To stock or not to stock a wild trout stream. That is the question.

daytripper wrote:
http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376

Discuss.

I hope to attend the meeting.

It seems to be a warped kind of democracy in that the locals want
something and the state feels obliged to give it to them, to hell with
the science.

Ken Cox, who I have met and regularly provide creel surveys to, sounds
buffoon-like with his "compromise" goal. The decision to stock or not is
a binary thing. At least be honest about it.

I have read studies on the effect of stocking in PA streams that already
hold a head of wild fish. The stocked fish become "delinquent" and
disrupt the feeding patterns of the wild fish. I don't know what success
he alludes to in England. The chalk streams are regularly stocked, but
I thought the UK stocked fingerling trout that CAN reproduce. He could
not be referring to the ghastly Put-and-Take fisheries with their pellet
fed monsters that taste like ****?

Rumor I heard this week is that a landowner who is participating in a
stream side restoration project is going to pull out if the state stocks
the river. This is very bad news, because the lack of stream-side cover
IS the major problem in this river. But there is a lot of emotion around
this issue, make no mistake.

I shared some emails with the Central MA ROFFians earlier this year that
show a 1/2 dozen wild browns all over 15", some a lot more, all caught
in the same morning. This is what this river does produce and if the
resources were spent improving the overall habitat, even the locals
could catch enough to take a few home.

GM wrote:
daytripper wrote:
http://www.benningtonbanner.com/localnews/ci_4200376

Discuss.

I hope to attend the meeting.

It seems to be a warped kind of democracy in that the locals want
something and the state feels obliged to give it to them, to hell with
the science.

Ken Cox, who I have met and regularly provide creel surveys to, sounds
buffoon-like with his "compromise" goal. The decision to stock or not is
a binary thing. At least be honest about it.

I have read studies on the effect of stocking in PA streams that already
hold a head of wild fish. The stocked fish become "delinquent" and
disrupt the feeding patterns of the wild fish. I don't know what success
he alludes to in England. The chalk streams are regularly stocked, but
I thought the UK stocked fingerling trout that CAN reproduce. He could
not be referring to the ghastly Put-and-Take fisheries with their pellet
fed monsters that taste like ****?

Rumor I heard this week is that a landowner who is participating in a
stream side restoration project is going to pull out if the state stocks
the river. This is very bad news, because the lack of stream-side cover
IS the major problem in this river. But there is a lot of emotion around
this issue, make no mistake.

I shared some emails with the Central MA ROFFians earlier this year that
show a 1/2 dozen wild browns all over 15", some a lot more, all caught
in the same morning. This is what this river does produce and if the
resources were spent improving the overall habitat, even the locals
could catch enough to take a few home.

Hi GM,

A couple of points to make.

In my opinion you are suggesting managing the river to optimize what is
there, not what is optimal or desired in the long term. From a pure
management perspective this might not make the most sense. I think your
motivations might be clouded by love, which is understandable. If what
you suggest is precisely the right course than why not improve the
resident bullhead or channel catfish populations? Bullhead are a
delicacy on the table and are probably indiginous to boot. What is your
real reason for protecting the brown trout? That they can exist in
sub-standard conditions? Is sub-standard the goal you are setting for a
long term policy?

You should also know that finishing pellets have been improved greatly
improving the taste of fish raised in farms. All rainbow trout you eat
prepared by chefs in 5 star restaurants are farm-reared rainbow trout
so please don't automatically assume them to be the livery paste of the
past.

Your pal,

Halfordian Golfer

GM wrote in :

It seems to be a warped kind of democracy in that the locals want
something and the state feels obliged to give it to them, to hell with
the science.


Well, that would be exactly a democracy. The locals feel, for some
reason, that their immediate needs are more important than the science,
and the Conservation appointees, responding to their elected bosses, act
accordingly.

FWIW, my impression is that 1,000 trout is not a whole lot for that
river, and the fact that the state is using sterilized trout is a HUGE
concession that not many states would bother with. They really don't
need to do that. They can do whatever the hell they want to do, and it
sounds to me like they're trying to be somewhat sensitive to everybody's
needs and wants

1,000 sterile rainbows is not going to make the population of the
Battenkill crash overnight. IMO, the best course of action is to make
su

a) the fish really are sterile. You need to know the efficacy of the
sterilization program. Even a small percentage of nonsterile fish will
lead to hybridization problems. You need to make sure that both sexes
are sterilized. Get a number on that-- they know it, but they might not
be telling it to you. Once you have the number, spread it around.

b) proper assessments are in place to determine if the stocking is
hurting the wild brown trout population. The "it couldn't help" argument
is not going to get you very far. What you need to do is make sure that
the program is stopped if the brown trout population is being
demonstrably hurt. This means designing the experiments and do the
electroshocks now. You also need to make sure that MONEY and PERSONNEL
are in place to do the future studies, and that there is a real state
commitment to stopping the program if it demonstrably hurts. Get the
goals for the brown trout population set in place. Get the state to say
"we intend to stop the stocking program if ...." and behind the "if", you
need realizable and realistic assessments, and reasonable growth of the
brown trout population. Hybridization should be at the top of that list
for turning the program off.

I think you'll actually be surprised if you work to define the
constraints and off-switch for the program with the state, instead of
digging your heels in and saying "not in my lifetime, dammit". For one
thing, for the state to not define an off switch for the program when
asked to is sort of like saying "we don't care about the wild brown
trout". They probably don't want to look like they're saying it, and they
probably do care about the browns, in any case. The opposition would
look much more reasonable, saying "let's find a way to make sure it stops
if we determine its hurting the browns" than "well, it might hurt the
browns, so lets not do it"-- and it will probably end up being done, in
any case.

If it turns out to be a successful program, and the browns and the
rainbows can lie down together, all the better. If they can't, well the
stops will be in place before fish number 1 is stocked.

--
Scott
Reverse name to reply