Waters with the Biggest Potential

[jifigz]

You could just clean up the water for the sake of the water and ignore the species. Thats actually largely what we are doing now in PA actually.

This is exactly what I said. Then I stated that given the current situation of the watershed the larger Moshannon Creek would most likely become dominated by browns. It's not an attack on native species or your opinion but just an observation. One that I feel would come true.

I'm all for native species but it isn't always a feasible option. Nature has been on a collision course since it started. Conquest, onslaught, and expansion.. It happened for millions of years before we were here to care or ponder the consequences. It's ironic now that we are the main driving force of those species' interactions and the only species smart enough to dwell on the outcome of the grand experiment we put into play.

Just an observation.....

 

[Fish Sticks]

This is exactly what I said. Then I stated that given the current situation of the watershed the larger Moshannon Creek would most likely become dominated by browns. It's not an attack on native species or your opinion but just an observation. One that I feel would come true.

I'm all for native species but it isn't always a feasible option. Nature has been on a collision course since it started. Conquest, onslaught, and expansion.. It happened for millions of years before we were here to care or ponder the consequences. It's ironic now that we are the main driving force of those species' interactions and the only species smart enough to dwell on the outcome of the grand experiment we put into play.

Just an observation.....

I have heard others point out that nature has winners and losers. And I know your not attacking native species or my opinion I get that and appreciate it. The only thing about natures winners and losers before we intervened is these winners and losers were decided by evolutionary processes which allowed the winner to take a new niche or position in the food web that happened over many mellenia or longer. The difference of humans introducing brown trout and other invasive species is that it happens too fast for any coherent evolutionary process and it introduces instability that crashes the system either from a top down trophic cascade(Blue cats eat everything in the James river) or a bottom up trophic cascade(tiny myssis shrimp introduced into flathead lake giving invasive lake trout, previously believed to be non native but not invasive, the ability to blow up population wise out eat their prey base and stunt out.

These are super rapid examples it often takes much much longer and is still relatively rapid in terms of not having time for an evolutionary process of the surrounding ecosystem to adjust and remain stable.

I think at the end of the day everyone wants cold water ecosystems that don’t always require human intervention and drastic management strategies. The general public views regulations to remove an invasive species in the small cases its logistically feasible to do so as too drastic or as causing instability. But the irony is that native species that coevolved allow for a larger number and diversity of species in a waterway. Native species increase biodiversity and invasive species decrease it. The the biodiverse an ecosystem(the more species) the more stable it is. Think of the whole complement of native species as a completely intact jenga tower and one where invasive species has decreased biodiversity as the tower sitting on just one block. As stressors hit the ecosystem a more biodiverse ecosystem has more prey options for predators and more predators to prevent an over population of prey species. This explanation is a gross over simplification its much more complex but essentially think of a more biodiverse ecosystem as more species so not putting all your eggs in fewer baskets in terms of risk of destabilization/collapse.

I can respect that I probably come off as preachy on this topic and am just as vocal as I am because despite more people than ever taking about this stuff, I just want to share it with everyone else. Learning this stuff was eye opening for me and seeing how frustrated the scientific community is with the lack of communication from agencies that should be sharing it probably contributes to how vocal I am. But i don’t doubt that you love the resource just as much as I do. I know everyone on here is passionate its hard to share this stuff without coming off like a jack wagon when im not the most tactful to begin with communicating in written form.

 

[Mike]

I'm pretty sure I understand Syl's NO, but I'm not sure I understand yours, Mike. Does your NO mean the information you have on Kinzua's effect on downstream smallmouth pops was that the effect was suppressive or not all that important? I ask because conversations I had with Ron Lee way back in the mid-80's indicated that he thought the dam was overall, not good for SMB, at least as far downstream as Tidioute or West Hickory. The two things I remember best from these conversations were: 1) Ron felt the effects of the dam had moved the prime smallmouth zone on the river significantly downstream to the point that it now began at about Tionesta and extended down to roughly Emlenton and 2) Ron also seemed to believe that variations in the rate of release in order to achieve summer pool levels at the beginning of each summer boating season in the reservoir were having a negative effect on SMB spawning/nesting success for quite a ways downstream.

Which NO did you have in mind...?

Your item #1 above was the reason why I said no…meaning no cooler water should be discharged in my view. #2 may also have been part of it since the general comment was that there was a negative impact on SMB abundance well downstream to at least Tionesta as I recall.

 

[Swattie87]

Moshannon and Mosquito are good ones. Moshannon has a long road to recovery ahead of it, but Mosquito has long been on my list to explore. I end up reading about its PH struggles and end up somewhere else. Other streams I’ve done that with, but eventually fished, have ended up being better than I anticipated, so I should probably try it. I think Gifford gets some substantial liming, and is actually the more neutral side of the watershed.

I’d add WB Susky and Bennett Branch. Tioga River is another good one. These all have some remediation in place and fish in them already. But could be really good. One advantage of mine water, while it’s not chemically limestone water, it comes out of the ground at the same temperature as limestone water. Treat the AMD, and you have some significant cold water inputs.

Smaller streams, but the east side Lehigh Gorge tribs are another group that could be really good if their water was cleaned up.

Different mechanisms at play, but the Frankstown Branch is another that just needs to stop getting abused, and it will be really good. It’s close, just needs a few breaks.

 

[Oregon_OwlII]

Invasive species don’t just hurt a single species they cause trophic cascades that ripple through the environment altering many things we know about and alot we don’t. So yes you can just do water improvement but generally thats done for the inhabitants of that water, the species.

You could just clean up the water for the sake of the water and ignore the species. Thats actually largely what we are doing now in PA actually. But if you don’t pair species conservation with water conservation you just get clean water with invasive species that results in more native species being listed as threatened or endangered. Thats not conservation. Conservation is protecting or restoring something that has a conservation need not one thats dominating every continent outsode its native range except Antarctica. Conservation with target species as wild brown trout is fishing, its no more conservation than fund raising for Jeff Bezos is charity. Everyone forgets these invasive trout species are an issue for hellbenders, endangered darters, and crayfish. WV has aknowledged the harm to these non game species. Recovering americas wilife act is aimed at non game species. I’m glad it passed its alot of money to help them. But its going to be hard if the whole volunteer conservation community and Pa fish and boat are improving brown trout habitat and stocking them and protecting them with regs where sensitive native species are.

One of the tragedies is when anglers pick invasive species and sacrifice the ecological balance native biodiversity offers is they often don’t get what they want in the end despite it. The 100 lb blue catfish in the James now are 75% biomass in the james river and stunt out at 20”. Their crashing blue claw crabs and worms and actually likey hurting stripers. No 100lb trophies just trophic cascade. Flathead lake invasove lake trout made bull trout and cuthroat trout disappear and they all stunted out took over the lake. No trophies just tiny fish. If you look at the video I posted above you’ll note someone holding a very big brown trout that came out of an infertile headwater stream. Tom clark mentions those brown trout got huge off brook trout.

Many people get excited when they find a stream that has mixed brown and brook trout because they can catch brook trout and a dee larger brown trout in same day. I see it referred to as “Perfect day”. I get it from a fishing perspective and no ill will to those folks im glad they had a good day fishing. But those brown teout arent donw there singing kumbaya like tom
Clark illustrates with the kratzer run study. When those browns extirpate those brook trout in freestoners like that your probably not going to have those big fish any more when they aren’t eating brookies. The browns will likely stunt out in many streams like the blue cats, lake trout, and many other invasive fish examples out there. So now your just left with a broken cold water ecosystem when you factor whats happening to the non game species. But the waters clean.

We can't let the 'perfect' be the enemy of the 'good.' AMD has to be fixed. Poor habitat has to be restored. We may want future science to take the tact of coming up with inventive ways to sterilize invasive fish. I believe it is being done with certain insect populations now. Implanting genes in a subset of the invasive fish? I'm not a scientist, but I would look to the future in that direction.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Moshannon and Mosquito are good ones. Moshannon has a long road to recovery ahead of it, but Mosquito has long been on my list to explore. I end up reading about its PH struggles and end up somewhere else. Other streams I’ve done that with, but eventually fished, have ended up being better than I anticipated, so I should probably try it. I think Gifford gets some substantial liming, and is actually the more neutral side of the watershed.

I’d add WB Susky and Bennett Branch. Tioga River is another good one. These all have some remediation in place and fish in them already. But could be really good. One advantage of mine water, while it’s not chemically limestone water, it comes out of the ground at the same temperature as limestone water. Treat the AMD, and you have some significant cold water inputs.

Smaller streams, but the east side Lehigh Gorge tribs are another group that could be really good if their water was cleaned up.

Different mechanisms at play, but the Frankstown Branch is another that just needs to stop getting abused, and it will be really good. It’s close, just needs a few breaks.

Swattie,

There are plans to treat discharges on the West side of the Lehigh Gorge. One project plans to treat the quakake discharge, that stream flows through Weatherly on its way to the Lehigh, mapping shows the stream with about 5 different names. There are brook trout above the discharge and improved water quality would also open up this stream for spawning for fish from the Lehigh.

The West Branch recovery is a remarkable story and the recreational opportunities have increased 10 fold.

There are a number of exciting AMD restoration efforts under way around the state.

 

[troutbert]

I wonder if it would be possible to develop piscicides that only target certain species of fish, and leave others unharmed.

It would probably be technically very difficult, but I'm guessing that it wouldn't be impossible.

The genetic distance between brook trout, which are charr, and brown trout is pretty substantial.

Moshannon and Mosquito are good ones. Moshannon has a long road to recovery ahead of it, but Mosquito has long been on my list to explore. I end up reading about its PH struggles and end up somewhere else. Other streams I’ve done that with, but eventually fished, have ended up being better than I anticipated, so I should probably try it. I think Gifford gets some substantial liming, and is actually the more neutral side of the watershed.

As I wrote earlier, a sportsmans club is stocking Mosquito Creek and Gifford Run. So the brookie population is much less than it was before the stocking began.

If you go to Gifford Run, then fish UPSTREAM from the liming site, there are native brookies quite a ways upstream from there. Which shows that the native brookies didn't need the liming.

But the liming allowed them to stock hatchery trout.

 

[silverfox]

Isn't conservation often just done by people and organizations not focused on fish species and fishing but just improving the environment and pollution? If so, I don't understand how brown trout would ever impede the actions to clean it up. That's like saying "No! We can't clean it up because brown trout might outcompete native fish! For this reason alone, let's leave it polluted." And obviously there is already the Moshannon Creek Watershed Association and they already are working towards the goal of restoration.
Wild browns are already in many of the small wild trout tributaries of the "Red Mo" intermixed with the Brookies. As moshannon Creek gets cleaner browns are already in the watershed to take over the larger water body.

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we don't pursue cleaner water, or pollution remediation because of biotic issues. We've partnered with MCWA and are committed to helping clean up Moshannon despite being a native fish centric organization, and the potential for displacement as a result of cleaning up the watershed. In addition to the obvious, it's an opportunity to document the biotic impacts as a result of environmental conservation.

For me, I think it's important that people understand the biotic issues as much as they understand the negative impacts of AMD, AG pollution, climate change, land use, or any other host of environmental impacts. In the EBTJV summary of threats to native brook trout, nonnative species were #4, directly after land use, temperature, and sedimentation. If we continue to ignore that issue, or even encourage the proliferation of nonnative fish (note brown trout have their own line item at #7), we're going to restore our native brook trout right out of existence.

The bottom line is, that there's a cost associated with ignoring biotic interactions and the impacts nonnative species have on our native fish. This doesn't mean that we should ignore threats #1-3, because 4 & 7 will render them moot, it means that we should, at a minimum, be considering methods to counteract the impacts of 4 & 7 with the same level of care and attention that we are giving to 1-3 (or 5,6,8,9, and 10).

Unfortunately, because of angler preferences, and the historical support for these threats, in some cases, we're regulating to protect, or proliferate threats. Because of that, any mention of mitigating those threats is met with strong opposition. I'd simply like to see things swing the other way, even just by a small amount, in the right places.

 

[Fish Sticks]

We can't let the 'perfect' be the enemy of the 'good.' AMD has to be fixed. Poor habitat has to be restored. We may want future science to take the tact of coming up with inventive ways to sterilize invasive fish. I believe it is being done with certain insect populations now. Implanting genes in a subset of the invasive fish? I'm not a scientist, but I would look to the future in that direction.

Thats what i was alluding to two posts ago. Crispr has some exciting potential for adding in genes that may nit be advantageous to a species as well possibly.

Genetic Biocontrol for Invasive Species

Invasive species are increasingly affecting agriculture, food, fisheries, and forestry resources throughout the world. As a result of global trade, invasive species are often introduced into new environments where they become established and cause harm to human health, agriculture, and the...

www.frontiersin.org

I said above the clean ups need to continue, i agree, i just think they need invasive species partial or full mitigation plans. For example maybe we don’t stock brown trout in a watershed that recently had AmD remediation even if there are wild populations and maybe Pa fish and boat can allow/encourage harvest in those areas. I think alot of people have a perception that if you can’t rotenone a whole water way its time to pack up your bags and go home from a native species perspective but we have other tools we are not using. Then as you mentioned thwre are promising genetic techniques(some already being used on invasive brookies out west). If we start thinking strategically about this instead of just all or nothing it would seem logical to take some of these measures that won’t completely eradicate invasive trout but view them as buying time or a bridge to more definitive methods for larger water ways that cannot be treated with antymicin or rotenone. We will have the ability to get rid of invasive trout species MUCH more effectively in the future the problem is if we lose genetic diversity on the landscape of the target native species we want to protect that likely cannot come back and then we are more limited with genetic rescues and translocations for reintroductions because the genetic make up will become more homogenous. When you loose genetic diversity you loose the tools needed to drive adaptation via natural selection.

 

[Swattie87]

Swattie,

There are plans to treat discharges on the West side of the Lehigh Gorge. One project plans to treat the quakake discharge, that stream flows through Weatherly on its way to the Lehigh, mapping shows the stream with about 5 different names. There are brook trout above the discharge and improved water quality would also open up this stream for spawning for fish from the Lehigh.

The West Branch recovery is a remarkable story and the recreational opportunities have increased 10 fold.

There are a number of exciting AMD restoration efforts under way around the state.

Yeah, I meant to say west side tribs in my post. Good catch.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Yea the piscicides we have now are more kill dependent on the underlying species physiology so to speak rather than any kind of more molecularly targeted approach that could differentiate between species of the same family. Selective pathogens have beennused in mosquitos i think but after the past few years I don’t think anyone going to get funding to make brown trout specific virus😂

I wonder if it would be possible to develop piscicides that only target certain species of fish, and leave others unharmed.

It would probably be technically very difficult, but I'm guessing that it wouldn't be impossible.

The genetic distance between brook trout, which are charr, and brown trout is pretty substantial.

As I wrote earlier, a sportsmans club is stocking Mosquito Creek and Gifford Run. So the brookie population is much less than it was before the stocking began.

If you go to Gifford Run, then fish UPSTREAM from the liming site, there are native brookies quite a ways upstream from there. Which shows that the native brookies didn't need the liming.

But the liming allowed them to stock hatchery trout.

 

[dryflyguy]

Regarding the Allegheny below Kinzua:

Kinda surprised to see that a few guys would be against making it a better tailwater fishery.

You have a river that is over 300 miles long - with plenty of good WW fishing on the vast majority of it.
And be opposed to seeing about a 10 - to maybe 20 - mile section, become great CW?

 

[Fish Sticks]

My opposition is not from a fishing standpoint its purely a conservation one. If small mouth bass are native there its better from an ecosystem standpoint to manage for them instead of invasive brown trout. Id love to go float something like that and chuck streamers for huge brown trout, i really enjoy doing that and night fishing for brown trout. So from a fishing perspective that would be pretty fun in my opinion. But the conservation value of keeping a native species in place for me makes it an easy decision, and smallmouth bass are pretty fun to fish for as well i think. Catching something that evolved where you caught it and is a net plus to the ecosystem instead of a detractor adds to my fishing experience which i understand is not a big driver for a lot of people. Im not saying there is a right way to feel about what you catch from a fishing perspective i am
Just clarifying my thought process.

Regarding the Allegheny below Kinzua:

Kinda surprised to see that a few guys would be against making it a better tailwater fishery.

You have a river that is over 300 miles long - with plenty of good WW fishing on the vast majority of it.
And be opposed to seeing about a 10 - to maybe 20 - mile section, become great CW?

 

[silverfox]

Regarding the Allegheny below Kinzua:

Kinda surprised to see that a few guys would be against making it a better tailwater fishery.

You have a river that is over 300 miles long - with plenty of good WW fishing on the vast majority of it.
And be opposed to seeing about a 10 - to maybe 20 - mile section, become great CW?

What gets me is that if Kinzua was on the lower snake, the same people advocating for it to be turned into a coldwater trout fishery would likely be advocating for its complete removal.

 

[silverfox]

By the way, since Moshannon has been discussed here a lot, and MCWA mentioned, if you haven't already looked at it, I highly recommend reading the Moshannon Creek Coldwater Conservation Plan. It's one of the most thorough watershed conservation plans I've ever seen. An enormous amount of time and effort went into building that document.

https://moshannoncreek.org/watershed-blog/f/moshannon-creek-coldwater-conservation-plan

 

[PennKev]

What gets me is that if Kinzua was on the lower snake, the same people advocating for it to be turned into a coldwater trout fishery would likely be advocating for its complete removal.

It's all about the trout/salmon/steelhead. A dam helps them in one case. Removing a dam helps them in another. It's not about returning rivers to a more natural state, it's about having more and bigger trout to catch.

 

[silverfox]

It's all about the trout/salmon/steelhead. A dam helps them in one case. Removing a dam helps them in another. It's not about returning rivers to a more natural state, it's about having more and bigger trout to catch.

Exactly. Or, more fundamentally, species favoritism.

 

[RLeep2]

Regarding the Allegheny below Kinzua:

Kinda surprised to see that a few guys would be against making it a better tailwater fishery.

You have a river that is over 300 miles long - with plenty of good WW fishing on the vast majority of it.
And be opposed to seeing about a 10 - to maybe 20 - mile section, become great CW?

Well, certainly it is all a matter of individual preference, although if the current management of the river below the dam is still considered to have a negative effect of SMB recruitment downstream, that is another reason I would oppose it. I don't know the answer to this one way or the other. Mostly though, I like the river the way it is and in particular, I am not swayed or impressed by Chamber of Commerce-based arguments.. To me, more people equals a degraded overall angling experience. So, if people are that keen on changing the river in this way, I'd be happiest if they'd wait another 15 years until I am in the applesauce brigade and won't have a dog in the hunt any longer...

 

[Fish Sticks]

It's all about the trout/salmon/steelhead. A dam helps them in one case. Removing a dam helps them in another. It's not about returning rivers to a more natural state, it's about having more and bigger trout to catch.

Dead on in my opinion. Yea this is a perfect example of the difference about fishing based projects vs. conservation based projects.

I look at Montana right now where invasive brown trout were touted by industry as the eventual lone survivor of drought and climate change in the west. I have heard popular fishing personalities claiming they are “superior” fish and the “most adaptable”. When that doesn’t hold true and you have broad scale brown trout decline in alot of Montana compared to relatively unaffected other trout species, we see calls for a special governors task force to save an invasive species like an artificial tail water like the Madison. My guess is we are going to devote enough cash to figure out why the non native browns are natures losers out there and prop them up to buy a small country. Meanwhile native fish disappear from watersheds left and right, some endangered and anglers actually oppose what has to be done to save them in many cases. These things get no emergency governor appointed task force. Good point Kev.

 

[jifigz]

I don't think anyone is suggesting that we don't pursue cleaner water, or pollution remediation because of biotic issues.

I'm aware. It was in reference to the "conservation wash" statement. There is always a way to fund nearly anything you just have to give it the proper outward appearance. He was basically saying funding won't be there in the future specifically to bolster brown trout fisheries..... but the funding will be there for other reasons and the brown trout will obviously benefit.


In a realistic approach the single biggest thing PA should do is stop stocking over wild Brookies and protect habitat.