Fingerling trout stocking schedule 2023

[sixfootfenwick]

So you also believe that a hatchery-born brown trout cannot and have not reproduce(d) in the wild? That somehow these magical 1883 fish have maintained a perfect, untainted, pure genetic line? What about the Scottish fish? Have they also somehow maintained purity and are therefore more valuable? They can't reproduce with the German fish or any stocked domesticated fish?

I don't know what brook trout have to do with this, but since you brought it up... There is a mountain of difference between using native source stock with locally adapted genetics (created over thousands of years vs 134) to reinforce or restore a population of native fish and choosing which flavor of a nonnative fish is preferred.

If you're not arguing that the 1883 stock has somehow remained insulated ever since they were introduced, then you're simply stating the obvious that some of those populations have existed since 1883. Of course they have. My point is that they've also very likely been mixed with multiple other fish of various stages of domestication. Which leads to the question of why does it matter what generation of stocked brown trout exists?

You're suggesting that a population of introduced species from a limited source stock reaches the system's carrying capacity the same as a natural system would evolve. That ignores issues within the introduced species that might stunt the population size (bottlenecks/founder effects) even though the system could support a larger bio-load. i.e., why it might be ok to supplement a wild population with stocked fingerlings. Or simply because the population is too young, or competing species prevent that species from reaching a desired population level, or the effects of stocking (harvest/incidental mortality). Or that the introduction of the species disrupted ecosystem balance resulting in booms/busts of the introduced species' population size.

The fingerling stocking may have benefited the existing population by introducing more genetic variation to a stunted population. Not all hatchery loci would be bad, and not all locus passed on to offspring would be some negative domesticated trait. It's not so simple as filling a candy jar with jelly beans and saying the jar can't hold any more. It's a dynamic system filled with living creatures that all reproduce and have an effect on one another.

It seems to be a popular delusion these days.

 

[PennKev]

So you also believe that a hatchery-born brown trout cannot and have not reproduce(d) in the wild? That somehow these magical 1883 fish have maintained a perfect, untainted, pure genetic line? What about the Scottish fish? Have they also somehow maintained purity and are therefore more valuable? They can't reproduce with the German fish or any stocked domesticated fish?

I don't know what brook trout have to do with this, but since you brought it up... There is a mountain of difference between using native source stock with locally adapted genetics (created over thousands of years vs 134) to reinforce or restore a population of native fish and choosing which flavor of a nonnative fish is preferred.

Ahh the classic arguing technique of talking in absolutes....

Of course a some hatchery fish could reproduce. Do I think they are making a significant contribution, or even enough to water down the genetics of more suitable wild fish? No, I don't think that is the case.

As for the Scottish German and whatever else strain of WILD fish. They all have an important characteritic that you want to conveniently overlook. They are WILD fish. They are fish capable of existing in the wild not a domesticated fish, selectively bred for hatchery production. So even if you mix em all up and make the ultimate mutt brown, they are still fish based on WILD genetics. Would that make for the best fish to establish a wild population in all cases? Probably not, but I'd rather see those fish stocked as fingerlings, or to create a wild population than some fish that has spent the last 100+ generations in a hatchery, relying on man to continue it's lineage. My money is on the fish most closely removed from a wild population.

You agree that brookies native to a drainage have an advantage genetically over fish from other sources.
Would WILD fish not have a genetic advantage over a fish that has been selected for genetics favorable for hatcheries?

On a side note, it did not take us 100K years to develop chickens that provide extraordinarily long hackle feathers. That happened in the same time span as brown trout being introduced in North America, so trying to argue that strong genetic variance can't happen in a short time span is not true at all, especially when man chooses to influence it. Human intervention can easily selectively breed an animal to the point where it is no longer suitable for wild survival either anatomically or behaviorally.

 

[silverfox]

Ahh the classic arguing technique of talking in absolutes....

Of course a some hatchery fish could reproduce. Do I think they are making a significant contribution, or even enough to water down the genetics of more suitable wild fish? No, I don't think that is the case.

As for the Scottish German and whatever else strain of WILD fish. They all have an important characteritic that you want to conveniently overlook. They are WILD fish. They are fish capable of existing in the wild not a domesticated fish, selectively bred for hatchery production. So even if you mix em all up and make the ultimate mutt brown, they are still fish based on WILD genetics. Would that make for the best fish to establish a wild population in all cases? Probably not, but I'd rather see those fish stocked as fingerlings, or to create a wild population than some fish that has spent the last 100+ generations in a hatchery, relying on man to continue it's lineage. My money is on the fish most closely removed from a wild population.

Von Behr was a fish culturist. The eggs he sent over were stripped from his hatchery stock. This coveted source stock was already a hatchery fish when it got here.

You agree that brookies native to a drainage have an advantage genetically over fish from other sources.
Would WILD fish not have a genetic advantage over a fish that has been selected for genetics favorable for hatcheries?

Evolution vs. selective breeding. Yes. That's not the same thing as "wild" BT sourced from hatchery stock, to begin with, being superior to some other generation of hatchery stock. That premise assumes there are fish that have been isolated since 1883. How does that compare to species that have evolved here since the Pleistocene vs. hatchery fish? Does time not matter in evolution/adaptation?

On a side note, it did not take us 100K years to develop chickens that provide extraordinarily long hackle feathers. That happened in the same time span as brown trout being introduced in North America, so trying to argue that strong genetic variance can't happen in a short time span is not true at all, especially when man chooses to influence it. Human intervention can easily selectively breed an animal to the point where it is no longer suitable for wild survival either anatomically or behaviorally.

Right. There's a huge difference between deliberately selectively breeding animals for a specific trait and what happens via natural adaptation. Are you suggesting that natural adaptation or evolution happens as fast as selective breeding?

 

[Fish Sticks]

Ahh the classic arguing technique of talking in absolutes....

Of course a some hatchery fish could reproduce. Do I think they are making a significant contribution, or even enough to water down the genetics of more suitable wild fish? No, I don't think that is the case.

As for the Scottish German and whatever else strain of WILD fish. They all have an important characteritic that you want to conveniently overlook. They are WILD fish. They are fish capable of existing in the wild not a domesticated fish, selectively bred for hatchery production. So even if you mix em all up and make the ultimate mutt brown, they are still fish based on WILD genetics. Would that make for the best fish to establish a wild population in all cases? Probably not, but I'd rather see those fish stocked as fingerlings, or to create a wild population than some fish that has spent the last 100+ generations in a hatchery, relying on man to continue it's lineage. My money is on the fish most closely removed from a wild population.

You agree that brookies native to a drainage have an advantage genetically over fish from other sources.
Would WILD fish not have a genetic advantage over a fish that has been selected for genetics favorable for hatcheries?

On a side note, it did not take us 100K years to develop chickens that provide extraordinarily long hackle feathers. That happened in the same time span as brown trout being introduced in North America, so trying to argue that strong genetic variance can't happen in a short time span is not true at all, especially when man chooses to influence it. Human intervention can easily selectively breed an animal to the point where it is no longer suitable for wild survival either anatomically or behaviorally.

Your getting into something you don’t understand fully. And what your saying is posited on a few inaccurate assumptions.

1. You say more “suitable for survival” than hatchery fish. As silverfox mentioned since the genes were not adapted here hatchery fish can actually potentially add needed genetic diversity to these fish(human charity that helps overcome founder effect). Dr. Kirk Faust mentions this in a study looking at environmental resistance to invasive trout in southern Appalachians and midwest.

Hatchery behaviors are a big part of why stocked fish don’t survive as are the genetics too but its all relative. If you had 10 fish put in the Little J and stocking ceased that would have been a serious founder effect and caused extremely limited genetic diversity and possibly inbreeding depression with collapse if no new genetic material was introduced way back when. Essentially there was nothing to lose by adding more hatchery trout to hatchery trout offspring in the wild.

2. Rapid evolution can happen in fishbits documented in alewives in new england but its a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of years in Europe. And the changes of genetics you describe in hatcheries is not evolution(a coherent process) its mostly inbreeding essentially. But if you take an inbred fish and drop it ontop a different inbred wild fish it can still add genetic diversity(again its all relative and with no locally adapted native genetics your playing the game with nothing to lose diversity wise. The strong genetic variance you speak of happened because of different source stocks of hatchery fish not Wild reproduction, hence human charity for brown fish by adding artificially more genetic diversity.

Maybe you’d argue that rapid evolution is happening in wild brown trout then in the wild since its happening in alewives right? No ones stocking alweives. As silver dox mentioned introgression is occurring so the same stocking that likely helped inbred brown trout in some cases early on now probably is disrupting any coherent evolution(descent with modifications that selects desirable traits). So adding genetic diversity could help over come inbreeding but thats a low bad and does not mean your not limiting adaptive capacity going forward with continual introductions. There are no blanket statements and each watwrshed will be different but if brown trout blink out…..tada we stock more.





3. Wild brookies are so seriously harmed by stocked brookies because they have something locally adapted or relatively lovally afapted to lose genetically. So stocking causes outbreeding depression(loss of locally adapted genes) not overcoming a bottle neck or founder effect as is possible in brown fish.

4. Your assumption that hatchery bad genes will be selected out quickly is flat out wrong. I heard shannon white speak and she said everyone assume bad genes get selected out right away but their bad because their not adapted to stochastic events like floods droughts wildfires ect that mat only happen every 100 years giving the bad genes a century to spread like a disease through the fish setting them up like dominos to fall. Look at brown trout in montana whats happening there? No one knows yet but their declining in southwest faster than other species According to their state DNR.

 

[PennKev]

You guys are very good at reading things so that they fit into your point of view and your arguments. Fortunately I have no more time to waste with zealots who want to make every thread on a fly fishing board about themselves and their psuedo religion.

 

[Fish Sticks]

You guys are very good at reading things so that they fit into your point of view and your arguments. Fortunately I have no more time to waste with zealots who want to make every thread on a fly fishing board about themselves and their psuedo religion.

Aka

“i waded into something i am ignorant on and now that i realize its much more complicated than I thought originally we are going to leave it at you people listening to what fisheries scientists say are crazy zealot ,not me, ironically, who argues as an unabashed invasive species apologist with no data or underStanding to back up.

 

[silverfox]

You guys are very good at reading things so that they fit into your point of view and your arguments. Fortunately I have no more time to waste with zealots who want to make every thread on a fly fishing board about themselves and their psuedo religion.

Mike wanted to liven the forum up. So...

 

[CRB]

Your getting into something you don’t understand fully. And what your saying is posited on a few inaccurate assumptions.

1. You say more “suitable for survival” than hatchery fish. As silverfox mentioned since the genes were not adapted here hatchery fish can actually potentially add needed genetic diversity to these fish(human charity that helps overcome founder effect). Dr. Kirk Faust mentions this in a study looking at environmental resistance to invasive trout in southern Appalachians and midwest.

Hatchery behaviors are a big part of why stocked fish don’t survive as are the genetics too but its all relative. If you had 10 fish put in the Little J and stocking ceased that would have been a serious founder effect and caused extremely limited genetic diversity and possibly inbreeding depression with collapse if no new genetic material was introduced way back when. Essentially there was nothing to lose by adding more hatchery trout to hatchery trout offspring in the wild.

2. Rapid evolution can happen in fishbits documented in alewives in new england but its a drop in the bucket compared to the millions of years in Europe. And the changes of genetics you describe in hatcheries is not evolution(a coherent process) its mostly inbreeding essentially. But if you take an inbred fish and drop it ontop a different inbred wild fish it can still add genetic diversity(again its all relative and with no locally adapted native genetics your playing the game with nothing to lose diversity wise. The strong genetic variance you speak of happened because of different source stocks of hatchery fish not Wild reproduction, hence human charity for brown fish by adding artificially more genetic diversity.

Maybe you’d argue that rapid evolution is happening in wild brown trout then in the wild since its happening in alewives right? No ones stocking alweives. As silver dox mentioned introgression is occurring so the same stocking that likely helped inbred brown trout in some cases early on now probably is disrupting any coherent evolution(descent with modifications that selects desirable traits). So adding genetic diversity could help over come inbreeding but thats a low bad and does not mean your not limiting adaptive capacity going forward with continual introductions. There are no blanket statements and each watwrshed will be different but if brown trout blink out…..tada we stock more.





3. Wild brookies are so seriously harmed by stocked brookies because they have something locally adapted or relatively lovally afapted to lose genetically. So stocking causes outbreeding depression(loss of locally adapted genes) not overcoming a bottle neck or founder effect as is possible in brown fish.

4. Your assumption that hatchery bad genes will be selected out quickly is flat out wrong. I heard shannon white speak and she said everyone assume bad genes get selected out right away but their bad because their not adapted to stochastic events like floods droughts wildfires ect that mat only happen every 100 years giving the bad genes a century to spread like a disease through the fish setting them up like dominos to fall. Look at brown trout in montana whats happening there? No one knows yet but their declining in southwest faster than other species According to their state DNR.

There for:
wild brook trout in a specific stream are mostly inbreeding too.

 

[Fish Sticks]

There for:
wild brook trout in a specific stream are mostly inbreeding too.

Never said they were not in some cases. Thats because of our activity creating barriers, browns being one of the human created barriers. Think about what your trying to imply

 

[hemlock]

This one was hard to follow. If anyone thinks stocked pfbc brown trout aren't capable of creating a wild brown trout fishery, I believe you are wrong. Codorus creek is one example. I don't think anyone stocked these "wild 1800 stock" fish post dam construction.