PA TU Newsletter: States Brook Trout Face Invasive Challenges

I'm having trouble linking an article but I think it's titled
"Brook trout restoration threatens wild brown trout populations". It's an eye opener.

Both down riggers have been deployed.
 
So, the brook trout I've caught in Beaverkill or Delaware system should be killed? Need clarification. How about the ones I've caught in the brown trout fishery, Penns? Since they could be hurting the existing brown trout population, kill them?

Just be happy we have wild fish in spite of PFBC
 
Nearly every guide I've ever seen on fishing message boards, have strong opposition to Pennsylvania Brook Trout restoration in its totality.
 
Hardys said:
Nearly every guide I've ever seen on fishing message boards, have strong opposition to Pennsylvania Brook Trout restoration in its totality.
Click to expand...

As they should probably. Both from a business/livelihood and from a fishing/conservation perspective. Eliminating every single Brown (and Rainbow) Trout in PA is impractical, and very likely, impossible.

Frankly, and simply, if you’re the guy or entity promoting killing off good existing wild Brown Trout streams to attempt to reseed them with Brook Trout, you’re seen as the jagoff. A more balanced approach of protecting Brook Trout where they currently remain, is much more palatable to most, and will likely be much better supported. You get to flip the script…if you’re the guy saying no to protecting Brookies where they still remain as the dominant species, now you’re the jag. This is 100% about politics, and public perception within the Trout angling community. Like it or not. That’s the reality, and the hurdle to getting things done.

Just look at the poll thread…Brown Trout are more popular than Brook Trout among PAFF members. Who, I think, in theory are more conservation minded than most PA Trout Stamp purchasers.
 
Of course guides would be opposed to brook trout restoration, they rely on stocked/wild fish to make a living. No one wants to catch little brookies besides a select few. Good lucking getting someone besides Liam Neeson to pay you to catch native brook trout in the 3-6 inch category. Like the PFBC likes to keep the streams full of stocked fish, guides like nothing more than getting their clients into pellet pigs. I don't know why people are more obsessed with how large of a fish they can catch as opposed to how aesthetic their fish looks.
 
Swattie87 said:
As they should probably. Both from a business/livelihood and from a fishing/conservation perspective. Eliminating every single Brown (and Rainbow) Trout in PA is impractical, and very likely, impossible.

Frankly, and simply, if you’re the guy or entity promoting killing off good existing wild Brown Trout streams to attempt to reseed them with Brook Trout, you’re seen as the jagoff. A more balanced approach of protecting Brook Trout where they currently remain, is much more palatable to most, and will likely be much better supported. You get to flip the script…if you’re the guy saying no to protecting Brookies where they still remain as the dominant species, now you’re the jag. This is 100% about politics, and public perception within the Trout angling community. Like it or not. That’s the reality, and the hurdle to getting things done.

Just look at the poll thread…Brown Trout are more popular than Brook Trout among PAFF members. Who, I think, in theory are more conservation minded than most PA Trout Stamp purchasers.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree with any of this.
It's just a general observation I've stated.
krayfish2 said:
Couldn't agree more. Guides and Native Fish Coalition
....both are scum of the earth.
Click to expand...

Slow down Capt'n, you are starting to get bad blowback, wouldn't want ya to have to break out the wire cutters, unless you already got yourself tangled.
 
Last edited:
Swattie87 said:
Frankly, and simply, if you’re the guy or entity promoting killing off good existing wild Brown Trout streams to attempt to reseed them with Brook Trout, you’re seen as the jagoff.
Click to expand...
Yeah, agreed, but as with most "camp vs. camp" disagreements, there's a bit of a straw man goin on both ways. Paint your opponent to be more extreme than they really are.

Case in point. I'm not sure I've actually seen the above position taken by anyone.
 
pcray1231 said:
Yeah, agreed, but as with most "camp vs. camp" disagreements, there's a bit of a straw man goin on both ways. Paint your opponent to be more extreme than they really are.

Case in point. I'm not sure I've actually seen the above position taken by anyone.
Click to expand...

Agree. I wasn’t implying or meaning to imply that position was or has been taken by anyone discussing it on here. I don’t think it has, at least to that extreme. It’s been mentioned as being a successful tactic elsewhere in removing non-native Trout species. I think that’s a fair statement.

This is specifically what I was responding to above:

Hardys said:
Nearly every guide I've ever seen on fishing message boards, have strong opposition to Pennsylvania Brook Trout restoration in its totality.
Click to expand...

I interpreted “in its totality”, in this context, to mean removal of all non-native Trout in favor of Brook Trout, or the most extreme possible position. Not that guides wouldn’t support a more middle of road approach to protecting Brookies. I think, the “in its totality” position mentioned above would likely have to involve chemical removal in some form. Again, to be clear, I’m NOT saying or implying anyone here has advocated for that position. But, chemical removal is a naturally controversial subject and when mentioned as a possible conservation practice, or cases where it’s been used elsewhere are brought up, people are naturally going to focus on that, and get in an uproar about it. As we’ve seen on here. For the most part, the FFing crowd in PA is very conservation minded, but it’s easy to form a rift in them over things like this. Note the “Brookie backlash” going on on the site right now. I’m sure that wasn’t the intent, and it’s sad to see. FFers should be the first, and easiest members of the Trout fishing community to get on board with protecting Brook Trout. IMO mentioning chemical removal as a success story tactic, doesn’t help this, and a more tactful approach for garnering support may be more effective. That’s all.

Edit: This has been my main point throughout these numerous discussions. The response to mentioning chemical solutions, or using the term “Invasive Brown Trout” as opposed to simply “Brown Trout” at every opportunity has a high potential to be inflammatory. So don’t mention those things, at least not at this early stage of adoption. Don’t go making adversaries out of folks that should be on your side. If you can’t get members of a FFing forum to support protecting Brookies, how are you gonna get the Opening Day angler who wants his stockies dumped in his hole, the day before the season opens?
 
Last edited:
Straw men:

Brookie people want to kill all of the browns.

Brown trout people don't give a rats arse about brookies, they just want to maximize brown trout.
 
Swattie87 said:
As they should probably. Both from a business/livelihood and from a fishing/conservation perspective. Eliminating every single Brown (and Rainbow) Trout in PA is impractical, and very likely, impossible.

Frankly, and simply, if you’re the guy or entity promoting killing off good existing wild Brown Trout streams to attempt to reseed them with Brook Trout, you’re seen as the jagoff. A more balanced approach of protecting Brook Trout where they currently remain, is much more palatable to most, and will likely be much better supported. You get to flip the script…if you’re the guy saying no to protecting Brookies where they still remain as the dominant species, now you’re the jag. This is 100% about politics, and public perception within the Trout angling community. Like it or not. That’s the reality, and the hurdle to getting things done.

Just look at the poll thread…Brown Trout are more popular than Brook Trout among PAFF members. Who, I think, in theory are more conservation minded than most PA Trout Stamp purchasers.
Click to expand...
Give me and @Fish Sticks carte blanche and I think eliminating every brown and rainbow trout would be quite possible. I kid, I kid... or am I? I'm not as much as a fanatic as some may be. I really don't think I could bring myself to kill a trout at this point (I had a hard enough time clubbing crappie out of a friend of a friend's pond because he wanted some removed to allow largemouth bass to proliferate). I'm not God, so I don't even think I have the authority to eradicate fish. However I do believe that PA streams should return to the way they were when Native Americans roamed the land. It just seems right and I find the notion romantic. We as humans messed up and violated nature so we should try and fix it. It's really that simple.
 
Swattie87 said:
Agree. I wasn’t implying or meaning to imply that position was or has been taken by anyone discussing it on here. I don’t think it has, at least to that extreme. It’s been mentioned as being a successful tactic elsewhere in removing non-native Trout species. I think that’s a fair statement.

This is specifically what I was responding to above:



I interpreted “in its totality”, in this context, to mean removal of all non-native Trout in favor of Brook Trout, or the most extreme possible position. Not that guides wouldn’t support a more middle of road approach to protecting Brookies. I think, the “in its totality” position mentioned above would likely have to involve chemical removal in some form. Again, to be clear, I’m NOT saying or implying anyone here has advocated for that position. But, chemical removal is a naturally controversial subject and when mentioned as a possible conservation practice, or cases where it’s been used elsewhere are brought up, people are naturally going to focus on that, and get in an uproar about it. As we’ve seen on here. For the most part, the FFing crowd in PA is very conservation minded, but it’s easy to form a rift in them over things like this. Note the “Brookie backlash” going on on the site right now. I’m sure that wasn’t the intent, and it’s sad to see. FFers should be the first, and easiest members of the Trout fishing community to get on board with protecting Brook Trout. IMO mentioning chemical removal as a success story tactic, doesn’t help this, and a more tactful approach for garnering support may be more effective. That’s all.

Edit: This has been my main point throughout these numerous discussions. The response to mentioning chemical solutions, or using the term “Invasive Brown Trout” as opposed to simply “Brown Trout” at every opportunity has a high potential to be inflammatory. So don’t mention those things, at least not at this early stage of adoption. Don’t go making adversaries out of folks that should be on your side. If you can’t get members of a FFing forum to support protecting Brookies, how are you gonna get the Opening Day angler who wants his stockies dumped in his hole, the day before the season opens?
Click to expand...

No.
In its totality would mean in it's state of being total. Meaning completed and finished.

Not the means at which it gets there, just the fact it is there and completed at all.

I dont see guides favoring this ever.
You touched on why.


Lets say all waters in PA could be restored to only wild brook trout in the snap of a magical finger, would you be in favor or against?
Would they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Montana Angler Fly Fishing
Harman's North Fork Cottages
Wayward Trading”/> </center> </div> </div> </div> <div class=


Real Time Data From
the USGS Site

Share this page

Back
Top