Why Not Stock Only Rainbows?

[Sylvaneous]

So, other species of trout are stocked now for variety but some are excluded (like brookies) to keep the genetic manipulation from possibly spreading to existing wild fish and weakening the population.

I know no details of what was done with selective breeding for rainbow trout but I infer that they were mucked with to make them fit the growing and stocking seasonal schedule of the fish commission. This would be opposite of the brookie and brown times. No wonder rainbows haven't ever taken hold except in a FEW places that have had wild rainbows for many, many years. The oldest strains must not have been screwed with enough to make them unable to spawn naturally. Steelhead are a great example. They run most in October and November. They should run in March and April.

Without checking the numbers, can I assume most stocked fish are rainbows? By a large fraction they are?

In my experience, in places like Oil Creek and lower Penns below the C&R water down to cherry run in the Blue Rock pool, after the browns have departed, the rainbows can be found happily feeding (on a good night) in 70-some degree water.

Brookies seem to tolerate more acidic water. There are a lot of acidic streams where I live in the NW of PA. It makes sense to stock them there. But everywhere else, where temperature is the problem, I just don't see why not use only rainbows.

 

[troutbert]

Sylvaneous wrote:
So, other species of trout are stocked now for variety but some are excluded (like brookies) to keep the genetic manipulation from possibly spreading to existing wild fish and weakening the population.

Hatchery brook trout are very often stocked over native brook trout in PA.

 

[jifigz]

troutbert wrote:

Sylvaneous wrote:
So, other species of trout are stocked now for variety but some are excluded (like brookies) to keep the genetic manipulation from possibly spreading to existing wild fish and weakening the population.

Hatchery brook trout are very often stocked over native brook trout in PA.

Indeed. East Licking Creek receives brookies in the mountainous area and it is also loaded with wild brookies. They also stock that section with browns and it has a few wild browns mixed in as well. That stream should receive no stocking in my opinion. Stocked brooks should never be put over wild brooks. Same goes for all trout species.

 

[ryansheehan]

The north branch of the potomac has established a nice population of wild rainbows in the last 5 years or so. It was started with stocked fish, it was a dead river 30 years ago. There seems to be little reproduction from the browns though. Seems pretty backwards from just about every other river I fish in MD and PA.

 

[FarmerDave]

jifigz wrote:

Stocked brooks should never be put over wild brooks. Same goes for all trout species.

At one time I was a very strong subscriber to that philosophy. However, as I have learned more and more ... not as strong.

1. Very few brook trout streams contain pure strain anymore.
2. Natural selection will still sort out what genetics are best for a given stream. Well, it will, once you stop stocking. So if you haven't removed all the resident trout first, they probably are not as effected as I one assumed.

I still don't like any stocking over any "decent" wild populations, but I feel that the argument about it screwing up the genetics doesn't carry as much weight with me as it used to.

 

[RyanR]

No, there's really no good reason not too. I think the PFBC would rather raise & stock just rainbows (and I believe they are moving in that direction as much as they can. Rainbows are efficient to grow in a hatchery, bite well and holdover quite well also. In well-oxygenated water rainbows are about as water temperature tolerant as stocked browns.

 

[jifigz]

FarmerDave wrote:

jifigz wrote:

Stocked brooks should never be put over wild brooks. Same goes for all trout species.

At one time I was a very strong subscriber to that philosophy. However, as I have learned more and more ... not as strong.

1. Very few brook trout streams contain pure strain anymore.
2. Natural selection will still sort out what genetics are best for a given stream. Well, it will, once you stop stocking. So if you haven't removed all the resident trout first, they probably are not as effected as I one assumed.

I still don't like any stocking over any "decent" wild populations, but I feel that the argument about it screwing up the genetics doesn't carry as much weight with me as it used to.

Farmer Dave

Cross contamination of genes and traits among subspecies of fish has nothing to do with why I don't like the idea. I like natural things and consider myself a naturalist. If there is already a beautiful population and a healthy stream then it should be left alone. The more people interfere with things and alter them the less I find them appealing. I just feel that it is a waste.

On a side note, haven't I seen in posts before that you are involved with honeybees? If so, that's great. My family has a long history in the apiary business. My cousins still operate the largest bee company within Pennsylvania.

 

[LetortAngler]

"No wonder rainbows haven't ever taken hold except in a FEW places that have had wild rainbows for many, many years. "

Rainbows are still notorious for moving about many miles within a short period of time. Some are able to stay where they are born and I think this has to do with genetics of a certain strain.
From reports and writings that I've read, many years ago, back when rainbows were first introduced in Cumberland Valley, within a few days they would scatter downstream and never be seen again. This happened for some time until a certain species of "land-locked" strain was put into Falling Springs, the Shasta River strain of California to be exact, then becoming one of the first streams in Pa to support this land-locked strain of Rainbow Trout.