Does anyone want a real wild trout stamp?

[Fish Sticks]

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.

PA NFC Board Member James Suleski Talks Brook Trout with Rob Snowhite — Native Fish Coalition

Pennsylvania NFC board member Dr. James Suleski talks brook trout with Rob Snowhite on Fly Fishing Consultant podcast.…

nativefishcoalition.org

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

http://www.usu.edu/fel/publications/pdf/Budy&Gaeta2017BrownToutinNAChapter20.pdf

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

GISD

description

www.iucngisd.org

Texas invasive species institute talking about their invasive classification and harms

details

Invasivr brown trout harming Himalayan snow trout

Exotic brown trout threatening native Himalayan fish species: study

The research team found that the invasive brown trout was forcing the native species to move upstream towards headwaters or the source of the river.

indianexpress.com

https://www.montana.edu/mcmahon/Paradox%20book%20chapter.pdf

View attachment 1641226176

https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abj5471

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.

Invasion biology and ecological impacts of brown trout Salmo trutta in New Zealand

Brown trout Salmo trutta were introduced to New Zealand in 1867. Successful establishment was broadly predictable in terms both of the characteristics…

www.sciencedirect.com

 

[jifigz]

This thread is getting a little ridiculous. Brown trout are classified as an invasive species throughout much of the world. Yes, they are disruptive and have displaced many native fishes. They were spread throughout the world before people really understood long term impacts of invasive/introduced species. I would have to agree that brown trout are invasive...HOWEVER, they now fill a niche and a role that our native brook trout can no longer fulfill. We all know that. And we are blessed with wonderful brown trout waters here in PA. Brookies are never coming back to the majority of their original waterways thanks to human beings for two reasons, 1) the introduction of brown trout, 2) the changes to the natural environment than humans have caused and will continue to cause. I, for one, love and embrace the brown trout. Many of the streams that support brown trout are not natural habitats for fallfish, the habitat is too different. However, I know a few streams that support good brown trout and fallfish and both are still there.

Now, why people continue to purposefully spread very damaging species is beyond me, especially when we know the long term effects and the possibilities. My god, look at the James River and the Blue cats, purposefully put there by the state of Virginia. Flatheads continue to be spread by anglers. Stupid, but it is what it is. I can't stop people. The flathead will just disrupt fish that didn't exist in the river systems before people put them there anyways, so we will see. Except for the redbreasts, and I love redbreasts, I hope they can withstand the onslaught. And I hope that we would take measures to protect our redbreasts like Georgia has in the Saltilla.

Brown trout ARE INVASIVE, they are here to stay, they fill a niche not able to be filled by brookies anymore, and I love them. Enough said.

 

[silverfox]

This thread is getting a little ridiculous. Brown trout are classified as an invasive species throughout much of the world. Yes, they are disruptive and have displaced many native fishes. They were spread throughout the world before people really understood long term impacts of invasive/introduced species. I would have to agree that brown trout are invasive...HOWEVER, they now fill a niche and a role that our native brook trout can no longer fulfill. We all know that. And we are blessed with wonderful brown trout waters here in PA. Brookies are never coming back to the majority of their original waterways thanks to human beings for two reasons, 1) the introduction of brown trout, 2) the changes to the natural environment than humans have caused and will continue to cause. I, for one, love and embrace the brown trout. Many of the streams that support brown trout are not natural habitats for fallfish, the habitat is too different. However, I know a few streams that support good brown trout and fallfish and both are still there.

Now, why people continue to purposefully spread very damaging species is beyond me, especially when we know the long term effects and the possibilities. My god, look at the James River and the Blue cats, purposefully put there by the state of Virginia. Flatheads continue to be spread by anglers. Stupid, but it is what it is. I can't stop people. The flathead will just disrupt fish that didn't exist in the river systems before people put them there anyways, so we will see. Except for the redbreasts, and I love redbreasts, I hope they can withstand the onslaught. And I hope that we would take measures to protect our redbreasts like Georgia has in the Saltilla.

Brown trout ARE INVASIVE, they are here to stay, they fill a niche not able to be filled by brookies anymore, and I love them. Enough said.

A few things.

1) brown trout in some areas of the state fill a niche that never existed (were historically troutless). The impact to other native fauna in those ecosystems is unknown. There is evidence from New Zealand that the introduction of brown trout has had a negative impact on macroinvertebrates and has altered the entire ecosystem's function for example.

2) I'm more concerned with high elevation and northern tier brook trout strongholds. Do we really need brown trout in every square inch of Pennsylvania? Is there not a single stream in this state that we could maintain as a single salmonid species waterway? Even where an impoundment exists and we're not talking about brown trout, the state (apparently due to strong angler pushback) refuses to maintain a brook trout only waterway (Big Spring). Somehow people like me are expected to accept that brook trout take the back seat to other nonnative species in a lot of waters they could exist in today if the nonnative fish were removed, but the opposite is unacceptable.

3) I'm not convinced that in all areas with other anthropogenic impacts that brook trout would be unable to survive today. Not that I'm suggesting it, but I have a very hard time believing brook trout couldn't survive in the Letort or even Spring Creek. Again, I'm not suggesting that. I've resigned to the idea that our limestone streams are preferred for brown trout and rainbow trout now and that we'll never have brook trout in those streams again. I don't understand why the opposite isn't true. Zealotry goes both ways.

4) One of my concerns is the recent push of the concept that brown and brook trout live together in harmony. To be fair, there likely are some places today where that does happen to some degree. My question is for how long. Conversely, there are places where brown trout have completely displaced brook trout. So there's the risk that will be the outcome at some point. Also, where both species exist, every brown trout represents at least one brook trout that doesn't exist (carrying capacity). So it's dangerous to suggest that we can have our cake and eat it too. That the protection and proliferation of brown trout in brook trout waters is benign.

5) Massive props for simply accepting that brown trout are technically invasive and admitting you like fishing for them. That's exactly where I'm at. I fish for browns all the time in my local river because that's what's there. They aren't going anywhere. I C&R every one I catch there. There's nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

 

[jifigz]

A few things.

1) brown trout in some areas of the state fill a niche that never existed (were historically troutless). The impact to other native fauna in those ecosystems is unknown. There is evidence from New Zealand that the introduction of brown trout has had a negative impact on macroinvertebrates and has altered the entire ecosystem's function for example.

2) I'm more concerned with high elevation and northern tier brook trout strongholds. Do we really need brown trout in every square inch of Pennsylvania? Is there not a single stream in this state that we could maintain as a single salmonid species waterway? Even where an impoundment exists and we're not talking about brown trout, the state (apparently due to strong angler pushback) refuses to maintain a brook trout only waterway (Big Spring). Somehow people like me are expected to accept that brook trout take the back seat to other nonnative species in a lot of waters they could exist in today if the nonnative fish were removed, but the opposite is unacceptable.

3) I'm not convinced that in all areas with other anthropogenic impacts that brook trout would be unable to survive today. Not that I'm suggesting it, but I have a very hard time believing brook trout couldn't survive in the Letort or even Spring Creek. Again, I'm not suggesting that. I've resigned to the idea that our limestone streams are preferred for brown trout and rainbow trout now and that we'll never have brook trout in those streams again. I don't understand why the opposite isn't true. Zealotry goes both ways.

4) One of my concerns is the recent push of the concept that brown and brook trout live together in harmony. To be fair, there likely are some places today where that does happen to some degree. My question is for how long. Conversely, there are places where brown trout have completely displaced brook trout. So there's the risk that will be the outcome at some point. Also, where both species exist, every brown trout represents at least one brook trout that doesn't exist (carrying capacity). So it's dangerous to suggest that we can have our cake and eat it too. That the protection and proliferation of brown trout in brook trout waters is benign.

5) Massive props for simply accepting that brown trout are technically invasive and admitting you like fishing for them. That's exactly where I'm at. I fish for browns all the time in my local river because that's what's there. They aren't going anywhere. I C&R every one I catch there. There's nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

1) I can't argue with that. That is 100% plausible and I have never tried to argue it.

2) Of course we don't need brown trout everywhere and, once again, I never advocated for that. However, many of my favorite mtn streams are mostly brooks with some browns thrown in. Those browns aren't "new" or just showing up. They have been able to colonize that stream for a long time and for some reason the stream still favors the brookies. Human impact might change that in the future, but that would be our fault, wouldn't it? And what is your great idea for removing non-native without harming the natives? I don't think anyone has come up with a great idea for that yet. Catch and harvest, sure, but at least we could quit stocking over brookies, that I agree with. It would be awesome if Big Spring was all brook trout, but it isn't and it will never be.

3) Of course some of them could support brook trout. But brown trout are more dominant and most likely better suited to the environment now. Do you suggest we rotenone phenomenal brown trout streams and try to reintroduce brookies? But rotenone kills EVERY fish, right? so forget about all the native species of minnows etc present. There is no good way to go about this and you admitted it, Browns and rainbows in places like Big Spring are here to stay.

4) Of course they don't live in harmony. Can they survive together? YES. But harmony, no. In every stream that supports a mix of both species some of the best holding water will always have that big "pool boss" brown in it taking the spot where a nice brookie could be, but it can't because the bigger, stronger and dominant brown trout is there. Oh well, I could kill that brown when I catch it, but I don't. Do you? If not, you probably should.

5) I have never once disagreed or even mentioned that browns weren't an invasive species. They are a very adaptable species and have thrived and displaced species all over the world. But yeah, I love em. I fish for them way more than brookies. If Big brookies were still in our bigger water ways I would love to fish for them, too.

 

[pcray1231]

Same,

Yes they are invasive. And yes, I like them.

I like brookies too and maybe even prefer brookies. That said, I see a wild trout stream as extremely valuable regardless of what species is in it, and do not want to see us lose wild trout streams of an sort in an attempt to re-re-engineer them, lol.

i.e. if a stream has brown trout. And we're fairly certain removal of the brown trout will fairly quickly and successfully create a quality brook trout stream. Then yes, I'd be in favor.

However, my fear is you mess around trying to remove browns. You don't get em all, and the brookies fail establish themselves well. You can keep trying for decades, and you have a.... degraded brown trout fishery without creating the brook trout fishery. That's an absolute disaster.

So... This topic interests me. I think it is VERY case by case basis thing. There are no blanket statements to be made. If a stream is 70% brookies and 30% browns, maybe removing the browns makes sense to help the brookies expand their population, grow bigger, etc. But if it's mostly browns, do we feel confident enough to ruin a fishery on a hope of brookie takeover? Barriers come into play, why remove browns if they're just going to be constantly re-invading? It's complicated.

I have largely stayed out of this debate and back off to... Lets focus on water!!! A stream that has no TROUT or less TROUT than it should due to thermal issues, sedimentation, acid problems, or whatever. Lets fix that problem and focus on making MORE WILD TROUT WATER where it didn't exist before. I think we all are on the same team on that one. Some of it will have brookies, some will have browns, and I'm good with that.

 

[Solitariolupo]

Since my other post is long and rambling, they stock fish there because:

A) People enjoy fishing for trout, and maybe that body of water is in an ideal location to support nearby population centers and provide a couple of months of fishing for trout.
B) The reason you need a trout stamp is for enforcement reasons. You cannot tell what a person is fishing for. Maybe they could provide a cut off date. Ex: No Trout stamp needed after July 1 in this body of water.
C) If musky love eating trout (which they do) and you love fishing for musky, then why wouldn't you want the PFBC to put a bunch of easy food for the musky to gorge on and hopefully grow bigger. The place that you are targeting the musky they probably aren't native either, so what's the difference?
D) Stocked trout definitely help to sell licenses.

A) Not sure about that myself but don’t think the trout are there very long. As it probably could support them all year.
B) yes you can tell what someone is fishing for especially when I’m walking around with a lure (16 in) that’s bigger than the trout they stock. That’s a great idea with the cut off date.
C)From what they say Muskie are native to the Allegheny. I really don’t care if they feed them. I would be happier to see them stock them somewhere people can catch them as we pay a lot of money for them. But I guess since I don’t fish for them that much my money goes to feeding the Muskie.
D) definitely for money.
Nice chatting with ya.

 

[Fish Sticks]

A few things.

1) brown trout in some areas of the state fill a niche that never existed (were historically troutless). The impact to other native fauna in those ecosystems is unknown. There is evidence from New Zealand that the introduction of brown trout has had a negative impact on macroinvertebrates and has altered the entire ecosystem's function for example.

2) I'm more concerned with high elevation and northern tier brook trout strongholds. Do we really need brown trout in every square inch of Pennsylvania? Is there not a single stream in this state that we could maintain as a single salmonid species waterway? Even where an impoundment exists and we're not talking about brown trout, the state (apparently due to strong angler pushback) refuses to maintain a brook trout only waterway (Big Spring). Somehow people like me are expected to accept that brook trout take the back seat to other nonnative species in a lot of waters they could exist in today if the nonnative fish were removed, but the opposite is unacceptable.

3) I'm not convinced that in all areas with other anthropogenic impacts that brook trout would be unable to survive today. Not that I'm suggesting it, but I have a very hard time believing brook trout couldn't survive in the Letort or even Spring Creek. Again, I'm not suggesting that. I've resigned to the idea that our limestone streams are preferred for brown trout and rainbow trout now and that we'll never have brook trout in those streams again. I don't understand why the opposite isn't true. Zealotry goes both ways.

4) One of my concerns is the recent push of the concept that brown and brook trout live together in harmony. To be fair, there likely are some places today where that does happen to some degree. My question is for how long. Conversely, there are places where brown trout have completely displaced brook trout. So there's the risk that will be the outcome at some point. Also, where both species exist, every brown trout represents at least one brook trout that doesn't exist (carrying capacity). So it's dangerous to suggest that we can have our cake and eat it too. That the protection and proliferation of brown trout in brook trout waters is benign.

5) Massive props for simply accepting that brown trout are technically invasive and admitting you like fishing for them. That's exactly where I'm at. I fish for browns all the time in my local river because that's what's there. They aren't going anywhere. I C&R every one I catch there. There's nothing wrong with that in my opinion.

Yea i don’t hate brown trout i even admire them and i don’t want to see invasive brook trout in their native range either. This topic is experiencing a needed bump in public attention and people are realizing we are bot going to lose any significant angling opportunities for brown trout by reclaiming a few streams for native brook trout, hellbenders, slimming sculpins, endangered candy darters, endangered guyandotte crayfish. species that have co-evolved with brook trout in some cases have chemical warning systems preventing predation by brook trout that were also the result of evolution. They interact sustainably because of that co evolution and built in various defense or avoidance abilities. We can preserved that in a minority of streams where possible and i don’t think Pa anglers would even notice on a large scale.

 

[jifigz]

First and foremost, I am not trying to argue or offend anyone and if I have then I ask for your forgiveness.

Solitariolupo, I am not sure what your last post really means or why Musky being native to NW PA drainages has to do with anything. Trout are stocked where people can catch them, even if musky are present. One such instance is Holman Lake at Little Buffalo State Park. Close to Harrisburg, fished heavily, stocked with trout, but also CRAMMED with Musky. The trout are fished for, I am sure lots are eaten by Musky, and the PFBC really tries to push the musky in that lake, so it seems like a win-win to me. Provide short term fishing opportunity for trout (which is really what stocking is all about), feed the musky, and keep the people happy.

 

[silverfox]

1) I can't argue with that. That is 100% plausible and I have never tried to argue it.

2) Of course we don't need brown trout everywhere and, once again, I never advocated for that. However, many of my favorite mtn streams are mostly brooks with some browns thrown in. Those browns aren't "new" or just showing up. They have been able to colonize that stream for a long time and for some reason the stream still favors the brookies. Human impact might change that in the future, but that would be our fault, wouldn't it? And what is your great idea for removing non-native without harming the natives? I don't think anyone has come up with a great idea for that yet. Catch and harvest, sure, but at least we could quit stocking over brookies, that I agree with. It would be awesome if Big Spring was all brook trout, but it isn't and it will never be.

3) Of course some of them could support brook trout. But brown trout are more dominant and most likely better suited to the environment now. Do you suggest we rotenone phenomenal brown trout streams and try to reintroduce brookies? But rotenone kills EVERY fish, right? so forget about all the native species of minnows etc present. There is no good way to go about this and you admitted it, Browns and rainbows in places like Big Spring are here to stay.

4) Of course they don't live in harmony. Can they survive together? YES. But harmony, no. In every stream that supports a mix of both species some of the best holding water will always have that big "pool boss" brown in it taking the spot where a nice brookie could be, but it can't because the bigger, stronger and dominant brown trout is there. Oh well, I could kill that brown when I catch it, but I don't. Do you? If not, you probably should.

5) I have never once disagreed or even mentioned that browns weren't an invasive species. They are a very adaptable species and have thrived and displaced species all over the world. But yeah, I love em. I fish for them way more than brookies. If Big brookies were still in our bigger water ways I would love to fish for them, too.

2) Manual removal + harvest regs + cessation of introducing more nonnatives to brook trout streams. There has to be some manmade or natural barrier though, and it should be more than 3/4 of a mile of stream. A watershed would be ideal. Savage River, Otter Creek, Tea Creek, etc.

3) I explicitly said that I'm not suggesting removal in those streams. Heck, I'm not even suggesting piscicides in general necessarily or complete removal at this point. We don't have angling regs and the state is still stocking the offending species right on top of brook trout, so removal is a pipe dream as far as I'm concerned.

4) This is one area I have an issue with current regs and even some proposed ones. Should Francis branch be fly fishing C&R only for all species? There are places where the state prohibits the removal of nonnative fish in what really should be brook trout waters. So I have a problem with the current approach. Is Francis branch a brown trout stream or a brook trout stream? If the state lifted harvest regs on nonnative fish in streams like that I'd be elated. Would it have an impact on the brook trout population? I don't know. It would certainly send a message though, and to me, that's pretty important. Maybe more important than kg/ha results.

 

[pcray1231]

We have to keep in mind that our ecosystems do not resemble the native ecosystem in any way, shape, or form.

Originally our forests were a lot more pine than we find today. In forest progression, pine is the final step, it's slow growing and initially beat by hardwoods, but once pines take up a plot, they block out undergrowth and that area stays pine. The logging boom reset everything. Sedimentation, change in water chemistry and flows, you know it. The soil would have held much more water, with a lot more dwell time, much less runoff. A more steady output of groundwater instead of the boom/bust flow we have today. Lack of midwest coal fired power plants means the rain would have been closer to neutral. So you're talking better pH, more steady groundwater flows, much less sedimentation, no urban runoff, fully forested right up to the streams (at least outside of the piedmont region).

The most common large hardwood was the chestnut, which now doesn't grow very high before succumbing to blight. We had relatively few whitetail deer. Instead we had elk throughout the state. And bison. These were not western bison, they were a different species that is now extinct, woodland bison, and would be present seasonally (migrating species). We also had mountain lions, wolves, lynx, wolverines, badgers. No dandelions or multiflora rose, lol! 99+% of virtually every watershed was forested. Yes, brook trout were the only salmonid. But also, largemouth and smallmouth bass were native only to the Ohio drainage, not the Susquehanna or Delaware. Those rivers had massive shad and eel migrations as the dominant fish life in the river and large tribs, overlapping with seasonal brook trout in the larger tribs, and year round brook trout in the higher order, steeper headwaters.

 

[silverfox]

We have to keep in mind that our ecosystems do not resemble the native ecosystem in any way, shape, or form.

Originally our forests were a lot more pine than we find today. In forest progression, pine is the final step, it's slow growing and initially beat by hardwoods, but once pines take up a plot, they block out undergrowth and that area stays pine. The logging boom reset everything. Sedimentation, change in water chemistry and flows, you know it. The soil would have held much more water, with a lot more dwell time, much less runoff. A more steady output of groundwater instead of the boom/bust flow we have today. Lack of midwest coal fired power plants means the rain would have been closer to neutral. So you're talking better pH, more steady groundwater flows, much less sedimentation, no urban runoff, fully forested right up to the streams (at least outside of the piedmont region).

The most common large hardwood was the chestnut, which now doesn't grow very high before succumbing to blight. We had relatively few whitetail deer. Instead we had elk throughout the state. And bison. These were not western bison, they were a different species that is now extinct, woodland bison, and would be present seasonally (migrating species). We also had mountain lions, wolves, lynx, wolverines, badgers. No dandelions or multiflora rose, lol! 99+% of virtually every watershed was forested. Yes, brook trout were the only salmonid. But also, largemouth and smallmouth bass were native only to the Ohio drainage, not the Susquehanna or Delaware. Those rivers had massive shad and eel migrations as the dominant fish life in the river and large tribs, overlapping with seasonal brook trout in the larger tribs, and year round brook trout in the higher order, steeper headwaters.

I understand, but my issue is in streams that have brook trout in them today but are declining. I've witnessed it first hand. There's still brook trout there so they obviously can still survive in the stream, but they're now outnumbered 100:1 by brown trout. I'm talking about completely forested streams at high elevations on state property where if anything, the riparian situation is 100 times better today than it was 50 years ago. The species composition isn't because the landscape has changed in the last 50 years to favor brown trout, it's because brown trout have displaced brook trout.

The other issue I have is streams like Yellow Creek in Bedford County. Someone was stocking brook trout there and they were holding over from year to year. So the species can live in that stream. There are a few far up in isolated pockets in the headwaters, but I'm talking about in the main river. The reason more brook trout aren't there today isn't that the stream is uninhabitable to the species. It's because it's completely dominated by brown trout. It's a groundwater-influenced limestone stream w/ freestone characteristics. It's entirely possible that brook trout would be there if it weren't for other species.

As you said, the situation varies greatly from one stream or one region of the state to another. Right now, we really don't treat the streams or the regions any differently from a species perspective. Brown trout have an advantage over brook trout (several really) so by lumping all species together from a management or angling regulation perspective, what we're really doing is favoring brown trout. If we just leave it up to nature, brown trout will win. All I'm suggesting is that we manage for brook trout specifically somewhere. That means brown trout (or rainbow trout) take the back seat somewhere. That doesn't seem like an unreasonable proposition to me. The way these conversations go though, I'm not so sure there are very many people who agree.

 

[pcray1231]

Oh, I agree with you. If the stream is capable of both, and we know it; I do favor brook trout.

And yes I fully believe there are a lot of situations where brown trout are the REASON there are not more brook trout, and removing browns would lead to a substantial increase in brookie populations. I also believe there are situations where that is not true, without brown trout, the brookie population would not take off; you'd just have no trout. I also believe there are situations where brown trout may be the reason brookie populations are held back, but efforts to eradicate the browns would not be successful enough to see brookie populations expand, and all you've done is harm the brown trout fishery without benefitting brookie populations.

All of these situations exist in this state, I believe. I can make guesses on what would happen if an attempt were made in any given stream, but they're just guesses, I have no way of knowing for sure. I don't see how anybody could.

In other states, such as the Smokies for instance, I've seen efforts to eradicate browns/rainbows above a barrier, such as a large waterfall on a smallish stream. That makes complete sense to me, and I'd wholeheartedly support it. It's 100% clear that the streams can support thriving brookie populations if it weren't for the invasives. And it seems very reasonable that success is achievable. Get rid of them and the browns/rainbows have no way of getting back into that area. But go at it completely. Wipe out the main stem, all tribs, etc. Complete and thorough. If you can't do that, I'm not sure I am support in "trying" with danger of ruining a stream and no real confidence in success.

 

[silverfox]

Oh, I agree with you. If the stream is capable of both, and we know it; I do favor brook trout.

And yes I fully believe there are a lot of situations where brown trout are the REASON there are not more brook trout, and removing browns would lead to a substantial increase in brookie populations. I also believe there are situations where that is not true, without brown trout, the brookie population would not take off; you'd just have no trout. I also believe there are situations where brown trout may be the reason brookie populations are held back, but efforts to eradicate the browns would not be successful enough to see brookie populations expand, and all you've done is harm the brown trout fishery without benefitting brookie populations.

All of these situations exist in this state, I believe. I can make guesses on what would happen if an attempt were made in any given stream, but they're just guesses, I have no way of knowing for sure. I don't see how anybody could.

In other states, such as the Smokies for instance, I've seen efforts to eradicate browns/rainbows above a barrier, such as a large waterfall on a smallish stream. That makes complete sense to me, and I'd wholeheartedly support it. It's 100% clear that the streams can support thriving brookie populations if it weren't for the invasives. And it seems very reasonable that success is achievable. Get rid of them and the browns/rainbows have no way of getting back into that area. But go at it completely. Wipe out the main stem, all tribs, etc. Complete and thorough. If you can't do that, I'm not sure I am support in "trying" with danger of ruining a stream and no real confidence in success.

Great points.

Since you brought up GSMNP, I have to share the below. One of the main takeaways here (slide 18) was that removal/reintroduction efforts have been largely supported by the public IF they're made aware and educated about the issue.

Restoration of brook trout across their native range using fish toxicants and electrofishing: are we successful ecologically and socially? — EBTJV

PDF of PowerPoint presentation by Matt Kulp, fishery biologist with the Great Smoky Mountains National Park, and coauthors, reviewing historic and contemporary restoration efforts to restore brook trout using toxicants and electrofishing. Matt surveyed state and agency biologists about projects...

easternbrooktrout.org

Even in one stream where the effort was sabotaged after reclamation, they were able to talk w/ the saboteurs and they came around on the issue.

There's also some good information there on why some efforts failed.

I'm not even necessarily advocating for reclamation here though. Aside from Big Spring where I completely believe we should remove the rainbows. I'm really just talking about some first steps like species-specific angling regs like MD has done, and stop stocking over them. If we're not willing to do those things then I don't have a lot of hope that we'll ever do more reclamation. Meanwhile, our neighbors are doing it, and it's largely supported by the angling community.

PA is a completely different state though for a lot of reasons. We've got such a track record of supporting nonnative species here that it will be even harder to convince the public of the need for this down the road. We just keep digging the hole deeper and deeper. The longer we ignore the problem the harder it's going to be to correct it at some point in the future.

 

[Fish Sticks]

One thing that is very interesting that I have learned in the past year has to do with the densities in streams as far as how the fish commission values them.

I asked a very well known brook trout researcher some of you may recognize from things I’ve posted on here. And I asked them “whats one thing, if you could pick only one, that you wish anglers understood about native brook trout that would greatly benefit their species.

What they said was along the lines of that if we value large fish size or numbers only(fishing driven metrics) we will be in big trouble because each stream, small area or drainage represents potentially a genetically distinct population of native brook trout. Having all that genetic diversity across the land scape in PA with different populations that may be high or very low densities is incredibly important because the more diversity that can intermix the faster natural selection events can cause genetic adaptations. Every death due to a stressor leaves behind individuals with genes better equipped, potentially valuable or unique genes in their genetic tool belt, to survive it next time in theory. So if your surviving fish are moving and sharing those genes via gene flow/migration afterwards they can pass those useful genes on to help populations bot as well equipped for that stressor. The more diversity of genes you keep on the land scape the faster you drive adaptive potential. If you can help that process along one day you may see brook trout suited much better to the post colonialism environment than they are now. There is something called rapid adaptation that was covered on the fisheries science podcast as well for anyone who listens to that.

Basically conservation genetics should be our goal and the only reason fish size or density (class A) is currently is because of fishing/PA fish and boat. When Hudy et al. did their range wide assessment in the early 2000’s they described brook trout populations as “patches”. Reason being conservation genetics is as known to be the most important factor and they did not have the manpower to genetically sample each stream and make a brook trout genetics map to display genetically distinct populations. So by making a “patch” based on sub watersheds that was the next best way to represent brook trout with likely or potentially similar genetics. This is why the eastern brook trout joint venture and TU nationals brook trout conservation portfolio use these patches and culverts are such a big deal because its not about is it a class abcde its just about is there a diversity of genes and are they moving driving this adaptation.

PAFB just won’t actually accept this and is stuck on density which is why we are failing brook trout so bad in PA. A lot of you will see an article going more in depth on this stuff in the near near future.

 

[silverfox]

One thing that is very interesting that I have learned in the past year has to do with the densities in streams as far as how the fish commission values them.

I asked a very well known brook trout researcher some of you may recognize from things I’ve posted on here. And I asked them “whats one thing, if you could pick only one, that you wish anglers understood about native brook trout that would greatly benefit their species.

What they said was along the lines of that if we value large fish size or numbers only(fishing driven metrics) we will be in big trouble because each stream, small area or drainage represents potentially a genetically distinct population of native brook trout. Having all that genetic diversity across the land scape in PA with different populations that may be high or very low densities is incredibly important because the more diversity that can intermix the faster natural selection events can cause genetic adaptations. Every death due to a stressor leaves behind individuals with genes better equipped, potentially valuable or unique genes in their genetic tool belt, to survive it next time in theory. So if your surviving fish are moving and sharing those genes via gene flow/migration afterwards they can pass those useful genes on to help populations bot as well equipped for that stressor. The more diversity of genes you keep on the land scape the faster you drive adaptive potential. If you can help that process along one day you may see brook trout suited much better to the post colonialism environment than they are now. There is something called rapid adaptation that was covered on the fisheries science podcast as well for anyone who listens to that.

Basically conservation genetics should be our goal and the only reason fish size or density (class A) is currently is because of fishing/PA fish and boat. When Hudy et al. did their range wide assessment in the early 2000’s they described brook trout populations as “patches”. Reason being conservation genetics is as known to be the most important factor and they did not have the manpower to genetically sample each stream and make a brook trout genetics map to display genetically distinct populations. So by making a “patch” based on sub watersheds that was the next best way to represent brook trout with likely or potentially similar genetics. This is why the eastern brook trout joint venture and TU nationals brook trout conservation portfolio use these patches and culverts are such a big deal because its not about is it a class abcde its just about is there a diversity of genes and are they moving driving this adaptation.

PAFB just won’t actually accept this and is stuck on density which is why we are failing brook trout so bad in PA. A lot of you will see an article going more in depth on this stuff in the near near future.

Right. Where the anglers as conservationists paradox is on full display. We're the best stewards of the resource, but our wants and desires typically don't have anything to do with species conservation. We base our perception of worth on arbitrary metrics that benefit us, not the fish.

 

[JackM]

I did not read all the posts in this thread, so maybe I am just affirming something already said, but I am happy to subsidized stocked trout streams. This keeps a certain group of trout anglers off of the better waters we most enjoy. Even in the rare cases where stocking occurs over decent wild trout populations, it makes easy pickins' for the cooler fillers, even if a few wild trouts will be harvested as well.

 

[redietz]

I'm really just talking about some first steps like species-specific angling regs like MD has done, and stop stocking over them.

I'm 100 % behind that. I was one of many who wrote to MD's DNR in favor of those regs. And I'm opposed to any stocking over wild populations of any species of trout (especially brook trout.)

If you're in favor of removing rainbows from Big Spring (where I seem to catch more and more brookies every time I fish there), what about removing browns from the Letort?

 

[silverfox]

I did not read all the posts in this thread, so maybe I am just affirming something already said, but I am happy to subsidized stocked trout streams. This keeps a certain group of trout anglers off of the better waters we most enjoy. Even in the rare cases where stocking occurs over decent wild trout populations, it makes easy pickins' for the cooler fillers, even if a few wild trouts will be harvested as well.

I'll just repeat my personal experience that lead me down this path. On a remote mountain stream in Somerset county that has no business being stocked, I went fishing on about the 2nd week of trout season to see how many stocked brook trout were left. I ran into a bunch of dead sub-legal brook trout. This is a Class C population of wild brook trout, so they're already barely hanging on. How many anglers inadvertently killed sub-legal brook trout there during stocked trout season, and what was the overall impact to the population from that mortality?

Better yet, how many of those anglers would ever step foot on that stream if it weren't stocked. That's where I have a problem with the "stocked trout protect wild trout" theory. Most of those people would never bother with a marginal brook trout stream. So we're damaging wild populations by drawing far more angling pressure to the stream than it would ever see without stocking.

 

[silverfox]

I'm 100 % behind that. I was one of many who wrote to MD's DNR in favor of those regs. And I'm opposed to any stocking over wild populations of any species of trout (especially brook trout.)

If you're in favor of removing rainbows from Big Spring (where I seem to catch more and more brookies every time I fish there), what about removing browns from the Letort?

I've already stated explicitly that I'm not suggesting removal on streams like the Letort.

The only reason I suggest Big Spring as a potential to remove rainbows is 2 fold. 1) They're rainbows, not the much-coveted and revered brown fish. 2) there's a barrier in marginal habitat that would prevent ingress of nonnative fish if it was reclaimed.

 

[redietz]

I've already stated explicitly that I'm not suggesting removal on streams like the Letort.

The only reason I suggest Big Spring as a potential to remove rainbows is 2 fold. 1) They're rainbows, not the much-coveted and revered brown fish. 2) there's a barrier in marginal habitat that would prevent ingress of nonnative fish if it was reclaimed.

I pretty much agree. I'm not opposed to removing rainbows from BS, but at least they're wild ones, and from my limited sampling the brook trout population relative to the rainbow population seems to be going up there already.