The Cost of Trout Fishing

[troutbert]

phiendWMD wrote:

troutbert wrote:

phiendWMD wrote:

If stocked fish can't survive in a catch and release steam, how do you explain a stream like Valley? It's not stocked still, although some tribs may be(?) and there is a healthy population that gets caught and does fine.

Or maybe the 20-25% that do survive are able to breed, and combined with similar numbers from additional stockings there is enough to eventually establish a population at which point stocking can cease?

Valley Creek's wild brown trout population was probably established before 1900.

Yes I understand it's nothing new. I don't understand why the same thing couldn't be done in a different stream today, like the author implies, without stocking it every year forever.

At one point it was stocked. A population was established. Stocking stopped years ago and we there are still fish there today.

If there was a stream that had the right conditions for wild trout, but no wild trout, a population could be introduced there.

This would be an extremely rare situation. In nearly all cases, if a stream has the right conditions for wild trout, they are already there.

Is such a stream was found, and you wanted to introduce a trout population, there would be no need for any hatchery to be involved.

You could just electrofish trout from a nearby stream, transport them by truck and put them in this stream.

You could do this ONCE, a one day operation. If the conditions are right the trout will reproduce and their numbers would rapidly expand and fill the habitat. You could close the stream to fishing for a few years. In about 3 to 4 years it would be swarming with fish.

But, does anyone know of such a stream? I don't. People seem to assume that streams are common. But I think they hardly exist at all. Because typically trout will get in there one way or the other, from either upstream or down. Trout move around a lot, including in what are considered warmwater streams, during the cool parts of the year.

 

[troutbert]

moon1284 wrote:

phiendWMD wrote:

troutbert wrote:

phiendWMD wrote:

If stocked fish can't survive in a catch and release steam, how do you explain a stream like Valley? It's not stocked still, although some tribs may be(?) and there is a healthy population that gets caught and does fine.

Or maybe the 20-25% that do survive are able to breed, and combined with similar numbers from additional stockings there is enough to eventually establish a population at which point stocking can cease?

Valley Creek's wild brown trout population was probably established before 1900.

Yes I understand it's nothing new. I don't understand why the same thing couldn't be done in a different stream today, like the author implies, without stocking it every year forever.

At one point it was stocked. A population was established. Stocking stopped years ago and we there are still fish there today.

It is done. When Mike or someone else posts about new class as, or new streams that support wild trout, that is exactly what is happening.

When a new Class A stream is posted, it does not indicate that a new population has been established through the stocking of hatchery trout.

These are existing populations that have increased from lower levels, and are now over the Class A threshold.

In the case of brook trout streams, the brookies have probably been there for thousands of years. In the case of browns, they have probably been there since first being introduced, probably somewhere between 1880 and 1930.

 

[afishinado]

I believe we rely too much and spend too much of our limited resources stocking trout. But, there is a place for stocking, namely streams that cannot and do not have the water quality and/or habitat to sustain wild trout.

It is unfortunate many/most streams have species of trout not native to the stream, but what is done, is done. Our focus should be to advocate for clean water and cold water to sustain wild trout.

Rather than giving up ten years ago, Mr. Thompson should join or start a chapter of TU or a similar conservation organization and work to improve things.

 

[moon1284]

Troutbert, you are correct. I should have been more clear.

 

[phiendWMD]

Moon and Troutbert, thank you for taking the time to offer your thoughts. That does clear it up some for me some more.

It may be a rare situation but I can think of some reasons why no trout may present in water that could support them. The problem would be money ultimately. There are polluted streams that if cleaned up would have the right conditions. The headwaters of the Schuylkill I believe was badly polluted for a long time. It's been cleaned up some more recently. Fingerlings are being stocked there and I believe a wild population will be present in the not too distant future.

Another example is the Little Schuylkill. This maybe a radical idea, probably too radical to actually ever happen...

Section 3, above Tamaqua can and does hold some wild fish. Lower down in the DHALO I've seen Mike and others post it does not hold nearly as many. I'm guessing warming from the silt damn in South Tamaqua plays into that. Why not reverse the section's classification? Stock what is now the DHALO section and make it ATW, and make section 3 a DHALO or better yet catch and release only. The population that is already there would expand wouldn't it? This seems to make sense to me. If I can think of 2 examples I'm sure people with more knowledge than myself could list many more.

That may be because I place a higher value on releasing wild trout than I do killing stocked fish. I would be in the extreme minority there. It would come down to money and politics not the ability to hold fish. Maybe there is something else I'm missing besides that. I think that could work. I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[JackM]

Just my dumb opinion, but the strategy of restoring trout streams should be the get the water clean and cool as was mentioned. If with 5-7 years the trout didn't at least begin the re-population of the water, then transplanting stream-bred trout from nearby or similar waters should be the first effort, then hatchery stock.

 

[BrooksAndHooks]

Tomitrout:

That is completely understandable and again was my fault for not stating concisely what I was actually thinking when typing my response. I think it is smart to not always trust every person on a forum to know what they are talking about until they have proven themselves, and I am by no means an expert, just another fly fisherman with a passion for the sport and an interest in learning more myself.

JackM I think that is a great idea.

 

[Reeder]

When you stop stocking streams, and the bucket brigade comes up empty at the traditional bridge holes, many will just give up fishing, like the author of this piece. Not all of them, though. The rest will begin searching for new places to catch trout. All it takes is a quick internet search, and all of a sudden your favorite wild trout streams are now the destination of thousands looking for new angling opportunities. They aren't going to target the little brook trout in the mountains. They will be going for the biggest waters with the highest numbers of keeper sized fish. Once they find out how much better a wild trout tastes than a mushy stocked trout, and how many of them there are in a stream like Penn's or Spring, you can kiss your massive wild trout populations goodbye. Be careful what you wish for.

 

[rrt]

Even though I don't subscribe to American Angler because of its use of beck photos, I browsed through the present edition at Barnes & Noble today while waiting for my wife and granddaughter to come up from the make-up store. Anyhow, AA's first editorial, written by a biologist, offered a pretty substantial rebuttal to the NYT piece. If you get AA or come upon it, the editorial is a good one, making some of the same points as you guys do and a few others.