Does anyone want a real wild trout stamp?

redietz

redietz

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
1,260
Location
Central Maryland
We didn't unleash cattle into the wild to displace native cattle.

We weren't introduced, we migrated.
I don't see any difference. Both are migration via human agency.

There's a very metric here in MD about whether a watershed holds brook trout in their native range; it has nothing to do with brown trout: if it has less than 3% non-permeable surface (roads and roofs) it still has brook trout, if greater than 3% it doesn't. Humans are a far bigger threat to brook trout than are brown trout, and it makes no sense to not have wild brown trout in those drainages where the non-permeable surfaces take up more than 3%.

Out west, they wish brown or rainbow trout would displace brook trout. They can't get rid of them.
 
Last edited:
silverfox

silverfox

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
931
I don't see any difference. Both are migration via human agency.

There's a very metric here in MD about whether a watershed holds brook trout in their native range; it has nothing to do with brown trout: if it has less than 3% non-permeable surface (roads and roofs) it still has brook trout, if greater than 3% it doesn't. Humans are a far bigger threat to brook trout than are brown trout, and it makes no sense to not have wild brown trout in those drainages where the non-permeable surfaces take up more than 3%.

Out west, they wish brown or rainbow trout would displace brook trout. They can't get rid of them.
Brown trout didn't migrate here. We brought them here. Whether it's homo sapiens crossing a natural land bridge or settlers sailing here on ships, there's a big difference between a species moving around on the planet of its own volition, and another species transporting them against their will.

So we should ignore one threat in the presence of any other? So if there's any kind of environmental impact we should just ignore nonnative species threats? What if we discovered that common carp is solely responsible for the extirpation of hellbenders? Would you support the removal of European carp?

I always find it ironic that somehow brown trout are acceptable out west but brook trout aren't (that sentiment isn't shared by everyone). Neither brook trout nor brown trout are native, but one is demonized while the other is prized. That really shows how anglers just have personal preferences and then will that into what happens in nature. It's foolish. Btw, states have bounties on brown trout out west, so it's not like brown trout are accepted widely either. Just to be clear, I fully support the removal of brook trout out west. Rainbow trout too where they're hybridizing with native cutthroat.

What about calling brown trout invasive is so offensive to you?
 
Tigereye

Tigereye

Active member
Joined
Sep 30, 2014
Messages
788
Location
Lehigh Gorge
Yep. A Slippery slope. I love our native brookies but seldom fish for them specifically. Do we take the arhiement so far as to rid our waters of all brown and rainbow trout. I would be dead set against that.

I also think that stocked trout increase license sales which inturn provides valuable resources that protect alot of fisheries

I'm fine with an opt out option that which if you don't have a stamp you can't fish stocked waters. Occum' Razor.
 
jifigz

jifigz

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 8, 2013
Messages
2,408
What if you like fishing for brook trout? That's the issue fish sticks was getting at. Stocking trout is deleterious to wild brook trout. Period. So if you're concerned with brook trout conservation and you're forced to buy a stamp that basically further damages brook trout, that's kind of a hard pill to swallow.
True. But as I mentioned the fish and boat commission began wild trout research in the 70's, long before the voluntary wild trout donation. They have ever so slowly reduced stocking over wild fish, brookies included. So they are making progress. You can't easily just all of a sudden stop stocking every stream with wild brook trout because the consumer that buys licenses will be jacked and revolt. However, when it is done slowly and cessation happens on a stream here and there the public can swallow it much, much better. Plus, stocking happens for political reasons. I was talking to a PFBC biologist last year about one of my favorite streams. He basically said most small streams that have one preseason stocking done by the PFBC get the minimum stocking. 300 fish. That's all. Why? Because people want to see that it was stocked and it keeps them happy and politicians at one time or another probably fought to keep it (at least) minimally stocked to keep constituents pleased.


Have you looked at the natural reproduction list? It's quite large, which means a few things. 1) trout fishing opportunity in PA is pretty dang good. 2) PFBC has spent a lot of money on conducting and compiling these lists.. Think of the additional streams surveyed that were a bust. 3) this all happened with money from either a regular license buy, a trout stamp, or federal received funds. So yeah, a trout stamp still makes sense.

I'm all for Brookies, but I think they are going about it in a good manner.. Slow and steady.
 
redietz

redietz

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
1,260
Location
Central Maryland
What about calling brown trout invasive is so offensive to you?
Because they're not invasive. "Introduced" and "invasive" are not synonymous. Invasive involves either the collapse of an ecosystem or significant negative financial impact.

If you want to get rid of invasive species, start with Japanese knot weed. It's significant destroying river banks.
 
DGC

DGC

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
836
Better trout streams in Europe and the UK also have grayling. I'd like to see an experimental introduction in a couple of spring creeks, such as Letort. I'd make the 2 hour drive to fish for them. I might even catch something there for a change. Completely serious.
 
redietz

redietz

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
1,260
Location
Central Maryland
Better trout streams in Europe and the UK also have grayling.
Yes, and in many of those they were introduced. Seventy years ago, they were thought to displacing brown trout, and they tried to extirpate them -- Sawyer invented the Killer Bug as a way to catch and kill as many of them as possible. Today, they're considered a valuable game fish, and they didn't displace the natives.
 
silverfox

silverfox

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
931
Because they're not invasive. "Introduced" and "invasive" are not synonymous. Invasive involves either the collapse of an ecosystem or significant negative financial impact.

If you want to get rid of invasive species, start with Japanese knot weed. It's significant destroying river banks.
Nowhere in the definition of "invasive" is the words "collapse of an ecosystem" or "significant". Introduced nonnative species that cause economic or ecological harm. Brown trout fit the latter to the T. So they're invasive. They're one of the top 100 most invasive species worldwide. They're listed in PFBC and TU documents as a threat to brook trout.

I love these "if you want to do something you have to do something else first" comments. According to who? Who comes up with this order of operations that I'm supposed to accept?
 
silverfox

silverfox

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
931
Yep. A Slippery slope. I love our native brookies but seldom fish for them specifically. Do we take the arhiement so far as to rid our waters of all brown and rainbow trout. I would be dead set against that.

I also think that stocked trout increase license sales which inturn provides valuable resources that protect alot of fisheries

I'm fine with an opt out option that which if you don't have a stamp you can't fish stocked waters. Occum' Razor.
Once again, nobody, I mean absolutely nobody is suggesting we "rid our waters of all brown and rainbow trout". People can't even comprehend that they're not supposed to be here, so I expect the majority of people in this state would be vehemently opposed to absolutely any reduction in brown trout. Let alone complete annihilation.

Of course, stocked trout increase license sales which then are used to benefit nongame fish and even brook trout. Do you see the irony there? That's kind of the point of this thread. The only way to raise money to protect something is to sell something that causes it harm?

That last line is exactly what I'd love to see. If you're on a stocked trout section, you have to have a stocked trout permit. If you're anywhere else targeting trout you need a wild trout permit.
 
silverfox

silverfox

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
931
Better trout streams in Europe and the UK also have grayling. I'd like to see an experimental introduction in a couple of spring creeks, such as Letort. I'd make the 2 hour drive to fish for them. I might even catch something there for a change. Completely serious.
While we're at it, we should import Bengal tigers, Pudu, stag from Germany, and Mekong catfish. Just turn everything into a zoo. Why? Because some people think it would be cool. 1930s mentality.
 
silverfox

silverfox

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
931
True. But as I mentioned the fish and boat commission began wild trout research in the 70's, long before the voluntary wild trout donation. They have ever so slowly reduced stocking over wild fish, brookies included. So they are making progress. You can't easily just all of a sudden stop stocking every stream with wild brook trout because the consumer that buys licenses will be jacked and revolt. However, when it is done slowly and cessation happens on a stream here and there the public can swallow it much, much better. Plus, stocking happens for political reasons. I was talking to a PFBC biologist last year about one of my favorite streams. He basically said most small streams that have one preseason stocking done by the PFBC get the minimum stocking. 300 fish. That's all. Why? Because people want to see that it was stocked and it keeps them happy and politicians at one time or another probably fought to keep it (at least) minimally stocked to keep constituents pleased.


Have you looked at the natural reproduction list? It's quite large, which means a few things. 1) trout fishing opportunity in PA is pretty dang good. 2) PFBC has spent a lot of money on conducting and compiling these lists.. Think of the additional streams surveyed that were a bust. 3) this all happened with money from either a regular license buy, a trout stamp, or federal received funds. So yeah, a trout stamp still makes sense.

I'm all for Brookies, but I think they are going about it in a good manner.. Slow and steady.
They're absolutely making progress. I agree. I still dislike the idea of contributing financially to something I disagree with. I wish I could "opt-out" of any of my money paying for yellow trout aquaculture.

I hope the brook trout can hold out during this "slow and steady" approach.
 
silverfox

silverfox

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
931
Both are in the first definition that I came across. (Possibly not "significant.")
I'd stick with the USDA definition.


As per Executive Order 13112 (Section 1. Definitions) an "invasive species" is a species that is:

1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and,

2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.

 
redietz

redietz

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 5, 2009
Messages
1,260
Location
Central Maryland
1) non-native (or alien) to the ecosystem under consideration and,

2) whose introduction causes or is likely to cause economic or environmental harm or harm to human health.

Of which brown trout cause neither. They're a positive economic benefit, and replace brook trout in stream which are no longer suitable for brook trout and they cause no harm to any environmental system.
 
Last edited:
silverfox

silverfox

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
931
Of which brown trout cause neither. They're a positive economic benefit, and replace brook trout in stream which are no longer suitable for brook trout and they cause no harm to any environmental system.
They displace brook trout=environmental harm. They don’t replace brook trout. They may have in some cases. In some cases they’re responsible or partly responsible for the loss of brook trout. I’d say that’s a pretty clear cut environmental harm.
 
silverfox

silverfox

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
931
Of which brown trout cause neither. They're a positive economic benefit, and replace brook trout in stream which are no longer suitable for brook trout and they cause no harm to any environmental system.
From PFBC:

Deteriorating water quality and stocking of brown trout in the 1890s probably contributed to the decline of native brook trout in the watershed. Some wild brook trout persisted in the main stem of Spring Creek until the 1950s, but by then brown trout had taken over the main stem and much of the tributaries.
Originally, native brook trout sustained the fishery. In the early 1900s, introduced brown trout established a solid foothold in the stream, and, by the late 1950s, they had completely displaced brook trout in the main stem of Spring Creek.
Historically, native brook trout sustained the fishery, which was apparently good enough to attract the famous angler, Theodore Gordon, who raved about the excellent brook trout fishing near Bellefonte in the early 1870s. In a 1915 letter, Gordon writes about a subsequent fishing trip to Bellefonte and notes that brown trout had “taken possession” of the stream.
It is not clear how quickly brown trout displaced native brook trout. Joseph Humphreys recalls catching brook rout near Benner Spring from the 1930s to the early 1950s before the hatchery was built.
In case the Spring Creek document from PFBC isn't enough, here's an entire matrix and 38 scientific research papers explaining how nonnative trout have negatively impacted brook trout.


Providing economic benefit doesn't negate the other 2 criteria. There's no exception clause.

They're nonnative so they meet criteria #1. They've caused environmental harm by displacing a native species, so they meet criteria #2. So they're by definition (according to a federal agency's definition), as I've already said, an invasive species.
 
Last edited:
DGC

DGC

Member
Joined
Jan 21, 2008
Messages
836
While we're at it, we should import Bengal tigers, Pudu, stag from Germany, and Mekong catfish. Just turn everything into a zoo. Why? Because some people think it would be cool. 1930s

While we're at it, we should import Bengal tigers, Pudu, stag from Germany, and Mekong catfish. Just turn everything into a zoo. Why? Because some people think it would be cool. 1930s mentality.
Now, now. You don't want to come across as arrogant and pompous, do you?
 
silverfox

silverfox

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
931
Now, now. You don't want to come across as arrogant and pompous, do you?
I'm pretty sure I'm already labeled as a zealot anyway. I stand by what I wrote. Importing grayling to PA is exactly the kind of thinking that got us to where we are today.

There's absolutely no ecological justification for it. There's barely an economic justification for it. It's the reason we have yellow trout. Blue trout. Widespread acceptance of species that displace our native species. We're willing to cause damage to our native species simply because people like something.

Should we import some taimen while we're at it? God forbid someone travel to where the species is indigenous. We have to bring the species to us for some reason. Regardless of what impact that might have on native fauna.

People just aren't satisfied with what nature provides when it comes to fish.
 
Fish Sticks

Fish Sticks

Active member
Joined
Mar 19, 2022
Messages
706
Location
Central PA
Heres a literature review I did essentially explaining the research behind why brown trout are an invasive species focused on brook trout. None of this is my own Its federal science agencies and academics published in peer reviewed fisheries journals.


This describes brown trout as an invasive species with alot of its negative impacts in the united states.


This is the link to the IUCN top 100 worlds worst alien invasive species list. Salmo trutta number 82.




Texas invasive species institute talking about their invasive classification and harms



Invasivr brown trout harming Himalayan snow trout








98E8F3C5 45DE 4E5E A7F2 16A4911F8E47





Likely harming state amphibian( Hellbenders) which is backed up by peter petokas at lycoming university.

https://www.researchgate.net/public...cognition_and_the_Problem_of_Introduced_Trout


Invasive harm against native galaxids and harmful trophic cascades altering macro inverts causing algal blooms.

Feel free to post more of your own opinions and tackle shop talk disproven by fisheries research below.
 
Top