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...)