Stocking Trout Over Wild Fish

[salvelinusfontinalis]

about the past 45 mins but you asked for it didnt you. Dont worry im an insomniac......gave me something to do. I need a break from writing.

 

[tomgamber]

Look it really doesn't matter how much more stocked fish cost...if the work that is done to keep wild fish viable costs one dollar it is not free. That's all I said. And you quoted it. I lived in Idaho long enough to know how great it is to fish for wild trout. I did it 250 days a year. But if they are as fragile as you keep telling us, there is a price to pay or they will not survive. Not free.

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Yes ok not completely free but tom....

What i said:

Id be willing to bet wild trout are a heck of a lot cheaper than stocked fish Tom.

What you said:

You can bet whatever you want.

I tried to show some facts....think i proved they are quite a bit cheaper.

 

[tomgamber]

I never said they weren't cheaper. Nice try though...

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

Got me there. ;-)

Ill tell you what though...looking at those numbers is very impressive. It really puts our resource into perspective. Amazing :-D

 

[tomgamber]

they are measured in hectares not acres aren't they?


One Hectare = 2.47 acres. One Hectare = 10000 sq. meters or 107600 sq. feet. One Acre = 4050 square meters or 43560 sq. feet ...you may have to adjust your math if that is correct...but I'm sure Jack or another closet mathematician can do that.

My 14 year old is taking all AP classes and his math is already beyond what I remember because I took AP math 30 years ago and hardly ever used it

 

[salvelinusfontinalis]

I used this:

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/rulemakings/notices/2008_12_02classa.pdf

Total brown trout biomass of at least 40 kg/ha (35.6 lbs/acre).
Total brook trout biomass of at least 30 kg/ha (26.7 lbs/acre).

So the math is still correct by these terms.

I didnt use square feet because im not measuring square stream frontage. Also it is likely that a stream meanders through on acre. Instead my numbers show it as if the stream is going straight as an arrow. As i said this numbers were averaged and are going to be off.

Its just to give you an idea not to be exact.

 

[skeeter]

Jack,

The article is not available on the internet but I did scan it and want to attach it to this thread. I have it both as a JPEG and a TIFF and it is over 1 MB any suggestions for posting. If not I can just email it to you as a pdf or an image.

 

[tomgamber]

salvelinusfontinalis wrote:
I used this:

http://www.fish.state.pa.us/rulemakings/notices/2008_12_02classa.pdf

Total brown trout biomass of at least 40 kg/ha (35.6 lbs/acre).
Total brook trout biomass of at least 30 kg/ha (26.7 lbs/acre).

So the math is still correct by these terms.

I didnt use square feet because im not measuring square stream frontage. Also it is likely that a stream meanders through on acre. Instead my numbers show it as if the stream is going straight as an arrow. As i said this numbers were averaged and are going to be off.

Its just to give you an idea not to be exact.

cool, too lazy to do the math myself...just knew one of them was a different measure. thanks

 

[JackM]

Anyone interested in the article mentioned by Skeeter can view it below:

 

[Mike]

Based on data in the recently released PFBC report on production and stocking costs of fingerling and adult trout, in order to break even (be cost comparable) 25% of the 3.5 inch fingerlings or 34% of the 5 inch fingerlings stocked would need to survive to 11 inches in order to match the cost of an adult trout delivered to the stream or lake. An even higher % of larger "fingerlings," such as the 7 in. fish sometimes stocked in fall, would need to survive in order to break even with the adult trout stocking program. Fingerling survival rates of this magnitude, in my experience, have rarely been seen in Pa.

 

[JackM]

Mike what does this information have to do with stocking over wild fish? Isn't the data significant even if PFBC stocks only waters not capable of sustaining a wild trout population?

In addition, isn't there some significance to angler preference if it were to show that at least in some waters, grown-up fingerlings are preferred to trout reared to adulthood in a raceway?

Just a few questions to ponder.

 

[afishinado]

Jack,

I believe Mike posted that info in response to some of the previous posts in this thread concerning trout stocking costs.


Mike,

Interesting. Given the %'s you posted, it does not appear, from a cost standpoint, that stocking fingerlings is a viable option since I cannot imagine stocked fingerling survival rates ever being that high. However, as Jack pointed out, it may make sense from an angler satisfaction standpoint on selected waters, like you are currently doing on the Little J, Yough, etc.

How 'bout the Tully? Do you have any updated data on fingerling survival? Do you plan to continue limited stocking (lower section) in the DH area, and adults in the the upper section? You know my vote and many others on this board, from an anglers satisfaction perspective is to continue fingerling stocking on the stream.

Thanks for the info.

 

[JackM]

Mike and afish, my bad. For some reason, when I read the post this morning, I thought Mike's comments were the initial post in this thread (I must have clicked direct to page two). Thus, I was wondering why he would have entitled his thread this way. I must stop posting before my first cup of coffee kicks in. Still, I am interested in the remaining question which afish reiterated for me.

 

[Maurice]

Here is my take on fingerling survival.

I think too many are stocked. I believe that the total that survive is dependant on the carrying capacity of the particular stretch of stream.

For instance, Put 20,000 in the Tully and only 1,000 survive, (5%)

Try putting only 5,000 in instead. You may get the same 1,000 survive.


I think the fingerling survival net should be the determining factor in of how many are stocked.

Now if no fingerlings were surviving, I could agree with discontinuing the program. But if there is survival similar to the number of stocked adult trout that would be planted, just try to refine the number of fingerlings planted so you don't "waste" so many.

my .02

 

[JackM]

Maurice, you may be right, but if the low survival statistics are the result of predation as opposed to competition for food and cover, the result may be a smaller survival ratio if less fingerlings are stocked. The point is valid, though, in that there may be many explanations for low survival rates, and these may vary by stream or stream-type and I would like to see them all explored before abandoning the program in favor of adult stockings.

 

[Acristickid]

Seems to me many of the states largest fish come from waters with the fingerling program. Yough,J,Clarion- maybe they are getting large on eating the easy prey.

 

[afishinado]

Maurice wrote:
Here is my take on fingerling survival.

I think too many are stocked. I believe that the total that survive is dependant on the carrying capacity of the particular stretch of stream.

For instance, Put 20,000 in the Tully and only 1,000 survive, (5%)

Try putting only 5,000 in instead. You may get the same 1,000 survive.


I think the fingerling survival net should be the determining factor in of how many are stocked.

Now if no fingerlings were surviving, I could agree with discontinuing the program. But if there is survival similar to the number of stocked adult trout that would be planted, just try to refine the number of fingerlings planted so you don't "waste" so many.

my .02

I agree Mo, I was thinking more about larger rivers such as the Yough and Lehigh to give two examples.

 

[pcray1231]

Seems to me many of the states largest fish come from waters with the fingerling program. Yough,J,Clarion- maybe they are getting large on eating the easy prey.

This is true, but its not that fingerlings naturally get bigger or necessarily that more fingerlings = prey. It's that fingerlings are typically stocked in larger streams that stay cool enough year round for trout to survive. Thats a rarity, but its those situations where you get big fish. Those streams would have big fish if adults were stocked as well.

Maurice's thoughts are interesting. I think they're not correct in the majority of circumstances, but I'm sure there's a few circumstances where it is correct. I think more likely, with less fish stocked, the percentage of survival may increase but the total number would still decrease. The question is total number, though. Most of us would be happy to accept a few less fish in exchange for them being more adapted to the stream, i.e. a fingerling that survives IS more valuable than an adult stocked fish. But there is a limit to that, we're not willing to accept a really low population. The question we need to answer, and tell the PFBC, is how many less fish are we willing to accept to have a fingerling fishery as opposed to an adult fishery? 50%? 75%? It's their job to figure out the economics and survival ratios from there.

Another point is that in fingerling fisheries, the fish have more time to spread out. When they measure survival rates, they are actually measuring only fish that survived and stayed (residency). If a fish survives but moves to a new stream section or even a new stream, I don't think thats a bad thing, even though he'll be counted as a casualty. So when they give the survival rates, I mentally at least double it.

 

[DaveD]

Has there ever been a fry stocking of trout like they do for shad? I think it would be interesting to look at the cost/benefit of trout survival to the expense of feeding and transportation of fry vs. fingerlings vs. adult fish.