Mixed Messages Work Against Us...

Bob Mallard, Executive Director, NFC

A nonnative brown trout from the Batten Kill in Vermont, once a renowned wild native brook trout fishery. (Diana Mallard)

After reading a petition that was forwarded to me by several concerned anglers, I couldn’t help but chime in. It shows just how far we have to go in regard to wild native fish conservation, and how the idea that trout need to be everywhere, especially nonnative trout, is hurting the cause.

“Would you like to see our valley floor cold-water streams and our larger streams, which are now considered warm-water bass streams, become trout streams during the colder months of the year?”

While trout anglers cry foul when invasive nonnative bass show up in their trout water, at least one trout-centric organization is promoting the management of nonnative trout in bass water. How can we expect to be taken seriously when we are doing that which we condemn others for doing?

To be fair, the petition seems to have originated from an unaffiliated individual operating on their own, but it has gained the support of anglers and at least one trout conservation group has publicly backed it and called for others to do so.

What if B.A.S.S. said, “Would you like to see our valley floor cold-water streams and our larger streams, which are now considered cold-water trout streams, become bass streams during the warmer months of the year?” We would be outraged, and rightfully so…

To be fair, there are many waters where nonnative trout, and nonnative bass for that matter, have naturalized and can never be removed. In these cases we have no choice but to move on and let them be. And it’s even OK to fish for them as they are there and not doing so isn’t going to change anything.

“In all matters of trout management, we want to know that we are substantially correct, both morally and biologically.”

When we promote the spread of nonnative fish, regardless of who is doing it, we are on unstable ground both morally and biologically. Again, would we feel the same if we were talking about bass, pike, muskies, or even baitfish species such as smelt and golden shiners that are harmful to trout?

Do we know where these nonnative brown trout are going to end up? We better as the impact of brown trout on brook trout is well-documented, and it is the latter that pays the price. The more aggressive browns outcompete brook trout for food and space, and a notably more piscivorous species, browns can prey on juvenile brook trout as well. And as a fall spawner, browns can disrupt brook trout spawning, and even hybridize with brook trout.

“Our goal is to have 1,000-1,500 signatures to present to the Pennsylvania Fish and Boat Commission in January of 2021.”

We all love to fish, that is part of the reason why we do what we do. But can we call ourselves “stewards of the resource” or “conservationists” when we actively promote the continued spread of nonnative trout that comes at the expense of other native fish, including brook trout?

“From January 1 through February 28 and September 7 through December 31, the harvest is 3 combined species over 7 inches. There is little discernable science behind the minimum size of 7 inches.”

Pennsylvania’s daily harvest limit is as noted, combined, and includes native brook trout as well as nonnative brown and rainbow trout. Wild brook trout, now found primarily in small streams in the state, reach sexual maturity before they reach 7 inches. So there is science behind the limit.

“Changing to 3 combined species under 14 inches would protect spawning trout and migratory trout in their hunt for safe food in all downstream waters during the post-spawn period.”

While moving from a 7” minimum length limit to a 14” maximum length limit would protect most, but not all, spawning nonnative rainbows and browns, it would leave spawning age wild native brook trout virtually unprotected as most found in Pennsylvania are well short of that.

While being promoted as “science” and “conservation,” this initiative is all about fishing, and it flies in the face of science and conservation. When it comes to stocking, there is no real science, just husbandry. As for nonnative fish, they are counter to conservation.

A wild native brook trout from Big Spring in Newville, PA, the last fabled limestone creek in the state with a viable population of wild native fish. (Bob Mallard)

This is not meant as a declaration of war against brown trout, stocking, fishing, or anything else. It’s simply meant to challenge the selling of recreation as conservation, while pointing out the mixed messages and bad science coming out of the trout fishing and advocacy community these days.

If folks want to promote and improve “fishing,” do it through the fishing clubs, not conservation organizations. Mixing recreation and conservation confuses the masses, and makes the latter that much harder to sell. And let’s not promote that which we challenge when someone else does it.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE