csoult
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 1,764
How was the fishing?
How was the fishing?
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,813
I think few, if any, PFBC people take the position that stocking over brook trout does not harm brook trout populations.
Maybe Mike can clarify.
The_Sasquatch
Well-known member
Typical for this time of year, Coty. Cold. I wanted to stick to the bigger waters, but they were HIGH. I caught one out of a beaver dam, where the water was warmer. I'm having my jam near the end of September this year. The Slate Drake Summit. Hopefully you can come! I know last year interfered w/ the opening weekend of archery I think.
The_Sasquatch
Well-known member
Oh okay. So then they just do it, despite knowing it does damage to native populations.
csoult
Well-known member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2011
- Messages
- 1,764
I plan on it.
The_Sasquatch
Well-known member
Good. I was just thinking I haven't heard from you for a while. Good to see you lurking still.
LetortAngler
Member
I would completey agree with eliminating stocked trout from any native Brookie streams, but those native Brookie streams that have wild brown populations on the lower ends, IMO, should not be removed. Did the wild Browns run the Brookies out of the lower ends of these streams? Or was the habitat/water temps not sufficient enough resulting in the more tolerant brown trout populations to take over?
We see very large wild rainbows/browns inhabiting a certain stream in CV while the Brookie is co-existing quite well with population increases up 300%.
We see very large wild rainbows/browns inhabiting a certain stream in CV while the Brookie is co-existing quite well with population increases up 300%.
Chaz
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 8,454
Stocking brook trout in a stream with natives in it compromises the gene pool according to B. Behnke. What that means is that the size structure of the fish is always smaller.
The_Sasquatch
Well-known member
Letort, on a stream like Lyman Run, those brookies could live in the bigger water. What I'm saying is, if we wanted to do a SERIOUS WBTE program, it would take harvesting out those invasive species, I think. We ain't talkin' about the CV limestoners, we're talking about mountain freestone streams with limited holding waters. Yes, in those cases, the browns HAVE pushed the brookies out of those holes. The Southern Appalachians have to do it with rainbows. It's beginning to work.
M
Mike
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2006
- Messages
- 5,567
I think it is well known what I had to say about it in my Trout Summit presentation on wild trout management, which included a discussion of stocking over wild trout and a segment on special regs.. That may still be on the PFBC website. It may also be in the follow-up article on the subject that appeared in the Pa Angler and Boater. Since I am uncertain as to whether or not that info is still available, I can't comment any further.
The_Sasquatch
Well-known member
Is this what you're referencing, Mike?
http://fishandboat.com/anglerboater/2003/jf03angler/wildtrout.pdf
http://fishandboat.com/anglerboater/2003/jf03angler/wildtrout.pdf
Chaz
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 8,454
There are nearly 5000 sections of streams in PA that have wild brook trout, taking 10 streams and doing a study on them is not representative of all brook trout streams. It is representative of a very small segment of those 5000 streams.
I'd like to see some habitat work done on the WBTE streams and see if the results are different. And make a serious attempt at getting the browns and or bows out of those streams too.
I'd like to see some habitat work done on the WBTE streams and see if the results are different. And make a serious attempt at getting the browns and or bows out of those streams too.
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,813
From that report:
"Wild brook trout streams responded favorably to the cessation of stocking with eight of the nine monitored streams showing at least some improvement in the abundance of legal trout.
Four of the nine streams showed substantial increases of between 49 and 115 legal trout per mile. There were mixed responses in the nine-inch and longer segments of these trout populations with four stream populations increasing, four decreasing, and one staying the same.
Overall, it was a reasonable bet in 1983 that stocking termination would benefit the size distribution in already good wild brook trout populations."
K
KenU
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 209
Lately, I have been catching browns in several streams that once held only native brookies. I suspect this is because of the positive effects of the Clean Air Act, which has decreased the amount of acid deposition and therefore increased the alkalinty of our freestone streams. AMD remediation work done on streams has had the same effect. All this seems to benefit the browns. Does this further endanger our native brook trout? I suspect so and feel we should address this growing threat to our native brook trout.
The_Sasquatch
Well-known member
Yeah yeah yeah. I get it. The point is, though, if you're going to be SERIOUS about a WBTE, then the issue of invasive species pushing natives out of better holding water has to be dealt with. I'm not advocating harvesting all browns and bows on all streams that hold natives across the board. I'm simply saying that if we want to see what could happen to the numbers AND size of natives on X stream, then we have to deal with invasive species. But I know, I know. It's easy to see silver carp, mud snails, and rock snot as evil, but when it comes to brown trout its completely different.
K
KenU
Member
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2006
- Messages
- 209
Brown trout are a fine game fish. I fish for them myself and certainly enjoy the experience of catching larger trout. But they have taken over nearly all of our limestone and many of the better freestone waters. I do not advocate brown trout removal except in very special cases. But we shouldn't let them take over any more stream mileage where brook trout are currently thriving.
I fish several unstocked freestone streams with mixed brook/brown trout populations. In these streams, larger brookies tend to be much scarcer than in streams with brook trout only. The browns dominate the larger pools and are an inch or so bigger on average than the brookies. Some of these streams produce a few very large browns - up to 17 inches. The question is: would the brookies in these streams get as large as the browns, if the browns were not there? The food and cover to grow larger trout are obviously present, but no large brook trout. Why?
I fish several unstocked freestone streams with mixed brook/brown trout populations. In these streams, larger brookies tend to be much scarcer than in streams with brook trout only. The browns dominate the larger pools and are an inch or so bigger on average than the brookies. Some of these streams produce a few very large browns - up to 17 inches. The question is: would the brookies in these streams get as large as the browns, if the browns were not there? The food and cover to grow larger trout are obviously present, but no large brook trout. Why?
The_Sasquatch
Well-known member
I enjoy browns too. A lot of what I say concerning them is to either push a button, or at least get people to think about them in a way that many probably don't. It's tough for us to start thinking of other trout species as invasive. But I have questions, like you, about why we can pull 18" wild brownies out of certain freestoners, but never brookies of the same size.
Chaz
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 8,454
It's all because the browns are the more territorial of the 2 species, at least when it comes to moving out the brookies, the same goes for rainbows. Brookies need to be protected where they currently are established, and not be overwhelmed by the invasive species. This applies to other native fishes not just brookies, I don't think anyone know the damage done to the other native overwhelmed by browns and rainbows.
Ideally to have a complete ecosystem the natives need to be restored. That means putting them where there are no fishes because of past practices on our resources. That mean no stocking of non-natives where there is a stream being reclaimed from either acid deposition or AMD. It also means not from hatchery stock but from wild stock.
salmonoid
Well-known member
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2007
- Messages
- 2,721
I've begun to wonder if we haven't encountered a sort of genetic drift with brookies. I've never caught a wild brook trout greater than 13.5". I have seen at least three fish that were 15"+, but can't unequivocally say that they were wild fish. But that is almost 30 years of fishing and in that same time, I've caught dozens of wild browns (many from the same streams) that are 15"+.
I'm not a geneticist, but my understanding of genetic drift is that if some sort of bottleneck occurs (e.g. all the large brookies are harvested during a few generations), it is possible that a gene that was responsible for producing the larger brookies may have disappeared.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift for some visuals and equations about how this might work.
Squatch - I think I get your drift with the attitudes of browns being invasives (or not). I tend to view browns anymore as naturalized citizens. Technically, they can never be native, but they are firmly established here. Anglers value them and attitudes have shifted to accept them. But you can't really talk about really enhancing brook trout unless you do as you suggest and remove the naturalized citizens, which is difficult, because anglers like them.
And if there is any shard of truth to the genetic drift piece, even removing the invasives won't result in bigger brook trout - it will just result in more smaller brook trout.
I'm not a geneticist, but my understanding of genetic drift is that if some sort of bottleneck occurs (e.g. all the large brookies are harvested during a few generations), it is possible that a gene that was responsible for producing the larger brookies may have disappeared.
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_drift for some visuals and equations about how this might work.
Squatch - I think I get your drift with the attitudes of browns being invasives (or not). I tend to view browns anymore as naturalized citizens. Technically, they can never be native, but they are firmly established here. Anglers value them and attitudes have shifted to accept them. But you can't really talk about really enhancing brook trout unless you do as you suggest and remove the naturalized citizens, which is difficult, because anglers like them.
And if there is any shard of truth to the genetic drift piece, even removing the invasives won't result in bigger brook trout - it will just result in more smaller brook trout.
Tups
Active member
How do we know that 18 inch brook trout were not as rare before the introduction of the brown trout as they are now? after all, the colonists named them "brook" trout for a reason. The written record suggests that, for the most part, they inhabited smaller waterways and were generally small fish.
