Wild Brook Trout

Acristickid

Acristickid

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 25, 2007
Messages
5,359
Location
NV, AK
http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/outdoors/2017/12/31/Fishery-scientists-are-probing-ways-that-wild-brook-trout-adapt-to-a-changing-world/stories/201712310280
 
No mention at all that there is widespread stocking of hatchery trout in native brook trout streams in PA, and that you are allowed to harvest 5 per day.
 
troutbert: the 5 fish creel limit was succinctly addressed...

“I think our regulations are adequate. When you look at how many people are harvesting wild trout, there aren’t many,” Arway said. “We just don’t see the kind of exploitation of the resource that once existed with brook trout."

This was clearly documented in the statewide wild trout angler use and harvest survey. Harvest of wild brook trout was only 7 per mile.
 
http://gonefishingpa.org/images/fisheries/afm/2006/5x10_19brook.htm

Statewide the average estimated abundance of wild brook trout seven inches and longer, and nine inches and greater in freestone streams, is 34 and 4 trout per mile of stream, respectively (2000 Trout Summit)
 
The damage to native brook trout has been done for over 125 years, in that the genetics have been compromised by stocking hatchery brookies over the native populations. It's time to stop stocking over the native populations no matter how few streams this occurs in.
 
I'm still trying to figure how the regulations are adequate when anglers harvest an estimated 7 legal size brook trout permile and there is an estimated 4 legal size brookies per mile on freestone streams.

-3 trout per mile? :lol:

Unless I'm reading that wrong and it's 34 trout per mile @ 7 inches and nine inches or longer @ 4 per mile.

According to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission there are approximately 1,524 wild brook trout stream sections (5,044 miles) across Pennsylvania (PFBC 2009).

Even then....
1/8th the total estimated legal size population harvested each year in over 5000 miles of stream?
35,000 legal size brook trout a year harvested?
Wow
 
Limit size is 7", and there are 34 legal fish per mile, which nets 27 fish legal fish left per mile. Your stat of four is for fish 9" or larger.

I'm curious how those stats have varied (if at all) since 2000, in terms of legal fish per mile. Have they increased on average, remained the same, or declined?
 
Thanks sal.
 
Since the 2000 trout summit:

595,000 legal size brookies made into sardines :-o
I wonder why we don't have more "movers" (like in the article) that get larger :roll:
 
Obviously not.
But following recent telemetry studies, only a percentage of the larger adult fish move and they are typically 9 inches or greater.
Only 4 a mile that size so I'm sure we hurt ourselves from ever seeing a river with good fishable numbers of them when 7 fish 7" or larger is harvested.
All conjecture and estimates of course.

By 2034....

1,195,000 estimated legal size brookies harvested.
I find that a rather staggering number.
 
The issue of widespread stocking over native brook trout (and wild trout in general) was not mentioned at the Wild Trout Summit.

It was the "elephant in the room" there.

And it was the "elephant in the room" in this article too.

Any discussion or article about native brook trout that does not include this issue has a severe credibility problem.

If you are going to have a serious discussion about a topic, you have to include the important issues.

If you just omit obviously important ones, because they are difficult to deal with, you're killing your credibility.

 
salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
Obviously not.
But following recent telemetry studies, only a percentage of the larger adult fish move and they are typically 9 inches or greater.
Only 4 a mile that size so I'm sure we hurt ourselves from ever seeing a river with good fishable numbers of them when 7 fish 7" or larger is harvested.
All conjecture and estimates of course.

By 2034....

1,195,000 estimated legal size brookies harvested.
I find that a rather staggering number.
Click to expand...


It is, but I'd argue it is somewhat meaningless and somewhat suspect. I don't know what methodology the state used to determine their numbers, both for their average number of legal brookies and 9"+ brookies per mile, and for their harvest rate of 7 fish per mile, and finally, what the total miles of stream that support those numbers. As with any study or formula, a small sample size is extrapolated to create an "average" across a whole state. Small errors upon small errors in formulas or study biases, multiplied by 34 years can yield a big error in the final number. Just look at the wide variance in legal fish in the 2006 Biologist Report (Jeans, Kistler, and Wolf Swamp Run). Sampling in three or four years swung as much as 90 legal fish per mile (Kistler) and Jeans yoyoed from 47 to 5 to 43 to 11. Ten samples of fish from approximately 300m stream lengths in three or four different years yields a lot of noise that is mirrored across all the other streams sampled in the state.

This paper, about the economic impact of wild trout angling lists an abundance of legal size wild brook trout at 75.5/mile for the 76 streams studied. And if you read it closely, you can see how sampling error (and even angler answer bias) might skew the results.

For instance, if you're Joe (or Josephine) Angler, and a PFBC-looking creel clerk asks you this question:

"How often do you harvest (keep) legal size trout when fishing this water?"

How would you respond? I know how I respond when an angler asks me how many I caught (a few, whether I've caught 1 or 100). People sometimes respond to questions in way that they think the questioner wants to hear. Or they want to build up their angler machismo and thump their chests and agree that they always harvest their fish.

The clerks apparently happened on at least one law breaker too:

"Harvested brook trout ranged from 6.5 to 10.25 inches in length.."

Going back to the 34 legal fish/mile, I find it hard to believe that 20.5% of the legal wild brookies in PA are harvested. I'll bet that less than 20.5% of the legal wild brookies in PA are even caught, let alone harvested.. I can't remember the last time I've even saw a wild brookie creeled or on a stringer.

Anyway, my whole point is to not get too up in arms about a number derived by multiplying a couple of calculated numbers together. It's a number based on a model that probably has a number of flaws, over-representing some things, under-representing others and probably completely missing some important elements.
 
Agreed.

That's why I made the entire ridiculous post.
If the PFBC is going to throw out conjecture and then deem it as accurate information as to why current regulations are adequate, then I suppose taking that same information and showing them how it's not is fair game?
 
troutbert, that issue was succinctly addressed per the info below in the presentation on the history of wild trout management in Pa.

From the Policy for the Conservation and Management of Fisheries Resources: Stock fish where wild populations are inadequate to sustain fisheries at desired levels.
The policy does not say "do not stock over wild trout."

Back to the present, I would add that when stocked trout sections are discovered through surveys to support Class A equivalent biomasses, those of which I am aware around the state continue to be removed from the stocking program. This is not just some random activity; potential Class A waters, stocked and unstocked, are specifically sought for identification and proper classification during the field season. In addition, no Class B waters found may be ADDED to the stocking program.
 
salmonoid wrote:
It is, but I'd argue it is somewhat meaningless and somewhat suspect. I don't know what methodology the state used to determine their numbers, both for their average number of legal brookies and 9"+ brookies per mile, and for their harvest rate of 7 fish per mile, and finally, what the total miles of stream that support those numbers. As with any study or formula, a small sample size is extrapolated to create an "average" across a whole state. Small errors upon small errors in formulas or study biases, multiplied by 34 years can yield a big error in the final number. Just look at the wide variance in legal fish in the 2006 Biologist Report (Jeans, Kistler, and Wolf Swamp Run). Sampling in three or four years swung as much as 90 legal fish per mile (Kistler) and Jeans yoyoed from 47 to 5 to 43 to 11. Ten samples of fish from approximately 300m stream lengths in three or four different years yields a lot of noise that is mirrored across all the other streams sampled in the state.

This paper, about the economic impact of wild trout angling lists an abundance of legal size wild brook trout at 75.5/mile for the 76 streams studied. And if you read it closely, you can see how sampling error (and even angler answer bias) might skew the results.



Going back to the 34 legal fish/mile, I find it hard to believe that 20.5% of the legal wild brookies in PA are harvested. I'll bet that less than 20.5% of the legal wild brookies in PA are even caught, let alone harvested.. I can't remember the last time I've even saw a wild brookie creeled or on a stringer.

Anyway, my whole point is to not get too up in arms about a number derived by multiplying a couple of calculated numbers together. It's a number based on a model that probably has a number of flaws, over-representing some things, under-representing others and probably completely missing some important elements.
Click to expand...

My thoughts too. Thanks for putting the matter so well (as usual).
 
One man's desired level(class a) is another man's undesirable level (class a).
See the PO
 
Good article. No doubt brook trout genetics have been altered in various ways, and one of the obvious ones are their inability to grow to larger sizes as recorded in the BTs heyday just a century ago.

Why were the brook trout so much larger during that period.?
During that era of 50 a day creel limits, many anglers only kept the larger fish and tossed back the ones "not worth keeping" which by todays standard would qualify as a "good fish".

If those generations of fishermen were to selectively eliminate the largest fish over the course of just 50 years, which is between 13-15 generations for a brook trout (depending on the stream) you will have then removed the genes that are capable of growing larger trout. The article states that genetic change is possible over the course of a few decades.

Perhaps one day a replenishment of the gene pool of faster growing brook trout from waters not completely wiped out could be the answer to restoring brook trout to their historical size, populations, and distribution.
 
LetortAngler wrote:
Good article. No doubt brook trout genetics have been altered in various ways, and one of the obvious ones are their inability to grow to larger sizes as recorded in the BTs heyday just a century ago.

Why were the brook trout so much larger during that period.?
During that era of 50 a day creel limits, many anglers only kept the larger fish and tossed back the ones "not worth keeping" which by todays standard would qualify as a "good fish".

If those generations of fishermen were to selectively eliminate the largest fish over the course of just 50 years, which is between 13-15 generations for a brook trout (depending on the stream) you will have then removed the genes that are capable of growing larger trout. The article states that genetic change is possible over the course of a few decades.

Perhaps one day a replenishment of the gene pool of faster growing brook trout from waters not completely wiped out could be the answer to restoring brook trout to their historical size, populations, and distribution.
Click to expand...

I really don't think that anglers many years ago keeping larger fish has anything to do with why brook trout in the state are on the smaller side. I'd be willing to bet that it has everything to do with them being confined to the most infertile, smallest, and secluded streams. Everywhere they are surrounded by barriers, as the article pointed out. Human development, warm temps, and the now much more dominant and adaptable brown trout which rules the larger, more fertile streams. I've certainly seen brookies in Big Spring that are significantly larger than any of my favorite brookie waters here in Mifflin and Centre counties. Why aren't those fish all 7 inches from the heavy creeling of larger fish in years past?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top