Question regarding Wild Brook Trout Enhancement Program

[Chaz]

Limestone streams have the ability to produce brookies that would rival the browns in size, if the browns didn't push them out. If you were to ask me the 2 species in the same watershed are incompatible.

 

[afishinado]

Chaz wrote:
Limestone streams have the ability to produce brookies that would rival the browns in size, if the browns didn't push them out. If you were to ask me the 2 species in the same watershed are incompatible.

Big Spring is about as fertile as any stream anywhere. Brook trout grow to about 15-16" maybe, but has anyone caught any approaching 20" or even greater there? If so, they are extremely rare.

A brown in the 18-20" gets a "nice fish" nod, but is hardly a head turner.

 

[k-bob]

Troutbert: "All of those brookies from 8 inches and up are surely older than 3 years. ... What Behnke is describing here doesn't seem to fit PA freestone streams."

Behnke is clearly describing small stream ST, see his book page 208. And he is quite the expert on trout biology and regs. He isn't anti C&R, he just describes situations where it will produce differing results... for small stream ST populations, he suggests C&R regs "didn't work." page 209.

Behnke says that small stream ST only live about 3 years. Which is exactly the implication of the 70% annual mortality figure given in the wbte study. Moreover, the article linked in post 27 even gives a chart for the impact of 70% annual mortality on its first page. With 70% mortality of age1+ PA headwaters ST, for every 100 ST fry that last a year, there will be 30 survivors 1 year later, 9 survivors 2 years later, less than three survivors on average 3 years later, and less than 1 survivors on average four years later.

So only about 2.5% (that is 1/30+9+3+1) of age-1+ ST would 5 years old, about 10% of the 1+ ST would be 4 or 5 years old. About 90% (39/43) would be 1-3 years old.

The idea that a few ST that are 8" or whatever somehow contradicts this doesn't make sense to me... as if wbte streams like kistler run and wolf swamp abound in 8" brookies in the first place. And fishermen will fish the bigger holes, bypassing other water, go to streams based on advice and surveys, not return to steams because fish were small... They will in other words, actively increase the chances of catching relatively big ST. Of course the set of fish they catch aren't typical, that's the point.

Here's a great set of surveys of three headwaters ST streams, one with a big hole or two, none wbte so you cant say more people fished there or whatever. Across the three ST streams, 94% (574/608) of brookies were below 7" legal size.

http://www.fishandboat.com/images/fisheries/afm/2006/5x10_23lehigh_tribs.htm

why so small? slow growth, short lives, and high annual mortality make sense to me... and if an expert like Behnke believed that C&R regs would not change that, it's good enough for me.

 

[wildtrout2]

pcray1231 wrote:

3 1/2 year: very rare, 7-13" "trophy in the PA brook trout world"

I don't agree with this. First, I think a 6" disparity in the same year class is a bit much, especially if you're talking the same stream. In the middle your size range of very rare, trophy Pa brook trout would be the 10" fish. I catch 10" natives every time I fish for them, so to call them rare is a stretch. Either that, or I've caught a bunch of trophy Pa brook trout. lol

From what I've read, freestone natives only grow a couple of inches (maybe 3") per year, and this rate slows as the fish gets older. That's why you see brookies with big heads in relation to their bodies. I've only seen the hooked jaw on my larger (11"-13.5") natives.

For whatever reason, I catch my biggest natives in a stream that has both natives and wild browns.

 

[pcray1231]

I don't agree with this. First, I think a 6" disparity in the same year class is a bit much, especially if you're talking the same stream

I'm not talking the same stream, though I am strictly talking about relatively infertile freestoners. Still, some are more fertile than others, and a given stream will not experience the full range. Statewide, I think a 6" range for the same age is VERY possible.

True 10 inchers are fairly rare in most brookie waters. That's not to say they don't exist, but no, I come nowhere near getting them every outing. There are a number of streams I've fished commonly where I've never hit that mark.

There are other streams, though, where they are much more common, and if I didn't get at least 1 in an outing, I'm a bit disappointed.

Personally, at least, I do consider the HONEST 10 inch mark to be the delineater between a "good" brookie and a special one. There are a ton of "big" brookies I've caught where, when measured, came out at 9ish.

I do agree that brook trout in these waters, in general, grow slowly, and grow more slowly as they get older. But I also think it varies wildly. I've caught a few hook jawed 7 inchers that I believe to be very old fish. Mostly in small streams where that's a "monster", and 7" is noticeably larger than the 5-6 inchers which make up the vast majority of "mature" fish. In those streams, I still think the youngins grow relatively fast, but then kinda just top out and growth slows to a crawl.

I'm not going to defend my age classes to the death. But, my intent was:

stream A (most infertile of streams):
3-->5-->6-->7

stream B (very fertile for a freestoner)
6-->9-->11-->13

Average --> somewhere in between the above. Maybe:
4-5-->6-7-->8-9-->10-11

All --> 2nd year class represent the majority of catchable fish, 3rd not rare but "noticeably good fish", 4th class very rare, but present, "trophy" for that stream.

 

[Chaz]

afishinado wrote:

Chaz wrote:
Limestone streams have the ability to produce brookies that would rival the browns in size, if the browns didn't push them out. If you were to ask me the 2 species in the same watershed are incompatible.

Big Spring is about as fertile as any stream anywhere. Brook trout grow to about 15-16" maybe, but has anyone caught any approaching 20" or even greater there? If so, they are extremely rare.

A brown in the 18-20" gets a "nice fish" nod, but is hardly a head turner.

There are bigger brookies in Big Spring from time to time. I have caught and seen brookies up to 17 inches that were wild fish, from a brookie only limestone stream. I've also seen guy catch big ones in Fishing Creek, but can't tell you how big.
If I catch a wild brookie in a small mountain freestone stream that's 14 inches, that tells me there are more out there. they don't get that big by chance. I'm not saying they are plentiful but they do exist.

 

[Chaz]

I'm just gonna say in a fertile limestone stream they will grow to 6 inches a year, but after the first year they slow down, especially if the sexual maturity is at the low end 1 1/2 years old. If they mature at say 4 or 5 years they can grown fast up to that point. I've going to say that in PA. we've lost probably 99% of the fish
that mature beyond age 2, that's why they don't grow bigger and faster in PA.
If stream fertility were a mitigating factor we wouldn't see big, >10 inch, brookies in infertile streams and we do.

 

[k-bob]

nice article from irish wild trout org on how c&r regs fit with various types of trout

http://tinyurl.com/ljhn97m

here's what it says about c&r regs with brook trout. like behnke, they arent anti-c&r, they just want a good fit with trout biology:

"In contrast, studies on brook trout
populations (Salvelinus fontinalis) in
Wisconsin and Michigan streams in the
1950s and 60s showed no effect of catch-and-release
on fish abundance. In fact, in a typical
example, a mile-long section of stream closed
to angling for five years, had marginally
fewer trout in it afterwards. This is because
the mortality rates of brook trout in these
environments are naturally very high (Table
1). These fish live fast and die young, so the
increase in mortality rate caused by angling
is marginal; there is not the compounding
effect described above. Hence catch-and-release
has little effect on abundance or the
ultimate size reached by these trout."

the effects of 70% annual mortality in pa headwater st are clear enough. release a caught fish and it has only a 30% chance of living another year, and only a 9% (.30 x .30) chance of living two more years... and even it it beats those odds it will grow slowly in an infertile stream.

other trout with lower annual mortality and faster growth would show better response to c & r regs. the irish article gives some nice examples w/ cutthroats.

 

[Chaz]

I've got a problem with the scientific community. Why go and spend good money to study something that we already know the outcome? Do they really think it's going to change?

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I've got a problem with the scientific community. Why go and spend good money to study something that we already know the outcome? Do they really think it's going to change?

 

[Maurice]

Chaz wrote:
I've got a problem with the scientific community. Why go and spend good money to study something that we already know the outcome? Do they really think it's going to change?

Now hold on just a minute here. Lets acknowledge the elephant in the room here. PATU and its Patriarch were relentlessly pining over the excessive creel limit on brookie streams, claims of cropping, trout absent near roads,access areas, etc. I believe the F&BC finally had enough of it, came up with a pacification study as an olive branch to demonstrate that the wild trout nuts were, well....nuts.

And they reached their desired result, Now if that's what you meant Chaz, you sure didn't say it. Are you claiming you were against the WBTEP from the start?

The F&BC claims that statewide general regulations have "statistically insignificant" results on harvest of wild brook trout or any effect on size distribution within the population.

They create a study (WBTEP) to give the TU wild trout nuts a bone and a feeling of a win, Then the results come out in favor of the biologists/General Statewide Regs and the program will be squashed.

PF&BC 1 -PATU 0

My question is How can one decide that 40% of sites improving, a few staying the same and the balance decreasing in populations be viewed as a failure? Like in the streams from the 2001 Trout Study. It wasn't for those 40% of streams...

 

[Chaz]

Maurice wrote:

Chaz wrote:
I've got a problem with the scientific community. Why go and spend good money to study something that we already know the outcome? Do they really think it's going to change?

Now hold on just a minute here. Lets acknowledge the elephant in the room here. PATU and its Patriarch were relentlessly pining over the excessive creel limit on brookie streams, claims of cropping, trout absent near roads,access areas, etc. I believe the F&BC finally had enough of it, came up with a pacification study as an olive branch to demonstrate that the wild trout nuts were, well....nuts.

And they reached their desired result, Now if that's what you meant Chaz, you sure didn't say it. Are you claiming you were against the WBTEP from the start?

Not claiming that at all, I was hopeful that something of value would come out of the exercise, but wasn't aware of previous studies, however I suppose one could say the exercise had value. I do think that it doesn't necessarily demonstrates anything other than, it didn't work on a very limited number of streams.

The F&BC claims that statewide general regulations have "statistically insignificant" results on harvest of wild brook trout or any effect on size distribution within the population.

The question for me is, why on streams with no regulations and very light to no angler pressure have robust populations of brookies that can at times far exceed size expectations of brook trout?

They create a study (WBTEP) to give the TU wild trout nuts a bone and a feeling of a win, Then the results come out in favor of the biologists/General Statewide Regs and the program will be squashed.

PF&BC 1 -PATU 0

My question is How can one decide that 40% of sites improving, a few staying the same and the balance decreasing in populations be viewed as a failure? Like in the streams from the 2001 Trout Study. It wasn't for those 40% of streams...

Good question

 

[KenU]

Sorry, I meant to put this here. It fits better.

There are so many factors affecting growth rate and ultimate size of brookies that it is almost impossible to separate out angling mortality as a factor. But I'm sure it is. Unlike natural mortality, anglers take the biggest and best of the species. I fish a couple of moderately fertile freestones with mixed brown and brook trout populations. The browns average (at best) about an inch larger than the brookies, but produce an occasional brown as large as 17 inches. So please explain to me why the browns are occasionally reaching such large size? These streams are not stocked, both are being subjected to modest angling pressure and are managed under 'general' regulations

It has been suggested by the late Dr. Ed Cooper and other fish biologists that this is, at least in part, because browns are much harder to catch than brookies and simply live longer, on average. Additionally, we have been harvesting the larger brookies at a very high rate for well over one hundred years now. Recent studies have shown that when larger individuals are selectively removed from a population, survival of shorter-lived individuals that mature earlier in life at small size is favored. No point in being able to live longer if you're likely to be killed and eaten as soon as you reach 7 inches!

In addition, brookies have been driven into smaller less fertile headwater streams by pollution and land disturbances. This also favors early sexual maturity, short life spans and therefore smaller size. Couple this with the fact that those streams still capable of growing larger brookies have been pretty much taken over by brown trout and we begin to understand why a 12-inch brookie is now considered to be a trophy.

Stocking, which encourages angling pressure and harvesting, has got to be a major factor. Streams that regularly produce 8 to 11-inch brookies are typically not stocked, far from the road, and have good habitat and water quality. Remoteness protects them. I would like to see all brook trout streams protected in some way that gives the fish time to mature and grow and a half decent chance to compete with brown trout. They are far more than just coldwater panfish.

That's my take, for whatever it's worth.

 

[Eccles]

Maurice wrote: The F&BC claims that statewide general regulations have "statistically insignificant" results on harvest of wild brook trout or any effect on size distribution within the population.

Though I pointed out earlier that Detar's WBT study was well controlled (it was) it's also true that they weren't very meaningful controls. Comparing C&R regulations with Statewide Regs which in the end were de facto the same as C&R regs doesn't move the debate on much. A proper control of the impact of Statewide Regs would have been to recruit people to fish and to keep their catch according to the Statewide Regs. Difficult - but then good field studies always are.

 

[Eccles]

KenU wrote: Remoteness protects them. I would like to see all brook trout streams protected in some way that gives the fish time to mature and grow and a half decent chance to compete with brown trout.

Keep a protective eye on the habitat then but ban fishing. A bit of benign neglect might help and it certainly won't harm. It is 'Trout' Unlimited after all not 'Fishing' Unlimited. Or did I get that wrong.

Yup .... I'll get my hat and coat.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Though I pointed out earlier that Detar's WBT study was well controlled (it was) it's also true that they weren't very meaningful controls. Comparing C&R regulations with Statewide Regs which in the end were de facto the same as C&R regs doesn't move the debate on much. A proper control of the impact of Statewide Regs would have been to recruit people to fish and to keep their catch according to the Statewide Regs. Difficult - but then good field studies always are.

Thank you.

 

[pcray1231]

A proper control of the impact of Statewide Regs would have been to recruit people to fish and to keep their catch according to the Statewide Regs

I'm incredibly confused by this. The biologist argument isn't that harvest CAN'T have an affect. It's that it currently doesn't.

i.e. the status quo on unstocked small freestoners which carry primarily wild brook trout is that harvest is low enough that, combined with short life spans and slow growth, any damage is statistically insignificant.

How does recruiting people and telling them to fish it and keep their catch then prove anything? You'd be creating a theoretical situation, but one that does NOT represent that status quo. i.e. you're trying to create a straw man.

 

[JackM]

I have to agree with PCRays rebuke. It is a significant fallacy in many wild trout enthusiasts thinking that they surmise that every license holder will visit any given stream and harvest their daily limit on a daily basis.

 

[k-bob]

KenU: "Streams that regularly produce 8 to 11-inch brookies are typically not stocked, far from the road, and have good habitat and water quality. Remoteness protects them."

I think that biologists know more than fishermen ... but my fishing experience - for whatever it's worth - is not the same on this idea that "remoteness protects brookies." I have fished well over 100 small PA ST streams in the last 5-7 years, keep notes on maps, and in my anecdotal fishing experience, remoteness just means you walk farther. By that I mean, habitat and geology, not the remoteness, is the better guide to how a stream will fish. And several of the streams I associate w/ bigger brookies arent remote at all.

I think that someone who selected ST streams by putting in a plus factor for remoteness - in other words, went to the more remote of two otherwise equally interesting streams first - would drop the practice before too long.

I make hikes in because its fun and mostly because its the way to fish new streams, but I think the sound of cars bothers fishermen more than it bothers fish

 

[pcray1231]

Same with me.

Not as much lately, but I used to do a lot of brookie fishing, including the close to the road variety as well as the deep trekking variety.

Many of my largest brookies came from bridge holes. I attributed it to them often being the biggest and best holes in the streams.

For the rest, a very good deepish hole with a combination of cover and current is the one constant. Heads of beaver dams. Big overhanging rocks out in the current. Undercuts. Root balls. Human built small dams. Distance from the road means very little.