Protect Rhode Island Brook Trout

1. A MEETING OF MINDS ON THE FUTURE OF
WILD BROOK TROUT IN RHODE ISLAND
HOST: PROTECT RHODE ISLAND BROOK TROUT
MARCH 1, 2016
2:00PM
URI/EAST FARM/Building 14

2. INTRODUCTION TO PROTECT RHODE ISLAND
BROOK TROUT (PRIBT)
 We are a three year-old community advocacy group working independently and in cooperation
with other interested parties to protect, preserve, and restore wild brook trout populations in
Rhode Island waters.

3.  The brook trout (Salvelinus fontinalis) has been celebrated for centuries in
painting, song, and a rich body of literature; and, these spectacularly
beautiful creatures have assumed a particular cultural significance such that
several states have designated this species as their “state fish”.
Subject Species

4.  Multiple sources from the scientific literature document the current status of
this species in its original range.
 THE EASTERN BROOK TROUT JOINT VENTURE (EBTJV) (2008:4) summarizes
these stating that “brook trout populations … are declining across their
historic range from Maine to Georgia.” Further, wild brook trout populations
in the east are described as “impaired”.
 The five principal threats to stream-dwelling wild brook trout populations
cited by EBTJV are: riparian condition; water temperature; agricultural
practices; urbanization; and non-native species.
 The RI Wildlife Action Plan for 2015 (RISWAP) lists the brook trout as a
“species of greatest conservation need.”
 RIDEM sampling of trout waters has been limited and infrequent, with most of
the work having been done 15 to 20 years ago. There is, however, ample
anecdotal evidence of a significant decline in brook trout density statewide.
SPECIES IN PERIL

5. Sample Data, Anglers’ Log:
 Specific Time Series for One RI Stream:
 October 3, 1992, 11AM-3:30PM 84 wild brook trout
 October 5, 2006, 12PM-3:15PM 26 wild brook trout
 October 7, 2015, 11AM-2:30PM 02 wild brook trout
Summary of Three RI Sources in Separate Watersheds:
 In one, it was not unusual to catch (&release) 30-60 wild brook trout/visit.
Today, a good day is 6-8.
 In another, three successive evenings once produced an average of 32. Today,
1-2 can be expected.
 For the last, a good day had been 12. Finding 2-3 is now the norm.
EVIDENCE OF DECLINE
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
Source 1 Source 2 Source 3
Summary of Brook Trout
Decline in RI
Past Present

6.  No species lives in isolation from other species or from the physical
environment.
 For this reason we speak of biotic communities and of ecological systems.
Disturbances of natural equilibria have trains of consequences for flora and
fauna.
 A discrete, local illustration of this involves the Eastern Pearlshell mussel.
 The welfare of this mollusk depends on the health of brook trout populations.
Failure to ensure the welfare of the brook trout imperils the mollusk with
resultant impacts down the line.
 As an organism, the brook trout is a sentinel indicator of environmental
degradation, and its fate has become an indicator of priorities in public and
private environmental management efforts.
THE BROADER PERSPECTIVE
Eastern Pearlshell Mussel

7.  PRIBT has proposed to the RIDEM that an experimental wild trout management area
be established in the state’s upper Wood River watershed, defined so as to include
tributary streams above and below route 165 and extending downstream to the
dam at Barberville.
PRIBT PROPOSAL

8.  The watershed is largely intact and not subject to development.
 RISWAP notes that the watershed is of “low vulnerability” regarding water
quality impacts.
 This watershed, as defined above, is known to support the natural
reproduction of brook trout.
 Much of the watershed is state-owned and under state control.
 Four of the five threats to stream-dwelling wild brook trout cited previously
do not apply to this watershed.
 The sole remaining threat, that imposed by RIDEM stocking of non-native
species, is within the state’s control.
 It is for these reasons that the EBTJV has characterized the upper Wood River
as the state’s foremost opportunity for protecting wild brook trout.
THE UPPER WOOD RIVER IS THE PROPOSED
SITE BECAUSE:

9.  Our proposal calls for the application of special fishing regulations to the wild trout management area for an
initial study period of five years and for the cessation of fish stocking there during that time.
 It is further proposed that regular and frequent monitoring of wild trout take place in the area.
 Fishing may be allowed with artificial lures only, these featuring single, barbless hooks, with all fish to be
released unharmed.
 It is recommended that, when and where feasible, dams in the upper watershed be removed.
 Evaluation of this intervention on behalf of wild brook trout to be conducted at the end of the study period,
with the results to inform policy development thereafter.
 The cessation of stocking in the subject area mentioned in the proposal is justified by several decades of
research done in the laboratory and in the field.
 This work has amply documented the deleterious impacts, direct and indirect, of introduced trout on wild fish
and the habitat on which they depend for survival.
PRIBT PROPOSAL SPECIFICS

10.  Summarizing this research, Trout Unlimited has stated: “Historically, stocking of non-
native trout has been one of the greatest threats to native trout species as species
such as brown trout and hatchery produced rainbows compete with, prey on, or
hybridize with native species.”
 The RISWAP analyses reflect this as well emphasizing “predation and displacement”
by “invasives”.
 (See Appendix A for references re: direct and indirect impacts of hatchery trout on
biotic communities)
 (See Appendix B for references documenting the survival and longevity of stocked
trout)

11.  Maryland: “The Maryland Brook Trout Management Plan provides a framework for restoring and
maintaining brook trout populations while allowing for social and economic benefits from the
resource. The Department needed to act to stabilize populations in the short term while we continued
to work on the more long-term issues of habitat quality and climate change.” Begun in 2007.
 Connecticut: Responding to angler opinion, DEEP determined which streams could support wild trout
and took action in the 1990s to maintain and even enhance these fisheries. Acknowledging the direct
and indirect impacts of hatchery fish, DEEP suspended trout stocking in the best of these waters.
 Massachusetts: “…we are already pursuing many opportunities for conservation of high quality habitat
as well as restoration of impaired streams.” Div Fish & Wildlife 2006.
 Example/Red Brook: “In 1996, 84 trout were captured. A survey of the same reach in 2014 turned up
over 500 wild brook trout. The trout began to rebound quickly after stocking was ended and before
the restoration work actually began.”
EXISTING MODELS FOR BROOK TROUT
CONSERVATION

12.  PRIBT: 1100+ people on Facebook “like” what PRIBT stands for. Some number of others view our
website and applaud our efforts.
Sample of Specific Comments Posted to Facebook:
 “I think it is a good thing anytime you can protect a native species and preserve that habitat.”
 “Love what you are doing.”
 “I have seen first-hand the positive effects of establishing wild trout streams in Connecticut which
has been amazing.”
 “I agree that no more stocking of the Wood River above the Barberville Dam is a good idea.”
 “… for growing numbers of anglers, much of the beauty and mystery of trout fishing is lost when
the quarry is just another mass-produced (hatchery) product.”
 “Stocking fish is a cop-out to a properly functioning river system.”
 “Stocking … is the worst thing that can be done to a river capable of supporting a self-sustaining
population of trout.”
PUBLIC OPINION

13. PUBLIC OPINION CONTINUED
Elsewhere on Facebook:
 Massachusetts anglers petition their Division of Fish & Wildlife to cease stocking
on the upper Swift River to protect a wild brook trout fishery there.
RIDEM:
 Twenty years ago 53% of 810 respondents to a RIDEM-sponsored survey said they
favored an expansion of catch and release waters in Rhode Island.
 Over 70% did not feel that catch and release regulations should be restricted to
less than 20 % of the state’s trout waters.
 If anything, these sentiments are more widespread today.
 Freshwater license sales have declined in RI from a high of 40,521 in 1988 to just
26,303 in 2012.
 This too may be an expression of public dissatisfaction with RIDEM trout
management practices.

14.  Several analyses indicate that opportunities to fish for wild trout make economic sense.
 WILD TROUT SYMPOSIUM XI: “…researchers found the number of anglers doubled … and
the number of non-local vs. local anglers shifted from equal numbers to three-to-one non-
local anglers … opportunities to pursue … wild brook trout (were) among the drivers of
this growth.”
 EBTJV (2014) has calculated that their brook trout conservation efforts have generated a
return of $232 million on an invested $17.3 million. The estimated value of restored
brook trout water is $545,000/mile of stream. This is attributed to additional non-
resident license sales and related multipliers.
ECONOMICS

15.  The state of Rhode Island has an opportunity to mitigate the local decline of brook trout.
 As noted previously, the most promising opportunity to achieve this resides in the Wood River
watershed.
 Taking action, now, is consistent with public environmental sentiment, evolving angler
opinion, RISWAP mandates, RIDEM’s expressed intent to “prevent wildlife from becoming
endangered … to conserve declining species before they are lost,” and the department’s
assertion that it is “committed to…protecting cold-water fisheries”.
 As noted in New Hampshire’s Newfound River Watershed Master Plan, the cost of restoration
efforts will exceed those of preservation, and come with no guarantee. The “Precautionary
Principle” would have us err on the side of caution by acting now.
OPPORTUNITY

16.  Protect Rhode Island Brook Trout has defined a problem; and, we
have proposed a solution. The fate of our wild brook trout is now
in the hands of RIDEM.
Conclusion
 “A thing is right when it tends to preserve the integrity, stability,
and beauty of the biotic community. It is wrong when it tends
otherwise.” Aldo Leopold (1949)

17.  Brian Anisimov
 Todd Corayer
 Martin Custodio
 Brian O’Connor
 Paul E. Pezza
 Burt Strom
 Zach Thompson
 Jon Ursillo
On Behalf of PRIBT, We Are:

18. A SAMPLING OF SOURCES IN THE SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE DEALING WITH THE DELETERIOUS IMPACTS,
DIRECT AND INDIRECT, OF TROUT STOCKING ON WILD TROUT POPULATIONS:
ALEXANDER 1977 HANSEN 2002
AULT & WHITE 1994 HANSEN 2009
BACHMAN 1994 HAYES et al 1996
BERNER 2001 HOPELAIN 2003
BURNHAM-CURTIS 2001 HUDY et al 2005
CALLEN 1983 HUMSTON et al 2012
COOPER 1953 HYATT et al 1999
DANZMANN et al 1991 KALLEBERG 1958
DEWALD &WILZBACH 1992 KRUEGER&MAY 1991
FAUSCH & WHITE 1981 LIBBY 2009
FAUSCH 1984 McKENNA et al
2013
FAUSCH 1988 PERKINS et al 1993
GRANT et al 2002 RHYTHER 1997
HAMILTON 2004 VINCENT 1974
WATERS 1983
APPENDIX A
2013

19. A SAMPLING OF SOURCES DOCUMENTING THE SURVIVAL AND LONGEVITY OF
STOCKED TROUT:
 MASSACHUSETTS DIVISION OF FISH & GAME/BULLETIN #15
 CONNECTICUT/TROUT MANAGEMENT PLAN 1997-1999
 MAINE/BROOK TROUT MANAGEMENT PLAN 7/29/09
 MICHIGAN/REPORT #2075
 WISCONSIN/WILD TROUT SYMPOSIUM VIII 9/04
APPENDIX B