Brook Trout Gill Lice

afishinado

afishinado

Moderator
Staff member
Joined
Sep 11, 2006
Messages
16,172
Location
Chester County, PA
Article detailing some of the issues concerning gill lice infestation with brook trout in certain areas.

https://news.orvis.com/fly-fishing/scientists-find-parasites-in-brook-trout-on-the-rise?fbclid=IwAR1MEUxrhYeOQLfegkhEGWrVVsQ890xJXH1zt5OmQrCYBeGR3XDRES5l_oA
 
Side note: Be aware that the species of gill lice that has been associated with ST is not the same species as that has been associated with RT.
 
From the link:
Gill lice are a type of copepod parasite that attach to the gills and opercula of brook trout. The parasite, Salmincola edwardsii, only infects fish of the genus Salvelinus, such as brook trout, and not rainbow or brown trout. The parasite naturally occurs in northern states, like Wisconsin, but until recently, has not been recorded from southern states.

Dont worry, stock away, amirite?
 
What are you inferring? What has not been done with respect only to gill lice in Pa that you think should be done?
 
No.

The question is why did you feel the need to point something out obviously stated in the article?
 
But since you asked ill post this and highlight some points and you tell me what else COULD be done.



Article from Pittsburgh Tribune Review

A line in the sand has been erased.

How much that will do to resolve a potentially litigious debate around a parasite that may or may not be impacting wild brook trout populations remains to be seen.

A few months ago, Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission officials proposed a new rule saying that, as of Jan. 1, no one could knowingly introduce fish with gill lice into Pennsylvania waters. In late October it decided not to enact that, said Andy Shiels, director of the agency's bureau of fisheries.

Instead, it will meet with commercial hatchery operators – whom the commission remains convinced is tied to the parasite's spread — to look for ways to keep the parasite at bay.

Shiels believes the two sides should be able to find "common ground." But keep the parasite at bay they must, he added.

"We have to find a solution because we can't be introducing high loads of these things into our wild brook trout streams. We just can't do it," Shiels said.

Gill lice are a parasite that attach to the gills of trout. There is one species specific to brook trout, another to rainbows.

The commission found brook trout gill lice in Wolf Run in Centre County in 2016. Biologists determined those fish had come from a commercial hatchery.

Meanwhile, nine other streams stocked by the same sportsmen's club, using fish from the same hatchery, had gill lice, too.

Subsequent surveys of those waters, and others afterward found with gill lice, showed that wild brook trout populations took a dive after the parasite showed up, Shiels noted.


But most notably, the commission said each gill lice impacted stream had one "common denominator." Commercial hatcheries provided their fish.

As a result, this spring it attempted to "turn off the spigot."

It sent a letter to sportsmen's clubs applying for permits to buy and stock trout saying that they could only get fish from facilities certified as gill-lice free.

That set commercial hatchery operators off, for two reasons.

First, March is when the start shipping fish in earnest. Yet there was, at that time, just one person in the entire state qualified to do certifications.

Hatcheries with orders in and fish to ship couldn't do so.

So, in the short term, that "put our business at risk," said Adam Pritts of Laurel Hill Trout Farm in Somerset County.


"Take a month out of cash flow. It might be a slow month, but if you can't serve those customers, they go somewhere else," he said. "And they don't come back."

Second, and this is what commercial hatchery operators view as the longer-term problem, blaming them for gill lice is unfair and just wrong.

Gill lice evolved in conjunction with brook trout, said Carole Engle, a Pennsylvania native who spent 27 years as director of the Aquaculture/Fisheries Center of Excellence at the University of Arkansas at Pine Bluff. They've been around for centuries. And wherever there are brook trout there are gill lice, she said.

"If you stop all stocking programs in the state, you'll still have gill lice," Engle said.

The commission's finding of them does not constitute an emergency, she added.

"And there's really no justification to blame fish farms for their being here," Engle said.

Perhaps, Shiels said.

Gill lice are a native parasite to brook trout, he admitted.

"However, that doesn't mean that they are found everywhere that brook trout are found. Nor does it mean that they're found in high densities wherever brook trout are found, unless something else is going on," he said.

The commission surveyed 700 or more stream sections in the past two-plus years, he said. Yet it found fill lice in only a few places.

"And every one of those places can be tied to a co-op or commercial hatchery," Shiels said.


And what no one knows, he added, is what concentration of gill lice impacts brook trout on a population level.

Engle, though, said a number of factors impact gill lice infestations. They include water temperature and flow, among other things. In drought years, like 2016, gill lice will be more evident. In extremely wet ones, like 2018, they won't.

The commission's recent proposals are "fairly draconian" and an "over reach" based on some worst-case scenarios, she said.

It should step back, work with commercial hatcheries and monitor the gill lice issue to come up with rules that best serve everyone, she said.

"This is not a zero sum game. This is not a choice between protecting the resource and maintaining the stocking programs that are so vital to the quality fisheries that are known all around the United States," Engle said.

Charlie Conklin, operator of two fish farms in Montour County and a three-time president of the U.S. Trout Farmers Association, pleaded that same case.

He believes the commission has acted with the best of intentions on the gill lice issue. But it failed to gather input from all stakeholders, he added.

And that's got some in the commercial industry wanting to pursue legal action. Indeed, some fish farmers filed a notice of intent to sue the commission in October.

Conklin doesn't want things to come to that.

"The industry doesn't want this parasite. The Fish Commission doesn't want this parasite. The fishermen don't want this parasite. We all have the same goal here," Conklin said.

"But if this rule is going to put half the industry out of business, the industry can't accept it."

The rule – against knowingly introducing gill lice – is on hold, Shiels reiterated.

Commission staff met with members of the state's aquaculture advisory council, which includes fish farmers, to say so. Now it wants to set up a meeting, hopefully with a mediator, to go over how the commission and industry can work together.

"I think we can lay this out and find some common ground," he said.

Fish farmers hope so, too, said Liz Diesel-Pritts of Laurel Hill. It's just too bad that it had to get to this point, she said.

"So we've taken a pretty big black eye from the commission on this," she said. "It's been so beautifully mismanaged it's almost like it was intentional

________________________________________________________________

It sounds like you guys were trying. It also sounds like money rules the resource. Gill lice is natural but an elevated amount is there due to stocking it sounds like from the article.

I understand you are no longer in the commission so when i say you guys dont take it personally. I know you have no control now.


Why dont they just not stock over wild brook trout? Seems like an easy solution.
 
When I was Director, the Jan 1, 2019 deadline was established to prevent the introduction of gill lice through infected fish into streams which weren’t infected. This proposed action used the precautionary principle by using the authority the Commission had to stop the further introduction of all gill lice (primary concern was to not infect more native brook trout streams by stocking infected hatchery fish). We had definitive evidence to show that the places we found gill lice were stocked by either Cooperative nurseries which were infected by commercial fish or commercial hatcheries. The deal was for commercial hatcheries to get a fish veterinarian to certify that fish were disease free and they would be good to go. Since there weren’t many vets available to do the inspections, the Department of Agriculture hosted a workshop to train more. Seems reasonable, right?

I retired on Nov 2 and obviously the PFBC yielded to the political pressure caused by complaints from commercial growers. I wonder how many more brook trout streams have been infected?

PFBC staff were going to develop and implement a permitting system for any fish stockings conducted by anyone similar to what many other states (all states bordering PA have such a requirement) require. This would then require PFBC approval for any fish stocking (trout, striped bass, bluegill, baitfish, etc.) which could then be conditioned for additional testing based on the risks. This should also apply to Cooperative nurseries.

The rest of the story.

FT
 
Politics are sickening. From what has been paraded on TV to this the times need a changing.
 
salvelinusfontinalis wrote:

Why dont they just not stock over wild brook trout?

Good idea.

I was advocating ending stocking long before the gill lice issue came up.

If you quit stocking over brook trout, their populations will go up. And that's a good thing.
 
Thank you John for the rest of the story as you know it.
Seems i wasn't far off.

Just so everyone knows i dont blame the PFBC for this, it really sounds like they are trying.
Even still Dwight's post above is so true.
 
The need in #2 above was for emphasis since some may have only read the op’s subject line or only skimmed the article. A pre-emptive strike on my part hopefully prevented the need to discuss the RT situation later.

Separately, per other comments above:
(from the overview of trout stocking in Pa found on the PFBC web site in the trout stocking section) ...

“The PFBC will continue to manage some Stocked Trout Waters with Brook Trout but will transition to more Rainbow Trout and/or Brown Trout...”

 
Hi Mike. PFBC transitioning to more RT for a variety of reasons. Less expensive to culture, less disease problems and no worries about the genetics of stocking over BT or ST. If anyone hasn’t read An Entirely Synthetic Fish by Halverson, I highly recommend since it gives you a good sense of the spread of hatchery rainbows around the world.

I also need to mention that gill lice were never found in PFBC hatcheries— in brooks or rainbows.

FT
 
Have co-op hatcheries transitioned to RT stocking over brook trout instead of ST?
 
Documented gill lice in Linn Run in Westmoreland co.

Hooray for hatcheries, how big can that lobby be??
 
Have co-op hatcheries transitioned to RT stocking over brook trout instead of ST?

I could be wrong but it is my understanding that the PFBC no longer provides co-op nurseries with brook trout. It doesn't mean they don't or wont stock them, it just means that they will have to buy them from another source instead of getting them for next to nothing. This may cause some clubs to at least re-think their strategies.
 
It's astounding to me that there isn't some kind of permitting, or at the very least, reporting on private stocking regardless of location or species.

I've spoken with state biologists about finding stocked fish in streams and they had no idea were there.

It's a recipe for disaster. People shouldn't be allowed to stock whatever they want, wherever they want. Period.
 
Here is my question.

When Gill lice shows up in a wild brook trout population does it kill what it kills or does it remain a few years or more? Or does it just infect them forever?

Im not even asking about naturally occuring we all know that in un disturbed nature it works itself out. Im asking in the sense of what we have introduced artificially to our state fish.

 
salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
Here is my question.

When Gill lice shows up in a wild brook trout population does it kill what it kills or does it remain a few years or more? Or does it just infect them forever?

Im not even asking about naturally occuring we all know that in un disturbed nature it works itself out. Im asking in the sense of what we have introduced artificially to our state fish.

My guess would be that regardless of the source, population dynamics would eventually control the gill lice, meaning if they kill off most of their hosts, the gill lice population will eventually crash. It's a shame it has to happen in the first place, since it seems that the source, in many cases is commercial hatcheries, and the lobby of those hatcheries is what stopped the PFBC gill lice free certification process.

Think ticks, maybe, as an analogy. When deer and mice populations are up, tick populations thrive. Kill off the hosts, and the pest population drops. Or foxes and rabbits. When rabbit population increases, it's more prey for foxes, until they kill off their food source, which is when the fox population starts to plummet. The misery of it is we humans are the ones that introduced a higher density of pests, by stocking hatchery fish over wild ones.
 
My best guess too.
Mike is this what happens?
 
I think one of the biggest concerns would be that a stressed brook trout population could lead to brown trout populations expanding further into headwater watersheds. We all know what happens when brown trout populations are established in brook trout streams.

 
Back
Top