Native Brook Trout to be added to PA's Wildlife Action Plan

guttrap

guttrap

Member
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
51
Something we should take the time to do:


PFBC News Releases

------------------------------------------------------------

PUBLIC COMMENT SOUGHT ON ADDING WILD BROOK TROUT TO ACTION PLAN
June 28, 2007
spacer
The Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission (PFBC) is inviting
public comment on adding naturally reproducing eastern brook
trout to the State Wildlife Action Plan, the document that
prescribes conservation measures for species and their critical
habitat before they become more rare and more costly to protect
and restore.

The brook troutÃÔ historic range and abundance has been
considerably reduced throughout the east coast, including
Pennsylvania. Habitat and water quality degradation caused by
urbanization, acid mine drainage, acid deposition, and poor land
use practices have contributed to the decline. The addition of
the species to PennsylvaniaÃÔ State Wildlife Action Plan, if
approved by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, would highlight
the status of the CommonwealthÃÔ state fish. But itÃÔ more than
a symbolic move. Including brook trout in the stateÃÔ Wildlife
Action Plan would provide the Commission with more flexibility
to fund, or receive funding for, projects that benefit the
species.

The native range of the eastern brook trout extends along the
Appalachians from Georgia to Maine and encompasses 17 states. Of
these states, 12 currently include the eastern brook trout in
their Wildlife Action Plans. The need for special attention to
wild brook trout was documented by Pennsylvania and others as
part of the Eastern Brook Trout Joint Venture (EBTJV), a
regional project of the National Fish Habitat Initiative. In a
2006 report, the EBTJV noted that brook trout populations have
been eliminated or greatly reduced throughout more than 70% of
their historical habitat in Pennsylvania. These results reflect
the condition of brook trout across their entire Eastern range,
according to the assessment.

Å£ased on stream surveys by the PFBC conducted since 1976, wild
brook trout populations have been documented in 1,524 stream
sections covering a total of 5,044 miles of streams. Although
this is a considerable wild brook trout resource, much of this
resource is fragmented and primarily exists in first and second
order headwater streams,said PFBC Executive Director Doug
Austen. Å¢dding wild brook trout to PennsylvaniaÃÔ Wildlife
Action Plan is a logical step in conserving and enhancing our
state fish./P>

The Fish and Boat Commission is specifically recommending that
eastern brook trout be added to the Action Plan at "Conservation
Tier 5 - Maintenance Concern Level." Conservation Tier 5
contains species that are considered relatively abundant and
fairly secure in Pennsylvania, but have undergone declines.

In September 2005, the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission and
the Pennsylvania Game Commission submitted the Wildlife Action
Plan to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. This Wildlife Action
Plan was required from each state and U.S. Territory in order to
continue to receive funds under the State Wildlife Grants
Program. Since 2001, Pennsylvania has received over $13.8
million with an annual appropriation of nearly $2 million. This
funding is shared equally between the Fish and Boat Commission
and the Pennsylvania Game Commission. The intent of the Wildlife
Action Plan is to manage proactively, not reactively, in order
to keep ÅÄommon species common./P>

PennsylvaniaÃÔ Wildlife Action Plan can be downloaded from the
Commission web site at www.fishandboat.com [located on our State
Wildlife Grant program page [1]]. The proposed brook trout plan
amendment [2] is also posted online, as is a form that allows
the public to comment [3] on the proposal. Public comment will
also be accepted in writing through 4:00 PM, August 3, 2007.
Direct mail to: Brook Trout/WAP/Public Comments, c/o Dave Day,
Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission, P.O. Box 67000,
Harrisburg, PA 17106-7000.
 
Thanks for the info. Will write a letter. If you look at the EBTJV report, PA sticks out as having a disproportionate number of threatened and already extirpated fisheries. I would be all for making brook trout more of a protected species.....change the philosophy from one of conservation to one of protection with brook trout.
 
I'm with you on that. I think we should at least enact a no kill law for natives. Barbless single hooks and so forth on those streams with a population of native Brooks. I'm a PA History teacher and it would be hard for me to watch one of our icons go down. I have killed natives in my youth, I really regret it now. Amazing what age and a fly rod can do for you.
 
I will focus my letter on things besides regs, namely looking at a lot of things like watershed protection, water quality, and the reexamination of stocking over brook trout watersheds.....I think these are a lot bigger issues for brook trout than regs. Regs are an issue, but sportfishing is not a cause for extirpation alone. We also need to look at watershed reclamation and reintroduction on extirpated watersheds.



The picture says it all.
 
Here's a link to the proposed ammendment:

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/newsreleases/2007/brook_elements_amd1.pdf


Looks spot on in its approach to me. Hopefully this will mean some federal $$$ for the efforts.
 
guttrap wrote:
I'm with you on that. I think we should at least enact a no kill law for natives. Barbless single hooks and so forth on those streams with a population of native Brooks. I'm a PA History teacher and it would be hard for me to watch one of our icons go down. I have killed natives in my youth, I really regret it now. Amazing what age and a fly rod can do for you.


How about we get rid of all the brown trout. That would help the brook trout more than making it no kill on brook trout.

By the way, what does being a PA History teacher have to do with brook trout. In other words, what exactly compelled you to add that extra little nugget (or tidbit if you prefer). does it make you an authority on brook trout? Does it make you better than a doctor, and engineer a truck driver or even a lawyer? Well, maybe a lawyer, I'll give you that one. :lol: Sorry Jack, just joking.

Also, when you say "I think we should at least" ..., do you mean you would like to see even more protection than that? How about no more fishing in any stream that has brook trout?

The above message contained a liberal amount of sarcasm.

I feel that enacting a no kill law for native brook trout is quite excessive for PA because they are far from being a threatened species. It might not be excessive in lets say North Carolina where there aren't as many, but it certainly is in PA. What we need is more habitat restoration and protection. Ohio has the right idea IMHO.
 
i agree that watershed issues are most important. please try to remember, when talking about regs, where u live or fish. sepa could use no kill laws on brookies. one of the biggest issues in my mind, and it it listed in the WBTJV, stocking over wild fish. is pa ready to commit to not stocking over wild brook trout? yeah right :roll:
 
"How about no more fishing in any stream that has brook trout?

The above message contained a liberal amount of sarcasm."

Farmer Dave - Still pulling the chains!

Have to agree that implementing habitat restoration measures would be a step forward. But, will it fly with the Develpment Crowd? (In addition to being a Cynic I am a pessimist - and a skeptic).
North Carolina - I think that they have a fair to substantial population of brook trout in a good number of their streams. Maybe someone from NC could enlighten us.
 
well for one i belive nc works on the brookie streams. i had a very frightning and dishearting conversation with a tu member in sepa. the local tu group is currently working on a marginal wild brown trout stream for which there money will be tied up for years. the pequea creek in lancaster is over its TMDL limit and i belive, if im correct, it is on the DEP list. meanwhile, one of our two class a streams is no longer class a. the other is slowly degrading due to siltation in the headwaters. there is a small scale project going on that stream but it is way downstream from where the problem is! there are 3 other streams down here that have class a potential, just needs some habitat restoration. but no one really cares! this person i talked to is a respected tu member down here and he laid down the bottom line. PEOPLE CARE ABOUT CATCHING BIG FISH! thats the problem, a minority of people like small stream fishing for small wild trout. funny things is in one of the 3 streams with potential is were i caught a 14 inch wild brook trout. last week my buddy caught 2 that size out of the same stream. i saw a few in the 15 inch range! but i guess there still small, and considered second class to wild browns or a stream they can dump big stockies in :evil: that is where sepa is in my eyes and the eyes of other brookie fisherman. its sad but that is what NC has over PA.
 
I think adding brook trout to the Wildlife Action Plan as suggested is a fine idea and I will write to support it.

I do not believe a statewide policy of no-kill over wild brook trout is warranted, not at all.

I would also oppose any generally targeted effort to remove wild brown trout from watersheds where they currently exist in favor of potential recolonization by wild brook trout. I say "generally targeted' because I could possible support a very, very limited number of such efforts in watersheds where fisheries mgrs. believe that a combination of regs and habitat enhancement could produce a high quality (size/biomass) wild ST fishery.

This thing with no stocking over wild pops is a mixed bad for me. Instinctively, I support it. However, I do not believe the relationship between stocking and the well being of wild pops is writ in stone. There's stocking and then there's stocking. More likely than not IMO, a couple hundred stocked ST dumped overtop of an incidental (say mid Class C or less) wild ST pop is not the primary reason why the stream does not have a larger head of wild fish. It's probably a lot more about habitat and other related issues. At least IMO. There are a thousand stocked streams in PA in this sort of situation. I've fished them and so have most of you, I'd wager.

But certainly, no fish should be stocked over wild pops that are judged to be viable and to have potential for significant expansion.
It's just that sometimes, I suspect we lay problems or shortcomings in wild trout pops on stocking when the real culprit is something else altogether..
 
Looks good to me...I sent in my support comment.

Maurice
 
PEOPLE CARE ABOUT CATCHING BIG FISH!

Yep, thats the crux of it. Thats why we have all the hoo-haa about the little j, whether it be Donny B or regs. No one gives a rats behind about brook trout because most regard them as inferior game fish - small and easy to catch. This is also at the crux of the divide between TU national and local TU priorities.

Now how do we get people to give a rat's behind about brook trout? Well, we'd have to either promote the brook trout and proabably brook trout fishing. But we often do just the opposite and keep these streams close to our vest for fear of overharvest.

I would argue that the best long term solution is to promote C and R brook trout fishing and therefore awareness and value of the fish. A few can value these fisheries without fishing them, but most cannot. However, I don't think many people would feel comfortable with doing this until brook trout are completely C and R......

I think a lot of these fears are overstated, but I'm a realist and realize i'm in the minority here....

More likely than not IMO, a couple hundred stocked ST dumped overtop of an incidental (say mid Class C or less) wild ST pop is not the primary reason why the stream does not have a larger head of wild fish.

Yep, I think the cat is out of the bag in terms of brown trout invading brook trout habitat. There are very few streams that are pure brook trout fisheries in PA.....thank goodness for natural barriers.

While I think that stocking short term influence will not affect a fishery loot over the short term, it presents several threats.

1) Stocking browns over brooks in brook exclusive waters - promotes invasion.

2) Diseases - whirling disease, viral hemmorhagic septicemia....need I say more?

3) This is the big one - reducing the diversity of the gene pool by having homogonous stocked populations breed with wild populations or eat a lot of wild fish - this probably is the biggest threat for a given fishery. Having a diverse gene pool will ensure that there are a few fish that will be able to survive an introduced disease, an acid runoff, or high temps during a drought. Reduce the genetic diversity, the greater the risk of extirpation. With brook trout populations being small isolated headwater pockets, the gene pool diversity in a given population is probably very low.
You should have tons of small fish for every big fish in a healthy population....each with their own unique genes.

The proposed amendment addresses all of these issues, so I fully support it.
 
Now how do we get people to give a rat's behind about brook trout? Well, we'd have to either promote the brook trout and proabably brook trout fishing. But we often do just the opposite and keep these streams close to our vest for fear of overharvest.

no way. people have the exact same resources that i have. when i started brookie fishing i went and downloaded the natural repro list, the class a list, the wilderness list, the wbte lists etc....
everyone else has access to all of these and other than that it is up to exploring. why should i do all the hard work finding gems of streams when there are still fisherman out there in the first day melay saying, "guess the pfbc is still stocking these things" and throwing a 5 inch wild brook trout on the bank. forget it!
the majority of "stocking dependant" anglers will never apperciate brook trout, and im not inviting them in my backyard to fish. bottomline! :-x

its a said fact that the majority of anglers only care about catching large trout. after the brookies expirate from the sepa region and its too late, then we learn or error. :-(


ohio.....promote C&R brook trout fishing? isnt this exactly what i was pushing for but everyone slammed me on? how are those harvesting anglers gonna enjoy fishing?
 
Sal, I know we've agreed to disagree on this, but how would you propose we get people interested in brook trout if we don't promote fishing for them?

What I am not saying is force regs down people throats but get them to come to the conclusions you and I have through publicity and education followed by some small stream fishing experiences to seal the deal. And yes, closing some streams to fishing, would be part of the deal if they showed signs of stress.

I wish there was another way, but I don't see one. Putting our heads in the sand is not an option. Maybe parterships with non-angling environmental groups would be an option...but you know what they would do....advocate against any fishing....would you really want that?
 
well ohio YES in some cases. i have said before that here in the sepa region i would love to see a few streams CLOSED to fishing. maybe pick a few statewide (like 5) for us to study brook trout populations and how they are adapting. and this would also insure a wild brook trout strain for when the day comes that we no longer have any wild brook trout. i dont want to see a day where kids in school learn about brook trout and the teacher says, this used to be our state fish but it is now extinct!

promote fishing for little trout? i think your expecting to much from people who dont care. i have even heard people say on this forum that they dont like fishing small streams for small trout. how do we get them interested? good question.

heres a thought, stop stocking wild trout streams and FORCE a C&R reg on all wild trout waters. maybe then after all the marginal streams stocked fish die they would fish the wild streams. but again this brings pressure to streams that cant handle it.

so is promoting brook trout fishing promoting the dimise of fisheries that cant handle pressure? yes. which is why i wont do it.

so many problems on this subject ohio and it DOES all go back to stockings. we have raised generations of anglers that depend on stockings and larger trout. until we bite the bullet and stop it already.....its gonna continue to the point brook trout fall to the exotics.

heres a question for u ......if you explored ohio and found another brookie stream, would you promote the stream to fishing to help the trout? i know your thinking compare PA brookies to OH brookies is ridiculous. and it is but compare them to sepa brook trout streams and it is a close match. we dont have many and i dont think ill be putting out a welcome mat to EVERYONE!
 
it just bothers me ohio that so many people dont see a problem with keep fish in all fragile brook streams. why cant we even have half our wild brook trout resource be C&R. then people could harvest and have a sport fishery. it bothers me that my local tu group seems to care about nothing else but brown trout. while our wild brook trout resource is dying and the national tu is trying to get a WBTJV off the ground. and it bothers me that brook trout are considered to a lesser sport fish than all the others, its our only native trout for god sake! save it! protect it! conserve it! lets stop arguing about it and do something already! i was pushing for a stream here in the sepa region to have habitat improvements and structure added to the stream. it could be one of the most wonderful brook trout fisheries in the sepa region. i had a lot of support. then tu tied my hands by tying up all the money for the conowingo.

now my frustrations out......lets not forget the original reason for this thread. please partake and write the commission. im drafting my letter towmorrow.
 
What a load of bureaucratic BS and motherhood statements. They’re going to survey, document, prioritize and make recommendations They've been doing that for 30 years already, haven’t they come up with anything yet? Maybe its good enough to snare some federal dollars but it sounds like more of the same to me. The PFBC will probably just shift the usual survey money into the hatchery program and avoid the more contentious issues of development and property rights.

Sorry for the rant, I’m not getting any younger.
 
heres a question for u ......if you explored ohio and found another brookie stream, would you promote the stream to fishing to help the trout? i know your thinking compare PA brookies to OH brookies is ridiculous. and it is but compare them to sepa brook trout streams and it is a close match. we dont have many and i dont think ill be putting out a welcome mat to EVERYONE!

Here is the ohio regs:

http://www.dnr.state.oh.us/wildlife/fishing/fishregs/

Possession of brook trout is illegal.

Here's the group of 5th graders that help bring conservation agencies and the ODNR together to help with brook trout conservation efforts. Actually, quite inspiring.

http://www.saveourstream.org/

Note that fishing had nothing to do with this. Besides, most of the streams that have brook trout in OH lie on private land, which in OH, is closed to public fishing or in a "brook trout sanctuary" which is also closed to fishing. In addition, the brook trout populations would not support public fishing.

I don't think comparing ohio brookies to PA brookies is ridiculous. PA, unlike OH, has some brook trout streams, that can handle some pressure.....promoting fishing of these fisheries would be a way of raising awareness/money for brook trout while still allowing fishing, with present regs on those streams that can handle it, and C and R regs for those that don't. Promoting C and R fishing is different than regulating/mandating it......you would be encouraging people to appreciate the fish and the wild places they live and the fishing experience they provide and taking the focus off of both fishing for SIZE and for MEAT. Regulating these streams as C and R is different than promoting C and R fishing.
As long as the public wants SIZE and MEAT more than a wild fishing experience, stocking will continue for the meat fisherman and regs will try to be manipulated on brown trout water for the size-oriented C and R fishing crowd under the auspices of a "conservation" effort. I agree with Sal and Dave that I find it ironic that a lot of "conservation" projects focus on wild brown trout populations which are really one of the big reasons brook trout are in this pickle in the first place.

Or we could take the Ohio method and make fishing for brook trout almost completely illegal and muster support through the EPA and environmental groups. I'd be fine with this in PA, too. If banning fishing of brook trout watersheds was part of a comprehensive, well-funded project to protect brook trout, I'd gladly not fish for them anymore. But many of the "brook trout" fisheries are actually brook/brown fisheries.....I'd actually like to see harvest of brown trout on these watersheds.
 
Promoting C and R fishing is different than regulating/mandating it......you would be encouraging people to appreciate the fish and the wild places they live and the fishing experience they provide and taking the focus off of both fishing for SIZE and for MEAT. Regulating these streams as C and R is different than promoting C and R fishing.
Or we could take the Ohio method and make fishing for brook trout almost completely illegal and muster support through the EPA and environmental groups. I'd be fine with this in PA, too.

you would be fine if enviromental groups mandated a no fishing for brook trout law but not fine if fisherman pushed for C&R regs?
i find that odd. its okay to have the EPA try to protect them but not to allow the fisherman or the pfbc to try too? also how could people try to appreciate brook trout fishing and gain support of fixing those fisheries if they cant even get near them? also if we dont start trying someday this may happen. once pa become OH and we hardly have any left.

I don't think comparing ohio brookies to PA brookies is ridiculous. PA, unlike OH, has some brook trout streams, that can handle some pressure

again i can only speak for where most of my experince lays. sepa watersheds cannot handle the pressure that promoting brook trout fisheries would bring. also they cant handle the harvest that promoting brook trout fishing under the current regulations. try to remember im speaking about this cornor of the state and not the rest. have you ever been out here? i also have trouble understanding this thought process. if harvest wild browns will help brookies(by making less browns to compete with) but harvesting wild brookies doesnt effect thier population? i think again we are going have have to agree to disagree :-D i do belive that harvesting of wild browns will help the brookies.....but i also belive returning legal size brookies to the stream will dramatically help the rest of the population. more fish in the stream than if i kept them, more fish to breed and bigger fish passing on better genes.

What a load of bureaucratic BS and motherhood statements. They’re going to survey, document, prioritize and make recommendations They've been doing that for 30 years already, haven’t they come up with anything yet? Maybe its good enough to snare some federal dollars but it sounds like more of the same to me. The PFBC will probably just shift the usual survey money into the hatchery program and avoid the more contentious issues of development and property rights.

i completely agree and that was very well said. talk is cheap and they have been talking for awhile now.
 
Don't hate me because I'm factual, but brook trout are far from threatened in PA. The basis for this proposal is a decline in population, not a threat of extirpation. I would be supportive of any regulation or prohibition or any proactive efforts to increase brook trout population density or size, but let's not work ourselves into a frenzy in wrongfully believing that there is any true threat of extirpation now or in the forseeable future.
 
Back
Top