Register now on PaFlyFish.com! Login
HOME FORUM BLOG PHOTOS LINKS


Sponsors

Browsing this Thread:   1 Anonymous Users



« 1 ... 11 12 13 (14) 15 »


Re: "wild" rainbows
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22466
Offline
Study of brooks and brown from Norway:

"Examination of otoliths and scales indicated that the oldest brook trout sampled were eight winters old. However, few fish in the catches were older than 2–4 years. The brown trout caught were generally older than the brook trout. The growth rate of the brook trout was calculated to be about 6.0, 4.5, 4.0 and 3.0 cm, respectively, in the first four years of life. From the fourth year of life stagnation of growth was remarkable. The brook trout seemed to grow somewhat faster than the brown trout in the first year of life, but after this the growth rate was about the same for the two species."

http://www.fao.org/docrep/009/ae997b/AE997B10.htm

Posted on: 2009/7/1 10:58
_________________
Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal.

-- Leo Tolstoy


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2008/1/31 17:19
From Pretty much everywhere at some point, Thorndale today.
Posts: 13667
Offline
Well now,

The original question was whether browns are larger than brookies if water fertility were taken out of the equation. The reason for the question was to discuss angler's preference for one species or another, for the sake of the fish commission deciding where to enact special regulations. You argued that browns are not larger than brookies, that the larger size was solely due to the fertility of streams in which they inhabit. We said that wasn't true, browns indeed average larger regardless of water chemistry.

But does it matter whether it has to do with growth rates, age, year of sexual maturity? That wasn't your argument, you're argument was that brookies would average as large as browns in the same water! The bottom line is that, all else being equal, browns DO average larger than brookies.

Posted on: 2009/7/1 11:14


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2006/12/11 18:42
From Manheim, PA
Posts: 411
Offline
Not to split hairs but is Norway different that PA? I know different areas of the globe have different aspects. Big browns in New Zeland, big brooks in Canada. Just asking.

Quote:
I made a statement about wild brown trout and wild brook trout in the context of Pennsylvania flowing water.

Posted on: 2009/7/1 11:29
_________________
I can spell Leprechaun. Some idiots can't and have to practice.
I PREFER BROOK TROUT so SMB!


Re: "wild" rainbows
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22466
Offline
You are not splitting hairs. There may be a number of factors that effect the growth rates of trout in differing localities, including genetics. That issue was not addressed in the study. It may be the case that genetics is significant. Had I found a study of Pennsylvania specific trout, I would have rather offered it, but I don't have time to canvass the entire body of literature on the topic. If an authoritative source showed genetics to be a significant factor in the growth rate controversy, I would certainly take that into consideration in modifying my present beliefs.

Posted on: 2009/7/1 12:19
_________________
Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal.

-- Leo Tolstoy


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 19008
Offline
Quote:

JackM wrote:
You are not splitting hairs. There may be a number of factors that effect the growth rates of trout in differing localities, including genetics. That issue was not addressed in the study. It may be the case that genetics is significant. Had I found a study of Pennsylvania specific trout, I would have rather offered it, but I don't have time to canvass the entire body of literature on the topic. If an authoritative source showed genetics to be a significant factor in the growth rate controversy, I would certainly take that into consideration in modifying my present beliefs.


Jack, There is tons of empirical data out there to support the fact that Brown trout grow larger than brook trout wherever they can both reasonably survive. Brook trout do grow slightly faster the first year, and they do mature faster, but they also platau faster and don't live nearly as long. It almost looks like you are cherry picking to support an agenda. Some of the emperical data out there is is scientific, some of it isn't. I doubt you will find a genetic study to determine this because afterall they are different species.

The fish commission seems to be happy using emperical data. I'm not sure how "authoritative" they are in your book.

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/pafish/fishhtms/chap16.htm

"Brown trout may exceed 30 inches in length."
"Their life span in the wild can be 10 to 12 years."

"At maturity, wild brook trout may be from five inches to 18 inches long, according to the availability of food in the home stream."

"Brook trout are relatively short-lived. Few survive in the wild longer than five years."

I don't think there was any mention of actual growth rates per year in that, but we were talking about growth potential. However, I'm betting they do have more scientific data if requested.

Posted on: 2009/7/1 13:27
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 19008
Offline
Jack,

From your own link.

3.1.2 Population size

The brook trout were small, and most of the fish caught weighed 30–80 g. The brown trout caught in the same localities usually reached a higher maximum size. By means of a marking technique the population in two creeks with brook trout was estimated to 650 and 800 g/100 m2, respectively.

Posted on: 2009/7/1 13:32
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: "wild" rainbows
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22466
Offline
Dave, you are letting the impact of co-existence enter into the issue. I think the information from the link deals with streams where both co-exist. As for the PFBC information, I don't doubt it. I think I am convinced that brown trout live longer and therefore can and often do get bigger than brook trout, at least in PA and probably in general. That isn't "all there is" to this discussion, but I presently am unable to be more comprehensive in responding. I'm in hit and run mode today, but am working slowly on a more thorough response to some of the issues raised.

Posted on: 2009/7/1 14:46
_________________
Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal.

-- Leo Tolstoy


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2007/7/2 19:40
Posts: 15209
Offline
They aren't catching thirty pound plus brooks anywhere
Same as bass-smallmouth don't get as big as LMB
Brook trout[char] doesn't get as large as the brown-

Posted on: 2009/7/1 15:25
_________________
Obstrification> The fine art of confusing liberals.


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 19008
Offline
Quote:

JackM wrote:
Dave, you are letting the impact of co-existence enter into the issue. I think the information from the link deals with streams where both co-exist.


I have to hand it to you. you do pick your battles well (not an insult).

Anyway, what I quoted wasn't my intention, but that is just something in your link that I think is related. And mixed populations are pretty much all that we really have without taking drastic steps. It was also a study where brook trout were introduced rather than the other way around, so we could also question that.

Even the age limits on brook trout stated by the PF&BC might be related to the restricted range of the brook trout (areas where they out compete the browns). They probably would live longer in a fertile limestone spring creek. Face it, those streams where brook trout now thrive over the browns tend to be more harsh in many ways. Predation, flooding, drought, all tend to be more severe on the small freestone streams and more than likely reduce life expectancy.

One really cannot completely scientifically disprove your original suggestion without eradicating one species in favor of the other from several different types of streams in PA (the drastic measures i touched on), so be careful what you wish for. I'm talking even a couple of premium limestone spring creeks. Even then, with the diversity of brook trout genetics... they would have to already exist to some degree or like you said awhile back, they would be "introduced." One would also have to close these streams to fishing entirely. Aint gonna happen in PA, but like I said, be careful what you wish for.

I still feel that is enough emperical and historical data to refute your original suggestion. We will find that brown trout will grow considerably bigger because it is the nature of the breed. You can even find data to support this fromhatcheries. I suppose someone could reproduce this artificially, but it would be expensive.

1. Here is what we know. There are conditions where brook trout can outcompete browns. However, those tend to be places where both would tend to run small.

2. There are places where brown trout out compete brook trout, and those tend to be places where either can grow bigger.

This would tend to cloud the issue in the favor of your original argument, but consider that in both cases, the browns are larger than the brook trout (respectively).

I still feel there is enough data out there that shows that brown trout simply have the capability of growing much larger.

Take sea run browns and brook trout for example. Yes, they are technically co-existing, but in reality, the browns are not displacing the brook trout. The environment as a whole is far less limited. However, sea run browns grow much larger than sea run brook trout. Of course with the brook trout, it is mostly historical data.

Parts of the graet lakes still have lake run brook trout. they run considerably smaller than the lake run brown trout.

Posted on: 2009/7/1 15:34
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: "wild" rainbows
Moderator
Joined:
2006/9/9 9:29
From Monessen, PA
Posts: 22466
Offline
I already admitted brown can grow bigger. I wasn't really trying to claim otherwise when I first made the statement that started this side discussion, but it is sort of what I said, so I have to live with that.

Again, no time to do more than hit and run right now, but since you touched on it, my original thought was that brook trout, if they had exclusive dominion on a fertile waterway, would be able to establish the kind of population worth protecting with special regs. Fact is, these types of populations (worth protecting by special regs) are almost exclusively brown trout. That was my original reason for going down this road because of the suggestion, which I still consider incorrect, that brown trout are shown special consideration over brookies. Maximum size capability was never a relevant consideration until I made an overbroad statement.

Posted on: 2009/7/1 15:55
_________________
Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal.

-- Leo Tolstoy


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2007/7/2 19:40
Posts: 15209
Offline
As I mentioned before-
when Brook trout are the dominant species in a very fertile Alkaline pond -They can be far tougher to catch than browns as they stay down and feed on scuds,shrimp and other weed living insects.
They really don't cruise for surface,subsurface or mid water larva the way browns do-ignore even the smallest spin lures.
About the only way to catch them is spawning period.
I could put Jay L or Paul on a pond like that-They would bet the ranch I was lying about being loaded with brooks-lol
it is.

Posted on: 2009/7/1 16:08
_________________
Obstrification> The fine art of confusing liberals.


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2006/9/18 16:54
From Oxford, Chester Co., PA
Posts: 581
Offline
Jason, thanks for asking.

I expected a reaction but this is bewildering. I am sorry if I seem to have lit a fuse and run, but I don't get on here often. I haven't had a chance to read the entire thread, and I thank Farmer dave for the white paper which I admit I have not had a chance to read. Does the study prove a native PA strain? I am interested to check it out.

I am not surprised by the suggestion that my motives should be scrutinized. I am routinely attacked for holding views contrary to the prevailing ideology.

I assure you that I would be thrilled to learn of a pure PA strain in one of our watersheds - it may be possible, but I don't see a great deal of evidence. I believe that the State of NY has discovered a native strain within the Delaware River watershed in the Catskills. They have found other native populations as well, many in isolated ponds in the Adirondacks.

Maybe I should refer to it as a Heritage Strain because if it is found in PA it is likely to be of the same strain as those found in NY or another adjacent state.

The PA FBC has a management program dedicated to enhancing wild trout, but I don't believe they claim that the streams in the program harbor heritage strain BT.

Someone refered to a trout movement study conducted by the PAFBC in Tunkhannock Creek and other stocked streams in NEPA. Clearly, that study does not prove that BT are not migratory. It merely shows that the Browns and rainbows that were stocked those years in those stream moved more than the stocked brookies. So what? The study was intended to determine if the FBC was wasting its money stocking those streams. To say that the Brook trout is a non-migratory species is silly. When the glaciers retreated from norhern PA and the northland in general, brookies migrated long distances to recolonize those streams. And Brook Trout popns continue to migrate. Every stream draining into the St Laurence has a migratory popn. The same is true of Labrador and Newfoundland and Lakes Superior and Michigan. Heck even Long Island and New Jersey have small migratory popns of BT.

Posted on: 2009/7/1 18:09


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2007/7/2 19:40
Posts: 15209
Offline
ah tups-keep it up
this was a fun post
look at your replies.
indispensible

Posted on: 2009/7/1 19:37
_________________
Obstrification> The fine art of confusing liberals.


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 19008
Offline
Quote:

JackM wrote:
I already admitted brown can grow bigger. I wasn't really trying to claim otherwise when I first made the statement that started this side discussion, but it is sort of what I said, so I have to live with that.

Again, no time to do more than hit and run right now, but since you touched on it, my original thought was that brook trout, if they had exclusive dominion on a fertile waterway, would be able to establish the kind of population worth protecting with special regs. Fact is, these types of populations (worth protecting by special regs) are almost exclusively brown trout. That was my original reason for going down this road because of the suggestion, which I still consider incorrect, that brown trout are shown special consideration over brookies. Maximum size capability was never a relevant consideration until I made an overbroad statement.


Jack, when you put it this way, i once again agree.

We already have tons of infertile freestone streams dominated by brook trout. what would be the point.

And for the record, I agreed (for the most part) with your message that started this side discussion. That is why I didn't respond. I initially did not get from that message that you suggested brook trout had the potential to grow as large as brown, just that they both grow larger in the more fertile streams that are currently dominated by brown trout. That only seemed to come later when you were defending what you said. you are a reasonable guy. Well, you are most of the time.

See there? If I had stuck with what i thought you meant, instead of what you said later, we wouldn't have been arguing.

You know how i feel about brook trout. I really would like to see at least one good limestone stream brook trout fishery, but I am no enough of a fanatic to insist on poisoning a stream to rid it of browns. Much of my appeal for brook trout is the locations where they are found.

Big Spring was/is a great opportunity for brook trout, but it is a shame the original populations no longer existed (apparently). The questions there are, was the plan sound, and have they and will they continue to stick to the plan? I wish I lived closer to it.

Posted on: 2009/7/2 5:30
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--


Re: "wild" rainbows

Joined:
2006/12/13 9:28
From Other side of the tracks
Posts: 19008
Offline
Shouldn't you read the info provided before asking questions and reasserting your original claims?

Quote:

Tups wrote:
Jason, thanks for asking.

I expected a reaction but this is bewildering. I am sorry if I seem to have lit a fuse and run, but I don't get on here often. I haven't had a chance to read the entire thread, and I thank Farmer dave for the white paper which I admit I have not had a chance to read.


You are welcome for the white paper. It took me about 15 seconds to find it on the web, and I'm not a computer weenie. Info is out there if you really want to know what is going on. But most of the reaction was to side discussions.

Quote:
Does the study prove a native PA strain? I am interested to check it out.


See my first paragraph.

]Here is my point. I'm as big of a skeptic as most. I used to share basically the same opinin that you expressed in this latest, with maybe a little more hope, but not much. However, science has come a long way, even in my lifetime. There is this thing called the internet. More scientific information in now available, including recent genetic testing that supports the idea that native strains do still exist, and they may actually exist in fairly large numbers even in PA. At one time, there was NO scientific information that proved they still existed. Now there is, and there is NO scientific information that shows that they do not exist. However, you argued the contrary and still seem to have serious doubts that they do exist. You are entitled to that opinion, but I'd suggest doing more research before repeating such and emphatic claim. If I am wrong, I can accept that, but just because our opinions differ doesn’t make me wrong. Get some science to back you up. I did.

Quote:
I am not surprised by the suggestion that my motives should be scrutinized. I am routinely attacked for holding views contrary to the prevailing ideology.


We all are when we do that. But in this case, it had little to do with it. Your argument simply was based on old information and also seemed to be in line with the camp that wants to stock the chit out of everything. That might not be you real opinion, but your argument was in line with that.

Quote:
I assure you that I would be thrilled to learn of a pure PA strain in one of our watersheds - it may be possible, but I don't see a great deal of evidence.
.
I tell you what. Since you don’t seem to trust other’s scientific information, I’ll point you to one suspected population if you pay for the genetic study. This baby is extremely isolated, and has been for probably over 100 years.

Quote:
I believe that the State of NY has discovered a native strain within the Delaware River watershed in the Catskills. They have found other native populations as well, many in isolated ponds in the Adirondacks.Maybe I should refer to it as a Heritage Strain because if it is found in PA it is likely to be of the same strain as those found in NY or another adjacent state.


You can call it that if you like, but you really need to add the word “not” in front of the word "likely” to make that last paragraph accurate based on science..

Quote:
The PA FBC has a management program dedicated to enhancing wild trout, but I don't believe they claim that the streams in the program harbor heritage strain BT.


Irrelevant. INHO of course.

Quote:
Someone referred to a trout movement study conducted by the PAFBC in Tunkhannock Creek and other stocked streams in NEPA. Clearly, that study does not prove that BT are not migratory. It merely shows that the Browns and rainbows that were stocked those years in those stream moved more than the stocked brookies. So what? The study was intended to determine if the FBC was wasting its money stocking those streams. To say that the Brook trout is a non-migratory species is silly. When the glaciers retreated from northern PA and the northland in general, bookies migrated long distances to recolonize those streams...


Actually, that isn't as dramatic as it seems. As the glaciers retreated, the melt covered vast areas and vast numbers of watersheds. Massive temporary lakes were formed. Well, some weren't so temporary... Rivers changed their courses many times. Some even reversed directions. See all the great lakes tribs. And check this out. An area didn’t have to actually be glaciated to be extremely effected by glaciers.

http://www.runet.edu/~rugs/Adopt-A-St ... Web_Pages/New_history.htm

It wasn’t so much that the trout migrated. The water did. Well, it was both, but the point is that it wasn’t just the trout. Much of Eastern and Western PA was glaciated. I believe there were at least 4 glacial periods during the Pleistocene Epoch. The Wisconsin Glacier was the last, and it lasted over 100,000 years, and it didn’t remain stationary during that time. That is a lot of time to move things around.

Quote:
And Brook Trout pops continue to migrate. Every stream draining into the St Laurence has a migratory popn. The same is true of Labrador and Newfoundland and Lakes Superior and Michigan. Heck even Long Island and New Jersey have small migratory popns of BT.


Brook trout do migrate, and there are still andronomous strains, but all studies that i have seen show that brook trout migrate far less than the other two. but still, they do migrate (as a population).

Posted on: 2009/7/2 6:43
_________________
There are certain pursuits which, if not wholly poetic and true, do at least suggest a nobler and finer relation to nature than we know. The keeping of bees, for instance." -Henry David Thoreau--



« 1 ... 11 12 13 (14) 15 »



You can view topic.
You cannot start a new topic.
You cannot reply to posts.
You cannot edit your posts.
You cannot delete your posts.
You cannot add new polls.
You cannot vote in polls.
You cannot attach files to posts.
You cannot post without approval.

[Advanced Search]





Site Content
Login
Username:

Password:

Remember me



Lost Password?

Register now!
Stay Connected

twitterfeed.com facebook instagram RSS Feed

Sponsors
Polls
Will you be fly fishing this autumn?
Yes 95% (139)
No 0% (0)
Thinking about it 4% (6)
_PL_TOTALVOTES
The poll closed at 2014/10/31 17:56
1 Comment





Copyright 2014 by PaFlyFish.com | Privacy Policy| Provided by Kile Media Group | Design by 7dana.com