T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,655
The TU Brook Trout conservation portfolio and Range-wide assessment tool identifies East Licking Creek as "Secure and Restore Persistent Population."
View attachment 1641228571
The prescription for that conservation strategy includes "nonnative trout eradication," though in lieu of that, you would think cessation of stocking might the closest thing to "eradication."
View attachment 1641228572
Instead of any of that, it's stocked with rainbow and brown trout.
View attachment 1641228573
I've used East Licking Creek as an example before for this very reason. There are no barriers upstream of the reservoir to remove to satisfy the "or connectivity enhancements" part of the conservation strategy. Habitat isn't the limiting factor in the stream according to the TU assessment. That leaves nonnative trout removal as the primary tool according to the TU assessment.
I don't suspect "eradication" is on the table, but the least they could do is stop adding more nonnative trout. The majority of the stream is on DCNR/SF property. It would be nice if DCNR had some pull with PFBC.
What does "redundant" mean, in TU's assessment?
And why don't they have something like "End stocking of hatchery trout" as one of the management goals to help native brook trout populations?
They've got eradication of non-native fish, improving connectivity, improving habitat... All good stuff. But aren't they leaving out the most obvious and usually FIRST action?