Wild Trout (trout camps 2.0)

[Fish Sticks]

If I examined the 2022 summary table closely enough, ten of the stream projects were Brown Trout removals and five of those ten were successful (50%). I saw no info on the lasting success of the projects without the need for additional removals, if any. Maybe they lasted; maybe they didn’t. Am I missing something in the BT data?

I count 3 antimycin projects for brown trout and they were all successful

Edit, one result still pending survey

 

[pcray1231]

The best correlation is with the bedrock geology. I've dug into this quite a lot.

Agree, but a handheld gps unit or your everyday topo map doesn't tell you what bedrock is underneath. It does give you your elevation, and a map showing the elevation of the streambeds around you.

Reading the study in more detail now. This was all done in the Brokenstraw, French Creek, and Oil drainages, so all west of the Allegheny River in a region where the geology and typical stream gradient is much more favorable to brown trout. They don't name the streams. They are attributing it to stocked trout having access, but I am betting it's more likely to be wild brown trout populations. These are streams that "want" to be dominated by brown trout, the type seeded 100 years ago, not from modern trucks, so if those fish had or have access, they flip to brown trout streams pretty easily. Hence a barrier, most often a long standing dam, is almost required to stay a brookie stream. There just aren't very many brookie streams in those drainages, and yeah, the few I know of are above impoundments. That they found so many, when there aren't that many, gets me scratching my head a bit, they gotta be studying some really tiny little side trickles. Like take 1 brookie stream above an impoundment, and use it and 10 hillside springs that feed it, call them tribs, and say there's 11 brookie streams with a barrier.

But areas like that is where "allopatric" is probably more likely, IMO. I think, statewide, barriers have an extreme correlation with true allopatry (0% browns). Extreme.

From a conservation standpoint, I certainly see value in protecting existing brook trout streams "that want to be brown trout streams". But honestly, long term, I might see less value in them than in all the streams that are 99% brookies despite the presence of browns. I'm sure that statement will be taken out of context, as if I don't care about the ones that are in the most danger, and that's not true. There's value in all of them and we should try to protect the ones in the most danger. It's more a statement to my faith in long term success. Which one will still have brookies in another 100 years? If a stream is just itching to switch to browns, it won't take much to do it. Some kid throwing a couple over the barrier, a flood, etc. Yes, we gotta fight for them, absolutely, but I fear we're fighting a losing battle. The ones that are all isolated in a brown trout watershed, with geology and water chemistry that make them want to be brown trout streams, no genetic exchange with other tribs. That's where it's 4th and long.

But the question was asked if, because browns have found their way to most brookie streams, if we should punt, and there's a sense that the conservation community tends to ignore them in favor of "allopatric". Heck no! The streams in a system where there are numerous brook trout tribs, and most of them have a token population of browns but remain brook trout streams anyway. Those are your gold. Where brook trout are going head to head against browns and winning, streams that WANT to be brook trout streams. And this is not uncommon at all, there are 1000's of them, many of them very healthy. They're the ones where if you protect it, keep siltation and land use issues and such from ruining things, they are the ones that are most likely to still be brook trout streams 100 years from now.

 

[silverfox]

A recurring theme I see with "controversial" management changes is that it appears as if the state is inconsistently concerned about what the public "might" think or does think about a proposed change. In some cases, management decisions are made with no public input and seemingly no public outreach. In others, they seem incredibly concerned with what the public thinks or might think. I also see a lot of "oh, we couldn't possibly do that because the "public" would be outraged" without an ounce of evidence anyone ever looked into support or did anything to try to increase support.

Kris Kuhn explicitly stated that rainbow trout need to be removed from Big Spring and then stated the reason they won't do it is because of public outcry (nevermind the public outcry about not doing it). I'm still talking about it every chance I get and to anyone who will listen. I guess there are more people than me who run around yelling "save the rainbows" though. Weird I haven't run into one yet.

They put the Class A lists up on the website for public comment, which implies that if enough people complained about a stream being reclassified, they'd not reclassify it. That makes no sense at all. A stream either meets the criteria or doesn't. Why do they even ask for public input on a measurement of fish biomass?

In some cases, it seems like they're more concerned about what the public thinks of the agency than what happens to the resource. Or it's a popularity contest. As long as the people who are upset the most are the minority of license buyers, then everything is fine. That shows that license sales are held above management decisions to benefit the resources. Assuming there's a correlation between upset anglers and license sales.

I'm obviously not entirely thrilled with what my license money is doing, and I'm still buying licenses and permits every year. I'm even the type of person to use my wallet to express my distaste for business practices. Same with the politicians losing votes argument. I'm sorry, but nobody can convince me in this political climate that a single individual in this state would change their party affiliation in an election because of stocked trout. It's absurd.

 

[silverfox]

You guys lose me, and a lot of others I think, when you start talking about chemically killing a stream.

I think this is a significant source of conflict where it shouldn't be. Speaking for myself here, but when I broach the subject of removal, I only bring that up because PFBC, TU, and others are the ones saying it needs to be done. This concept isn't some half-cocked pipe dream dreamt up by extremists. It's documented all over the place. Frankly, I'm not even a fan of piscicides. Without getting too far in the weeds, primarily because it treats a symptom rather than a cause, and is reactive rather than proactive.

The reason it's brought up is as much about why it isn't happening as much as it is about the tool itself. All of this is about common issues we all see (or perceive to see) and why the agency isn't doing something about it. To me, these kinds of topics are perfect examples to use because they're things the agency itself says needs to be done.

Rather than focusing on hypotheticals based on feelings and saying, "I want this done because I think it should be done," I use this type of issue as an example of something that is already practiced elsewhere and even outlined in state documents because then nobody can say that it's a bad idea simply because "I" suggested it.

 

[pcray1231]

Will note from the study, it's pretty good, though doesn't tell us a whole lot of what we didn't already know. True that streams with barriers were 12x more likely to be brookie sites is true on the face of it. But that wasn't the #1 predictor, and was too correlated with the actual predictors.

Stream gradient was the #1 predictor of whether you will have brookie or browns,, and stream size was #2. In this study, the streams with barriers were higher elevation, smaller, higher gradient, and more forested as well. There were as many "brookie only" sites without barriers as there was with barriers, and the ones with barriers were smaller, higher gradient, and more forested. Meaning, the sites with barriers were more naturally "brookie water" than even the brook trout water without barriers. Yes, a correlation was shown between barriers and being brookie only water, but it can be explained by the other factors better.

I don't think this particular study supports a conclusion that barriers help determine species at all. It doesn't say they don't either. And to be clear, I think they can. But the selection of sampling sites just was not set up to make that determination. The proof that barriers work or don't work would be in having brookie only water where the other characteristics say you should have browns. And there were simply no "barrier" sampling sites that fit that scenario. Not a cut at the researchers, it just doesn't exist in the study area. From the graphs, possibly 1 of the 15 "barrier" sites, but it's debatable because there's also 1 brookie only site without a barrier with the same characteristics.

Low elevation, larger, low gradient, less forested, sites were browns only. And sympatric sites fell somewhere in between.

They did check alkalinity, but the alkalinity of ALL studied streams was high (40's and 50's were the averages in all species categories). These watersheds are fairly fertile geologically speaking (French, Brokenstraw, and Oil). It's worth noting that this particular study area is a bit of a geologic oddity, in that there's a "driftless" area within the watersheds, and a few streams have limestone like alkalinities. But aside from that, even the truly headwater streams are pretty fertile. So it didn't prove to be a predictive factor as to which species was present. I think statewide, alkalinity would be a huge predictor of whether you'll find brookies or browns. But it didn't show in this study because alkalinity was similar and good throughout the study area, so other things become what determines species. They didn't give the sampling sites by name, but given what I know about the area, most of the brookie sites were probably in the Brokenstraw drainage. Oil and French drainages are pretty devoid of brook trout. Oil has a few on the far eastern edge.

 

[silverfox]

Will note from the study, it's pretty good. True that streams with barriers were 12x more likely to be brookie sites is true on the face of it.

But... streams with barriers were higher elevation, smaller, higher gradient, and more forested as well. Stream gradient was the #1 predictor of the presence of brookies, and stream size was #2. There were as many "brookie only" sites without barriers as there was with barriers, and the ones with barriers were smaller, higher gradient, and more forested. Meaning, the sites with barriers were more naturally "brookie water" than even the brook trout water without barriers.

This isn't to say barriers aren't helpful in some situations, but I don't think this particular study in the end says one way or the other. It doesn't support a conclusion that barriers help switch a water to brookies, because there was too much correlation of barriers with stream size and gradient. The proof that barriers work or don't work would be in having brookie only water where the other characteristics say you should have browns. And there were simply no "barrier" sampling sites that fit that scenario.

Low elevation, larger, low gradient, less forested, sites were browns only. And sympatric sites fell somewhere in between.

They did check alkalinity, but the alkalinity of ALL studied streams was high (40's and 50's), these watersheds are fairly fertile geologically speaking, so it didn't prove to be a predictive factor as to which species was present. I think statewide, alkalinity would be a huge predictor of whether you'll find brookies or browns. But it didn't show in this study because alkalinity was similar and good throughout the study area, so other things become what determines species.

My takeaway from that study is that barriers may sometimes be beneficial. Primarily where it's possible to maintain a large enough stream network that doesn't negatively impact genetic diversity. The authors say that barriers are unnecessary on small, high-gradient streams as those environments (for now) serve as a deterrent to brown trout, and isolating them would likely lead to extirpation.

This is actually one of the main reasons barriers are used out west more frequently than in the east. Their river networks tend to be much larger than ours. So you can isolate 25% of a watershed there which would be the equivalent of 100% of one of our larger watersheds.

Where this is interesting to me is in the case of AMD remediation. In many of those cases, we have isolated populations or no fish at all. So we're starting with a clean slate and a chemical barrier that should be removed, but we have the opportunity to plan for or design a method of separation while minimizing isolation threats. Or should we just dismiss the concept entirely?

 

[coyoterahn]

Here are the success rate numbers. Antimycin-86%. Rotenone-79%. Annual Removal Electrofishing-55%. Multiple Removal Electrofishing-65%. Translocation-73%

So how do you propose the state achieves TRACS Action 10.0 for brook trout in the action plan? Or did PFBC write that just to make it look like we're addressing an issue without actually doing anything? That was established almost 10 years ago. How long until they actually do it? 10 more years? 20? 50? Meanwhile, our neighbors have been doing it for a decade. Other states in the east are already and have been, doing what you're explaining is impossible.

Here are the success rate numbers. Antimycin-86%. Rotenone-79%. Annual Removal Electrofishing-55%. Multiple Removal Electrofishing-65%. Translocation-73%

I’m in favor of trying to reclaim some native brook trout streams. However, I am not even for a minute buying into using your “killer chemicals “ to accomplish the task. And don’t bother trying to sell me that there are no harmful after effects. We have all seen after effects of chemicals that we once deemed safe.

 

[silverfox]

I’m in favor of trying to reclaim some native brook trout streams. However, I am not even for a minute buying into using your “killer chemicals “ to accomplish the task. And don’t bother trying to sell me that there are no harmful after effects. We have all seen after effects of chemicals that we once deemed safe.

They're not "my" killer chemicals, and using them isn't "my" idea.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I think this is a significant source of conflict where it shouldn't be. Speaking for myself here, but when I broach the subject of removal, I only bring that up because PFBC, TU, and others are the ones saying it needs to be done. This concept isn't some half-cocked pipe dream dreamt up by extremists. It's documented all over the place. Frankly, I'm not even a fan of piscicides. Without getting too far in the weeds, primarily because it treats a symptom rather than a cause, and is reactive rather than proactive.

The reason it's brought up is as much about why it isn't happening as much as it is about the tool itself. All of this is about common issues we all see (or perceive to see) and why the agency isn't doing something about it. To me, these kinds of topics are perfect examples to use because they're things the agency itself says needs to be done.

Rather than focusing on hypotheticals based on feelings and saying, "I want this done because I think it should be done," I use this type of issue as an example of something that is already practiced elsewhere and even outlined in state documents because then nobody can say that it's a bad idea simply because "I" suggested it.

Yea and to add to that sometimes we also just mention the removal recommendations just to contrast the fact their is still state sponsored additions on a recurring annual basis in hopes people not familiar with the issue will see the stocking for what it is so if we mention removal its not always that we think it’s actually in a specific stream we may just be highlighting that we can’t even stop dumping em in counter to PA fish and boats wildlife (ironically termed “action”) plan

 

[coyoterahn]

They're not "my" killer chemicals, and using them isn't "my" idea.

It’s good to hear that you’ve ruled them out as part of the solution.

 

[silverfox]

Yea and to add to that sometimes we also just mention the removal recommendations just to contrast the fact their is still state sponsored additions on a recurring annual basis in hopes people not familiar with the issue will see the stocking for what it is so if we mention removal its not always that we think it’s actually in a specific stream we may just be highlighting that we can’t even stop dumping em in counter to PA fish and boats wildlife (ironically termed “action”) plan

To me, mentioning removal is the same as mentioning the cessation of stocking over wild trout. Both are documented by PFBC as being necessary. Neither is my own "idea" or some radical concept. The point is that they continue to do things or not do things they know should or shouldn't be done.

 

[silverfox]

It’s good to hear that you’ve ruled them out as part of the solution.

Post #24 explains why. Also, and this should be obvious, but I have no say over what PFBC does or doesn't do. If they chose to use piscicides, it certainly wouldn't be because I'm begging them to do it. Given that, according to the only public data on the subject, they've never done any type of removal to date (despite it being recommended around 8 years ago) I highly doubt PFBC's first foray into removal will be to chemically treat a stream. If they ever do anything at all.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Will note from the study, it's pretty good, though doesn't tell us a whole lot of what we didn't already know. True that streams with barriers were 12x more likely to be brookie sites is true on the face of it. But that wasn't the #1 predictor, and was too correlated with the actual predictors.

Stream gradient was the #1 predictor of whether you will have brookie or browns,, and stream size was #2. In this study, the streams with barriers were higher elevation, smaller, higher gradient, and more forested as well. There were as many "brookie only" sites without barriers as there was with barriers, and the ones with barriers were smaller, higher gradient, and more forested. Meaning, the sites with barriers were more naturally "brookie water" than even the brook trout water without barriers.

I don't think this particular study supports a conclusion that barriers help determine species at all. It doesn't say they don't either. And to be clear, I think they can. But the selection of sampling sites just was not set up to make that determination. The proof that barriers work or don't work would be in having brookie only water where the other characteristics say you should have browns. And there were simply no "barrier" sampling sites that fit that scenario. From the graphs, possibly 1 of the 15 "barrier" sites, but it's debatable because there's a brookie only site without a barrier with the same characteristics.

Low elevation, larger, low gradient, less forested, sites were browns only. And sympatric sites fell somewhere in between.

They did check alkalinity, but the alkalinity of ALL studied streams was high (40's and 50's were the averages in all species categories). These watersheds are fairly fertile geologically speaking (French, Brokenstraw, and Oil). It's worth noting that this particular study area is a bit of a geologic oddity, in that there's a "driftless" area within the watersheds, and a few streams have limestone like alkalinities. But aside from that, even the truly headwater streams are pretty fertile. So it didn't prove to be a predictive factor as to which species was present. I think statewide, alkalinity would be a huge predictor of whether you'll find brookies or browns. But it didn't show in this study because alkalinity was similar and good throughout the study area, so other things become what determines species. They didn't give the sampling sites by name, but given what I know about the area, most of the brookie sites were probably in the Brokenstraw drainage. Oil and French drainages are pretty devoid of brook trout. Oil has a few on the far eastern edge.

Your right that some streams favor brown trout but at the same time if you look at it from the standpoint that just because a stream favors brown trout, it doesn’t mean its unsurvivable for brook trout if a barrier were to exist. So yes there may be a correlation between low PH from geology and brook trout in the presence of brown trout but remember low ph is a chemical barrier too for brown trout, just not a physical one. We know brook trout can live in very alkaline systems like big spring also so its not like they can’t survive in the streams that also allow brown trout to survive. It really comes down to phaycial/chemical barrier no barrier brown trout no brown trout in many cases

 

[Swattie87]

I’m just saying, bottom line, it’s easier to keep people on your bus if your objective and plans are simple.

Circling back to the master baiter camp…“We want fish put in our stream, in our hole, for us to catch. If you don’t, we post.” (That’s literally still the majority position in my fishing/hunting camp and all of our neighbors. It gets talked about and reaffirmed every time anyone is up there to fish. And this is in the upper Kettle Creek watershed!) That’s pretty easy and simple to get behind, and to convince your neighbor with property along the steam to get on board with too, and so on. And it’s easy for the PFBC to know what you as a license paying PA angler wants.

In comparison, we’re all over the place, just read all these threads. With people falling off our bus left and right at varying points of complexity that they don’t personally agree with. I think chemical kills are a fairly big bus stop. But, you’re losing support all along the route the more complex you make things.

People aren’t gonna read comprehensive reports on the success, or lack there of, of chemical kills, or barriers, or mandatory kill regs on non-native species in other states. They’re just gonna say…”Hmm, that sounds bad. I don’t like that.” That’s the reality here from a practical, getting things done, perspective.

 

[pcray1231]

My takeaway from that study is that barriers may sometimes be beneficial. Primarily where it's possible to maintain a large enough stream network that doesn't negatively impact genetic diversity. The authors say that barriers are unnecessary on small, high-gradient streams as those environments (for now) serve as a deterrent to brown trout, and isolating them would likely lead to extirpation.

I agree with you, but I don't think that study proves that point at all. It's a good study, just limited in scope by the region in which it was conducted. They didn't have any "should be brown trout streams" that were brookies because a barrier was present. It doesn't mean it doesn't exist anywhere, or wouldn't work if you erected a barrier and tried it. They just didn't have any "should be brown trout streams" with barriers at all.

It was interesting to me, though, in that the smaller, higher gradient waters favored brookies DESPITE no alkalinity effect. Small, high gradient headwater streams are often low alkalinity, and dominated by brook trout. When a bunch of things are correlated, you don't know which was the cause. And here's an area where small, high gradient headwater streams actually have high alkalinity, and they're still brookies, whether there's a barrier or not.

I actually take some optimism from that. Because aside from mine drainage areas, large areas of this state have acid deposition and low buffering issues. As acid deposition continues to improve, I feared a switch to brown trout in a whole lot of the headwater streams where they are currently present but held at bay. Not to say it's still not a danger, but, seeing this says that perhaps in a good portion of those streams, brookies will remain dominant.

I think in places where both species are present, but brookies are dominating, barriers are probably bad. That's most of the mountainous areas of PA. The brookies are winning where nature says they should win, and the browns have already taken over the other areas. Better to keep the fairly numerous brookie streams connected, even if there's brown trout water in between. The brookies are doing well, protect the status quo, protect the forest and the interconnectivity of the waterways.

The place for barriers is around the fringes. Elders Run in Lancaster was mentioned in the other thread. Perfect example. An already isolated brook trout holdout in what is by and large, brown trout country, and undergoing land use changes. Very high danger of a species flip. And you see that happening in many of the fully isolated brookie populations near the edges of their historical range, where browns are taking over streams. I think we gotta try on a few of those, barrier + removal, and really separate them and say this is brookie territory up here and all hands on deck, and that down there is a lost cause, so go ahead and boost the browns, we're leaning on our barrier here. Like retreating to the hold in a fort. But, I am also rather pessimistic on the long term outlook for brookies in such places... I'm optimistic for the outlook of brookies in their core range throughout the northern tier.

 

[silverfox]

I’m just saying, bottom line, it’s easier to keep people on your bus if your objective and plans are simple.

Circling back to the master baiter camp…“We want fish put in our stream, in our hole, for us to catch. If you don’t, we post.” (That’s literally still the majority position in my fishing/hunting camp and all of our neighbors. And this is in the upper Kettle Creek watershed!) That’s pretty easy and simple to get behind, and to convince your neighbor with property along the steam to get on board with too, and so on. And it’s easy for the PFBC to know what you as a license paying PA angler wants.

We’re all over the place, just read all these threads. With people falling off our bus left and right at varying points of complexity that they don’t personally agree with. I think chemical kills are a fairly big bus stop. But, you’re losing support all along the route the more complex you make things.

People aren’t gonna read comprehensive reports on the success, or lack there of, of chemical kills, or barriers, or mandatory kill regs on on-native species in other states. They’re just gonna say…”hmm, that sounds bad. I don’t like that.” That’s the reality here from a practical perspective.

Let me try to get to the core of this. I believe I've said this before, but it was probably 1,200 posts ago. I try to focus on issues that are already well supported either by other states or by Pennsylvania itself.

The focus is inaction. The topics are only what I find that the state says should be done, or is widely practiced in the same scenario in other neighboring states. Brook trout conservation zones (MD, NJ, NY, WV, VA), cessation of stocking over brook trout (MD, NJ, NY, WV, VA), C&R for brook trout (MD, NJ, NY, WV, VA). Stocking over wild trout is documented and well known in PA already (Mike wrote about it and it's been shared here recently) and to be fair, PFBC has done a lot to dial back the stocking over wild trout. I think we all agree that it should go a step further. Removal (of any method) is already documented in state plans for management.

What happens though is people key in on the controversial issues and that's all they want to talk about.

 

[Swattie87]

What happens though is people key in on the controversial issues and that's all they want to talk about.

Agree, 100%. And this is where we’re tripping over ourselves. We need to identify those “controversial issues”, and remove them from the agenda. At least for the time being. Understanding and accepting maybe that Brook Trout conservation in PA is a lap down and a generation behind some other states. It’s not gonna catch up overnight.

For now, we need a plan that’s as simple, or simpler than:

“We want fish put in our stream, in our hole, for us to catch. If you don’t, we post.”

^This, or a very similar variation of, is the current majority position of the PA Trout angler. This is what the PFBC is hearing, most frequently, that Trout anglers want.

 

[silverfox]

^This, or a very similar variation of, is the current majority position of the PA Trout angler. This is what the PFBC is hearing, most frequently, that Trout anglers want.

Which gets at one of my other sticking points. Is fish management in PA a direct democracy? Should it be?

 

[pcray1231]

And for that you gotta change hearts and minds. Again.

1. We don't stock brook trout.
2. Brook trout C&R, statewide.
3. Lets lower the bar for class A.

Keep doing project work for brook trout streams, brown trout streams, and even stocked streams. Better water is better water. Maybe a few of those stocked streams will elevate themselves for class A.

And yes, #1 and #2 put in a brook trout specific policy. It tells people all trout streams are important, but wild trout streams are more important, and brook trout streams are most important. That's our policy, ingrained in our culture, and what we want you to teach your children.

And yeah, we can look around the edges for those brook trout holdouts that are in high danger of flipping to browns. While we think as a general rule, barriers are bad, in this particular case it could be good. We can do experiments with erecting a barrier, shocking the stream above, removing the browns, and trying to save a few of these streams. Start with the ones that are set up for it to be most likely to work. If it doesn't work, hey, we're trying, and making it public and obvious, telling everyone this is our goal. If it does work, you expand and try a few more. I'm not talking about taking any brown trout fisheries away here, I'm talking about streams with brook trout, currently, and trying to keep them that way. In addition to these efforts to save a few otherwise doomed streams, you can also go up to the heart of brook trout country, say, upper Kettle above Ole Bull, and do the same thing as an example. The shining city on a hill. In this one spot, we're going to do it absolutely right, a full connected system set aside for brook trout, actively managed for brook trout, advertise and PR the crap out of it, make it a tourist attraction, a brook trout mecca. Again, it's about education. And you can still stock the crap out of Kettle Creek below Ole Bull without affecting your mecca above one iota, the hope is that a few of those stocky fishermen will wonder up on occasion to see what all the hubbub is about, and walk away impressed with the experience. And you can still say Penns and the LJR and Spring Creek and name your stream are world class brown trout fisheries and managed as such, have PFBC and TU and everyone else protecting them. And you still continue AMD remediation and all that, I hope some of those turn into brookie streams, but if they're browns, that's still FAR ahead of being dead. PA has it all.

 

[silverfox]

And for that you gotta change hearts and minds. Again.

1. We don't stock brook trout.
2. Brook trout C&R, statewide.
3. Lets lower the bar for class A.

Keep doing project work for brook trout streams, brown trout streams, and even stocked streams. Better water is better water. Maybe a few of those stocked streams will elevate themselves for class A.

And yes, #1 and #2 put in a brook trout specific policy. It tells people all trout streams are important, but wild trout streams are more important, and brook trout streams are most important. That's our policy, ingrained in our culture, and what we want you to teach your children.

And yeah, we can look around the edges for those brook trout holdouts that are in high danger of flipping to browns. While we think as a general rule, barriers are bad, in this particular case it could be good. We can do experiments with erecting a barrier, shocking the stream above, removing the browns, and trying to save a few of these streams. Start with the ones that are set up for it to be most likely to work. If it doesn't work, hey, we're trying, and making it public and obvious, telling everyone this is our goal. If it does work, you expand and try a few more. I'm not talking about taking any brown trout fisheries away here, I'm talking about streams with brook trout, currently, and trying to keep them that way. In addition to these efforts to save a few otherwise doomed streams, you can also go up to the heart of brook trout country, say, upper Kettle above Ole Bull, and do the same thing as an example. The shining city on a hill. In this one spot, we're going to do it absolutely right, a full connected system set aside for brook trout, actively managed for brook trout, advertise and PR the crap out of it, make it a tourist attraction, a brook trout mecca. Again, it's about education. And you can still stock the crap out of Kettle Creek below Ole Bull without affecting your mecca above one iota, the hope is that a few of those stocky fishermen will wonder up on occasion to see what all the hubbub is about, and walk away impressed with the experience. And you can still say Penns and the LJR and Spring Creek and name your stream are world class brown trout fisheries and managed as such, have PFBC and TU and everyone else protecting them. PA has it all.

100% agreement.