Heritage Brook Trout

[silverfox]

There were not just three streams in the Pa ST special regs study. There were more, but it happens that the AFM for the Poconos region chose the three in his region for a regional web report. The final results of the multi-regional study were published, as I recall, in an American Fisheries Society journal. Furthermore, changes in micro-habitat at any one sampling site in a study like that are absorbed and accounted for by having multiple treatment streams and multiple control streams under study across a broad geographical area and multiple years. To show significant differences pre and post regulation between treatment and control streams, there needs to something more than natural variation occurring. Annual changes in habitat due to storms, etc are examples of natural variations, as are variations in year class strengths. This study was conducted across more than one generation of ST as well.

Regarding the ST genetic similarities among streams in the Loyalsock study, see third paragraph in the PSU article topic: Larger streams are critical to wild brook trout conservation.

I fully agree that maintaining passage through stream and river corridors is important. If I didn’t, I would not have been nearly as professionally active as I was in pressing for fishway development and dam removals, including removals specifically aimed at wild trout. In fact, some of those are still in the process of moving forward.

As for the need to have the same high genetic diversity in each ST stream in a given drainage, I’m not that much of a splitter. In fact a recent study in WV, if I recall the proper state, showed ST genetic differences among short segments of individual streams. I am satisfied at the moment to have high genetic diversity within a drainage and good connectivity such that when a catastrophic event occurs the pre-adapted individuals that survive in one stream can eventually contribute offspring to other streams via movement. This happens already in Pa following recoveries from drought and various causes of pollution that resulted in localized extirpation.

As for overharvest in Pa trout streams, localized overharvest at a popular bridge or where a forest road comes closest to a stream is not statewide or streamwide overharvest. I have on multiple occasions for a decade or more asked individuals here to name streams where the overall Wild trout population is overharvested and with only one exception, all that I have heard have been crickets. The statewide angler use and harvest study showed that this is not a statewide problem and the more localized, but still regionally diverse study of special ST regs, showed the same thing.

My issue with the wild native brook trout enhancement program and the resulting manuscript is that the stated goal was to increase the number of >100 to >175mm fish in short sections of 2nd order streams via C&R regs (with no gear type changes) while publishing the locations, which likely resulted in increased angling pressure, which likely increased incidental hooking mortality. With the exception of Kettle Creek, all failed to achieve the stated goal.

It's not, or shouldn't be, about increasing the number of >100 to >175mm adults. It should be about protecting important fish within the population. These are wild native self-sustaining populations of highly sensitive fish listed as a species of greatest conservation need in Pennsylvania, not hatchery fish or wild nonnative fish. They should deserve more respect and protection than other salmonid resources in my opinion.

Again, I think it should be about eliminating as many negative impacts on the populations as possible. Barrier removal, habitat improvement, water quality improvement and protection, and in my opinion, harvest regs, and favoring the removal of competing nonnative salmonids should be included in that list. Again, these are things that are easy, free, and already being implemented by other states in the native range.

Bob's creek Bedford County is the worst in my opinion. Between displacement, stocked trout, and over-harvest, the brook trout population there has been largely decimated over the last 30 years. Piney Run, Cub Run Somerset Co. Clear Shade Creek headwaters, Ben's Creek, Upper Cove Creek, Bells Gap, Blair Gap Run, Beaverdam Creek & South Poplar Run. There are some streams near me where I believe the brook trout have been either decimated, or severely cropped due to stocking, harvest, and nonnative salmonids. All of those streams, with the exception of Bobs are likely low Class B or lower in most stocked stretches. However, almost all are "drop-back" sections where the brook trout need that winter habitat and where the ST are in the spring when buckets of nonnatives and an onslaught of springtime anglers bombard the fish. I'm sure the stocked sections didn't survey well in late August when the temps were at their highest. Again, watershed level vs the current management approach.

 

[Mike]

During the Kettle Ck portion of the special regs study, the measured angler use (15 trips/mi) was almost the same as that found in the statewide study (13 trips/mi) of angler use and harvest on wild trout streams. So publication of the study waters didn’t apparently make much of a difference in the Kettle case.

Troutbert, how do you know that the unstocked ST streams that you say are “heavily cropped” are not just showing natural variation in legal trout abundance as we saw on the protected water supply stream on the Blue Mtn in SE Pa.? I can guarantee you that an angler who was inclined to blame harvest for any changes in legal trout abundance would have pegged that stream as being overharvested when the abundant legal fish almost completely disappeared from one yr to the next.
( It is largely a rhododendron tunnel.)

As for ST being bigger upstream and away from better access…not always and I really never noticed it when electrofishing except with respect to popular bridge holes. Walk-in electrofishing rarely paid off with an impressive “reward” or substantive change in the trout, ST or BT, length distribution. It’s more about the habitat than the distance walked. Perhaps that’s because in typical ST habitat the electrofisher normally fishes all habitat while anglers often jump from easier casting locations to easier casting locations. Furthermore, as an example regarding access and ST size, in Rattling Run, the ST were larger in the village of Port Clinton and just above than when we hiked in about 1-1.5 mi to the rhododendron tunnels. In Northkill Ck, the first segment to eventually become Class A after 37 yrs post stocking was the most accessible…right next to and heading upstream from a SGL parking lot.

 

[Fish Sticks]

There were not just three streams in the Pa ST special regs study. There were more, but it happens that the AFM for the Poconos region chose the three in his region for a regional web report. The final results of the multi-regional study were published, as I recall, in an American Fisheries Society journal. Furthermore, changes in micro-habitat at any one sampling site in a study like that are absorbed and accounted for by having multiple treatment streams and multiple control streams under study across a broad geographical area and multiple years. To show significant differences pre and post regulation between treatment and control streams, there needs to something more than natural variation occurring. Annual changes in habitat due to storms, etc are examples of natural variations, as are variations in year class strengths. This study was conducted across more than one generation of ST as well.

Regarding the ST genetic similarities among streams in the Loyalsock study, see third paragraph in the PSU article topic: Larger streams are critical to wild brook trout conservation.

I fully agree that maintaining passage through stream and river corridors is important. If I didn’t, I would not have been nearly as professionally active as I was in pressing for fishway development and dam removals, including removals specifically aimed at wild trout. In fact, some of those are still in the process of moving forward.

As for the need to have the same high genetic diversity in each ST stream in a given drainage, I’m not that much of a splitter. In fact a recent study in WV, if I recall the proper state, showed ST genetic differences among short segments of individual streams. I am satisfied at the moment to have high genetic diversity within a drainage and good connectivity such that when a catastrophic event occurs the pre-adapted individuals that survive in one stream can eventually contribute offspring to other streams via movement. This happens already in Pa following recoveries from drought and various causes of pollution that resulted in localized extirpation.

As for overharvest in Pa trout streams, localized overharvest at a popular bridge or where a forest road comes closest to a stream is not statewide or streamwide overharvest. I have on multiple occasions for a decade or more asked individuals here to name streams where the overall Wild trout population is overharvested and with only one exception, all that I have heard have been crickets. The statewide angler use and harvest study showed that this is not a statewide problem and the more localized, but still regionally diverse study of special ST regs, showed the same thing.

Yea there were only three streams testing the C and R reg listed as you mentioned. Interesting to know there is more. Id love to see those if they are public. Having more than 3 streams in that case could increase control for habitat changes due to stochastic events. But if you look at the was goal of the study it was to create brook trout so many millimeters long(you can fill in the blank in that I’m sure but it was larger fish, that was the goal). My point is that the if you wanted to see what the reg does to the population you need to survey the population, 300 yards is still far sort of the population.

From Shannon’s paper
“Consequently, changes in habitat suitability at one site can have significant, unintended consequences to large-scale metapopulation genetic structure and demography (Letcher et al. 2007).”

If habitat suitability at one site can have far reaching effects at one site think about how far reaching the effects or mortality could be. You could be allowing brook trout to grow larger in those 300 yard segments that function more as nursery sections that aren’t as desireable habitat wise for larger adult fish. There could be any number of uncaptured benefits, changes, or scenarios simply because 300 yards leaves the rest of the brook trouts habitat/life history corridor to the imagination.

When Fausch preposed his riverscape model he spoke to the importance of effects of looking at the entire population and the scope required to do that .

“In particular, they noted the need to understand, sample, and manage fish populations at 0.5 to 50-mi (1 to 100-km) stream segment and 5 to 50-year scales.”

This why so much information escapes those short segments and even primary outcome can’t be trusted( earlier mentioned which i believed was a size in millimeters of brook trout?). But what about secondary outcomes? We have bo idea what it dis for conservation genetics, long term population adaptability/stability. 7 fish per mile you mentioned is an average i’m guessing, and its a selection event that does not have a rhyme or a reason genetically in-terms of what genes it does or doesn’t leave to adapt to stochastic events, climate changes, invasive species.

I think when you do a study based on size and density in a such a small stretch of water thats sub representative of yhe population and don’t really know what effects it had on conservation genetics/adaptation as a non measured secondary outcome we need to avoid making broad statements like C and R is bot beneficial for brook trout. And furthet if we would need to do extensive studies at watershed scale at great expense to find out what all those downstream impacts are of harvest, inevitably taking resources away from more needed reseach project’s for native brook trout, why not just make them C and R assuming not many people are keeping them anyway(not my assumption ive found nets/car battery contraptions in brook trout streams/ seen

 

[Fish Sticks]

There were not just three streams in the Pa ST special regs study. There were more, but it happens that the AFM for the Poconos region chose the three in his region for a regional web report. The final results of the multi-regional study were published, as I recall, in an American Fisheries Society journal. Furthermore, changes in micro-habitat at any one sampling site in a study like that are absorbed and accounted for by having multiple treatment streams and multiple control streams under study across a broad geographical area and multiple years. To show significant differences pre and post regulation between treatment and control streams, there needs to something more than natural variation occurring. Annual changes in habitat due to storms, etc are examples of natural variations, as are variations in year class strengths. This study was conducted across more than one generation of ST as well.

Regarding the ST genetic similarities among streams in the Loyalsock study, see third paragraph in the PSU article topic: Larger streams are critical to wild brook trout conservation.

I fully agree that maintaining passage through stream and river corridors is important. If I didn’t, I would not have been nearly as professionally active as I was in pressing for fishway development and dam removals, including removals specifically aimed at wild trout. In fact, some of those are still in the process of moving forward.

As for the need to have the same high genetic diversity in each ST stream in a given drainage, I’m not that much of a splitter. In fact a recent study in WV, if I recall the proper state, showed ST genetic differences among short segments of individual streams. I am satisfied at the moment to have high genetic diversity within a drainage and good connectivity such that when a catastrophic event occurs the pre-adapted individuals that survive in one stream can eventually contribute offspring to other streams via movement. This happens already in Pa following recoveries from drought and various causes of pollution that resulted in localized extirpation.

As for overharvest in Pa trout streams, localized overharvest at a popular bridge or where a forest road comes closest to a stream is not statewide or streamwide overharvest. I have on multiple occasions for a decade or more asked individuals here to name streams where the overall Wild trout population is overharvested and with only one exception, all that I have heard have been crickets. The statewide angler use and harvest study showed that this is not a statewide problem and the more localized, but still regionally diverse study of special ST regs, showed the same thing.

As for movement, the process you describe about the mainstream being a corridor for movement and survivors of stochastic events on individual tributaries spreading the genes that survived natural selection events is all true. And I am not saying the gene map should be Homogenous by any means, genetic diversity is important. Its just that the only ability we have to build adaptive capacity through genetic diversity is random mutation(fixed we cannot really manipulate)and gene flow(movement). Genetic diversity and potentially useful survival genes or gene sets(called coadapted genes), are lost to genetic drift(think founder effect) and inbreeding depression(think of the movie deliverance and what inbreeding does to people). We want to build adaptive capacity as much as possible so, as you said, everytime a huge event kills off brook trout we want the survivors to move and pass on any adaptively unique/useful genetic traits that helped them survive. The more they move after selection events(brook trout dying) the more rapidly they build their adaptive capacity to deal the old/ new evolving stressors in the watershed.

In summation, we can try to uncover, quantify, triage, and mitigate every single issue brook trout face which is not financially or logistically feasible.

Or

Since gene flow/ movement is the only major thing we can control that positively contributes to genetic adaptive potential( random mutation we can’t really mess with that I know of), we can manage at watershed scale(no stocking, C and R, enhance connectivity) to allow as much gene flow as possible after each natural selection event to drive adaptive potential to stressors we don’t even know exist yet. If we can get out of their way the fish have to tools to handle alot of these issues we don’t even know are stressors if genetic adaptive ability is maximized.

What we don’t want are selection events like incidental harvest of the small proportion of moving fish that eliminate those small number of movers transporting the very valuable genetics that individual used to be one of the last ones standing after stream temps in mid 70’s or a massive flood or drought. We don’t want selection being driven by competion or predation by a large population of transient pulse dosed stocked fish placed in above the streams carrying capacity that don’t have to be there in the first place and genetically speaking interfere with usijg selectove pressure to maximize adaptive potential to climate change or hydrograph extremes.

 

[silverfox]

Yea there were only three streams testing the C and R reg listed as you mentioned. Interesting to know there is more. Id love to see those if they are public. Having more than 3 streams in that case could increase control for habitat changes due to stochastic events. But if you look at the was goal of the study it was to create brook trout so many millimeters long(you can fill in the blank in that I’m sure but it was larger fish, that was the goal). My point is that the if you wanted to see what the reg does to the population you need to survey the population, 300 yards is still far sort of the population.

From Shannon’s paper
“Consequently, changes in habitat suitability at one site can have significant, unintended consequences to large-scale metapopulation genetic structure and demography (Letcher et al. 2007).”

If habitat suitability at one site can have far reaching effects at one site think about how far reaching the effects or mortality could be. You could be allowing brook trout to grow larger in those 300 yard segments that function more as nursery sections that aren’t as desireable habitat wise for larger adult fish. There could be any number of uncaptured benefits, changes, or scenarios simply because 300 yards leaves the rest of the brook trouts habitat/life history corridor to the imagination.

When Fausch preposed his riverscape model he spoke to the importance of effects of looking at the entire population and the scope required to do that .

“In particular, they noted the need to understand, sample, and manage fish populations at 0.5 to 50-mi (1 to 100-km) stream segment and 5 to 50-year scales.”

This why so much information escapes those short segments and even primary outcome can’t be trusted( earlier mentioned which i believed was a size in millimeters of brook trout?). But what about secondary outcomes? We have bo idea what it dis for conservation genetics, long term population adaptability/stability. 7 fish per mile you mentioned is an average i’m guessing, and its a selection event that does not have a rhyme or a reason genetically in-terms of what genes it does or doesn’t leave to adapt to stochastic events, climate changes, invasive species.

I think when you do a study based on size and density in a such a small stretch of water thats sub representative of yhe population and don’t really know what effects it had on conservation genetics/adaptation as a non measured secondary outcome we need to avoid making broad statements like C and R is bot beneficial for brook trout. And furthet if we would need to do extensive studies at watershed scale at great expense to find out what all those downstream impacts are of harvest, inevitably taking resources away from more needed reseach project’s for native brook trout, why not just make them C and R assuming not many people are keeping them anyway(not my assumption ive found nets/car battery contraptions in brook trout streams/ seen

There were 16 treatment streams and 7 control streams.

https://www.fishandboat.com/Fish/Fisheries/TroutPlan/Documents/EvaluationOfCatchReleaseRegulationsOfBrookTrout.pdf

 

[tomgamber]

So he lied. 😉

 

[use2wuz]

So much for the PA “State Fish” - just brings to mind how PAFBC sourced Brook Trout from another state (and ecosystem) to “replenish” the destroyed native population in Big Spring after taking a decade or so to finally recognize the hatchery effluent problems.

 

[Mike]

What is the written source of information that says Pa acquired ST from some other system to replenish Big Spring? I never read or heard any of that and It doesn’t make immediate sense to me since there was still a Big Spring ST population present. The one that was present, however, may not have been original stock given the commercial (first) and state hatchery (second) that had been located on that stream. It was a reproducing population, however. Perhaps the hatchery strain(s?) cultured over the years is why the thinking was that strains differing from the original creek strain were brought in, but if that’s the case, it was not to replenish the stream’s population.

 

[silverfox]

So much for the PA “State Fish” - just brings to mind how PAFBC sourced Brook Trout from another state (and ecosystem) to “replenish” the destroyed native population in Big Spring after taking a decade or so to finally recognize the hatchery effluent problems.

I don't think I've ever heard that before. I will say that unless someone conducts a genetic study on Big Spring to prove otherwise, I'm not convinced there's anything other than hatchery fish or the descendants of hatchery fish throughout the entire stream today. So in a sense, you're probably right that they aren't the Big Spring "strain" (blaahhhhhhh), or even a limestone dwelling population, but probably from somewhere else entirely.

Mike, do you know if any of the fish the state used in the hatchery system were of Nipigon origin? I swear someone told me a while ago that Nipigon was the origin of the Huntsdale stock. Could be a rumor I guess.

 

[Mike]

I don't think I've ever heard that before. I will say that unless someone conducts a genetic study on Big Spring to prove otherwise, I'm not convinced there's anything other than hatchery fish or the descendants of hatchery fish throughout the entire stream today. So in a sense, you're probably right that they aren't the Big Spring "strain" (blaahhhhhhh), or even a limestone dwelling population, but probably from somewhere else entirely.

Mike, do you know if any of the fish the state used in the hatchery system were of Nipigon origin? I swear someone told me a while ago that Nipigon was the origin of the Huntsdale stock. Could be a rumor I guess.

I never heard that strain mentioned, but I was not always “up” on the strains in each hatchery. I too would be surprised if any original strain remains, but there is always an outside chance. After all, we just saw an 80 to 1 winner in the Kentucky Derby.

 

[silverfox]

I never heard that strain mentioned, but I was not always “up” on the strains in each hatchery. I too would be surprised if any original strain remains, but there is always an outside chance. After all, we just saw an 80 to 1 winner in the Kentucky Derby.

Good point!

 

[use2wuz]

What is the written source of information that says Pa acquired ST from some other system to replenish Big Spring? I never read or heard any of that and It doesn’t make immediate sense to me since there was still a Big Spring ST population present. The one that was present, however, may not have been original stock given the commercial (first) and state hatchery (second) that had been located on that stream. It was a reproducing population, however. Perhaps the hatchery strain(s?) cultured over the years is why the thinking was that strains differing from the original creek strain were brought in, but if that’s the case, it was not to replenish the stream’s population.

 

[use2wuz]

Word was that the ST were sourced from a hatchery in Virginia - however, I can’t prove it - I only know that current fish aren’t even remotely the same appearance as the black bellied hook jaw hump backed October males from the late 70’s - 80’s - I’m glad to see them back in the creek either way

 

[afishinado]

Big Spring wild brookies are very dull colored when compared to many of the (native strain?) brook trout in found in most other streams throughout the state. Therefore I agree it is very likely their lineage is very likely from a hatchery strain.

 

[pcray1231]

For me the overall takeaway is beware of talking in generalities. What fits for one stream may be very, very different from another.

The brook trout enhancement program. They picked streams that were already excellent!!!! Like every one of them. From the day it was enacted I NEVER saw it as a regulation tool. Those streams were NOT overharvested or overfished, and it was clear from the get go. Almost to a T, it hurt those particular streams, and it was VERY predictable. We had a thread here about it!!! We all said it was trouble for those streams. Not bad. Not ir-recoverable. But it would be a detriment to each of them. It was obvious. You had already good, lightly fished brook trout streams, and they put signs up saying to the general public "FISH HERE". I mean, comon.

I still supported the program though. Not for any management reason on those streams, I did not see the intent as to make those particular streams better. But to me the entire point of the program was: "Hey, all you numbnuts anglers. Yeah, you guys that follow that stocking schedule and chase white trucks around. That's ok, nothing wrong with that. But many of you got into a rut. You got addicted to that crack so bad that you're completely blind to the fact that right in your back yard, we have all of these other streams that we don't even have to stock. Why is it on this small stream, there's 30 guys fishing the day after a stocking huddling around the spot where the road crosses? Yet 1 mile down the road there's a similar sized quality wild trout stream with more fish but only like 1 guy on it? You don't even know they exist because they aren't on the stocking schedule. Yeah, some of you are new. Some have kids with. But a bunch of you others here, you should be progressing to those wild streams by now. Here, we'll help. We'll publicize a few good ones in each area of the state. Put em on a list, put signs up, make it easy on you. Go fish em. Try it out. If you have fun, hopefully you'll realize a stream does not have to be on a stocking list to be good. Go find more of them on your own. Consider it a step program to get off your addiction."

Hurts that stream, absolutely. But supported it anyway because it was a worthwhile teaching tool. A minor sacrifice on those streams, C&R so it doesn't hurt too bad, but overall good for the state as it may open a few eyes to the fact we have wild trout.

So, I'm sorry, those streams were all very good BEFORE the program. They were examples of GOOD streams. Hand picked streams that didn't need any help, they already provided an "example" angling experience. I don't read much into using them to say that regs don't work.

C&R regs will not benefit the majority of brookie streams in this state. They WILL benefit some. Which ones? The easily accessible, overly pressured, generally larger ones. The ones that even if you never fished, you know about it. Household names. Big Spring. Savage. Absolutely. And also the ones that have middling wild trout populations that get stocked over and see large opening day crowds. Those streams need a teaching tool. Hey everyone, there are wild trout present. Please take care not to deep hook fish, and once caught, release the wild ones please...

 

[silverfox]

For me the overall takeaway is beware of talking in generalities. What fits for one stream may be very, very different from another.

The brook trout enhancement program. They picked streams that were already excellent!!!! Like every one of them. From the day it was enacted I NEVER saw it as a regulation tool. Those streams were NOT overharvested or overfished, and it was clear from the get go. Almost to a T, it hurt those particular streams, and it was VERY predictable. We had a thread here about it!!! We all said it was trouble for those streams. Not bad. Not ir-recoverable. But it would be a detriment to each of them. It was obvious. You had already good, lightly fished brook trout streams, and they put signs up saying to the general public "FISH HERE". I mean, comon.

I still supported the program though. Not for any management reason on those streams, I did not see the intent as to make those particular streams better. But to me the entire point of the program was: "Hey, all you numbnuts anglers. Yeah, you guys that follow that stocking schedule and chase white trucks around. That's ok, nothing wrong with that. But many of you got into a rut. You got addicted to that crack so bad that you're completely blind to the fact that right in your back yard, we have all of these other streams that we don't even have to stock. Why is it on this small stream, there's 30 guys fishing the day after a stocking huddling around the spot where the road crosses? Yet 1 mile down the road there's a similar sized quality wild trout stream with more fish but only like 1 guy on it? You don't even know they exist because they aren't on the stocking schedule. Yeah, some of you are new. Some have kids with. But a bunch of you others here, you should be progressing to those wild streams by now. Here, we'll help. We'll publicize a few good ones in each area of the state. Put em on a list, put signs up, make it easy on you. Go fish em. Try it out. If you have fun, hopefully you'll realize a stream does not have to be on a stocking list to be good. Go find more of them on your own. Consider it a step program to get off your addiction."

Hurts that stream, absolutely. But supported it anyway because it was a worthwhile teaching tool. A minor sacrifice on those streams, C&R so it doesn't hurt too bad, but overall good for the state as it may open a few eyes to the fact we have wild trout.

So, I'm sorry, those streams were all very good BEFORE the program. They were examples of GOOD streams. Hand picked streams that didn't need any help, they already provided an "example" angling experience. I don't read much into using them to say that regs don't work.

C&R regs will not benefit the majority of brookie streams in this state. They WILL benefit some. Which ones? The easily accessible, overly pressured, generally larger ones. The ones that even if you never fished, you know about it. Household names. Big Spring. Savage. Absolutely. And also the ones that have middling wild trout populations that get stocked over and see large opening day crowds. Those streams need a teaching tool. Hey everyone, there are wild trout present. Please take care not to deep hook fish, and once caught, release the wild ones please...

Good points all around.

I remember when the program was first announced and I remember the discussion about it being a bad idea from a stream publicity standpoint. The big flashing neon "eat at joes" signs revealed the streams to those who probably never gave them a second thought.

Those weren't, and aren't the streams that need angling regulations. So it's no surprise to me that the experiment "failed". It was destined to fail before it started. It sucks that it's used now as justification to do nothing similar. Ever.

The stocked trout culture has manipulated a large component of the angling public to care about the "wrong" things. Fish size, ease of catching the fish, the color of fish, the density of fish, the artificial spring bounty, and on and on. It's no wonder so few use wild trout streams for consumptive angling. The side effect of that is that wild trout take a back seat to stocked trout by that angling cohort. Even more so for brook trout because of their size and the effort required to reach them (generally).

Look at where MD put the regs in WMD. It's on stocked trout streams. That's where C&R regs for brook trout can have an impact. Whether it's actually preserving a handful of important fish by having them be released rather than kept, or the very existence of a species-specific regulation to draw attention to the plight of our native state fish, the regs have value.

I have to re-quote DNR here again because this line can't be stressed enough in my opinion. Do we really need both? Millions of nonnative hatchery-reared stocked trout (often placed in native brook trout habitat) for consumption AND the harvest of our state fish, a sensitive species, a declining species, a species of greatest conservation need?

The department believes that the value of releasing native brook trout is greater, both socially and ecologically, than harvest, especially given the abundant opportunity to harvest stocked trout.

 

[pcray1231]

Yes, I believe there is a place for stocking trout. The place is our large streams that get too warm for significant wild trout populations. Those streams are enjoyable to fish, usually accessible, and they can handle a lot of pressure. The fish spread out in them, so you don't have 1000 fish and people at the 1 bridge hole where they throw buckets in and useless everywhere else. And there are not significant numbers of wild trout present. Sure, a few, which may come down from a trib, and a holdover or two who escape to a trib or spring seep in the summer. But they are generally smallmouth bass water from June-October. You get a whole lot of recreational opportunity ADDED from stocking without much detriment at all. Those should be stocked, IMO.

That is not to say you shouldn't attempt to improve those fisheries to become wild trout water. Many of them were once upon a time, but due to impoundments or changes in the surrounding land have become too warm. If they improve to the point where wild trout populations become possible, then that becomes the clear preference, and you should stop stocking them as soon as they show signs of that. i.e. don't wait until they are Class A. We need to stop with the notion that class B or C streams are not good enough. Many of them are great! And if a population takes hold and is capable of expanding, take them off the list. Help them expand....

As for the brook trout enhancement program. Yeah, anything that calls attention to specific small streams that are currently underutilized is bad for that particular stream. Don't use them to justify the failure of regs. Those streams don't need regs. They're underutilized. They're good. Attention is going to hurt them. But yes I still support it. As an educational tool. Publicize to the public that we have wild trout! Help people with that progression from thinking trout only come from trucks to realizing how much great water we really do have right here in their backyards. Those people will then search out more water. You create conservationists by highlighting natural resources over manmade ones. And in the end, a slight and temporary detriment to 1 good stream will benefit 100 others.

Fish size should not really be a management goal/criteria. I can't say I often think of fish size being limited by harvest or regulations. Fish size is almost entirely due to habitat. Fooling around with regs is not going to do much. A small, infertile, stream is not going to produce large fish. That stream isn't capable of growing many large fish. And that doesn't make that stream useless as a wild trout fishery, 1000 six inch fish is just fine. Want larger fish? Work on creating better water quality, better habitat. Or better yet, accept the small streams for what they are and work on improving the LARGER STREAM it runs into so that it can support larger wild trout as well. Just like a goldfish, fish grow as much as their bowl lets them.

 

[silverfox]

We need to stop with the notion that class B or C streams are not good enough. Many of them are great! And if a population takes hold and is capable of expanding, take them off the list. Help them expand....

Especially when you consider that the only reason some of them are listed as B,C,D is because they were sampled in late August during a drought with 100 degree air temps in 1998.

I was talking with someone recently about their inventory update (not Pennsylvania). They had always operated under the assumption that if they surveyed a few 300 meter stations and found brook trout that you could mark that line blue on the map and move on. That it held brook trout from stem to stern.

With this current effort they're actually surveying from mouth to 1st order source. What they've found is that they have about 20% of the fish they thought they had. Rather that brook trout only occupied about 20% of the water they thought had them throughout. In other words, they have far fewer brook trout than they thought they had.

I know the consensus is that some small portion of the populations move, but I have a feeling that's much more in some cases than we think. It's worth pointing out on the Loyalsock study for example that the transponders died in mid November. So roughly 20% of the population moved into the river after spawning, BUT, we don't know how many moved in January when the anchor ice set in. It could be more like 90% of the population moved.

A while back I posted a photo of a bigger brook trout from a beaver pond. I would bet money if you surveyed that area in late August you'd struggle to find a single brook trout. They'll all be spread out up through the upper stream by then. Survey it in April and that pond would be Class A (probably 4x the min kg/ha for class a). Survey it in December and it might be class b. That doesn't mean that area is a class b or c or a fishery, it means that's where the fish were when you surveyed it.

 

[sarce]

I was talking with someone recently about their inventory update (not Pennsylvania). They had always operated under the assumption that if they surveyed a few 300 meter stations and found brook trout that you could mark that line blue on the map and move on. That it held brook trout from stem to stern.

With this current effort they're actually surveying from mouth to 1st order source. What they've found is that they have about 20% of the fish they thought they had. Rather that brook trout only occupied about 20% of the water they thought had them throughout. In other words, they have far fewer brook trout than they thought they had.

You don't have to confirm or deny but that sounds an awful lot like MD. Their brook trout management plan released mid-2000's printed population estimates on a lot of streams. Sometimes estimating 50-200 adult fish per KM. I always noticed from fishing those streams that sometimes you only had adult fish in 0.5 km of stream so those estimates were really misleading. Upstream of the core areas these streams are too shallow to support much because of the habitat degradation. The lower ends are the last areas to hold brookies before they blink out from a stream because the habitat loss starts at the top and moves down over time.

I think this is true in some parts of PA also especially with the unassessed waters program which from what I understand starts at the mouth and goes until enough fish are captured to confirm a population, then the stream is protected from that point upstream regardless of how far up the trout are present. However PA has a lot more mountain brook trout streams that do support fish up to their source, so instead of overestimating by 80% it's probably not anywhere near that.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I was talking with someone recently about their inventory update (not Pennsylvania). They had always operated under the assumption that if they surveyed a few 300 meter stations and found brook trout that you could mark that line blue on the map and move on. That it held brook trout from stem to stern.

With this current effort they're actually surveying from mouth to 1st order source. What they've found is that they have about 20% of the fish they thought they had. Rather that brook trout only occupied about 20% of the water they thought had them throughout. In other words, they have far fewer brook trout than they thought they had.

I know the consensus is that some small portion of the populations move, but I have a feeling that's much more in some cases than we think. It's worth pointing out on the Loyalsock study for example that the transponders died in mid November. So roughly 20% of the population moved into the river after spawning, BUT, we don't know how many moved in January when the anchor ice set in. It could be more like 90% of the population moved.

A while back I posted a photo of a bigger brook trout from a beaver pond. I would bet money if you surveyed that area in late August you'd struggle to find a single brook trout. They'll all be spread out up through the upper stream by then. Survey it in April and that pond would be Class A (probably 4x the min kg/ha for class a). Survey it in December and it might be class b. That doesn't mean that area is a class b or c or a fishery, it means that's where the fish were when you surveyed it.

Exactly, I think the key word here is life history.

Fish Life History: An Important Role in Fisheries Management

Understanding fish life histories is key to sustainably managing fisheries. Learn how scientists determine a fish’s life history profile and how we can support healthy fish populations.

www.fisheries.noaa.gov

“or how a fish forages, ages, grows, and reproduces throughout its life—can help us understand what it takes to preserve fish populations for future generations. We can use life history information to make practical regulations for fisheries”

Electro surveying in august and finding were fish are huddle around thermal
refuge tells you one small of the brook trouts life history and managing for just that is ridiculous. This is why other states are managing entire watersheds, life history.

It would be like if someone study/conserve you you busted into your house randomly one day found you on the crapper and concluded that must be the only area of your home you needed and put a bunch of other peoplein your living room kitchen, bed room ect and “managed you in the bathroom”. Its completely incoherent and its what PA fish and boat is doing right now. I understand there are social and political pressures and this cannot be done everywhere we find a brook trout but not even one stream state wide??? Really?