Invasive Pike in Alaska: A classic story of the Boom and Bust of an invasive fishery started by anglers with buckets that took everything else with it

[Fish Sticks]

“And, she wrote, once the pike eat their way through the juvenile salmon, they move on to trout, sculpin and even spiny sticklebacks. Eventually, they end up preying on each other, which results in stunted populations that are undesirable, even to the anglers who took to bucket biology and put pike in their non-native range to begin with.”

Ocean pike?

Northern pike are native to Alaska. Just not all of Alaska. Thanks to Ice Age geology, the southern third of the state was spared from the toothy, salmon- and trout-eating predator. It was believed, until very recently, that the only pike found in south-central Alaska are there thanks to illegal...

www.hatchmag.com

 

[Nymph-wristed]

I think we need a better term than invasives.

Without intending to get too political, it just sounds like a talking point. "Invasive bows taking away jobs from local gemmies...." And if we get rid of all the invasives and the climate (and "climate" changes) there will be interest groups crying for pike and striped bass in order to continue to run their businesses. That seems to be happening already, with lodges pivoting to what is thriving not what used to be, or could be (or not be) again once the toothpaste is out of the tube. Fatalistic? Cynical? Realistic? Not sure.

Most of these fish were introduced, like all "invasives," by humans. I like to think of my wild brown trout friends as the dreamers, the American children of immigrants.... Browns (and carp), like all Europeans, have proven themselves quite adept at spreading all over the world and calling it home, and unlike Europeans, they didn't try to tame the land and cut down all the trees to sell and catch all the brookies to eat (and sell). They just like to live under said trees when they fall down. Snakeheads (and carp) like many 2nd generation Asian immigrants, for example, are thriving in the US. Okay, I will stop now 😉

You hopefully get my point....

 

[Fish Sticks]

I think we need a better term than invasives.

Without intending to get too political, it just sounds like a talking point. "Invasive bows taking away jobs from local gemmies...." And if we get rid of all the invasives and the climate (and "climate" changes) there will be interest groups crying for pike and striped bass in order to continue to run their businesses. That seems to be happening already, with lodges pivoting to what is thriving not what used to be, or could be (or not be) again once the toothpaste is out of the tube. Fatalistic? Cynical? Realistic? Not sure.

Most of these fish were introduced, like all "invasives," by humans. I like to think of my wild brown trout friends as the dreamers, the American children of immigrants.... Browns (and carp), like all Europeans, have proven themselves quite adept at spreading all over the world and calling it home, and unlike Europeans, they didn't try to tame the land and cut down all the trees to sell and catch all the brookies to eat (and sell). They just like to live under said trees when they fall down. Snakeheads (and carp) like many 2nd generation Asian immigrants, for example, are thriving in the US. Okay, I will stop now 😉

You hopefully get my point....

I understand what your saying but in trying to prevent extinctions you must at least try to stop state fisheries agencies from stocking more invasive species and maybe reclaiming a few streams here and there for native fish species. To do so we have to speak in the language of fisheries science that is supposed to govern their actions.

Big brown trout fisheries are not going anywhere so by using the term invasive your not going to risk someone exterminating these huge populations because it’s impossible.

Its very important to correctly use the term invasive for multiple reasons.

1. People need to make their own decisions and if your not honest with them as stakeholders then its similar to telling someone a predatory loan is safe or not disclosing hidden costs as a banker or stock broker. We can’t make the decision for people in my opinion we have to tell them the truth that these fish will cause or accelerate extirpations and extinctions and then they can decide for themselves.

2. The guides and business you mention shifting to small mouth out west. If we don’t recognize brown trout as invasives it will embolden/encourage people to introduce new fish and the messaging will be thatbits a good thing. It also presents a difficult but important conversation about financially motivated people advocating for preferential management of invasive species to the detriment of native ones to make a buck while accelerating extinction and extirpation.

3. The last point I will make is we are seeing people move invasive snake heads around and they are showing up at dams in trout streams like the little schuylkill delaware river tribs ect. The brown trout you love because of your experience fishing for them could be at risk and displaced by snakeheads in the next few decades. But then your point about “tooth paste out of the tube” and shops/guides”continuing to run their businesses” will be at the expense of a fish you obviously have adoration for due to your experiences pursuing it. I get it I really do. Butni have seen many anglers trying to humanize invasive species as people or “immigrants” or yet worse make statements about removal that contain elements of nazi germany. One such person In Michigan who runs a podcast compared reclamation projects to the third reich but then off air admitted he wants all invasive smallmouth in the miriamichi harming native atlantic salmon killed because their invasive lol, which is it?

You can see how picking and choosing what we consider invasive based on our sentiment and feelings gets very questionable and hairy instead of just using the truth about what something is. Throw in the fact that we are in a mass extinction/biodiversity crisis event and omitting such information and robhing people of independent decision making capacity becomes even more dangerous and morally bankrupt.

 

[Nymph-wristed]

I get you, and I do admire the work on some level. I still believe the term invasive has been humanized in that it was chosen by humans for an emotional response maybe not a scientific one (or maybe both). The Latin root after all means to attack or assault, right? Enter in a hostile manner and so on. So that is equally humanizing fish in my opinion.

I also suppose that part of my point is the the line between introduced and invasive was drawn by humans and will no doubt be be redrawn by humans and will be redrawn again even by science if the climate continues to change and so on. Did states give up on snakeheads for example or just learn that they filled a niche. I know it's complicated, but I think it's important to see that both sides can be guilty of the same thing here with rhetoric....

 

[Fish Sticks]

I get you too, and I do admire the work on some level. I still believe the term invasive has been humanized in that it was chosen by humans for an emotional response not a scientific one. The Latin root after all means to attack or assault, right? Enter in a hostile manner and so on. So that is equally humanized in my opinion.

Well I certainly can’t argue about the latin root and I take your word that it does mean to attack or assault but I would argue its more of an observed response than an emotional one because brown trout do assault and attack brook trout when they eat them or attack them until they displace them from prime habitat. That is the end result of what Kurt Fausch and White observed in 1981 in their landmark paper demonstrating displacement.

I would argue peoples emotions are more on the side of the brown trout rather than the brook trout because fly fishings renaissance of writing publications and books happened after they already invaded our streams and they were romanticized. Then came the false statements about brook trout couldn’t love in any of these brown trout streams, a convenient myth considering brown trout had become the sports darlings. The emotion still persists today but I will see I am seeing momentum for native brook trout and native fish species like never before that wasn’t there last century.

Currently

1. DCNR has called PFBC to a workgroup to discuss reforming the stocking of invasive trout species in their forests, wild areas, and state parks where the agencies stated goals are “conserving native biodiversity”. Their policy department is involved so if PFBC doesn’t play ball DCNR may have some legal teeth given certain PA codes.

2. Tom Rosenbauer who absolutely hates the fact that brown trout are invasive species was essentially forced to have bob mallard on his podcast after TU’s Kirk Deeter embarrassed his organization by poo pooing multiple native fish restoration projects and attempted to provide false information contrary to what fisheries scientists are saying(even TU’s fisheries scientist). The reason is Tom got so many outraged calls and irate e-mails from customers he had to back pedal like Deon Sanders. That flat out would not have happened 20 years ago, support for native trout/fish wasn’t there.

3. North American fly angler has hd a number of conservation articles highlighting removals of invasive trout that saved rare cutthroat’s, goldens gillas ect. Its being well received when it would not have years ago.

4. My article in fly fisherman magazine recognizing brown and rainbow trout as invasive species this past winter and calling for stocking reform was an article that Ross and Denis at the fly fishermen were passionate about getting out there wven though they love fishing for brown and rainbow trout as I do, they felt the conservation considerations were critica for people to understand where we can protect narive speices. Lol look at the letter to the editor this month. Instead of people mad I correctly recognized brown and rainbow trout as invasive their pissed off I did not include a call to action in my article! Lol. I’m delighted thats the response we got.

5. You saw John Arway post on social media that DEPis prioritizing listing streams for protections with native brook trout and putting brown trout streams 2nd priority citing their invasive status as per conversations with those with access to conversions about whats going into their decisions. This would NEVER have happened 20 years ago

6. people in other states are seeing removal projects where invasive trout are removed and brook trout explode with ZERO stream alterations proving the invasive trout were the deal breaker not the stream. Other state DNR’s are putting this on Youtube and its getting views. The myths and urban legends are beginning to be debunked in many cases and the conversation is changing.

7. Biggest of all PFBC is in a corner that they were not in 10 years ago and they feel the heat. DCNR is knocking on the door saying we don’t want your invasive species coming across our lands to get dumped into streams, articles/podcasts are calling out their mismanagement, their openly in defiance of their own state wild life action plans for brook trout and doing the opposite, they don’t know how many brook trout streams they have lost to brown trout and thats a deliverable in the trout management plan coming due, their broke due to hatcheries, their jacking up license fees, and now I am happy to say we got them lying on television that brown trout are not an invasive species when their own wild life action plan and the whole scientific community says their lying.

They would not even have addressed any of this 10 years ago. They wouldn’t even generate a response because it was too esoteric and no science communication was happening and the public was oblivious. But these days now their lying publicly on television when asked about invasive trout by reporters and putting out desperate false statements and having to answer to other state agencies and non profits asking them what the hell their doing.

We are seeing support for native trout and other native fish labeled as “rough fish” like never before.

All that going in the right direction and its all because we started recognizing brown and rainbow trout as invasive and holding those stocking them accountable. With the knowledge that brown trout in Penns, little J, Big fishing, kish, BFC, lehigh, lackawana, allegheny, yellow creek, frankstown branch, letort and others are not going anywhere I think people will be able to see this is a good thing even if your passionate about fishing for invasive brown trout as I certainly am and you are too.

And we don’t have to hate them at all to recognize what they are. I don’t want to see invasive brook trout in native brown trout streams in iceland. I love brown trout as a species and am fascinated with conservation efforts for them in their native range

 

[Fish Sticks]

I get you, and I do admire the work on some level. I still believe the term invasive has been humanized in that it was chosen by humans for an emotional response maybe not a scientific one (or maybe both). The Latin root after all means to attack or assault, right? Enter in a hostile manner and so on. So that is equally humanizing fish in my opinion.

I also suppose that part of my point is the the line between introduced and invasive was drawn by humans and will no doubt be be redrawn by humans and will be redrawn again even by science if the climate continues to change and so on. Did states give up on snakeheads for example or just learn that they filled a niche. I know it's complicated, but I think it's important to see that both sides can be guilty of the same thing here with rhetoric....

States have not given up on snakeheads because they do not sell a significant amount of fishing licenses on their own and states outside pa actually act in the best interest of the aquatic ecosystem in some cases. They didn’t redraw any lines with snakehead yet because the term invasive just implies nonative + ecological harm, it’s purely biological. There is no niche for a predatory fish of that size and physiology to fill because it or nothing like it evolved in most pa waters which is the same reason it could topple an ecosystem or food web, nothing has evolved defenses or avoidance behaviors against it

 

[hooker-of-men]

2. Tom Rosenbauer who absolutely hates the fact that brown trout are invasive species was essentially forced to have bob mallard on his podcast after TU’s Kirk Deeter embarrassed his organization by poo pooing multiple native fish restoration projects and attempted to provide false information contrary to what fisheries scientists are saying(even TU’s fisheries scientist). The reason is Tom got so many outraged calls and irate e-mails from customers he had to back pedal like Deon Sanders. That flat out would not have happened 20 years ago, support for native trout/fish wasn’t there.


My dude: you seem apparently smart in some ways and passionate in other ways, but you write like dog sh*t. Slow down. I am interested in this point. Could you lay this topic out with appropriate context and detail so the general audience can follow along?

 

[Mike]

Hooker,
Don’t feel bad, I’ve never heard of Rosenbauer or Mallard, and only recognize the Deeter name because that individual was once mentioned in another thread. I think he may be the head of TU.

 

[lycoflyfisher]

Tom Rosenbauer works for Orvis and has written books and makes a lot of educational videos for fly fishing. He also runs a podcast for orvis. Strictly speaking from an introduction to flyfishing and improving fly fishing related skills, he has been a tremendous ambassador to the sport in that regard.

Bob Mallard is the founder/ national advisor of The Native Fish Coalition.

 

[Fish Sticks]

2. Tom Rosenbauer who absolutely hates the fact that brown trout are invasive species was essentially forced to have bob mallard on his podcast after TU’s Kirk Deeter embarrassed his organization by poo pooing multiple native fish restoration projects and attempted to provide false information contrary to what fisheries scientists are saying(even TU’s fisheries scientist). The reason is Tom got so many outraged calls and irate e-mails from customers he had to back pedal like Deon Sanders. That flat out would not have happened 20 years ago, support for native trout/fish wasn’t there.


My dude: you seem apparently smart in some ways and passionate in other ways, but you write like dog sh*t. Slow down. I am interested in this point. Could you lay this topic out with appropriate context and detail so the general audience can follow along?

Heres how it went down. Tom Rosenbauer is Orvis’s brand ambassador/face of the company. He has a podcast he puts out that has conservation episodes from time to time. He recorded one with Kirk Deeter(TU’s Trout magazine’s editor). The title of the podcast was “have we gone too far with native fish conservation”. Tom and Kirk went on to criticize efforts to prevent extinctions of salmonid species holding on by a thread. They bad mouthed fisheries scientists efforts to protect the last fluvial population of grayling in the lower 48 out west. They made so many false statements about native fish and conservation that if you took a shot of bourbon for each one you would not have survived.

Over the following days e-mails to Orvis, phone calls, social media backlash was enormous. I spoke with several fisheries scientists who were appalled at the episode and we’re basically like, wait, why is this guy who sells fly rods spewing a bunch of false information about the field of fisheries science.

Tom had to change the title of the podcast because of the backlash from customers who listen to the podcast and the fly fishing community as a whole so it got changed to something something with Kirk Deeter. To back pedal and save face for the brand he had to have Bob Mallard (Founding member of Native Fish Coalition) on to set the record straight about native fish conservation.

 

[Fish Sticks]

Tom Rosenbauer works for Orvis and has written books and makes a lot of educational videos for fly fishing. He also runs a podcast for orvis. Strictly speaking from an introduction to flyfishing and improving fly fishing related skills, he has been a tremendous ambassador to the sport in that regard.

Bob Mallard is the founder/ national advisor of The Native Fish Coalition.

Yea Tom has been a resource for fly fishermen and I like him as a person and enjoy 99.9% of his podcasts and guests. He just went way outside of fly fishing in that episode and he didn’t have a subject matter expert like he usually does when he decides to do a conservation episode. It was two anglers talking as if they were subject matter experts unfortunately.

 

[hooker-of-men]

I've listened to the episode somewhat recently, coincidentally (which is why I wanted further explanation). It didn't seem all that inflammatory to me, but I'm one of those tackle shop guys and not a conservation hero. Will have to give it another listen in this context

 

[Fish Sticks]

I've listened to the episode somewhat recently, coincidentally (which is why I wanted further explanation). It didn't seem all that inflammatory to me, but I'm one of those tackle shop guys and not a conservation hero. Will have to give it another listen in this context

the general messaging that so many found troubling in that episode is very common place in our community as flyfishers. For people who do not have as much exposure to science communication or fisheries science it does not sound troubling because common myths about the fragility or futility of native fish conservation are reinforced. I don’t fault anglers for being anglers, I am one after all. I just want those who want to wade into conservation to understand whats fact and whats fiction, that is all.

 

[JeffP]

2. Tom Rosenbauer who absolutely hates the fact that brown trout are invasive species was essentially forced to have bob mallard on his podcast after TU’s Kirk Deeter embarrassed his organization by poo pooing multiple native fish restoration projects and attempted to provide false information contrary to what fisheries scientists are saying(even TU’s fisheries scientist). The reason is Tom got so many outraged calls and irate e-mails from customers he had to back pedal like Deon Sanders. That flat out would not have happened 20 years ago, support for native trout/fish wasn’t there.


My dude: you seem apparently smart in some ways and passionate in other ways, but you write like dog sh*t. Slow down. I am interested in this point. Could you lay this topic out with appropriate context and detail so the general audience can follow along?

If he slowed down he would not have time to eat or sleep! I'm not sure he does as it is! 🙂 There are a lot of people on a board like this. Lots of different levels of knowledge about the topic. Google is a click away.

 

[hooker-of-men]

I just relistened on the way to work. I don't think anything they said was particularly controversial or even veering into the need for scientific expertise. The conversation was based on anecdote and angling experience, and it seemed true to my experience. I don't think you - or your mysterious sect of unnamed enraged biologists - are representing what was said in good faith. There was literally one sentence about grayling in Michigan, and it wasn't even coherent ("Now they're talking about grayling in Michigan. To me, the culture there is about brown trout" or something along those vague lines.)

I'm realizing I made the folly of drunkenly stumbling into a typical fish sticks thread, and now I will have the better sense to show myself the door. Have fun with it, I guess.

 

[Fish Sticks]

I just relistened on the way to work. I don't think anything they said was particularly controversial or even veering into the need for scientific expertise. The conversation was based on anecdote and angling experience, and it seemed true to my experience. I don't think you - or your mysterious sect of unnamed enraged biologists - are representing what was said in good faith. There was literally one sentence about grayling in Michigan, and it wasn't even coherent ("Now they're talking about grayling in Michigan. To me, the culture there is about brown trout" or something along those vague lines.)

I'm realizing I made the folly of drunkenly stumbling into a typical fish sticks thread, and now I will have the better sense to show myself the door. Have fun with it, I guess.

Well i guess there were enough people who dissagreed with you to

1. Make not positive waves in the professional community of fisheries science

2. Get a lot of Orvis Customers/listeners to voice serious concerns behind the title, premise, and content of the podcast.

3. Make Tom Rosenbauer do a save face episode

4. Make Kirk Deeter Get a talking to from Chris wood about the consequences of representing himself counter to TU nationals stated conservation priorities


But then again in your words when it comes to conservation you listen to the “tackle shop guys” so your reaction is understandable too. I listen to the those guys too, its just usually about fishing🙂

 

[Nymph-wristed]

the general messaging

My original point is about messaging and not totally about the merits of your endeavor, which I have said I support in the right circumstances. I have expressed my thoughts about stocking browns over wild browns and rogue club stocking in the past. I agree that better management and education are needed, and that some folks are just going to want to fish.

Back to messaging: You guys might need a PR firm to workshop that "invasive" term. Maybe it's not what you are actually proposing, but instead it's the idea of calling fish that people have an affinity for "invaders." It just gets my defenses up sometimes, and it sounds like I am not in the minority. They are human-introduced fish that, with increasing and ongoing evidence/research, have proven to be a harmful influence in some ecosystems. But that's not clickbait....

 

[Fish Sticks]

My original point is about messaging and not totally about the merits of your endeavor, which I have said I support in the right circumstances. I have expressed my thoughts about stocking browns over wild browns and rogue club stocking in the past. I agree that better management and education are needed, and that some folks are just going to want to fish.

Back to messaging: You guys might need a PR firm to workshop that "invasive" term. Maybe it's not what you are actually proposing, but instead it's the idea of calling fish that people have an affinity for "invaders." It just gets my defenses up sometimes, and it sounds like I am not in the minority. They are human-introduced fish that, with increasing and ongoing evidence/research, have proven to be a harmful influence in some ecosystems. But that's not clickbait....

I agree with you that it can get peoples hackles up because there is an affinity for them for sure. I think native fish need a PR firm the most as they have been the ones forgotten in the whole conversation but yes I agree with you its a tough message to deliver and I know you support native fish.

I think that the biggest thing I try to stress these days is if something is an invasive species it does not have to change your fishing relationship with it(time your holding a fly rod enjoying pursuing it, reading about tips,tricks, techniques ect). You don’t have to hate it and I don’t, its just that if anglers choose to get into conservation they just have to realize out of 4-5,000 known invasive species on earth brown trout ranked in the top 30 most destructive because of harms to ecosystems in every continent outside their native range except Antarctica pretty much. I support removal of brook trout in Sweden and I don’t hate brook trout or fishing them either.

The fundamental problem message wise has been that fishing and conservation are as different as Law as understood by legal scholars and Aeorspace Engineering. The goals are just different. Not always agreeing or conflicting but different. The message to anglers has been that if you own a fly rod and want to see more trout of any kind in the river your goals are in line with conservation. This messaging has been problematic because it is the antithesis of conservation/preventing extinctions in some cases.

I think if as anglers we can separate the two disciplines a little more we can appreciate the skill it takes for guides and fly fishermen to learn how to pursue invasive brown trout and recognize them as true experts in their craft of flyfishing but also recognize that in some places where its possible very highly trained passionate fisheries scientists can preserve native species who are experts in their respective disciplines.

I have never heard a fisheries scientist tell a team usa fly fisher they started leading their flies to early on their drift. And I think that we should also not tell fisheries scientists their doing it wrong in their given field of expertise. Invasive species more than terminology obviously its part of state/federal policy and an entire field of fisheries science is just aquatic invasion biology. Think about if your trying to save the last cluster of golden trout in their native range from invasive brown trout and a bunch of lay people and anglers are criticizing what your doing and the fact that tour pointing out an invasive species is threatening the extinction of a native one in its range. I know your not one of those people criticizing or trying to refute solid scientific evidence but it is the presence of those people in the greater discussion that mandates frank factual terminology be carried over from fisheries science into science communication. Not recognizing them as invasive is how we got here with PAFBC telling the public their “exotics” like their a Lamborghini or something and have no negative consequences.

 

[Clams]

Man, as if it wasn't hard enough being trout woke and tarpon woke, now we need to consider the northern pike 🤦‍♂️

 

[Fish Sticks]

Man, as if it wasn't hard enough being trout woke and tarpon woke, now we need to consider the northern pike

^This is very common. People cannot accept the biological realities of invasive species so they attempt to envelope the discussion in irrelevant human politics that don’t pertain to conservation. Other common examples would be comparing rotenone to Nazi germany ect. But the same people like to harvest fish so is that murder if we are going to fully humanize them by extension of that logic?

When you have a really obvious situation people don’t like it can often degenerate into insults and unrelated tangents. No where in the above post considers the actual pikes impact just a desperate attempt to link this topic to human political divisiveness.