Native Brook Trout Reintroduction

[Fish Sticks]

if hunters wanted shots at bengal tigers and the state started raising and stocking them in SGL it would be ecologically disruptive just like planting brown trout here. The only difference is the general public would be all over it because their not fish. People would really look at you funny if you said "so what a cat is a cat, we have 2 foot long bob cats already in pa.....tiger is a cat, same thing". but its no less ridiculous from an ecological stand point to say well "a trouts a trout, its not that much different than having brook trout", its just more socially acceptable to do so.

 

[moon1284]

Got it so you're positive that the trout in the pic that you googled is a marbled salmo trutta not a salmo marmoratus?

You're way better than me. You're probably right the other fish are salmo trutta but I really don't care enough to investigate. Right now I'm just a fisherman with a biology degree I never used.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Got it so you're positive that the trout in the pic that you googled is a marbled salmo trutta not a salmo marmoratus?

You're way better than me. You're probably right the other fish are salmo trutta but I really don't care enough to investigate. Right now I'm just a fisherman with a biology degree I never used.

like i said, unless your splitter.

Biologia della trota marmorata, Salmo (trutta) marmoratus Cuv. ./Biology of marbled trout, Salmo (trutta) marmoratus Cuv.​

 

[Fish Sticks]

Got it so you're positive that the trout in the pic that you googled is a marbled salmo trutta not a salmo marmoratus?

You're way better than me. You're probably right the other fish are salmo trutta but I really don't care enough to investigate. Right now I'm just a fisherman with a biology degree I never used.

guess thats not salmo trutta either, must be salmo fario.

 

[pcray1231]

Frankly I don't have a problem with saying manage streams for what people want. Mainly sportsmen. Same is true for game species. There are far more white tailed deer in PA today than there were before the white man. Less elk. After logging, our forests changed. Huge aging stands of virgin timber simply don't support as many deer as farm fields interspersed with stands of uniformly prime aged mast crop producing timber. I like pheasant hunting on farms, and hunting clear cuts. Are they natural? No. Do they provide an outdoor experience worth advocating for? Absolutely!!!! Big tailwaters are supported by TU and the like. Natural? Nope. Absolute magnets for outdoor recreation you bet!!! 99% of the lakes in PA are unnatural, dams or excavated. How many boaters and fishermen frequent such places? How many of our county and state parks are based around them. Public outdoors land that gets people out of the dang house!!!

I like brook trout mostly because I like where brook trout live. Absolutely gorgeous, high mountain fast streams. It's hiking with purpose. I love to fish, but the adventure of getting into some canyon 3 miles from the nearest road is very very different than wading out into big water in sight of the truck and standing in one place fishing all day. I want to have both. If I'm in a beautiful place, and I catch a brown, I'm not upset. It's not a lesser catch than a brookie.

I do want brookies around though. They just do better in those environments that I love than browns typically do. Just because most of them have a handful of browns, doesn't mean without the brookies the browns would proliferate. The brookie's presence makes it better fishing. It adds a lot of great trout water that would otherwise not be great trout water. More great water is BETTER. Simple. So they are worth protecting as a species. Absolutely. Brown trout also add a lot of great trout water that would not otherwise be great trout water. And the point where I agree with fish sticks is that if the browns are threatening the survival of brookies in a system, we should do something about that. The system should have brookies. It doesn't mean I want browns eradicated. Our reasons are different. My reason is that I want BOTH, to maximize the fishing and recreational opportunity in said system. As much of the water should be good trout water as possible. And better water quality also also helps the smallmouth and river fisheries that are downstream as well. It helps the lakes behind dams downstream. It helps the bays and ultimately the ocean too. It all starts in those little trickles where brook trout live. But it's not just for the brookies.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Frankly I don't have a problem with saying manage streams for what people want. Mainly sportsmen. Same is true for game species. There are far more white tailed deer in PA today than there were before the white man. Less elk. After logging, our forests changed. Huge aging stands of virgin timber simply don't support as many deer as farm fields interspersed with stands of uniformly prime aged mast crop producing timber. I like pheasant hunting on farms, and hunting clear cuts. Are they natural? No. Do they provide an outdoor experience worth advocating for? Absolutely!!!! Big tailwaters are supported by TU and the like. Natural? Nope. Absolute magnets for outdoor recreation you bet!!! 99% of the lakes in PA are unnatural, dams or excavated. How many boaters and fishermen frequent such places? How many of our county and state parks are based around them. Public outdoors land that gets people out of the dang house!!!

I like brook trout mostly because I like where brook trout live. Absolutely gorgeous, high mountain fast streams. It's hiking with purpose. I love to fish, but the adventure of getting into some canyon 3 miles from the nearest road is very very different than wading out into big water in sight of the truck and standing in one place fishing all day. I want to have both. If I'm in a beautiful place, and I catch a brown, I'm not upset. It's not a lesser catch than a brookie.

I do want brookies around though. They just do better in those environments that I love than browns typically do. Just because most of them have a handful of browns, doesn't mean without the brookies the browns would proliferate. The brookie's presence makes it better fishing. It adds a lot of great trout water that would otherwise not be great trout water. More great water is BETTER. Simple. So they are worth protecting as a species. Absolutely. Brown trout also add a lot of great trout water that would not otherwise be great trout water. And the point where I agree with fish sticks is that if the browns are threatening the survival of brookies in a system, we should do something about that. The system should have brookies. It doesn't mean I want browns eradicated. Our reasons are different. My reason is that I want BOTH, to maximize the fishing and recreational opportunity in said system. As much of the water should be good trout water as possible. And better water quality also also helps the smallmouth and river fisheries that are downstream as well. It helps the lakes behind dams downstream. It helps the bays and ultimately the ocean too. It all starts in those little trickles where brook trout live. But it's not just for the brookies.

Oh yea I agree that water quality has benefit and I love fishing for browns too. I thoroughly enjoy em. Especially at night since that’s the only time I can fish with kids lol. Yea I think PA only had 4 natural lakes. That just goes to show like Pcray said the remaining majority are artificial and thermal pollution downstream unless their a tail water. I agree with you that I’d rather see places as lakes and tail waters than shopping malls for sure. I will say though I wish the state and DCNR would do away with some of the really detrimental ones that warm the crap outta some of our best water ways. Like ole bulls Maui white sand beech attemp on kettle with that dam/ lake Like impoundment. I do value the fishing experience. I think the place to enjoy what ever you catch and just say it is what it is are the places like you mentioned where brown trout can survive and brook trout can’t. Like in the lackawanna where the brown trout are keying on the “used latex and needle” hatch(dead drift a white game changer).

 

[Fish Sticks]

. And the point wh It all starts in those little trickles where brook trout live. But it's not just for the brookies.

I couldn’t agree more, all those articles I posted about brown trout effects on endangered darters and cray fish, hellbenders, sculpins, and may fly species are just as deserving of restoration. Actually the slimy sculpin population motivated me to get involved in hammer just as much as the brookies believe it or not. I’d love to find out what herps we got in there too!

 

[Fish Sticks]

Frankly I don't have a problem with saying manage streams for what people want. Mainly sportsmen. Same is true for game species. There are far more white tailed deer in PA today than there were before the white man. Less elk. After logging, our forests changed. Huge aging stands of virgin timber simply don't support as many deer as farm fields interspersed with stands of uniformly prime aged mast crop producing timber. I like pheasant hunting on farms, and hunting clear cuts. Are they natural? No. Do they provide an outdoor experience worth advocating for? Absolutely!!!! Big tailwaters are supported by TU and the like. Natural? Nope. Absolute magnets for outdoor recreation you bet!!! 99% of the lakes in PA are unnatural, dams or excavated. How many boaters and fishermen frequent such places? How many of our county and state parks are based around them. Public outdoors land that gets people out of the dang house!!!

I like brook trout mostly because I like where brook trout live. Absolutely gorgeous, high mountain fast streams. It's hiking with purpose. I love to fish, but the adventure of getting into some canyon 3 miles from the nearest road is very very different than wading out into big water in sight of the truck and standing in one place fishing all day. I want to have both. If I'm in a beautiful place, and I catch a brown, I'm not upset. It's not a lesser catch than a brookie.

I do want brookies around though. They just do better in those environments that I love than browns typically do. Just because most of them have a handful of browns, doesn't mean without the brookies the browns would proliferate. The brookie's presence makes it better fishing. It adds a lot of great trout water that would otherwise not be great trout water. More great water is BETTER. Simple. So they are worth protecting as a species. Absolutely. Brown trout also add a lot of great trout water that would not otherwise be great trout water. And the point where I agree with fish sticks is that if the browns are threatening the survival of brookies in a system, we should do something about that. The system should have brookies. It doesn't mean I want browns eradicated. Our reasons are different. My reason is that I want BOTH, to maximize the fishing and recreational opportunity in said system. As much of the water should be good trout water as possible. And better water quality also also helps the smallmouth and river fisheries that are downstream as well. It helps the lakes behind dams downstream. It helps the bays and ultimately the ocean too. It all starts in those little trickles where brook trout live. But it's not just for the brookies.

Excited to see ya out there in the field by the way tomorrow. Will be cool to see what Rich Starr wants to do with these two sites. Your going to love the upper watershed on private land it’s an uncut diamond. Mixture of cress, cow doo do, springs and legacy sediment.

 

[silverfox]

Frankly I don't have a problem with saying manage streams for what people want. Mainly sportsmen. Same is true for game species. There are far more white tailed deer in PA today than there were before the white man. Less elk. After logging, our forests changed. Huge aging stands of virgin timber simply don't support as many deer as farm fields interspersed with stands of uniformly prime aged mast crop producing timber. I like pheasant hunting on farms, and hunting clear cuts. Are they natural? No. Do they provide an outdoor experience worth advocating for? Absolutely!!!! Big tailwaters are supported by TU and the like. Natural? Nope. Absolute magnets for outdoor recreation you bet!!! 99% of the lakes in PA are unnatural, dams or excavated. How many boaters and fishermen frequent such places? How many of our county and state parks are based around them. Public outdoors land that gets people out of the dang house!!!

I like brook trout mostly because I like where brook trout live. Absolutely gorgeous, high mountain fast streams. It's hiking with purpose. I love to fish, but the adventure of getting into some canyon 3 miles from the nearest road is very very different than wading out into big water in sight of the truck and standing in one place fishing all day. I want to have both. If I'm in a beautiful place, and I catch a brown, I'm not upset. It's not a lesser catch than a brookie.

I do want brookies around though. They just do better in those environments that I love than browns typically do. Just because most of them have a handful of browns, doesn't mean without the brookies the browns would proliferate. The brookie's presence makes it better fishing. It adds a lot of great trout water that would otherwise not be great trout water. More great water is BETTER. Simple. So they are worth protecting as a species. Absolutely. Brown trout also add a lot of great trout water that would not otherwise be great trout water. And the point where I agree with fish sticks is that if the browns are threatening the survival of brookies in a system, we should do something about that. The system should have brookies. It doesn't mean I want browns eradicated. Our reasons are different. My reason is that I want BOTH, to maximize the fishing and recreational opportunity in said system. As much of the water should be good trout water as possible. And better water quality also also helps the smallmouth and river fisheries that are downstream as well. It helps the lakes behind dams downstream. It helps the bays and ultimately the ocean too. It all starts in those little trickles where brook trout live. But it's not just for the brookies.

I guess I question where we draw the line on who we pander to? Do we move to a completely democratic process to fisheries management where the most votes wins? That seems awfully close to what we have now. I want allopatric brook trout, but somehow I reckon I'm part of the losing side. I pay more money than most people to this state too (a fair bit more). So clearly money isn't a factor.

I wonder if there's more perceived opposition to reclamation than there is in reality.

I think too, habitat work is of utmost importance in the face of climate change/increasing average temperatures. A new quote I learned is, "competition is irrelevant if the fish can't breathe".

 

[Fish Sticks]

I wonder if there's more perceived opposition to reclamation than there is in reality.

If there is any large opposition which there may not be, I think there is even less opposition to simply stopping stocking over brook trout where wild brown trout exist. And as you and I both now know that seems to have a very significant effect even just by itself. I think everyone on the thread realizes we are talking about perfect ideal scenario ecologically when we talk about what an ecosystem could be like without invasive species completely. But I think every one also knows the current management situation is so far in the opposite direction even slightly less crappy management would be significant like stocking consolidation to non reproduction waterways ect. Think most people here on this thread would support stocking reform, C and R on wild brook trout, and shifting from managing sections to entire waterways. The sad part is most of the state who fishes more than 2 days a year does too and our fisheries managers in Pa are ignoring us.

 

[moon1284]

View attachment 1641224951


guess thats not salmo trutta either, must be salmo fario.

If you say so. I guess I'm a splitter.

 

[Fish Sticks]

If you say so. I guess I'm a splitter.

I’m curious, would you personally support just C and R on brook trout, no stocking directly over brook trout, and a select 1-2 sub watersheds or watershed in the potter-tioga area to be managed for brook trout( meaning discontinuation of stocking in those entire watersheds but not removal of wild not removal of wild nonnative trout?

 

[silverfox]

It's only with fish that we feel the need to bring the species to the angler, rather than the angler going to the species. I guess because they're confined to the water. Out of sight and out of mind to most non-anglers. Probably because even a lot of environmentalists aren't even aware of the issues facing freshwater fish. They're cold, slimy, ugly things that lurk in streams and lakes, rather than fluffy cute critters frolicking in the fields.

Then within the angling community, there are few that care to look deeper than which ones generate the most enjoyment on the end of our lines or garner the most likes on Instagram. Freshwater fish conservation is probably the most esoteric animal conservation on the planet.

Funny. I hadn't read Ted's article when I posted this. I don't think it was published when I wrote it honestly.

Fish are wildlife too

For most Americans fish don’t count as wildlife. They’re slimy, cold, featherless, furless, silent and, save for anglers, generally unseen.

www.hatchmag.com

 

[moon1284]

I’m curious, would you personally support just C and R on brook trout, no stocking directly over brook trout, and a select 1-2 sub watersheds or watershed in the potter-tioga area to be managed for brook trout( meaning discontinuation of stocking in those entire watersheds but not removal of wild not removal of wild nonnative trout?

Yes. I wouldn't care if you wanted to remove wild BT either from said watershed. I just don't think the removal of BT will accomplish much of anything.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Yes. I wouldn't care if you wanted to remove wild BT either from said watershed. I just don't think the removal of BT will accomplish much of anything.

I think we have a spectrum of different view points but yet likely have more in common in terms of we all could agree on those three elements( C & R brookies, no stocking directly ontop of brookies, and 1-2 potter/tioga sun watersheds or watershed no stock).

I was thinking that the first one would be free no license dollars needed. And the last two might increase the budget for either wild Trout stamp projects or surveying which I know the biologists feel like their stretched pretty bad.

This seems to essentially be what a few other states around us have done atleast to a degree. I don’t expect PA fish and boat to lead the pack but I wish they could just stay in the race.

 

[Mike]

I've experienced this a well. I fished a particular native stream for about 6 years, where I only ever caught brookies, then one day I caught my one and only wild tiger trout! I was flipped out, because I'd never seen, let alone caught, a wild brown on this stream.
The mystery went on for another few years, continuing to catch only natives, with me wondering how this cold be. Then, one day I caught my first ever (on this stream) wild brown. The pieces were falling into place. This native only stream was somehow home to a very small population of wild browns. I've only caught maybe 3 others since. It still remains a strong native stream though, with only the very rare wild brown. I just hope it stays this way.

It can go the other way too. We were doing an unassessed water survey in York Co’s Green Branch, handling all Brown Trout….good numbers of them too. Then we suddenly captured a wild tiger trout about 9 “ long. A local watching us said he had caught that same fish while fishing behind his house about 100 yds upstream earlier in the summer and he showed us a pic. Yes, it appeared to be the same fish. We asked where the brook trout source was and he indicated a very small trib about a half mile upstream. We never verified that though since we had already documented the presence of wild trout in more than sufficient numbers to have the stream classified as a wild trout stream.

 

[Mike]

Yea I’m deff not anti brown either, Real brown trout that come from their native range are unmistakably beautiful.
View attachment 1641224942

They also ironically face the same invasive species problems brookies do here in the states.

Mapping the Establishment and Invasiveness Potential of Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Turkey: With Special Emphasis on the Conservation of Native Salmonids

Rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) has become by far the most frequently farmed freshwater fish species in Turkey, whereas very little is known about its establishment and invasiveness potential. We explored this potential through a combination of Maxent habitat suitability model and the...

www.frontiersin.org

The only issue with “restoring” a stream with the idea of brown trout persisting on after you do projects is the question of what are you restoring for?

So many people think that stream restorations are aimed at the trout that they love when in all reality no one besides the volunteers cares about the actual trout. Sure the grant funders are happy to say they are helping the trout but if it doesn’t improve the TMDL big time most grant funders in the Susquehanna basin aren’t going to fund you.

So we all assume these projects are for the trout but the funders get their reductions in nitrogen, phos, and sediment and what ever happens beyond that happens. The truth is the brown trout act similarly to the AMD, but to a lesser extent of course, in terms of limiting populations of the target species the restoration was meant to help in the first place like sculpins, mayflies, darters, native brook, hellbenders, crayfish, and many more. They impair their populations as seen below.

-Hellbenders are harmed by invasive trout they have not evolved chemical signaling defenses against. https://ag.purdue.edu/extension/hellbender/Documents/Gall_InnatePredator.pdf

-sculpins
-“ Some salmonids may also induce behavioral shifts in sculpins, leading to reduced foraging. For example, in stream enclosures, growth of large sculpins was reduced in the presence of nonnative brown trout Salrno trutta but not in the presence of native brook trout Salvelinus fontinalis despite a lack of difference in diet composition or invertebrate availability among treatments (Zimrnerman and Vondracek 2007, this issue).
“
“Species introductions have adversely affected a number of sculpin populations via predation (White and Harvey 2001),”

ja_adams013.pdf (usda.gov)

-Endangered candy darter

WV DNR seeks bait, stocking changes to protect endangered candy darter

For anglers who use minnows for trout bait, a brightly colored 3-inch fish could spell trouble.

www.wvgazettemail.com

-Endangered guyandotte crayfish harmed by brown trout an WV stopping stocking them overtop of populations.

John McCoy: WV's brown-trout fishing diminished, but for a worthy cause

The past two years haven’t been the greatest for West Virginians who like to fish for brown trout.

www.wvgazettemail.com

- mayflies: Invasive brown trout caused trophic cascade by depleting native galaxids, altering may flow behavior, and algae blooms that in eloped the bottom of the streams resulted. Shows how powerful the food web disturbances can be.

Interactions between fish, grazing invertebrates and algae in a New Zealand stream: a trophic cascade mediated by fish-induced changes to grazer behaviour? - PubMed

Experiments in laboratory stream channels compared the behaviour of Deleatidium mayfly nymphs in the absence of fish with that in the presence of either native common river galaxias (Galaxias vulgaris Stokell) or introduced brown trout (Salmo trutta L.). Galaxias present similar predation risks...

pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

-brown trout reduce sensitive mayfly species populations.

Impact of introduced trout on Nesameletus mayfly populations measured using electrofishing | Request PDF

Request PDF | Impact of introduced trout on Nesameletus mayfly populations measured using electrofishing | Despite the widespread introduction of salmonid fishes for sports fisheries their effects on recipient invertebrate communities are not well... | Find, read and cite all the research you...

www.researchgate.net

In summation, brown trout disrupt entire food webs as invaders outside their native range similar to AMD but to a lesser extent I would guess. So we look at the end out come as just clean water with either brown or brook trout as anglers. However, if brown trout are left it really is JUST clean water in the end because the native food web will still be limited to an extent by the invasive brown trout. The bay appreciates it, the PhD who devoted his life to hellbenders is happy the water is cleaner but sees it as only a half measure because his larval hellbenders are getting eaten. Not saying we can remove in even close to a majority of the scenarios, I’m just highlighting what’s at stake in the situations where you could. The reality is most of theses browns are here to stay but to preserve what’s truly special(intact food web) in areas where we can, we have to realize that clean water alone won’t save us and what the real cost of invasive species are. Clean cold water and great habitat hasn’t saved kettle, pine, cedar, and many others. You can’t get it any better than up there and invasive species are still winning the battle and so much more than brook trout are being lost it’s the destruction of an entire ecosystem.

“They impair their populations as seen below.”

My response: No, the hellbender paper says “ could lead to increased predation in the wild.”

 

[Fish Sticks]

“They impair their populations as seen below.”

My response: No, the hellbender paper says “ could lead to increased predation in the wild.”

Dr. Peter Petokas has told me stocking is detrimental to hellbenders when I asked him and when I asked about the article he said it brings up serious concerns. I am sure you know know who Dr. Petokas (anyone who knows anything about hellbenders in pa does). Are you willing to say he’s incorrect on that one?

 

[Fish Sticks]

“They impair their populations as seen below.”

My response: No, the hellbender paper says “ could lead to increased predation in the wild.”

It’s one of those things that eve, to play devils advocate, if we say one of the states foremost herpetologists working with hellbenders is incorrect that stocking is detrimental to them, we are still left with “could lead to increased predation in the wild” as you say. That’s not enough for pa fish and boat to consider stopping stocking in potter county streams that contain both hellbenders and native Brook trout until PAFB does a little more homework on the impact of their stocked invasive fish????? You have stocked brown trout with well known detriment to native brook trout so much so that Maryland won’t stock brown trout in any brook trout watershed. Many experts calling for the discontinuation of brown trout stocking by all state agencies across the east coast in brook trout watersheds. WVU stopped stocking brown trout in streams with endangered candy darters and guyandotte crayfish after conducting a study.

But here in PA, threatened log perch, hellbenders, sculpins, darters, crayfish, macro invertebrates, eastern mud salamanders and other sensitive amphibians at greatest risk from climate change…… doesn’t matter because if there is actual research showing harm or all the concern in the world, we know pa fish and bot is going to stock anyway. Then when researchers, NGO’s, or federal science agencies point out how reckless it is PAFB just shrugs it’s shoulders.

How can the agency even pretend to be a good faith steward of the recovering americas wildlife act money that could be appropriated in the near future when their invasive stocked fish are likely causing tremendous harm in these sentive foodwebs we are trying to prevent loss of biodiversity in? It’s mind numbingly painful to think about the how poorly we “manage” our aquatic resources in this state.

 

[Mike]

Dr. Peter Petokas has told me stocking is detrimental to hellbenders when I asked him and when I asked about the article he said it brings up serious concerns. I am sure you know know who Dr. Petokas (anyone who knows anything about hellbenders in pa does). Are you willing to say he’s incorrect on

Why detrimental on one hand and serious concerns on the other? I understand why the lab study results would produce serious concerns (my addition: that would deserve further study), but is there a diet analysis of stocked brown and/or RT trout in hellbender streams that suggested or showed that stocked trout are detrimental to hellbenders at the population level? If so, great that such a study exists.