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

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...)

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