The trout's diet...
 

So the other day my daughter & I kept three fish for dinner. For those
of you aghast at my political incorrectness, I offer no apology. FWIW,
these were not wild fish. Indeed, we were so close to the hatchery it'd
be embarrassing for me to fish there without my daughter.

Two of the trout had white flesh while the third had orange/pink flesh.
Not as pink as the (landlocked) Dolly Varden I used to catch in Alaska,
but distinctly _not_ white.

Coincidentally, the 'orange' fish had a belly full of bugs while the two
'white' fish had very little in their stomachs.

My assumption, and I'd like to think the obvious one, is that the
'orange' fish had been in the creek substantially longer than the
'white' fish. Long enough to learn how to eat and even thrive in the
wild. OTOH, I figure that the 'white' fish were relatively new to the
stream and hadn't figured out how to eat & thrive in the creek.

Now I'm wondering about the lack of survival skills in hatchery fish.
How many of them fail to thrive in the wild because they don't know
how/what to eat? Could this be part of the problem with the low success
rate of fish restoration projects like the one Stan Gula was working on
with Salmon in Massachusetts? Does this imply that preservation is even
more important because restoration is not an effective possibilty after
preservation has failed?

Just a thinkin' and wonderin'...
Tom G
--
email:remove tt

The trout's diet...
 

"Tom G" wrote in message
...

Two of the trout had white flesh while the third had orange/pink flesh.
Not as pink as the (landlocked) Dolly Varden I used to catch in Alaska,
but distinctly _not_ white.

Third paragraph pg. 52

http://www.dfg.ca.gov/fishing/assets...ts/trout22.pdf

or

http://sites.state.pa.us/PA_Exec/Fish_Boat/qtrmeat.htm

I have also heard, not sure if it's true, that hatcheries will feed the
trout something that will make the meat pink?

hth,
JT

The trout's diet...
 

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Tom G wrote:

Two of the trout had white flesh while the third had orange/pink flesh.
Not as pink as the (landlocked) Dolly Varden I used to catch in Alaska,
but distinctly _not_ white.

I have had similar experiences with brown trout in a little spring-fed
pond I used to fish. Early in the season the flesh was white. By August,
those that managed to survive the summer had pink/orange flesh.

__________________________________________________ _____________________
\ Mu Young Lee
remove all dashes and underscores in reply address

The trout's diet...
 

"Tom G" wrote in message
...
Now I'm wondering about the lack of survival skills in hatchery fish.
How many of them fail to thrive in the wild because they don't know
how/what to eat? Could this be part of the problem with the low success
rate of fish restoration projects like the one Stan Gula was working on
with Salmon in Massachusetts? Does this imply that preservation is even
more important because restoration is not an effective possibilty after
preservation has failed?

OK, I can answer that a little. I don't know anything about survivability
of hatchery trout, but I know a little about salmon. I doubt that the pale
color is due to hatchery chow. They make really colorful trout pellets. I
caught a brookie at a pool inside the hatchery a few years ago (they let
school groups, scouts, etc. bring in kids for lessons) and it was as orange
as a farm raised salmon.

The poor salmon returns here are not problems with survivability in the
streams. The salmon are planted as fry - just a few weeks after hatching.
The studies of the populations in the breeder streams (I'm talking low
fertility New England freestoners feeding the Connecticut River) show that
they do very well - millions reach the smolt stage and start the migration
to the Atlantic. Unfortunately, very few come back and nobody's really sure
why that is. We started this program (we as in Mass., VT, CT, NH and USF&W)
at the worst possible time. It's probably a hopeless cause trying to bring
them back to the Connecticut when the world population is seeing such a
disastrous decline.

--
Stan

The trout's diet...
 

Over the past years, I have volunteered with both CA Fish and Game and
Nevada Fish and Wildlife in planting fish. The biologists believe that few
of the large fish planted will survivie. However, they only plant where
there is a large population of fishermen. To them, success is having 100%
of the fish caught and a few more fishing licenses sold. Some do survive
though because some are caught a long ways from where they were planted, and
a lot larger than the typical plant. Also , anything you catch in a lake
was probably planted. These often grow to very large sizes.
We have been able to get both departments to plant fingerlings in some of
our rivers. These cost the departments almost nothing because thay have not
eaten much. therefore where they may only stock a 100 or so large fish,
they will plant 10,000 fingerlings. The hope is that a few percent will
survive and have the characteristics of wild fish. Unfortunately there have
been no studies to see if this is successfull.
Also, few of our rivers will sustain a wild fish population unless they are
catch and release...and patrolled!! Again, the game wardens will nly patrol
areas where there is a largae population of fishermen!

--


---------------------------------------------------------------------
"Are you still wasting your time with spam?...
There is a solution!"

Protected by GIANT Company's Spam Inspector
The most powerful anti-spam software available.
http://mail.spaminspector.com


"Tom G" wrote in message
...
So the other day my daughter & I kept three fish for dinner. For those
of you aghast at my political incorrectness, I offer no apology. FWIW,
these were not wild fish. Indeed, we were so close to the hatchery it'd
be embarrassing for me to fish there without my daughter.

Two of the trout had white flesh while the third had orange/pink flesh.
Not as pink as the (landlocked) Dolly Varden I used to catch in Alaska,
but distinctly _not_ white.

Coincidentally, the 'orange' fish had a belly full of bugs while the two
'white' fish had very little in their stomachs.

My assumption, and I'd like to think the obvious one, is that the
'orange' fish had been in the creek substantially longer than the
'white' fish. Long enough to learn how to eat and even thrive in the
wild. OTOH, I figure that the 'white' fish were relatively new to the
stream and hadn't figured out how to eat & thrive in the creek.

Now I'm wondering about the lack of survival skills in hatchery fish.
How many of them fail to thrive in the wild because they don't know
how/what to eat? Could this be part of the problem with the low success
rate of fish restoration projects like the one Stan Gula was working on
with Salmon in Massachusetts? Does this imply that preservation is even
more important because restoration is not an effective possibilty after
preservation has failed?

Just a thinkin' and wonderin'...
Tom G
--
email:remove tt

The trout's diet...
 

I have also heard, not sure if it's true, that hatcheries will feed the
trout something that will make the meat pink?

hth,
JT
That's true. They add stuff called beta-carotine tothe food. This gives them
this "salmon-like" colour.
Dan

The trout's diet...
 

Two of the trout had white flesh while the third had orange/pink flesh.
Not as pink as the (landlocked) Dolly Varden I used to catch in Alaska,
but distinctly _not_ white.

Coincidentally, the 'orange' fish had a belly full of bugs while the two
'white' fish had very little in their stomachs.

I am fishing several rivers, of which one has a very good population of
Gammarus. The trout here have a very pink flesh! Most of the trout caught
are full of these little shrimp, some do have up to 200 in their intestines!

My assumption, and I'd like to think the obvious one, is that the
'orange' fish had been in the creek substantially longer than the
'white' fish. Long enough to learn how to eat and even thrive in the
wild.

It could also be the case, that they feed on different kinds of food.

OTOH, I figure that the 'white' fish were relatively new to the
stream and hadn't figured out how to eat & thrive in the creek.

I've often seen that newly stocked trout are very skillful in catching
minnows. They are probably not clever enough to search for larvae and
nymphs, but fast and aggressive so they will feed on smaller fish.

Daniel

The trout's diet...
 

"Sierra fisher" wrote in message ...

Also, few of our rivers will sustain a wild fish population unless they are
catch and release...and patrolled!! Again, the game wardens will nly patrol
areas where there is a largae population of fishermen!

Well, you could find more ROFF posts on this matter than you'd care to
read if you googled it, but we'd probably all agree that few of our
rivers will sustain a fishably healthy wild fish population unless
fish mortality caused by fishermen is tightly controlled. C+R is most
definitely NOT the only way to achieve that.

As for sustaining an arbitrary wild fish population, I once spoke
to a trout researcher who surveyed quite a few streams in Mexico,
and he stated that he did not believe it was possible to exterminate
a wild population merely by hook+line fishing. Down there he did
see fishing, even flyfished with the local 3-person flyfishing club,
and any fish caught was _always_ kept. Yes, the trout populations
were very low. Yes, the fish were very small. But they were there.

Jon.

The trout's diet...
 

"Jonathan Cook" wrote in message
m...
"Sierra fisher" wrote in message
...

Also, few of our rivers will sustain a wild fish population unless they
are
catch and release...and patrolled!! Again, the game wardens will nly
patrol
areas where there is a largae population of fishermen!

Well, you could find more ROFF posts on this matter than you'd care to
read if you googled it, but we'd probably all agree that few of our
rivers will sustain a fishably healthy wild fish population unless
fish mortality caused by fishermen is tightly controlled. C+R is most
definitely NOT the only way to achieve that.

As for sustaining an arbitrary wild fish population, I once spoke
to a trout researcher who surveyed quite a few streams in Mexico,
and he stated that he did not believe it was possible to exterminate
a wild population merely by hook+line fishing. Down there he did
see fishing, even flyfished with the local 3-person flyfishing club,
and any fish caught was _always_ kept. Yes, the trout populations
were very low. Yes, the fish were very small. But they were there.

Lots of experts throughout history were certain that [insert critter of
choice here] could not possibly exterminated by means of [insert method of
choice here]. They were wrong. Always. Evidently, some things don't
change.

Wolfgang
some things don't change.

The trout's diet...
 

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 13:41:11 +0200, "Daniel M. Handzel"
wrote:


I have also heard, not sure if it's true, that hatcheries will feed the
trout something that will make the meat pink?

hth,
JT
That's true. They add stuff called beta-carotine tothe food. This gives them
this "salmon-like" colour.
Dan


Also, a by-product of the crawfish industry in Louisiana is
highly-concentrated, incredibly-priced drums of "broth" made from the
shells of the cooked crawfish. It sells, from what I understand, for
tens of thousands of US dollars per drum, for ultimate sale to tropical
fish fans, esp., for some reason, in Japan (?). Apparently, it makes
the live fish all sorts of incredibly bright colors. Seems as if I had
heard of such being used for flesh-toning in food-product fishes, too,
but ???

For those who aren't familiar with them, Louisiana "crawfish" are like
small homard/lobsters, not Bahamian/Mediterranean "crayfish"/lobsters.
They are about 3-8 inches long, with a single set of lobster-ish claws,
although rarely is one claw as disproportionate as the other in some
lobsters - the crusher vs. the grabber. And like similar crustaceans,
the shell turns to a bright red when cooked, and the meat turns a shade
of pink. To me, they look like a the front of a European lobster and
the tail of a Maine lobster, but in miniature.

For those of you that are familiar with them, we have been getting some
these past couple of weeks that were, well, un-bee-LEEVE-able...and now,
we're into shrimp season...BWA-HA-HA-HA!

TC,
R
who's eatin' like a..., nay, THE prince o' pork products oughta!
Tonight, shrimp remoulade, crawfish bisque, FRESH pistolet, and the last
of the strawberries...yeah, BA-bee...

The trout's diet...
 

Tom G wrote:

Now I'm wondering about the lack of survival skills in hatchery fish.
How many of them fail to thrive in the wild because they don't know
how/what to eat?

I think it goes beyond that but I did read about a study that tried to
do what you're suggesting - I can't remember the results.

Most trout that are raised to catchable size before stocking are from
lines of fish that were developed to do well in hatchery runs (at least
this is true in Colorado). They selectively bred for fish that would
gain the most weight in the shortest amount of time in a runway
environment. It pretty obvious to me that those fish aren't going to do
well in a natural environment even if they know what to eat.

Willi

The trout's diet...
 

Wolfgang wrote:


As for sustaining an arbitrary wild fish population, I once spoke
to a trout researcher who surveyed quite a few streams in Mexico,
and he stated that he did not believe it was possible to exterminate
a wild population merely by hook+line fishing. Down there he did
see fishing, even flyfished with the local 3-person flyfishing club,
and any fish caught was _always_ kept. Yes, the trout populations
were very low. Yes, the fish were very small. But they were there.


Lots of experts throughout history were certain that [insert critter of
choice here] could not possibly exterminated by means of [insert method of
choice here]. They were wrong. Always. Evidently, some things don't
change.


In absolute terms it is possible but it would be TOUGH to exterminate a
viable trout population with just hook and line. However, in most
places, it isn't difficult to severely lower the population. The
extermination of all the native trout I'm aware of, was either caused by
changes in the environment like increased water temperature, pollution,
etc or the leading cause, in most cases, the introduction of non native
trout and other fishes.

Willi

The trout's diet...
 

RDean notes:
Tonight, shrimp remoulade, crawfish bisque, FRESH pistolet, and the last
of the strawberries...yeah,

Oh, right! I run around town on errands like a fiend, choke down a couple
grilled cheeses with canned soup, and then have to suffer through this! At
least we do have a mess of very fine strawberries, and haven't gotten to the
last of them yet!
suffering remoulade envy,
Tom

The trout's diet...
 

"Willi" wrote in message
...

In absolute terms it is possible but it would be TOUGH to exterminate a
viable trout population with just hook and line.

The impossible is intractable.....it can sometimes take years. The TOUGH we
can do in about a month......in bad weather.

However, in most
places, it isn't difficult to severely lower the population.

I got a crew can do that in 72 hours on any trout stream in the world.

The
extermination of all the native trout I'm aware of, was either caused by
changes in the environment like increased water temperature, pollution,
etc or the leading cause, in most cases, the introduction of non native
trout and other fishes.

I can see no fault with that argument.

Wolfgang

The trout's diet...
 

"Willi" wrote in message
...


Tom G wrote:

Now I'm wondering about the lack of survival skills in hatchery fish.
How many of them fail to thrive in the wild because they don't know
how/what to eat?

I think it goes beyond that but I did read about a study that tried to
do what you're suggesting - I can't remember the results.

Most trout that are raised to catchable size before stocking are from
lines of fish that were developed to do well in hatchery runs (at least
this is true in Colorado). They selectively bred for fish that would
gain the most weight in the shortest amount of time in a runway
environment. It pretty obvious to me that those fish aren't going to do
well in a natural environment even if they know what to eat.

When fish are hungry, they WILL eat. I'm going to guess it doesn't take
them long to figure out the difference between a pebble and a plecopteran.
If they're thirty days from the hatchery and they're not dead?..........

Wolfgang

The trout's diet...
 

In article
d.umich.edu,
Mu Young Lee wrote:

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004, Tom G wrote:

Two of the trout had white flesh while the third had orange/pink flesh.
Not as pink as the (landlocked) Dolly Varden I used to catch in Alaska,
but distinctly _not_ white.

I have had similar experiences with brown trout in a little spring-fed
pond I used to fish. Early in the season the flesh was white. By August,
those that managed to survive the summer had pink/orange flesh.

That's quicker than I would have expected. Thanks for the info.
--
email:remove tt

The trout's diet...
 

Willi wrote in message ...

It pretty obvious to me that those fish aren't going to do
well in a natural environment even if they know what to eat.

I don't think that statement holds up as a blanket for all
situations. Fish are pretty basic lifeforms. Hatchery trout
(catchable size) do learn fairly quickly what to eat in the
wild, and other life skills such as flight. In relatively benign
environments, I think they can and do fill the carrying capacity
of that environment effectively. Fertile reservoirs, tailwaters,
etc., all can grow and sustain hatchery-based populations. We've
all caught even 1-year holdovers that were healthy and strong,
and were clearly adapted to their environment. In more harsh
environments, I would agree that a stocked catchable is starting
at a severe disadvantage, and the outlook is more dire.

I'm not saying hatcheries are always beneficial, that there's no
downside, that they don't impact wild populations, that catchable
stocking is good everywhere. But I think it's obvious that there
are waters where they do quite good and create viable fisheries
which might not exist otherwise.

Jon.

The trout's diet...
 

On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 18:50:41 -0500, "Wolfgang"
wrote:


"Willi" wrote in message
...


Tom G wrote:

Now I'm wondering about the lack of survival skills in hatchery fish.
How many of them fail to thrive in the wild because they don't know
how/what to eat?

I think it goes beyond that but I did read about a study that tried to
do what you're suggesting - I can't remember the results.

Most trout that are raised to catchable size before stocking are from
lines of fish that were developed to do well in hatchery runs (at least
this is true in Colorado). They selectively bred for fish that would
gain the most weight in the shortest amount of time in a runway
environment. It pretty obvious to me that those fish aren't going to do
well in a natural environment even if they know what to eat.

When fish are hungry, they WILL eat. I'm going to guess it doesn't take
them long to figure out the difference between a pebble and a plecopteran.
If they're thirty days from the hatchery and they're not dead?..........

Wolfgang

A couple weeks ago we kept some stocked fish from a local lake. There
is absolutely zero reproduction and I would guess little carryover
from year to year. They all had natural food in their stomachs ranging
from damselfly nymphs to midge pupa. From what I understand it is
instinctive behavior for trout to mouth things drifting in the water
column as a way of investigating them.


g.c.

The trout's diet...
 

In article ,
Willi wrote:



Tom G wrote:
Now I'm wondering about the lack of survival skills in hatchery fish.
How many of them fail to thrive in the wild because they don't know
how/what to eat?

I dont think they have a problem with eating. If anything, I think they
eat too much, I.E at first they eat garbage, like cigarrette butts,
weeds,etc. They will eat anything, and this includes nutritious food.
They dont starve, and after a while they figure out not to eat the
garbage.

I think the biggest thing to wipe them out is birds, they stay on top
and in groups and are easy prey. A second factor would be quickly being
caught by the bait chuckers.

The trout's diet...
 

Jonathan Cook wrote:

Willi wrote in message ...


It pretty obvious to me that those fish aren't going to do
well in a natural environment even if they know what to eat.


I don't think that statement holds up as a blanket for all
situations. Fish are pretty basic lifeforms. Hatchery trout
(catchable size) do learn fairly quickly what to eat in the
wild, and other life skills such as flight. In relatively benign
environments, I think they can and do fill the carrying capacity
of that environment effectively.

The Montana studies showed that dumping catchable on top of a self
sustaining population of trout can actually low the carrying capacity of
a river or stream.


Fertile reservoirs, tailwaters,
etc., all can grow and sustain hatchery-based populations. We've
all caught even 1-year holdovers that were healthy and strong,
and were clearly adapted to their environment. In more harsh
environments, I would agree that a stocked catchable is starting
at a severe disadvantage, and the outlook is more dire.

The percentage of catchables that makes it through the first season is
VERY low. In most situations where stocking is necessary, I favor
stocking of fingerlings. Much less expensive and it creates a more
"natural" situation.



I'm not saying hatcheries are always beneficial, that there's no
downside, that they don't impact wild populations, that catchable
stocking is good everywhere. But I think it's obvious that there
are waters where they do quite good and create viable fisheries
which might not exist otherwise.

I don't completely disagree. I think they're great in urban environments
that provide a place for kids to have some success. However, overall, I
would rather they manage those waters for fishes that can successfully
become self sustaining or make changes in the environment so that
reproduction is more successful.

Stocking catchables does sell licenses. However, with the cost of
raising trout to catchable size, I have trouble with the argument that
the DOW "makes money" on this. The increased revenue from the increased
license sales does allow the DOWs to be larger (which seems to be a goal
for all government agencies) but I would like to see a cost
effectiveness done.

Willi

The trout's diet...
 

"Steve Sullivan" wrote in message
...
In article ,

I think the biggest thing to wipe them out is birds, they stay on top
and in groups and are easy prey. A second factor would be quickly being
caught by the bait chuckers.

The two resident bald eagles and several osprey take allot of fish from our
lake, however the bait fisherman do much more damage to the population.
Granted they are stockers and planted to be caught, however I see so many go
out in the morning and catch over their limit and go back out in the
afternoon and do the same all over again.

And... some of them (neighbor in one case) have the balls to brag about it.

JT

The trout's diet...
 

Willi wrote in message ...

The Montana studies showed that dumping catchable on top of a self
sustaining population of trout can actually low the carrying capacity of
a river or stream.

Right -- that's a good example of BAD use of catchable stocking.

The percentage of catchables that makes it through the first season is
VERY low.

I imagine this is for two main reasons: 1) most of them are caught,
and 2) they put in far more than what the carrying capacity would be.
I don't think it's because the stockers would inherently not survive.

In most situations where stocking is necessary, I favor
stocking of fingerlings. Much less expensive and it creates a more
"natural" situation.

I completely agree with fingerling stocking -- although the report
that a link was posted for indicated that stocking fingerlings is
NOT less expensive. I was surprised to hear that, and in thinking
about it, I do think it makes sense. They actually can get more survival
by raising the fish past their highly vulnerable stage than they
could if they stocked a couple of orders of magnitude more fingerlings
(raised at the same cost). But I agree with you -- I'd rather see the
fish put in younger so that they become more "natural".

I think they're great in urban environments
that provide a place for kids to have some success.

Or the San Juan. Or Spinney. Or ?

Let's face it. With the amount of "artificial" water we have out
West and that waters' fish-carrying capacity in relation to its
spawning habitat, stocking makes sense. I agree with you on how it
could be done "better", but it will continue to be done.

Jon. (haven't fished since last Oct - well, not counting the skunking
on 20min of muddy gila middle fork - sure wish I could be goin' to
the western clave...)

The trout's diet...
 

Jonathan Cook wrote:



The percentage of catchables that makes it through the first season is
VERY low.


I imagine this is for two main reasons: 1) most of them are caught,
and 2) they put in far more than what the carrying capacity would be.
I don't think it's because the stockers would inherently not survive.

I do think they are inherently inferior. In Colorado, and in most states
I believe, strains of trout are used when raising catchables that were
bred to do well in concrete runs, eat fish chow and gain weight quickly
in that environment. Can't image a strain selected for that would do
well in the wild.



Jon. (haven't fished since last Oct - well, not counting the skunking
on 20min of muddy gila middle fork - sure wish I could be goin' to
the western clave...)

You need to make the time to do that one of these years.

Willi