocked trout to native brook trout that is the basis for management changes resulting in some real success stories outside PA. I focus on native brook trout simply because as mentioned in other posts above, no one is studying potential harms to threatened and endangered non game fish In PA that I am aware of. I hope you give it a listen if you have not already.

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

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

nativefishcoalition.org

 

[RLeep2]

Thank you both for your responses. The reduction in the didactic tenor in both is appreciated. There are some areas where we can agree and others where any such hope is slim to non-existent. Where there is no agreement to be found, I plan to advocate in my own way for what I believe to be right, practical and fair. I also intend to speak out against the unfair demonization of PFB&C when and where I perceive it.

Now, as is my right as a retired guy, I'm going fishing for a couple days.

Cheers!