Stop Stocking

[Char_Master]

Eccles, I could not have worded that any better myself! Sure, trout are a fun fish to catch and will always be one of my favorite groups of fish. But those who are raised to believe that trout are the end-all-be-all of the fishing world are simply blind to all of the other wonderful species available around them. For example, my local creek is what I would call very healthy for being in a suburban environment. It doesn't support wild trout by it's still healthy and supports other angling opportunities. Yet, everyone who lives in my town seems to think that stockers are the only thing to fish for and they eagerly await opening day with their ropes ready to string up fish. I, on the other hand, have come to love fishing for the native species of the stream that are present year round. Fish like the rare Northern Hogsucker, little resident Smallmouth Bass, and even the hardy Creek Chub. All of which I have a blast catching both on fly and spin tackle! If those of you out there have never nymph fished for big suckers on a 3 weight, go give it a try sometime!

Back to the topic of stocking, I think it should only be used with caution when absolutely necessary. Perhaps instead of spending millions of dollars each year stocking literally close to one million non-native steelhead in Lake Erie where most don't even reproduce, the PFBC should be working on a better stocking program for the endangered Lake Sturgeon, a powerful, native sport fish that eats its weight in invasive gobies and zebra mussels on a daily basis and plays a crucial part in the lake's ecosystem. The same can be said about native Lake Trout as well. For all of you who fish the Erie Tribs and would hate to see steelhead go, sorry but you can't say there aren't any other stream fishing opportunities as there's huge sucker runs in the spring and many trophy smallmouth bass and channel cats are present during the summer.

All this in mind, to quote others, we can only dream that some day native fish and the health of a water will be more important than stocked non-natives in a polluted urban pond.

 

[Eccles]

pcray1231 wrote:
Largely because the impact on those other species is small.

Largely? Small? And which species do you mean? The SMBs you mention later in your post? Except that SMBs aren't really the whole story are they. They're just another of those lucky fish that happens to be near the tippy top of the anglers' favored pedestal. What about the others, the chubs and suckers and all the lesser loved fishes. Oh, and lest we forget, there happens to also be a whole community of other animals that live quietly year in year out in these "bass streams". We already know that the introduction of trout to waters that don't normally hold them fundamentally alters the pattern of invertebrate behavior. For a start drift patterns change in the presence of trout which has knock on effects for other resident species. Trout also change the relative abundance and species richness of the stream community as well as directly and indirectly competing for the food other organisms are also after and as a consequence the effects knock down the food chain to include impacts on stream vegetation.

Granted you say that the stocking doesn't last (but actually it doesn't have to to have an impact on those other animals) and that few waters are stocked in this way. But this simply supports a short-sighted attitude that seems to infuse the PFBC management (if not all its biologists) and some trout anglers I mentioned in my earlier post. Just because we can find a space in a bass stream at a particular time of year when we can shovel in a load of trout for the edification of the PA fishing population, doesn't mean we should. In fact, to help instill a wider appreciation of what lives where, and why it is able to live there (so that we value all the organisms in PA's various natural aquatic habitats rather than a small anointed handful), we almost certainly shouldn't. A spring bass stream is not an underperforming resource. It's its own environment with its own community. One that happens not to support trout.

 

[troutbert]

There is very strong, well documented evidence that stocking harms wild trout populations.

The assertion being made here is that stocking trout harms smallmouth bass and other fish populations.

But is there evidence to support the assertion?

Don't assume that the situation is the same for smallmouth bass as it is for wild trout. They are different fish.

 

[afishinado]

Eccles wrote:

pcray1231 wrote:
Largely because the impact on those other species is small.

Largely? Small? And which species do you mean? The SMBs you mention later in your post? Except that SMBs aren't really the whole story are they. They're just another of those lucky fish that happens to be near the tippy top of the anglers' favored pedestal. What about the others, the chubs and suckers and all the lesser loved fishes. Oh, and lest we forget, there happens to also be a whole community of other animals that live quietly year in year out in these "bass streams". We already know that the introduction of trout to waters that don't normally hold them fundamentally alters the pattern of invertebrate behavior. For a start drift patterns change in the presence of trout which has knock on effects for other resident species. Trout also change the relative abundance and species richness of the stream community as well as directly and indirectly competing for the food other organisms are also after and as a consequence the effects knock down the food chain to include impacts on stream vegetation.

Granted you say that the stocking doesn't last (but actually it doesn't have to to have an impact on those other animals) and that few waters are stocked in this way. But this simply supports a short-sighted attitude that seems to infuse the PFBC management (if not all its biologists) and some trout anglers I mentioned in my earlier post. Just because we can find a space in a bass stream at a particular time of year when we can shovel in a load of trout for the edification of the PA fishing population, doesn't mean we should. In fact, to help instill a wider appreciation of what lives where, and why it is able to live there (so that we value all the organisms in PA's various natural aquatic habitats rather than a small anointed handful), we almost certainly shouldn't. A spring bass stream is not an underperforming resource. It's its own environment with its own community. One that happens not to support trout.

Pcray wrote:
And generally, these streams, in their natural state, are summertime bass fisheries. The stocking program, by and large, turns smallmouth bass streams into trout streams for a month or two of the year. And the general feeling is that bass aren't impacted very strongly by the presence of stocked trout. The bass aren't very active in the early spring months, and they inhabit different habitats within the stream. They feed on largely different things, and not at the same times. That's why there isn't more concern. The trout don't negatively impact them very much.

I will admit there is a period in late spring where there's some overlap. As the bass are becoming active, the trout are nearing the end of their time, but still there. I don't know how much impact that has, as I think the habitat niche that each has is still different enough to mean there isn't a whole lot of impact.

And generally, these streams, in their natural state, are summertime bass fisheries. The stocking program, by and large, turns smallmouth bass streams into trout streams for a month or two of the year. And the general feeling is that bass aren't impacted very strongly by the presence of stocked trout. The bass aren't very active in the early spring months, and they inhabit different habitats within the stream. They feed on largely different things, and not at the same times. That's why there isn't more concern. The trout don't negatively impact them very much.

I will admit there is a period in late spring where there's some overlap. As the bass are becoming active, the trout are nearing the end of their time, but still there. I don't know how much impact that has, as I think the habitat niche that each has is still different enough to mean there isn't a whole lot of impact.

Pcray wrote this above, to which I agree 100%....saved me some writing.

Stocking a few hundred fish in stream in March or April does not disrupt the entire ecosystem. The fact that it attracts anglers that in turn fish the stream has more impact than releasing the actual fish themselves. They (the stocked trout) live for a day, a week, a month and the vast majority are long gone.

The native/wild fish in the stream can live in relative peace for the next 10 or 11 months......unless you fish for them.

 

[pcray1231]

What about the others, the chubs and suckers and all the lesser loved fishes. Oh, and lest we forget, there happens to also be a whole community of other animals that live quietly year in year out in these "bass streams".

Let me be quite clear. "Resource First".

What is a resource? I would suppose we have different definitions. To me, a resource is something that provides benefit to HUMANS. In the case of a fishery, you have several things to consider. If somewhere, anywhere downstream is used as a water supply, you have to concern yourself with pollution that could harm humans through drinking water. You have recreational fishing opportunity to consider, both locally and the effects downstream. And you have commercial fisheries to consider, usually downstream in these cases.

But still, it's in regards to what HUMANS want. Assuming there's no concern about negative effects downstream, the local impact of policy on recreational angling activities is the main thing to consider. And in most of these streams, that means trout and smallmouth bass, and less concern about suckers and chubs, at least so long as loss of those species does not lead to negative effects on trout and smallmouth bass.

My gripe with the PFBC, and many government policies in general, is the timeframe. I always take more of a long term approach. i.e. if you can make a stream a wild trout stream, you should do so, even if there's a short term detriment while it recovers, or occasional bad years . A wild trout stream provides angling opportunity with no need to spend money on stocking. Those stocked fish, then, can be used to stock more in the streams that actually need to be stocked to provide a good fishery.

Really my thoughts and the PFBC's are not greatly at odds, at least in concept. They draw the line of "viable sport fishery" at the class A level. If I were king I would amend that system, but the core concept is still the same:

1. Change from biomass to # of fish per acre. The focus on "legal" sized fish is misplaced, IMO, in an age where most anglers practice C&R, especially on wild streams.

2. IMO, the line should be drawn somewhere between current class C and D. All class B's and most class C's, IMO, are perfectly enjoyable wild trout fisheries without the need for stocking.

These amendments would satisfy most wild trout enthusiasts. But I'll make the point that the % of stocked streams that are class C or B is rather small, and the % of stocked fish that are applied to those streams is even smaller. So all in all it wouldn't be a wholesale change, just some tweaking of the status quo.

 

[FarmerDave]

BrookieChaser wrote:

...

Stocked trout are for kids and old people,...

It's a damned good thing I'm not old!

LOL!

 

[FarmerDave]

troutbert wrote:
There is very strong, well documented evidence that stocking harms wild trout populations.

The assertion being made here is that stocking trout harms smallmouth bass and other fish populations.

But is there evidence to support the assertion?

Don't assume that the situation is the same for smallmouth bass as it is for wild trout. They are different fish.

Here's the thing, and I don't think I need to provide links to studies since I am only looking at this logically. .

Introduction of trout to a stream has multiple effects.

1. Can screw up the genetics of the wild version of same species. OK, that goes away for other species previously mentioned.

2. There is the competition aspect. But there are no other fish that occupy and is limited to the same nich. The limited to is important. There is overlap with other species with everything from bass to chubs, but none of those are limited to the same niche. Also, by the time winter rolls around (usually the limiting factor for biomass, the stocked trout are mostly gone.

2b. The predator prey relationship. Introducing more predators can reduce the number of prey. I don't see this happening either if we are talking a completely artificial put and take. They aren't going to take over (requires reproduction), or have a significant impact.

Anyway, I would have no problem with limiting trout stocking to ponds and lakes. But I also see a need for compromise. At least for now.;-)

What I have more of a problem with is something that pcray also touched on. Class designation. Way too many people try to use those arbitrary class designations to establish a viability level. That is a misuse. You are taking something designed for the entire state and trying to apply that locally?

Centre county for example has over 50 Class A streams. That's not stream sections, that's streams. Some streams are broken into multiple sections, with more than one being class A.

OK, how many class A are there in NWPA? I used to know this number, but apparently it has grown.

Erie County: 4 (all tiny)
Crawford County: 4 (all tiny)
Warren County: 5. Woohoo, now we are getting somewhere.
Venango: 4. Two of which were added in the last 10 years.
Lawrance? 1 You have to go to Hell to fish class A.
Forest: Now this county is interesting. Over 90% forested, and one of only two counties so in the state so sparsely populated that they don't have traffic light. Much of it is ANF. It has just one, which was added in the past 10 years.
Mercer County? Goose egg.
Butler: nada
Last but not least, the county I grew up in. Clarion County ... But wait, it is last AND least. Clarion also has zero.

Over 50 in Center County, 19 total in the MW region. So same rules apply both places?

So, they stock the shart out of everything that is too wide to step across and has a road near it.

It's a good think I don't fish for the fish.

OK? now I am ranting.

 

[FarmerDave]

Humans have impact on this rock. That's a fact. Therefore, we should all kill ourselves. You all go first. I'll go around and turn out all the lights.

 

[BrookieChaser]

Eccles, and FarmerDave, you both expanded on points I was trying to hit with my ramblings.

The main thing that needs changed with PA trout fishing (deer hunting has actually entered this corner, they lifted too early in PA though) is the mentality. Most people see it as PCray does "humans first". So a stream is no good if humans can't benefit or have exactly what they want.

People like myself, and Eccles (clearly), see it as nature for nature's benefit. We have great resources available to us with science, we should be using it for the benefit of our ever shrinking wild places and not the greedy American public that want instant gratification with little, to no, work.

Edit: like FD said, humans are the most invasive of all species.

 

[afishinado]

BrookieChaser wrote:
Eccles, and FarmerDave, you both expanded on points I was trying to hit with my ramblings.

The main thing that needs changed with PA trout fishing (deer hunting has actually entered this corner, they lifted too early in PA though) is the mentality. Most people see it as PCray does "humans first". So a stream is no good if humans can't benefit or have exactly what they want.

People like myself, and Eccles (clearly), see it as nature for nature's benefit. We have great resources available to us with science, we should be using it for the benefit of our ever shrinking wild places and not the greedy American public that want instant gratification with little, to no, work.

Edit: like FD said, humans are the most invasive of all species.

Interesting. I too would like to see more/all wild places and streams preserved. Take a stream like the Wissahickon Creek that runs into and through Philadelphia. I would guess that 300 years ago, maybe a little longer, it was a cold water brook trout stream. The Wissy has been decimated in the last 300 years. It now is a semi polluted warm water stream with chubs, suckers, fallfish, carp, bass and various panfish. I see no harm whatsoever in stocking this stream with trout for anglers to fish. Thousands of anglers fish the stream and do no harm to the wild fish that inhabit it. In fact most of the wild fish that remain were never native to the stream and were introduced either on purpose of by accident.

Again, I would like to see more resources allocated to preserving and enhancing streams with wild populations of fish rather than spend more money on stocking. Let me remind you where these dollars come from.....license dollars from anglers as well as taxes from the sales of fishing equipment. The FBC collects these fees and taxes and allocates them for the benefit of the anglers paying for them by stocking fish, creating access areas and boat launches, as well as some stream enhancement projects.

 

[FarmerDave]

Brookie, just so you know, I am not against all stocking, but it wouldn't bother me much if it did stop.

I've always said, just open the hatcheries for fishing. They would pack the place with "anglers" and could sell off most of the white fleet. It would save them a ton of money.

But I see no problem with stocking some streams. Afish mentioned one that I would have no problem with.

I also have no problem with stocking streams like Tionesta Creek or Oil Creek. It has good insect life, but gets too warm in the summer. It provides a place for people to fish for trout when they don't want to seek out a better or smaller trout stream. And I assure all of you that the chub, sucker, bass, and crayfish populations are doing just fine. Carp, too.

In my experience, many of the trout head downstream rather quickly anyway where the become musky food.

As far as dams go, the dams change the habitat and environment immensely. Who cares if a few trout are thrown in that to boot. I don't.

 

[McSneek]

BrookieChaser wrote:
Stocked trout are for kids and old people.

What an absurd comment.

 

[BrookieChaser]

McSneek wrote:

BrookieChaser wrote:
Stocked trout are for kids and old people.

What an absurd comment.

Thank you! It would concern me if you thought otherwise. Revolution never occurred by following the status quo.

FD, the views expressed in my posts are mine, and mine only. I understand you wanting to distant yourself.

Afish, the stream you mentioned should be left to the invasives that man introduced. At some point man needs to bear responsibility for the past. Invasive species are man's responsibility, either you eradicate them or let them thrive. The past is the past. We are stuck with what was left to us. But that does not mean we just follow the same path.
I don't care that 300 people fish there. If you want to fish for stocked trout go to a lake. If you want to fish that stream, fish for the species that naturally reproduce and thrive in it.
The argument for stocking any species is "I (a human) want this". The natural world does not have a voice. So humans need to do what is wise (which is what conservation is; wise use).

 

[Mike]

With respect to negative impacts of stocking over wild trout, evidence is not strong or consistent for the effects of competition; the most likely explanation is the effects of accompanying angling. This, of course, then becomes much more complex and nuanced than simply saying that stocking over wild trout hurts their populations. Effects depend on the amount of pressure, the species involved, relative water temperatures at which the wild species and stocked are most vulnerable, the frequency of stockings, the effectiveness of the anglers, and their persistence. Therefore, it is not cut and dried that stocking over wild trout always has negative impacts on the wild trout populations.

Take, for instance, the early season opening day catches in some of the Lehigh Valley's stocked Class A brown trout limestoners. Despite high, urban angling pressure, very, very few wild trout are seen in the harvest. The water is cold and the stocked rainbows are much more vulnerable at those early season temperatures.

Now shift that scenario to a wild trout stream that almost exclusively sees its lesser pressure for stocked trout on only one or two weekends out of the year, and you may have one explanation for wild trout population growth in some stocked streams.

 

[BrookieChaser]

Mike, no disrespect intended, but I've read reports on here from you that stated something like 65%+ (I'm paraphrasing from memory) of wild trout streams surveyed, in a PFBC survey, showed positive growth of wild trout populations once stocking ceased. The majority of the ones that didn't show positive showed no change. Only 10% showed a slight decrease due to unknown circumstances.

Now wouldn't 65%+ positive and the no change be enough to say "maybe we're doing something wrong and we need to adjust"?

I don't understand why (well I do it's the me, me, me, nature be damned mentality that produced stocking and a politically run agency) the study I mentioned above done by the PFBC, famous examples like Spring Creek (and many other lesser known streams), and full state long term examples like Montana, can be ignored in favor of something that cripples the agency fiscally, harbors a mentality that has shown historically to be detrimental to natural resources, and, studies aside common sense dictates, damages the resource that the agency says they protect.

Edit: Mike the above paragraph is not directed at you. I understand intra-agency politics and protocol. It was mainly a blanket statement based on the agency as an entity, with responsibility resting with the commissioners.

 

[troutbert]

I'd still like to see someone address the point I raised.

Does stocking of hatchery trout harm the populations of smallmouth bass, fallfish, suckers, etc.?

If you think so, explain why you think so.

 

[FarmerDave]

troutbert wrote:
I'd still like to see someone address the point I raised.

Does stocking of hatchery trout harm the populations of smallmouth bass, fallfish, suckers, etc.?

If you think so, explain why you think so.

Actually I did respond to that, but maybe not directly. And I believe pcray did as well. Some of what Mike said also seems relevant.

I say minimal effect because they do not occupy the EXACT same niche. There is some overlap, so there will be some effect, but not all that significant or long lasting.

It can't have significant effect unless the stream is completely inundated by the fish commission with stocked trout all year long, or said stocked trout start reproducing like [d]rabbits[/d] smallmouth bass, fallfish, suckers, chubs, shiners, etc, etc.

Notice I said all year long. The biomass carrying capacity of a stream is not constant. It fluctuates and likely at it's lowest in the winter. More so in freestone and "warmer" streams where trout aren't reproducing anyway. Trout are stocked when carrying capacity is higher. Then they are, for the most part, gone by the time said stream is at is lowest carrying capacity.

There are a ton of things to consider. But I'm not a biologist and not writing a book.

What say you?

 

[Char_Master]

troutbert, I've definitely seen impacts on a few species, while others don't seem to suffer at all. My local creek once had a very large, healthy population of SMBs in it. The fish would average 6-14" with a few over 16". Since the PFBC started stocking trout, the fish are much smaller. Average size now is 3-6" with an 8" fish being a "trophy", anything over 12" is almost unheard of. My theory is because both species eat primarily terrestrial insects and small forage species, and the stocked trout being larger and better suited for streams have a much easier time outcompeteing the bass. It may also be because when they are nesting in June, there are still many holdover trout that may be eating their eggs, but egg predation should be present even without the trout as well. One species that oddly has not suffered has been the Northern Hogsuckers, of which there are at least a dozen adults present at every large riffle and the fish average 8-14", I've caught a couple 15-16" fish too (and this is a smaller species that rarely grows over 12"!). This species is known to be very delicate and sensitive to both pollution and predation, so it still remains a mystery to me why the population is doing so well, as both are present to a degree. Perhaps when the trout attempt to spawn in the spring, the suckers are the first to eat the eggs? (Not that the eggs would hatch anyway). The day the Hogsucker population starts dwindling is when I lose all faith that the fish commission cares about native species, but hopefully that day never comes and they turn themselves around soon.

 

[afishinado]

Char_Master wrote:
troutbert, I've definitely seen impacts on a few species, while others don't seem to suffer at all. My local creek once had a very large, healthy population of SMBs in it. The fish would average 6-14" with a few over 16". Since the PFBC started stocking trout, the fish are much smaller. Average size now is 3-6" with an 8" fish being a "trophy", anything over 12" is almost unheard of. My theory is because both species eat primarily terrestrial insects and small forage species, and the stocked trout being larger and better suited for streams have a much easier time outcompeteing the bass. It may also be because when they are nesting in June, there are still many holdover trout that may be eating their eggs, but egg predation should be present even without the trout as well. One species that oddly has not suffered has been the Northern Hogsuckers, of which there are at least a dozen adults present at every large riffle and the fish average 8-14", I've caught a couple 15-16" fish too (and this is a smaller species that rarely grows over 12"!). This species is known to be very delicate and sensitive to both pollution and predation, so it still remains a mystery to me why the population is doing so well, as both are present to a degree. Perhaps when the trout attempt to spawn in the spring, the suckers are the first to eat the eggs? (Not that the eggs would hatch anyway). The day the Hogsucker population starts dwindling is when I lose all faith that the fish commission cares about native species, but hopefully that day never comes and they turn themselves around soon.

Interesting theory about the makeup of SMB population in your home stream. The make-up of the population (from YOY to mature adults of various year classes) varies from year-to-year in all rivers and streams. The main reason for this variation is the spawning success of each year class. High water or some other catastrophic event in and around the spawning period can diminish a year class, while perfect conditions can enhance the numbers in a year class. In other words, the population, or more precisely, the makeup of the SMB population is cyclical.

While trout stocking may be impacting the stream, one must look at the population on a more long term basis to better make that determination.

Here is a great article detailing the variations for year classes for SMB in PA:

http://fishandboat.com/images/fisheries/info_sheets/smbass_yoy.pdf

 

[KenU]

This has been a great string of blogs. You folks get the hang of the whole argument. It is not just about catching trout. It's about the ecology of a stream and how humans are affecting that environment. The trouble is that the vast number of those who consider themselves to be trout anglers don't get it. And this is where the PFBC, politicians and all the others who have control over how we manage coldwater streams don't (or refuse to) get it. I don't blame the biologists, by the way. They know what's going on and are just as caught up in the system as we are. Those who challenge the system are soon put in 'their place.'