Waters with the Biggest Potential

[jifigz]

Tell that to the National Park System.

Fair enough. I see that it is "illegal" to release fish in certain places in certain national parks. I still don't think it would ever hold up in court if someone was cited for releasing a fish back into the waters from which it was caught....if someone wanted to push the matter that far.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Fair enough. I see that it is "illegal" to release fish in certain places in certain national parks. I still don't think it would ever hold up in court if someone was cited for releasing a fish back into the waters from which it was caught....if someone wanted to push the matter that far.

Or another option would be a bounty system like in lees ferry with the brown trout removal there for endangered now threatened humpback chubs but that costs money however the cheaper way one might be able to do it would be like what they do for brown and rainbow removal on the snake to protect fine spotted cutthroat where they shock in the winter remove a bunch and leave a couple with internal tags/markers so you have to open up the fish to see whats inside and see if you got the bounty prize. Less money outlay but size able prize. Or like silver fox mentioned in Virginia NPS has mandatory removal but I don’t think there is alot of resistance to that down there because these situations arent in blue ribbon brown trout streams like they these regs aren’t in mossy creek. People get it in other states that your protecting a native species from an invasive one and there isn’t a lot of resistance at all. Actually VA’s guide industry actually promotes and depends on brook trout much more than PA does its a different culture. But those same people always know they will have mossy creek just like we will always have spring/little J ect for browns. I don’t think or understand why there would be people who took it as far to court or resisted if we were talking about giving just one watershed thats a marginal invasive brown trout stream to the brookies.

 

[silverfox]

Fair enough. I see that it is "illegal" to release fish in certain places in certain national parks. I still don't think it would ever hold up in court if someone was cited for releasing a fish back into the waters from which it was caught....if someone wanted to push the matter that far.

I'm not sure about enforcement in places like the Blue Ridge Parkway waters where it's unlawful to release brown trout back to the water, or any other NPS property that mandates nonnative trout are dispatched and "disposed of". Since it's a federal law, and clearly written & posted, I doubt arguing it in court would be wise.

As to why I think Pennsylvanians need to have these discussions more often, I've had the fortune of communicating with a number of people from Maine to Georgia on this issue. I've heard the same things over and over again from multiple people outside the state in reference to PA's love affair with nonnative fish. This support for nonnative trout generally isn't as strong outside the Commonwealth. That's driven by state F&W agencies, and federal agencies like NPS putting regulations in place to reinforce the importance of native brook trout or other native trout out west by highlighting that nonnative trout are a threat to native trout. As I've said before, I think the existence of NPS-managed property within a state influences how the states then manage its fisheries. PA has very little NPS-managed property, and those that we do have don't have significant brook trout populations or any at all in most cases.

Fly anglers are one of the major demographics driving this. Here's my vote for a water with the greatest potential, Big Spring. The rainbows need to go. To illustrate my point about fly anglers, the reason the state didn't remove rainbows from Big Spring is that a group of fly anglers threw a fit about it. The most influential fly fishing-centric "conservation" group that should have been supportive of the state's proposal to remove rainbows, advocated against it, despite that advocacy being against their own mission statement and several publications stating that should be their focus.

It's taboo to talk about this stuff in PA. That needs to change.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I'm not sure about enforcement in places like the Blue Ridge Parkway waters where it's unlawful to release brown trout back to the water, or any other NPS property that mandates nonnative trout are dispatched and "disposed of". Since it's a federal law, and clearly written & posted, I doubt arguing it in court would be wise.

As to why I think Pennsylvanians need to have these discussions more often, I've had the fortune of communicating with a number of people from Maine to Georgia on this issue. I've heard the same things over and over again from multiple people outside the state in reference to PA's love affair with nonnative fish. This support for nonnative trout generally isn't as strong outside the Commonwealth. That's driven by state F&W agencies, and federal agencies like NPS putting regulations in place to reinforce the importance of native brook trout or other native trout out west by highlighting that nonnative trout are a threat to native trout. As I've said before, I think the existence of NPS-managed property within a state influences how the states then manage its fisheries. PA has very little NPS-managed property, and those that we do have don't have significant brook trout populations or any at all in most cases.

Fly anglers are one of the major demographics driving this. Here's my vote for a water with the greatest potential, Big Spring. The rainbows need to go. To illustrate my point about fly anglers, the reason the state didn't remove rainbows from Big Spring is that a group of fly anglers threw a fit about it. The most influential fly fishing-centric "conservation" group that should have been supportive of the state's proposal to remove rainbows, advocated against it, despite that advocacy being against their own mission statement and several publications stating that should be their focus.

It's taboo to talk about this stuff in PA. That needs to change.

Thats spot on and I will say take an example of a states like Montana, California, Arizona, NM, oregon, idaho, wyoming, utah, Tennessee, North carolia, Maryland, Virginia, New york, Maine , New Jersey and many more. They all have removal projects for invasive trout trout that have saved an entire species or protected native trout but they still have their blue ribbon non native trout fisheries. I always try to dispell that fear that acknowledging the invasive effect of our favorite sport fish will result in state wide eradication because its not physically possible and socially it wouldn’t be allowed. We can have a healthy Big Spring with native brook trout and a fun letort/yellow breeches/lower big spring/connodoguinnet with brown trout. The existence of one doesn’t preclude the other.

 

[jifigz]

I'm not sure about enforcement in places like the Blue Ridge Parkway waters where it's unlawful to release brown trout back to the water, or any other NPS property that mandates nonnative trout are dispatched and "disposed of". Since it's a federal law, and clearly written & posted, I doubt arguing it in court would be wise.

Plessy V Ferguson was determined by the US Supreme Court and upheld federal standards...that was argued against and changed 80 years later or so. Just because something is a federal law is no reason not to challenge it. Plus, certain religions have very pacifistic and harmonious views of the natural world where killing another animal is taboo, one could probably make such an argument if one wanted to take such matters to court on the release of a captured living animal. Either way, we aren't here discussing law, but waters with the greatest potential.

 

[jifigz]

Thats spot on and I will say take an example of a states like Montana, California, Arizona, NM, oregon, idaho, wyoming, utah, Tennessee, North carolia, Maryland, Virginia, New york, Maine , New Jersey and many more. They all have removal projects for invasive trout trout that have saved an entire species or protected native trout but they still have their blue ribbon non native trout fisheries. I always try to dispell that fear that acknowledging the invasive effect of our favorite sport fish will result in state wide eradication because its not physically possible and socially it wouldn’t be allowed. We can have a healthy Big Spring with native brook trout and a fun letort/yellow breeches/lower big spring/connodoguinnet with brown trout. The existence of one doesn’t preclude the other.

I would love to have Big Spring as a all wild brook trout fishery. That would be amazing. I would support the attempted removal of rainbows from Big Spring through a variety of means.

But the rest of your post...isn't that we what we are already doing? Having our native trout fisheries AND our invasive brown trout fisheries? I would say yes, yes we are. The vast majority of our native brook trout streams are un-stocked and dominated by brookies. Your criticisms are because we are not doing enough to protect those streams and/or not working on the streams and populations that you feel are the most important. Is that correct? Sure, there are stocked brook trout streams, but the vast majority are not.

 

[silverfox]

Plessy V Ferguson was determined by the US Supreme Court and upheld federal standards...that was argued against and changed 80 years later or so. Just because something is a federal law is no reason not to challenge it. Plus, certain religions have very pacifistic and harmonious views of the natural world where killing another animal is taboo, one could probably make such an argument if one wanted to take such matters to court on the release of a captured living animal. Either way, we aren't here discussing law, but waters with the greatest potential.

So OT is ok for you to bring up, but not me to respond to?

I was simply responding to your suggestion that it wouldn't hold water in court since you mentioned the legality of the regs. Yes, one could argue the constitutionality of the regulation if they so desired. Though I'd mention that NPS's mandate (as with any executive branch agency under DOI) is already granted authority by Article 1 section 8 of the constitution, and so any challenge would ultimately come down to a SCOTUS ruling if anyone wanted to take it that far. I'm not saying that's not possible, obviously, it is, just that NPS's regulations are hardly weak or unenforceable without significant litigation. Especially when their regulations are driven by sound science.

I did respond to the topic of the thread in the remainder of my post.

 

[jifigz]

So OT is ok for you to bring up, but not me to respond to?

I was simply responding to your suggestion that it wouldn't hold water in court since you mentioned the legality of the regs. Yes, one could argue the constitutionality of the regulation if they so desired. Though I'd mention that NPS's mandate (as with any executive branch agency under DOI) is already granted authority by Article 1 section 8 of the constitution, and so any challenge would ultimately come down to a SCOTUS ruling if anyone wanted to take it that far. I'm not saying that's not possible, obviously, it is, just that NPS's regulations are hardly weak or unenforceable without significant litigation. Especially when their regulations are driven by sound science.

I did respond to the topic of the thread in the remainder of my post.

I wasn't criticizing you but rather myself for being way off topic.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I would love to have Big Spring as a all wild brook trout fishery. That would be amazing. I would support the attempted removal of rainbows from Big Spring through a variety of means.

But the rest of your post...isn't that we what we are already doing? Having our native trout fisheries AND our invasive brown trout fisheries? I would say yes, yes we are. The vast majority of our native brook trout streams are un-stocked and dominated by brookies. Your criticisms are because we are not doing enough to protect those streams and/or not working on the streams and populations that you feel are the most important. Is that correct? Sure, there are stocked brook trout streams, but the vast majority are not.

Yea would be nice wouldn’t it. Managed for native brook trout right up to the upstream section of the downtown milldam that serves as a barrier.

I’m glad you asked how managing for brook trout would be any different than what we are doing now because even avid fly fishermen and conservation literate people such as you and I don’t get alot of exposure to the finer fisheries science based management distinctions that can have powerful effects on brook trout populations unless we dive head into that realm. I’d like to see more science communication in this arena to people like us.

So in PA we have areas that we say are “class A” wild trout. We think of them as our brook trout management areas because they are full of brook trout but there is in fact little to no management for brook trout occurring.

The term “wild trout” from a management stand point is different from a fishing standpoint. For example, I like fishing for wild trout because a stocked trout fishing experience is not as enjoyable for me personally. But I do not like managing efforts for “wild trout” from a fisheries perspective where brook trout management zones should be. This is because we know invasive trout dig up brook trout redds, eat them, push them oht of thermal refuge, prime habitat, feeding lies, decrease gene flow/movement, and carry disease among other harms. So management for “wild trout” where top tier brook trout managment zones should be becomes a dog whistle in fisheries management for managing/facilitating displacement by invasive species.

This may leave people wondering ok I understand what your saying but how do you manage for native brook trout and not “wild trout” since pa has zero native brook regulations, just wild trout.

Well depending on the watershed there are many options.

1. Not stocking invasive trout in the same watershed. Shannon white showed us with her Loyalsock that stocking even miles down stream doesn’t make sense the native brookies need to use all of it to thrive. (Keep in mind we are talking 1 or 2 small or sub watersheds statewide as brook trout management zones as you think about feasibility). Stocking downstream of a class A pop is stocking on it effectively putting the buckets in downstream is just to make humans feel warm and fuzzy, they will disperse varying distances based on density competition or thermal refuge if they survive that long.



2. Removal in tiny streams if possible within that watershed. This can be manual removal, chemical, or even now biological removal in some places/trials of new technology in 4 states out west.

3. Angler harvest of wild invasive trout within the watershed. Think lees ferry, snake, NPS in VA, lakers in yellowstone and others.

4. Genetic rescue- this one is very exciting. If there are populations or areas within the watershed that have been isolated and inbreeding has occurred you can get stunted small infertile unfit to survive brook trout and translocating a small amount of brook trout can be very powerful in that situation because the genetics are so so so poor. In NC Fish size, fertility, and fitnesses increased in year one in a genetic rescue trial.

5. Reintroduction after removal- alot of stream conditions have changed and in areas of a watershed where we lost brook trout 50 years ago and are reforested we have seen even manual removal be successful in allowing successful reintroduction with no rotenone like in new jersey.

6. Brook trout C and R. Pa fish and boats study that they use to poo poo this didn’t even have a big enough sample size of stream reaches to reliably determine its primary outcome and there is data from the savage and other places showing C and R helps likely especially if your stocking bear by and angler effort is increased.

7. Stop stocking brook trout ENTIRELY- genetic introgression can happen and cause very harmful changes to genetics that decrease survival and adaptation to climate change and other stressors.

We currently do none if these things (not even reintroduction because big spring doesn’t count as a serious reintroduction THEY STOCK IT WITH HATCHERY BROOK TROUT LOL!!!! WT*!!!! Lol

Our goal in management should be managing so the fishes genetics change as rapidly as possible to deal with human disturbances and natural ones on the landscape like floods, drought, climate, development, and many others( some issues we don’t even know about) managing for rapid adaptation is better than constantly studying brook trout stressors and trying to retroactively fix problems like disease, flow regime’s, temps after the fact when we could have helped them adapt over to these in the first place. We do this by focusing on movement and managing whole watersheds rather than how PA fish and boat manages them(based of density of fish and size of them as it relates to fishery instead of managing how/where they go in the watershed). More movement = more gene flow= more rapid adaptation to many stressors including climate change. We can let the fish restore the genetic damage we have caused from cornering them in headwater streams(that they need so much more than) AND the streams too in those top tier brook trout management zones.

 

[JeffP]

Fair enough. I see that it is "illegal" to release fish in certain places in certain national parks. I still don't think it would ever hold up in court if someone was cited for releasing a fish back into the waters from which it was caught....if someone wanted to push the matter that far.

Even though I get the whole "back the brookie" movement and generally support it, I'm pretty sure I would be practicing a lot of long releases on browns.

 

[troutbert]

Stocking of hatchery trout directly on top of native brook trout populations is still very widespread in PA.

That is often left out of these discussions. I don't know why.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Even though I get the whole "back the brookie" movement and generally support it, I'm pretty sure I would be practicing a lot of long releases on browns.

The “back the brookie” movement thus far has just been screwing a license plate to the back of ones car. Native Brook trout need action. Stocking reform, conservation genetics based management instead or fishing based, and removal in the few places where feasible to do so.

 

[silverfox]

Stocking of hatchery trout directly on top of native brook trout populations is still very widespread in PA.

That is often left out of these discussions. I don't know why.

I think we've beaten that horse to a pulp. We submitted a petition to PFBC with a bunch of signatures requesting they stop it. I've yet to see any organized group advocating for the opposite.

Again, we have to walk and chew gum. I don't buy this notion that we can't do anything else until that's stopped. I don't have a whole lot of hope that they'll stop doing it, so we're just supposed to sit around and do nothing in the meantime?

I'm all ears if someone has a suggestion for how to get PFBC to stop stocking over brook trout. Let's hear it.

 

[pcray1231]

The culture thing goes to different countries too.

I had the opportunity to fish the Alps in Switzerland on 2 separate trips. Catch & Release is illegal there, period. There's a sizable number of people who have the attitude that it's morally fine to fish for food, but fishing for sport is animal cruelty!

I hired a guide there and he's a proponent of the western idea of conservation. I can tell you a whole lotta fish accidently wiggled off at my feet. All of them, in fact. Unbelievable, right after taking their picture too.

 

[Tigereye]

That sucks when that happens

 

[Fish Sticks]

The culture thing goes to different countries too.

I had the opportunity to fish the Alps in Switzerland on 2 separate trips. Catch & Release is illegal there, period. There's a sizable number of people who have the attitude that it's morally fine to fish for food, but fishing for sport is animal cruelty!

I hired a guide there and he's a proponent of the western idea of conservation. I can tell you a whole lotta fish accidently wiggled off at my feet. All of them, in fact. Unbelievable, right after taking their picture too.

I still haven’t caught a brown trout where native its on my bucket list

 

[Acristickid]

Fsticks- if I am able to check off the remaining natives (3, currently) in the US I would like to think I would take a trip to Iceland for native Brown trout and Atlantic Salmon. The landscape looks wild.

Also - when did the Back the Brookie license plate change? The green one I’ve had for awhile. Plate a little garish for me to put on my own vehicle- like the new one better.

 

[pcray1231]

I still haven’t caught a brown trout where native its on my bucket list

And the funny part of that is, in the mountain stream I fished for brown trout, they were fingerling stocked by backpack. Apparantly the current was too swift for egg survival, or temperature too cold, or pH, or something. I really don't know. It was a glacial fed, very steep mountain stream that was mostly heavy riff and not much in the way of "pools". The locals there receive some fingerlings each year, they load em up in backpacks and take them up near the top, and I guess they filter down on through. It was decent fishing.

Some of their mountain streams DO have brook trout, and they love them!!! Capable of inhabiting and reproducing in the mountain streams the browns cannot. The stream I fished did not have brookies.

Also - when did the Back the Brookie license plate change? The green one I’ve had for awhile. Plate a little garish for me to put on my own vehicle- like the new one better.

I don't know. I know I ordered mine in like February 2022, and it was the new one.

 

[silverfox]

I still haven’t caught a brown trout where native its on my bucket list

I caught them in Ireland in 04. My wife and I came out of a little cafe in a tiny town one day and as I was walking across a small bridge I looked down at the stream running beside the cafe and saw hundreds of small native brown trout. Most were 4 to 6 inches long with a few pushing 10. I wanted to fish that stream outside of town, but the wife had other ideas.

We ended up finding a fee fishing place on a larger stream while driving around one day, and we both caught 2 good size 14-16 inchers, which the "guide" attending us quickly whacked with a priest and gutted on the spot. I was expecting C&R, so I was a bit surprised when he throttled them with such gusto. Anyway, we got some ingredients from the market and broiled them in the cottage. They were ok. I'm not much of a trout fan for eating, but the experience was worth it.

 

[krayfish2]

Some of their mountain streams DO have brook trout, and they love them!!! Capable of inhabiting and reproducing in the mountain streams the browns cannot. The stream I fished did not have brookies.

Did you let them know it was an invasive species? They should all be removed in favor of native fish. No need to create an artificial Disneyland type of fishery. Let the ecosystem sort itself out.

Now if you'll excuse me, I need to get some likes on this post so I will say.....
Brook trout, Brook trout, Brook trout, Brook trout