Substantial fee increase in Yellowstone to help combat invasive species.

[silverfox]

We need this same level of commitment to native fish in the East.

https://www.tu.org/magazine/yellowstone-increases-fishing-boating-fees-to-help-combat-invasive-species/?fbclid=IwAR06Fkm_XusSuKhFDC6bs7ovgx_oTKBpeYIEtJaJgf7iTSuN_U1ZeIf0BRY

In addition, this older news from Arizona:

https://flylordsmag.com/arizona-brown-trout-bounty-gcnra/

From manual removal to bounties on non-native species, the West gets it right in my opinion. Nature shouldn't be a free-for-all with species to cater to angler's desires. Introducing and continuing to introduce non-native species to ecosystems can have long-lasting negative impacts to the entire ecosystem. Some obvious, and others not so much.

I know this all might sound foreign and absurd in a backward state like Pennsylvania, but in my opinion, at some point, these same tactics will need to be used here. I suspect that negative impacts from invasive species will cause more harm more quickly than a warming environment.

A warming environment is an issue, but those increases are long-term and incremental. In recent history, water temperatures have not risen enough to account for losses of brook trout throughout their historic range. Loss of habitat due to development plays a big role, but the elephant in the room is the loss of waters to invasive species.

All you have to do is look to our limestone streams in the CV to realize that the water temperature there isn't increasing at all and then look at the species that inhabit those limestone streams. The loss of those waters has nothing to do with a warming climate, in most cases development or pre-1800's logging activity. It has everything to do with non-native species introduction.

This blasé attitude by our fisheries management and anglers in general needs to change.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

I would be interested in hearing your proposal to eradicate an invasive species (brown trout) from any one particular drainage in Pa that would provide brook trout with access to first order spawning habitats while also providing access to a medium to large stream. Or perhaps you target one of the cv limestoners, even then they are connected systems with ample opportunity for brown trout to find their way back.

 

[silverfox]

lycoflyfisher wrote:
I would be interested in hearing your proposal to eradicate an invasive species (brown trout) from any one particular drainage in Pa that would provide brook trout with access to first order spawning habitats while also providing access to a medium to large stream. Or perhaps you target one of the cv limestoners, even then they are connected systems with ample opportunity for brown trout to find their way back.

Just one example that is backed by science and even proposed by PFBC would be harvest regs on Big Spring to remove rainbows. The summary of ongoing population studies resulted in the following comment: "Based on the ecology of sympatric Brook Trout and Rainbow Trout populations, some reduction of Rainbow Trout will likely be necessary to meet agency objectives."

I fully understand the issue of eradication where streams are connected to larger water bodies that contain non-native/invasive fish. However, there are plenty of places in PA where natural or manmade barriers exist that would prevent the natural reintroduction of the non-native species.

At any rate, the overall theme here, and what I'm getting at, is that there is little to no preferential treatment of native fish in PA. Name a single place in PA where angling regulations are in place to enhance native species. Now name some places where angling regulations are in place that largely benefit non-native/invasive species.

Even where we know for certain that removal of non-native species would benefit the native species we can't seem to do anything about it (Big Spring).

 

[troutbert]

In PA, stocking of hatchery trout over native brook trout is still very common.

In Yellowstone Park they quit stocking over the native trout in the 1940s.

Ending stocking over the native trout is the first, and most important, fisheries management change that needs to be done.

 

[silverfox]

troutbert wrote:
In PA, stocking of hatchery trout over native brook trout is still very common.

In Yellowstone Park they quit stocking over the native trout in the 1940s.

Ending stocking over the native trout is the first, and most important, fisheries management change that needs to be done.

I agree 100%. It's a bit like a heroin addict who also has a drinking problem though. Sure, the heroin will kill them first, but the drinking can't be ignored either.

 

[jifigz]

I think the man made changes that have occurred to the environment and streams is far more prohibitive to brookies coming back to many of their watersheds than just the presence of brown trout. Even if we wiped the slate clean of all browns, I don't see brookies regaining a foothold in the majority of their former PA waters.

And, if the focus is one promoting native fish, we best get rid of channel cats, smallies, walleye, rock bass, snakeheads, white bass, etc out of the Susky watershed and really start promoting the resurgence of more fallfish, redbreast sunnies, bullheads, shad, and american eels.

How would you do that in a grand scale and not make the entire fishing community crazy and angry that the precious smallmouth bass is getting kicked to the curb?

 

[lycoflyfisher]

good points jfigz, the fate of native fish in the Susquehanna drainage is imperiled by many more species than just brown trout. Other than perhaps a select few isolated watersheds, I am not sure how you could effectively reduce brown trout populations to benefit brook trout.

I would much rather see efforts concentrated on better managing stocking practices to reduce impacts on wild trout. This would also include better management private stockings.

 

[Mike]

It is highly unlikely that any removal effort in Pa other than perhaps in remote areas or in the infancy of an introduction (and depending upon species vulnerability) would last very long; therefore, in the vast majority of cases it would be money poorly and spent. Consider species in modern times that have “just shown up” in new or reclaimed lakes or waters previously unoccupied by the species: white perch, alewife, gizzard shad, common carp, snakehead, flathead catfish. Some have a lot worse reputation than BT and RT.

 

[Mike]

Scratch the “and” above at the end of the third line. Should have said “money poorly spent.”

 

[silverfox]

jifigz wrote:
I think the man made changes that have occurred to the environment and streams is far more prohibitive to brookies coming back to many of their watersheds than just the presence of brown trout. Even if we wiped the slate clean of all browns, I don't see brookies regaining a foothold in the majority of their former PA waters.

And, if the focus is one promoting native fish, we best get rid of channel cats, smallies, walleye, rock bass, snakeheads, white bass, etc out of the Susky watershed and really start promoting the resurgence of more fallfish, redbreast sunnies, bullheads, shad, and american eels.

How would you do that in a grand scale and not make the entire fishing community crazy and angry that the precious smallmouth bass is getting kicked to the curb?

Absolutely. In a lot of cases, there's no way to unscramble the egg. However, where possible and feasible, we should be favoring brook trout.

Again, places like Big Spring should be a "no-brainer". The impoundment at the mill will prevent any natural reintroduction of non-native fish and I'm not suggesting rotenone here, just a selective harvest reg.

There are some impoundments here that have had browns introduced above the impoundment in brookie waters. In the near future, they'll be manually removed and relocated below the impoundments. Thos same streams could have selective harvest regs on them to encourage removal of browns but they don't and probably never will.

It would be foolish to try to restore large connected waterways and I don't think anyone is suggesting that. PFBC could help by introducing regs to benefit brook trout, but unfortunately, based on the comments made during the fisheries committee meeting in January, it sounds like they're more interested in protecting brown trout first. Or at least introducing regs to protect wild brown trout before even considering brookie regs.

My point in my original post is really about how the west is willing to go to measures that we consider extreme. Rotenone is a bad word around here, but it's used out west successfully all the time. Putting bounties on non-native species sounds ludicrous in PA, but it's now commonplace out west. I know a lot of that stems from the notion that brook trout aren't in as much trouble as cutthroat, but I was on a conference call the other day with some biologists from throughout the Northeast, and the Connecticut member mentioned that they've seen a 30% reduction in brook trout over the past 25 years. That tracks with what other agencies in the brook trout native range are seeing.

I just wonder what would be the situation with cutthroat if these approaches were taken sooner? What would be the fate of brook trout if people started taking more action now?

 

[jifigz]

The PFBC is all about protecting our brown trout because that is what brings in dollars. Our famous large brown trout waters bring lots of fishing tourism. I think money is the only reason why they care about that and not about our brookies. I agree that we should protect and value our brown trout waters because we are blessed with great people old brown waters. I am also all for improving our brook trout fishing.

It has been said before but I'll say it again, the PFBC needs to stop stocking over all wild populations of brookies..in fact, it should cease over all populations of wild trout, regardless of species.

 

[Mike]

From where would all of these anglers suddenly appear who wish to harvest wild trout in Pa? The statewide wild trout angler use and harvest study strongly suggests that they wouldn’t. Whether or not it is realized, what is being described here would be the not just the selective harvest of wild browns from sympatric (mixed) populations, but the selective overharvest (and on a continuous basis) in order to have an impact. Even with widespread stocking over wild brown populations, I can’t think of any that were overharvested back in the 1970’s and early 1980’s, with “over” being the key part of that word. If harvest had limited or no success in overharvesting browns with all of the pressure generated by stocked trout anglers when harvest was a much bigger part of trout angling, how would selective harvest of wild browns have a chance of working today? Browns are so, so resilient. Furthermore, people who want to harvest are not going to be attracted to a higher density ST population mixed with a lower density BT population, the kind of population where removal of BT could potentially see its greater benefits. If they wish to harvest, they are going to focus on populations where BT are abundant. Good luck with reducing THOSE populations through harvest. And finally, to drive one more factual point home, the statewide wild trout stream angler use and harvest survey recorded essentially no harvest occurring in smaller wild BT streams, the very types (sizes, meaning widths) of streams in Pa where the vast majority of wild ST (and mixed populations) are found.

Jifigz, I don’t think I ever heard the word money combined with the words wild brown trout in the same sentence within the PFBC. If it had been it would have been in the context of the economic activity generated by wild trout fisheries in general or in regard to the economic activity generated by a specific stream’s fishery, such as Spring Ck, which of course just happens to be a wild brown fishery. But nobody that I ever knew was running around saying management needs to favor wild brown trout because of all of the economic activity they generate in comparison to brook and rainbow trout.

 

[jifigz]

Mike, streams like Penns, the Little J, and Spring are what I had in mind of bringing in money. Sure, all trout fishing drives lots of license sales, equipment sales, tackle, etc. And the PFBC spends a ton of money on stocking fish for that incentive to be there so people buy equipment and licenses.

The big limestoners fill hotels, keep numerous fly shops open, make places like the Feathered Hook capable of staying open, etc all with very, very minimal dollars needed to be spent by the PFBC to ensure that those anglers spend money. If you go to spring at any given day there are people in the region from out of town staying there to fish. Sure, people travel and fish small mountain streams for brookies but I don't think they generate the appeal as the larger, brown trout waters.

Where are there stocked trout destinations that people travel to and drop money in places year round like we wild trout nuts do? Sure, some of the streams may be stocked that fish, but if there isn't a good head of wild fish there most serious anglers aren't making that a "destination." I feel streams like Spring just require hardly any money to be spent on them by the commission compared to the dollars it brings into Centre County.

 

[silverfox]

Mike wrote:
From where would all of these anglers suddenly appear who wish to harvest wild trout in Pa? The statewide wild trout angler use and harvest study strongly suggests that they wouldn’t. Whether or not it is realized, what is being described here would be the not just the selective harvest of wild browns from sympatric (mixed) populations, but the selective overharvest (and on a continuous basis) in order to have an impact. Even with widespread stocking over wild brown populations, I can’t think of any that were overharvested back in the 1970’s and early 1980’s, with “over” being the key part of that word. If harvest had limited or no success in overharvesting browns with all of the pressure generated by stocked trout anglers when harvest was a much bigger part of trout angling, how would selective harvest of wild browns have a chance of working today? Browns are so, so resilient. Furthermore, people who want to harvest are not going to be attracted to a higher density ST population mixed with a lower density BT population, the kind of population where removal of BT could potentially see its greater benefits. If they wish to harvest, they are going to focus on populations where BT are abundant. Good luck with reducing THOSE populations through harvest. And finally, to drive one more factual point home, the statewide wild trout stream angler use and harvest survey recorded essentially no harvest occurring in smaller wild BT streams, the very types (sizes, meaning widths) of streams in Pa where the vast majority of wild ST (and mixed populations) are found.

Jifigz, I don’t think I ever heard the word money combined with the words wild brown trout in the same sentence within the PFBC. If it had been it would have been in the context of the economic activity generated by wild trout fisheries in general or in regard to the economic activity generated by a specific stream’s fishery, such as Spring Ck, which of course just happens to be a wild brown fishery. But nobody that I ever knew was running around saying management needs to favor wild brown trout because of all of the economic activity they generate in comparison to brook and rainbow trout.

If harvest has no role in fisheries management then why were they talking about making brown trout water below STW C&R to protect wild brown trout? So C&R works to protect browns but harvest won't have an impact on browns where the goal is to protect brook trout?

These places that are using selective harvest or even bounties on nonnative species must have some value or the agencies wouldn't be using them.

To be clear, I'm more in favor of protective harvest regs for brook trout than I am for encouraging the harvest of brown trout. Essentially what Maryland just did. I'm very opposed to any regulations that favor brown trout or prevent their harvest. Especially in small streams like the one near me that I've witnessed a switch in species from brook to brown. Nobody should be prohibited from harvesting nonnative invasive species.

If PFBC made rainbow trout harvest legal on Big Spring, I would spend every weekend there keeping my limit. I'm very suspicious of these angler surveys and whether they represent what I'm talking about here. In Maryland, DNR thought they were going to get a lot of opposition to the C&R regs for brook trout. When they surveyed the public though, they found overwhelming support for the program. I find it VERY hard to believe that Pennsylvania is so socially opposite from Maryland (our neighbor) that the results would be so different.