Yea but the freezers, hydro geologist consultants/water source testing, electrical deterrent devices and redoing all the netting and equipment used by staff for decontamination are an added cost. Hatcheries have already been awarded growing greener money that could have gone to stream/wetland restoration To clean up the effluent that stems from raising so many fish. The price of gas and feed is going up and the nimber of people buying licenses is not keeping pace mandating license fee increases(which id be fine with if the money went to conservation instead of aquatic invasive species production). We know license fee increases have ceiling before you get loss of individual purchasers.A number of the costs mentioned above would appear in part to be personnel costs, which would already exist. It could possibly be a case of shifting priorities at certain times of the year.
I disagree, i think we just need to stop creating predictable expensive problems and harms to wild native fishWith two hatcheries full of trout, adapting to the immediate problem as they have has been the appropriate route to take. As a fisheries colleague used to say; “when you are up to your keister in allegators, it’s not the time to be asking who drained the pond.”
Im calling the entire hatchery program expensive it was 12.4 million dollars in 2009 and just like our gas and food bills the hatchery trouts gas and food has gotten more expensive. In 2009 they had used a growing greener grant for hatchery effluent that could have gone to fixing a problem we were not paying to create in perpetuity. Its way too much when we have not had any published survey data on our state fish in PA since Hudy et al. 2006 while we have streams marked class A brook trout or mixed that have little to no brook trout any more. How come surveying and getting an updated statewide assessment initiative in a timely matter to see how our management strategy(or lack there of) is actually working ? Why is that not just “shifting around some personnel and resources” like you suggested with NZ mudsnail decontamination? Its just that the goal, messaging, and priorities are all wrong and we are reminded time and time again that is stock above all else. We cannot say this program is not too expensive its the in the top two expenses not including the numerous staff it takes out of the equation that could be applied elsewhere. You can say who is going to pay for all this if the stocked trout stop but the truth is we are headed for a financial reality where the serial fee increases to keep ip with expense growth will decrease sales any way.Before I would call an improvement, treatment, maintenance, or monitoring program expensive, including ongoing costs, I would want to know the cost per trout (delivered) and amortized over the life of the improvement that has been made. Remember, annually it’s about a 3.1 million trout adult program plus fingerlings.
I don't think so.The video notes they like limestone streams. Do they do well in freestones also?
2020 surveys on where mudsnails were found. Many, but certainly not all, of those are limestoners.I don't think so.
Penn live article2020 surveys on where mudsnails were found. Many, but certainly not all, of those are limestoners.
Fishing Creek in Clinton County, Jordan and Trout creeks in Lehigh County; Bushkill, Saucon and Monocacy creeks in Northampton County; Perkiomen Creek, in Montgomery County; Tulpehocken and Wyomissing creeks in Berks County; Wissahickon Creek in Philadelphia County; Big Spring Creek and Letort Spring Run in Cumberland County; Pohopoco Creek in Carbon County; East Branch Brandywine Creek in Chester County; Schuylkill River in Berks, Montgomery and Philadelphia counties; and Lehigh River in Lehigh and Northampton counties.
I always cringe when I see operators of hatcheries defined as "conservation organizations." Those aren't conservation hatcheries, and raising non-native trout isn't conservation. It's the exact opposite.Penn live article
“cooperative nurseries operated by volunteer conservation organizations in Northampton, Lehigh and Franklin counties, were found to contain the invaders.”
Wonder if the lehigh area streams mentioned above got their mud snails from coops who got them from PG and Benner.
It kills me when the media or websites refer to people engaging in hatchery trout husbandry and stocking “conservation volunteers”.
It should say,The mudsnails are spread to new waters by attaching to waders, fishing gear and boats, and have the potential to reach densities of hundreds or even thousands of snails per square foot of a streambed.
The mudsnails are spread to new waters by attaching to waders, fishing gear and boats, [via trout stocking from infected hatcheries] and have the potential to reach densities of hundreds or even thousands of snails per square foot of a streambed.
How long will it take before an infestation is sufficient enough to be detectable? Just because they didn't find any a few months after stocking, does that mean it's safe to continue stocking fish from the infested hatcheries in uninfested waters?Throughout spring and summer, staff from the commission’s Division of Fisheries Management conducted surveys on select waters that had been stocked with trout from the two hatcheries prior to the detection of the mudsnails in May.
No snails were found.
I’ve read the article, and while it is informative, there is still a risk that mud snails could be transmitted via stocked trout.See the 11/11/22 issue of Pennsylvania Outdoor News for a complete description of the multiple measures being taken to address this problem. It is quite an informative article.