That isn't true. The PFBC has taken a very large mileage of streams with native brook trout off the stocking list.
Did you not know that? Have you ever heard of Operation Future?
Study just completed: stream restoration likely only beneficial to native brook trout when non-native trout are not present.
- Thread starter Fish Sticks
- Start date
Did you not know that? Have you ever heard of Operation Future?
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
I am very aware of where the painfully insincere slogan “resource first “ came from. First: operation future was 1987, 6 whole years after Faust and whites landmark paper that showed brown trout pushed brook trout out of prime habitat to their detriment. Operation future still chose only to pursue “self sustaining fish” which is a fishing goal not a conservation one because even at the time there was research showing non native trout were harmful to brook trout(managing for both=managing for invasives). It’s a common misconception that managing for “self sustaining trout populations” is a conservation goal because as the article that started this whole entire thread and so many others I’ve posted point out, managing for “wild trout” in any of the tiny trickles in this state you could possibly pick to specifically manage for brook trout(even just one first order stream) = managing against native brook trout. Even today almost half a century after Faust and whites observations( and a litany of other research ignored by commission) we still don’t make the distinction in this state between wild trout and native brook trout. There are still NO regulations or management plans SPECIFICALLY for native brook trout.
People may read this and think I’m talking about state wide and of course I’m not. I literally mean in NOT ONE SINGLE STREAM is there a regulation or management plan for native brook trout. All that matters is “wild trout” like their all the same species.
Even though stopping stocking in a “wild trout” management area(not a brook trout management area) as you mentioned, may help some brook trout to an extent in theory. There is no management for them because you are not doing anything like mandatory harvest or removal for the stream born invasives that will fill that niche. And also for example, if you didn’t stock a stream like hammersly but kettle remains one of the heaviest stocked in the state what are we really doing for brook trout. Who thinks that’s a coherent management plan long term I’d like to know. If they stop stocking in a sub watershed or watershed as shannon whites riverscape genetics research suggests we should THEN I’d give them some kudos.
If they literally picked one small subwatershed to manage FOR brook trout (not “wild trout”) is be wrong. And that’s all I’m asking, is that a lot for a native fish of high conservation need that could disappear from our state this century and is getting alot of tax payer money for restoration efforts being sabotaged by the fish commissions hatchery program?? With other states doing no stock watersheds, genetic rescue, removal (manual and chemical), conservation reintroduction hatcheries, catch and release, and other things no one can argue we are not a derelict and nonparticipating member of the range wide initiative to conserve native brook trout. You just can’t , the contrast is getting comically ridiculous.
I guess you did catch me in a lie. I said we have done nothing in this state for native brook trout. I was wrong. Bucks county Tu, a volunteer conservation group, has our only successful native brook trout reintroduction on the books counting towards the 2025 Chesapeake bay goal of 8% on their first try. I guess it would have been more accurate if I said “PAFB has done nothing specifically for native brook trout”
sarce
Well-known member
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2013
- Messages
- 1,504
Bucks County is not in the Chesapeake Bay watershed, unfortunately it doesn't count for that Ches Bay goal. I also caution against declaring that project a success so soon. MD DNR tried several brook trout reintroductions, granted in lower quality waterways than a restored spring creek, and most of them appeared successful at first only to peter out after 10-20 years. I only know of two that have sustained for more than 30 years to present day. At least in the central region. Reclaimed AMD streams in western region is another story.
I still agree with your overall point that PA could do WAY more for brook trout. With the number of springs in the state the reintroductions could be a little more successful than in MD but it's better to not lose the populations to begin with. Reintroduction is difficult.
silverfox
Well-known member
- Joined
- Oct 4, 2006
- Messages
- 1,928
I liked the idea of making nursery streams off-limits to fishing and changes to the season. Most of that would never work today, but it would've been interesting to see what happened w/ that type of approach.
I also thought it was interesting how many forest fires started because of trout anglers lighting fires while fishing. I drove along a very popular trout stream on the opening day this year (on my way to fish for perch in a lake) and saw 4 fires along the stream. No forest fires though.
Unfortunately, you're right about displacement being realized early on. What happened after, and to today, is nothing short of the deliberate selection of one species over another for economic and social reasons. Greed and selfishness. We haven't come very far.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
I agree it’s better to prevent loss than reintroduce just from a conservation genetics standpoint alone. What ever you put back in may not have same local-regional genetic adaptation. We will see how the Bucks county reintroduction does. That TU chapter deserves some serious credit though IMO. PAFB had one attempt on limestone run and it didn’t even take in the early years.
Suspect reintroduction is a lot more high yield prospect when your removing a dam to spring pond with high flow of ground water instead of a freestoner that lost its population for one reason or another. A lot of hatcheries/spring ponds you could replicate that with potentially. Big spring pretty much lost its brook trout population and when the hatchery was removed obviously their back now. I hope the successful examples of getting rid of a hatchery or a spring pond in an area that has decent enough ground water discharge allowing native brook trout and other species of high conservation need will hopefully continue to grow.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
And what I meant to also mention is there are some brook trout populations in trouble that the technique or spring pond removal or hatchery removal could be used to increase resiliency instead of waiting for need of reintroduction.
Ending stocking on Hammersley (and other streams with brook trout populations) is VERY beneficial for brook trout populations.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
I’m not denying the short term benefits are great and that it makes me very happy to see it happen. But long term you can get a lot of propagule pressure that advances stage of invasion into hammersly and decreases the biotic resistance the brookies there have by adding numbers of brown trout that wander up into hammersly from kettle. What your saying is not wrong in the short term but when it comes to long term risk of extirpation simply not stocking hammersly won’t prevent that if your loading up kettle with fish.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
I think there is another hidden value in this I did not mention. It can also be a “baby step” or progress towards discontinuation in the sun watershed this would be the best scenario.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
I know you want what’s best for brook trout and you are just looking at what seems like a pragmatic solution in the current fisheries management political environment. I feel the same as you do that something(anything) would be a win for brook trout. If not only from a public angler education standpoint it would help show they are a priority and need to be managed even if not the most long term effective idea.
But to illustrate what I’m talking about and so you don’t have to take my word for it this study is looking at exactly what we are talking about. Not stocking ontop of wild brook trout but just downstream. In the study streams that had a barrier between the stream being surveyed and the nearest brown their stocking location had a 12x higher likelihood of containing brook trout. It’s proof that downstream stocking furthers invasion even if not directly on top of. This was tested on 73 streams in Pennsylvania in the Allegheny national forest. It just goes to show that while getting rid of direct overlap is good, downstream stocking is EXTREMELY harmful. It ties into shanon whites study illustrating that we need to manage at watershed or sun watershed scale. I remember shannon saying once “if your goal is to manage brook trout in a stream it does not make sense to stock immediately downstream.” This is how pa fish and boat gets away with saying “we only stock over brook trout in 20% of cases(still a lot i my book).” But they aren’t counting when they stock them into a corner by dumping in just downstream.
Mark Kirk Et al.
Since the Kettle Creek drainage has been discussed a lot:
I think it would be worthwhile if a bunch of us wrote letters supporting ending stocking on Little Kettle Creek. That has a mixed brookie/brown population. Ending stocking there would benefit the brookie population.
It seems like the population may be high enough that they might go for it, if enough people support it. The stocked section is mostly on state forest land.
I think it would be worthwhile if a bunch of us wrote letters supporting ending stocking on Little Kettle Creek. That has a mixed brookie/brown population. Ending stocking there would benefit the brookie population.
It seems like the population may be high enough that they might go for it, if enough people support it. The stocked section is mostly on state forest land.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
I think that would be very worth while
JeffP
Well-known member
What is the wild brown population like on Kettle? Are streams like Hammersley and Little Kettle picking up more browns? I have never fished Kettle.
In my past experience, which is probably still true today, and ignoring changes in stocked species, rates, and frequencies, which might encourage wild trout population growth, ultimately there is only one way for an AFM to proactively move toward taking a stream off of the stocking list. That is for stream surveys to be conducted that document that the stocked Section’s wild trout biomass has improved to the point that the section supports a Class A equivalent biomass. Note that I said “equivalent” because the actual designation still has to be made by the Commissioners. So if you wish to have the greatest chance of success within the existing system, the request should be for a stream survey (if there hasn’t been one within the past 5-8 yrs or so) with the reasoning being that you believe the population improved. You are probably “past due” on that though because field schedules have probably been set for the year as of a month or so ago.
Why did I say 5-8 yrs? Because that’s the fastest that I have seen populations improve from no wild (browns in those cases) trout to Class A.
Why did I say 5-8 yrs? Because that’s the fastest that I have seen populations improve from no wild (browns in those cases) trout to Class A.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
Hammersly has browns as far up into the wild area as you can hike basically. I don’t have data on the trends, don’t know if Pa fish and bot does either interms of recently.
There are very few wild Browns in Kettle within the stocked trout sections. There seem to be more wild ST in my view, although their density overall is not high either. There are bigger numbers around the mouths of some tribs or in the occasional low flow springs. The best densities, such as they are, appear to be from Ole Bull SP upstream. That would make sense since there are a number of local tribs in that stretch that would be contributing wild trout, almost exclusively Brook Trout
Survey work in which I participated in the 1970’s in the present FFO Area strongly suggested to me that there were more wild browns then than there are now, based on the few that we now catch elsewhere on the stream on flies, night flies, AND minnow rigs. I catch more wild brooks than wild browns, but not many of either. Note that Brooks are more readily angled than Browns, but I don’t think that’s the entire explanation in this case since the wild Browns are so infrequent.
Kettle periodically suffers from low summer flows (last half of July and August) and quite warm temps. This is frequent enough that it prevents good wild trout populations from becoming established within the stocked trout sections. Even if they did for a year or so, they would not last due to the aforementioned periodic, seasonally stressful conditions.
Last edited:
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
That is the only way Within the existing system but I think if we work within the current framework we are going to be many/all brook trout lighter here in Pa in the next century. Those are real concerns. Pa fish and boat also has the responsibility of managing our state amphibian. And Dr. Petokas has written to the commission asking them to stop stocking over hellbender populations in kettle and other potter county creeks multiple times. It’s definitely about more than class A brook trout biomass as far as the cold water ecosystem benefits that could be realized from preventing further invasive species stocking/propagule pressure to further stage of invasion. High brook trout numbers give them biotic resistance to invasive trout. There more we stock the more we weaken that advantage.
The current system is obviously not coherent based on available fisheries science. The information shared with managers at the STAC Chesapeake bay brook trout conservation genetics conference as all centered around decreasing completion with invasive species and enhancing connectivity. To do this effectively we would have to manage at sub watershed/watershed scale. Pa fish and boat does not have the will to do this and the current policies/management system don’t allow for this.
So as your average license holder who wants things to be “resource first” I need a fish commission that adapts policies to science and if the people of the commonwealth don’t get policy change at the commission we need regime change.
In my experience and that of fishing buddies who have fished the Kettle watershed a long time, the ratio of brookies and browns has shifted more towards the brookies in upper Kettle (the unstocked water), Germania Branch, and Hammersley Fork.
I think the same has happened on the upper parts of Slate Run, and on its headwater tributaries, and some other streams where stocking has ended.
But our fishing experiences are "anecdotal." What does the survey data show? It's frustrating that so much survey data has been collected, but there is little analysis of it. Or least not available to us.
I see this trend as confirmation that ending stocking over mixed brookie/brown populations is very beneficial to the brookies.
Fish Sticks
Well-known member
Other states share data much more easily. One request of stocking receipts/ data in Maine got data back to 1917. In Maryland they post the stuff on social media. In PA it’s all hidden from public. And even surveys of streams in the past have resulted in multiple unanswered e-mails and ultimate need for right to know requests. When you know your picking hatcheries/politics over science it doesn’t pay to have your data out there for everyone to look at.
