Hatchery trout survival in the wild in Pa. - a few comments

[PennKev]

I should clarify that I am not against developing a wild strain of trout for stocking in certain situations but I simply think that doing so will do little to improve already existing wild trout populations.

I think the advantage of having a such a strain of trout may lie in getting better survival rates for current fingerling stockings in waters where limited spawning habitat is preventing the waterway from containing as many trout as it could. People may not have realized it at the time but i was somewhat serious about the idea of taking fish directly from Spring Creek and stocking them elsewhere tp see if they yielded better survival rates compared to hatchery fingerlings.

In other words, a better strain of trout is not a shortcut around habitat improvement.

 

[krayfish2]

Kev,

When I say re-establish, I'm thinking of a reclaimed stream situation. AMD problem fixed, habitat work done, etc. That's a place wild stock should go IMHO. Of course I'm the tailwater fan as well.

 

[Bonzoso]

Wow,
Another great discussion that I usually like to read in the background but almost never comment on. The biology and ecology involved is truly complex, particularly when you are trying to meet such opposing fishing needs. One thing I think worth noting, and it is not stating anything new to this board, is the role of the PFBC. They have to play some sort of intermediate role to appease the masses and the wilders. Trying to do this is extremely difficult. It would be much more resource efficient to do one or the other, but since a huge portion of their funds comes from the masses, they must make sure that these folks are heard. I'm sure that we could have a much better wild trout fishery if we primarily funded those goals. Although it doesn't meet what I would like to see, the masses "wants" have to be held in priority especially when we clearly don't have enough money for everyone. And again, doing both reduces resource efficiency. Pennsylvania, with it's relative high amount of development would require much more funding to achieve anywhere close to the level of wild trout fisheries seen in our less developed states. In my mind the PFBC is doing about the best we can expect for a trout fishery that appeals to everyone in this highly developed state. Just my opinion.

 

[brookieaddict]

I realy think its where you are and how much pressure and cover that waterway has and gets. I have caught trout on private land ,that were stocked , they were flushed downstream do to very high water events. There is a brown in this stream i call Moses, he has a distinct jaw deforamtion and has been caught many times over a 5 year period. Last year he was 23 1/4 inches and about three pounds. I have always though the pfbc stocks the wrong trout, we use to stock browns and there were more hold overs due to their ability to endured higher water temps and stream polution. Now the fashion fish is bows, so be it. Trout no matter the strain will always require clean cold water with cover from predators and baiters, this is the goal all of us should be aiming at.

 

[troutbert]

Wild strain brown trout fingerlings might have better survival when stocked in tailwaters than they are getting now with hatchery strain brown trout fingerlings.

Here's a good reason to think so: In the Little Juniata River, large numbers of hatchery finglerings were stocked each year.

But when a study was done to see whether adult trout were coming from those fingerling stockings for from wild trout reproduction it was found that the vast majority were coming from wild trout reproduction.

So there was very low survival of the stocked fingerlings. But the wild trout fingerlings were growing up into adult trout.

So, what accounts for the difference in survival rate? It could be that the conditions in the hatchery give them poor preparation for life in the wild. Or it could be the difference in genetics. Or a combination of both.

It' hard to sort out. But, in Wisconsin, they do choose to use wild strain brown trout in streams they think have good conditions for year around survival of trout. So, they must think the genetics makes a difference.

 

[krayfish2]

There's got to be some variable that we are missing when looking at the difference in success of the fingerlings. Predation, temps, dissolved oxygen, PH, etc.? I'm no biologist or claim to be educated on this topic. I worked at a hatchery, had some classes, could calculate raceway carrying capacity, dissolved oxygen, feed ratios and test for anemia (at least I used to be able to).
Picking 2 rivers that were or still are on fingerling programs... Little J and Yough. I think that both are similar when it comes to thermal issues but think that the J probably has the better water quality on a day in / day out basis. The Yough has the problem of water from the Casselman which has AMD, sediment and quite warm discharge in the summer. The fingerlings planted in the Yough appear to have done much are better than the ones planted in the Little J. PAFBC has got to have some idea of why one works and the other doesn't. I believe the consensus is that the Yough has no wild reproduction while some anglers will dispute it. A majority of the fish look fantastic. I'd like to see the TU or any interested organization in that area work on restoration to tribs and opening them up so spawning fish can more easily access them at average flows.
I guess that the state can stock you typical hatchery fingerlings, let nature weed out the weak and those that survive and suitable breeding stock for propagation. ?? It’s obvious from some older threads that hatchery fish have washed into warm water streams and survived to make future generations of migratory fish that spend part of the year in the Susky and part of the year in feeders or spring seepages. It happens from above Binghamton all the way to the Maryland line. That wasn’t a planned project …. Just an accidental bonus for those that know they exist. That proves “SOME” hatchery fish can make it to adulthood and successfully spawn future wild generations that can survive but I’m confident that it’s a very small number with even a smaller number of fish surviving to breeding age. I actually know of 4 different locations with large spring seeps in the Susky that hold or have held trout. Some of these trout are very, very large and old.
I think the stocking of bows may be in fashion because they stay where put and get caught pretty easily by the angler looking to keep / eat. Some of the newer strains are more tolerant of warmer water.
This is a very interesting subject but there really hasn’t been any definitive reason given why some fingerling plantings are successful while other aren’t Hopefully this is where Mie will chime in and provide some insight.
I'dl like to see some survival figures for fingerlings stocked by NYDEC. I know they dump little guys in the Beaverkill and East Branch that seen to do pretty well.

 

[afishinado]

Unfortunately, the FBC is in such a budget crunch that they are just treading water to keep stocking as many fish as possible at the lowest cost right now. According to the FBC, $16 to $17 of our $30 license/trout stamp fee going towards stocking trout...more than half.

The only way forward in the long term, is to provide more fish for a quality fishing experience with less stocking, aka self-sustaining fisheries, aka wild trout streams, aka C&R streams and sections. This would allow the FBC to continue to stock a decent amount of fish in the put and take streams and not have to stock the self-sustaining Class A's (we all know there are many unclassified Class A's out there right now). To their credit, the FBC came up with a workable solution to reduce stocking in some newly classified Class A streams, but they got cut off at their knees!

Experimenting with trout strains that have a higher probability to survive and reproduce in streams is one part of the equation. Stream improvement and enhancement is another. Finally, more and better cooperation and communication with the FBC from anglers like us is what is needed to make this all happen.

At some point all the above will happen. The current path taken by the FBC simply cannot continue.

Edit: The one thing that looms in the background is the fact that Mr Arway, a few years ago announced the closing of two FBC hatcheries and a drastic reduction in stocking. The politicians nixed that proposal in short order and it was left with a "we'll work it out." Not another word has been uttered by anyone on this subject.

IMO, if the fisheries program is funded in any way, shape, form or amount by the General Fund......Katie bar the door!.....when it comes to meddling by the politicians. This is the next thing to be on guard for in the near future.

 

[Chaz]

The upper reaches of Antietam Creek in Berks, should be hold wild browns and maybe even support wild brookies, but it doesn't because there is no spawning gravel. All of the gravel is locked up in the back end of what I suppose are old mill dams. The left fork has a few browns.
Would it likely get stocked with fingerlings, no, it's all on private property.

 

[Chaz]

krayfish2 wrote:
There's got to be some variable that we are missing when looking at the difference in success of the fingerlings. Predation, temps, dissolved oxygen, PH, etc.? I'm no biologist or claim to be educated on this topic. I worked at a hatchery, had some classes, could calculate raceway carrying capacity, dissolved oxygen, feed ratios and test for anemia (at least I used to be able to).
Picking 2 rivers that were or still are on fingerling programs... Little J and Yough. I think that both are similar when it comes to thermal issues but think that the J probably has the better water quality on a day in / day out basis. The Yough has the problem of water from the Casselman which has AMD, sediment and quite warm discharge in the summer. The fingerlings planted in the Yough appear to have done much are better than the ones planted in the Little J. PAFBC has got to have some idea of why one works and the other doesn't. I believe the consensus is that the Yough has no wild reproduction while some anglers will dispute it. A majority of the fish look fantastic. I'd like to see the TU or any interested organization in that area work on restoration to tribs and opening them up so spawning fish can more easily access them at average flows.
I guess that the state can stock you typical hatchery fingerlings, let nature weed out the weak and those that survive and suitable breeding stock for propagation. ?? It’s obvious from some older threads that hatchery fish have washed into warm water streams and survived to make future generations of migratory fish that spend part of the year in the Susky and part of the year in feeders or spring seepages. It happens from above Binghamton all the way to the Maryland line. That wasn’t a planned project …. Just an accidental bonus for those that know they exist. That proves “SOME” hatchery fish can make it to adulthood and successfully spawn future wild generations that can survive but I’m confident that it’s a very small number with even a smaller number of fish surviving to breeding age. I actually know of 4 different locations with large spring seeps in the Susky that hold or have held trout. Some of these trout are very, very large and old.
I think the stocking of bows may be in fashion because they stay where put and get caught pretty easily by the angler looking to keep / eat. Some of the newer strains are more tolerant of warmer water.
This is a very interesting subject but there really hasn’t been any definitive reason given why some fingerling plantings are successful while other aren’t Hopefully this is where Mie will chime in and provide some insight.
I'dl like to see some survival figures for fingerlings stocked by NYDEC. I know they dump little guys in the Beaverkill and East Branch that seen to do pretty well.

Using your 2 rivers, The LJ has a population of wild browns, they got fat on the stocked fingerlings, the Yough has virtually no wild population, my guess is that the cold water from the reservoir is cleaner and cold than the LJ in the summer. Just conjecture on my part.
My theory on the migration of trout for wild streams into large drainages such as Pine Creek and the Susquehanna is they are pushed there by heavy flows from smaller tributaries for the most part, though I do believe they move after the spawn to larger water for protection from floods, ice, and predators after spawn. But some large trout turn up in the tributaries in the fall and stay. We can speculate as to why, but I don't know of any studies of Trout migration in Pa. It sure would be helpful for trout management to know more about it rather than speculation.

 

[JeffK]

I'm with Troutbert. If a PA stream can hold wild fish I think it will (maybe with a rare exception). My argument is that when I was a kid the Saucon and the Lackawanna were open sewers with no trout whatsoever. When the Saucon cleaned up after the zinc mine closed the wild browns magically appeared. Stocking actually hurt the fishery for a few years before it stopped in the Trophy Trout section. When the coal mine drainage acidity dropped enough in the Lackawanna wild browns appeared. In general, the drainages in PA contain enough wild trout and they can move around enough to colonize areas that suit them, with maybe a rare isolated stream reach. And I think those hardy pioneers do better than hatchery fish.

 

[Chaz]

troutbert wrote:
Wild strain brown trout fingerlings might have better survival when stocked in tailwaters than they are getting now with hatchery strain brown trout fingerlings.

Here's a good reason to think so: In the Little Juniata River, large numbers of hatchery finglerings were stocked each year.

But when a study was done to see whether adult trout were coming from those fingerling stockings for from wild trout reproduction it was found that the vast majority were coming from wild trout reproduction.

So there was very low survival of the stocked fingerlings. But the wild trout fingerlings were growing up into adult trout.

So, what accounts for the difference in survival rate? It could be that the conditions in the hatchery give them poor preparation for life in the wild. Or it could be the difference in genetics. Or a combination of both.

It' hard to sort out. But, in Wisconsin, they do choose to use wild strain brown trout in streams they think have good conditions for year around survival of trout. So, they must think the genetics makes a difference.

Behnke says in one of the articles about brook trout is his book "About Trout" that hatchery brook trout spawn with natives create small brookies in the wild. I'm paraphrasing cause the book is not handy. But it's a very bad thing, may be why along the road you only catch very small brookies. Messing with the gene pool is a very bad thing.
I think this illustrates that we really need to know if there are any heritage strains of brookies left in PA, and save those fish as we move forward with plans to maintain the current populations of brook trout in our streams.

To do that you have to commit to setting aside some hatchery production for propagating wild trout in hatcheries from wild stock in streams, raising them to fingerling size and then releasing them into streams.