Should a 'Wild Trout' Stream be Stocked?*

* Also posted to the Conservation BB under the subject: "Wild Trout Stream (mis)Management"

Consider a stream that has demonstrated the ability to support a naturally reproducing population of wild brook & brown trout. (In fact, it's 'Class A' trout water in some stretches.)

Add to that the fact that the stream is lacking significant in-stream cover, as determined by 5 years of state-sponsored Fish & Wildlife research.

If you were charged with managing this as one of your state's only 5 remaining Wild Trout Streams, and you thought significant real river restoration work (as planned to begin this summer/fall) could help the wild trout population begin to tick upward and rebuild, would you jeapordize the past 5 years worth of scientific research (and who knows how much taxpayer $) and add a previously unaccounted for wild-card into the mix? Wouldn't you be concerned that the findings of your research would be somehow skewed by this new variable?

Would you be willing to throw some hatchery raised rainbows into the mix just to appease some of the vocal locals who say 'Enough of this science *&%$, I want to catch some fish in my backyard!'?

What if that stream held a special place in American fly fishing history?

The Battenkill for instance.

That's what we're up against right now.

-- [url=http://www.TUSWVT.org:d3d63]Southwestern Vermont Chapter of Trout Unlimited[/url:d3d63]

Please help us make our point to the VT F&W folks. Visit our site for more details, contact info & an online petition supporting real river restoration, without the stocking part.... Thanks in advance for your support.

BTW -- There are now more big, beautiful wild browns in the BK (thanks to a 5 year test period of no-kill regs) despite the reputation it has justifiably earned as being a tough river to fish. For evidence, check out some of the photos in our gallery, and on Mike_D's site: http://battenkill.tripod.com!

no. stocking solves no problem. Instead, restore the stream and the stream bank habitat and the wild fish will return. THe pellethead folks have plenty of places to go.

I would favor stocking with hatchery trout. It would make catching easier for the people who come up from NYC and want to catch a fish on their first effort. Orvis would be able to make more money. I could catch a nice hatchery trout and have a pellet tasting fish which is much better than those silly bugs that "your" fish eat. Think of the excellent opportunities you would have to open up a McDonalds right on the river and sell "burgers on the fly". Right next to it we could put the Super 8 motel and life would be grand. Then if the TU crowd wanted to fish they could just go elsewhere. We could have jobs for our kids. They could guide the river. All they would need is a boat and a bag of pellets for chum. One fly, the pellet fly would be all you would need to know how to tie. :roll:

Don't ever underestimate the power of stupid.

jed

I'm not an expert on trout stream ecology but I am convinced it's far better to have wild self sustaining populations than to depend on stocking programs. If I am not mistaken the spread of Whirling disease out west is directly traced to infected hatchery trout being stocked in rivers.
The only justification to stock fish is to be create a fishery with marginal habitat that likely won't support a sustainable population or to re-introduce trout into a stream where they have been eliminated to restore the population.

If you you have a healthy population of wild or native trout in the stream, stocking should not be considered. Instead, think of stream improvement for areas of the stream that can be improved, allowing more quality habituate for the fish to spread to.

Most State Department of Natural Resources, have programs to help local Trout Organizations, to help keep the cost down. Who better know the stream than the locals? It is better to take time and do something right, that will last many lifetimes, than go for a quick fix.

If there is a problem because of property rights, I suggest that the locals talk with the owners, and explain how allowing the rehabilitation of the stream will be an improvement to the property as well as the stream, by allowing designated lanes of access across their property, and a margin along stream-side for anglers to travel, up and down stream.

That is how it is done in Minnesota, with the money raised from Minnesota Trout Stamp Revenue.

~Parnelli

RW here,

Absolutely not!! Here in Maine, especially in the northern part of the state we have many remote wild trout populations and they are treated as such.

Maybe I should add wild and "native" brook trout populations.

RW

Were'nt brown trout imported from Europe and stocked over here? If I'm right in my thinking, then this wouldn't really be a "wild" population, or at least not a native one. Still, it would be a shame to see a great fishery get ruined just so some bait chucker can take his/her limit. There's this little cutthroat stream (see my "Blueberries" story next week) here facing the same dilemma- it's being stocked with rainbows/cutbows, and I'm worried they'll make their way upstream and outcompete the native cutts.

Regards,
Joe Martin
Salem, OR

pho-jo,

IMHO, I think that the browns (with a few exceptions) after 5 years of a no stocking program can be considered wild fish. That is born and bred in the river, not a hatchery. They are not native or indigenous but they are wild.

je

As Jed pointed out correctly, the browns are wild but not native.

There has been no official stocking in the mainstem of the VT BK since the early 70's - '71 I believe.

-pkb

Jed, I always looked at them as native fish, not indigenous. That is to say, if they were born in a perticular stream, they are native to that stream but there ancestors came from elsewhere, and thus are not indigenous to that stream.
As to stocking the Battenkill, I would say i'm against it. There are still fish there and if the habitat is improved, the populations will improve as well. The bait-chuckers have plenty of other streams to molest.

I have a Koi pond on our farm. I stocked it with 1" store bought gold fish and after several years, they have grown and multiplied. Does that mean the off-spring are wild fish? Couldn't you say the same of origional stocked trout offspring? In my opinion, it is the blood line that earmarks a true wild fish. I suppose you could use DNA to verify if a fish was a true offspring...that is if you could find a taxidermist mounted fish from early days on your river, the ones where they actually used the skin over plaster type. It would be interesting to look into.

Jed,

I believe the generally accepted definition of 'wild' fish are those that are born in the river. 'Native' is defined as fish that originally were in the river. Browns are not native in any of our waters. They were imported. Therefore, browns are not 'native' but they may be 'wild'. Same token, brookies that are stocked from a hatchery are native but not wild.

Now however, you write, "It would make catching easier for the people who come up from NYC and want to catch a fish on their first effort." That's brilliant :P As if NYers are the only fly fishers that travel to the Battenkill. I think you should look closer into the backyard of Mass or eastern VT or even upstate NY. People come to catch fish (as you put it) from all over.

Back to the original question: If water can sustain wild trout in decent numbers, NO! The water should be regulated in such a way as to keep it capable of sustaining the wild trout population. Stocking should not be done and good luck keeping the Battenkill a wild trout fishery.

Allan

PKB laid it out very well. If I can sense the general opinion here , it sounds like we can all agree that this is a bone headed idea.
Fortunately the plan is in the "Public input" stage. Strangely your input on this carries more weight than mine. YOU represent the tourist dollar, and the tourist dollar speaks with great volume at the VT F&G.
This is one of those times where the common sportsman can make a giant impact on public policy.
Please , go to the link on PKB's post, sign the petition and even better, shoot off a quick e-Mail to Fish and Wildlife Commissioner Wayne Laroche--- wayne.laroche@state.vt.us
I promise you , a few moments of your time will have a tremendous impact.
Thank you
AgMD

THE BATTENKILL
KEEP IT WILD

Montana figured this out years ago. There is NO stocking of rivers and streams. I believe they still stock some lakes...but they have found with proper limits and catch and release the stock will further itself.

It is too bad the New York side of the Battenkill has gone so far down hill. Funny with the report of all the reasons for it, not one mention of the sometimes hundred of tubers and paddle banging canoers per hour that go through this shallow river tossing garbage as they go. Not just weekends either. Of course the people who rent them are on the boards of the two groups that protect "our" river. The public picnic area leads to numerous launches...Let em float the Mohawk ! If they didn't stock the New York side there wouldn't be any fish in it to speak of. Folks who keep fish pretty much clean them out between stockings..Too bad they don't at least have a delayed harvest to let the fish spread out a bit and get acclimated to natural food...Sure wish we would have a native fish only on our side of the line. You would need a 2 year hiatus from all fishing to let them get established.,...oh, if only I were King!

Wild trout streams should be left that way. But even more devastating in many streams, like the Battenkill where I fished a lot years ago, is the proliferation of canoe rental businesses and their removal of obstacles from the stream that bother them. The small fish need the cover desperately.

Quote:

---

Wild trout streams should be left that way. But even more devastating in many streams, like the Battenkill where I fished a lot years ago, is the proliferation of canoe rental businesses and their removal of obstacles from the stream that bother them. The small fish need the cover desperately.

---

Isn't that illegal out there?

NO....And this is old news....Anyone know what if anything the petition has done to STOP this idiotically conceived idea from happening?????

I have had the good fortune in years past to fly into or boat upto creeks and streams in Alaska that probably only see a fisheman once or twice in a year. It is an amazing day of fishing, when they will hit almost anything presented to them (even a bare gold hook). They have no concept of man and his hardware. I imagine it doesn't take long for them to become weary and change their habits should man start to flog up the water and be in abundance.. I count myself very fortune to experience this kind of encounter. The closest I have come to this in the lower 48 is Salt Water fly fishing on remote beaches. But even there, one must present something imitating their diet for them to take a fly. Fly fishing is ever changing and that's why I like it.

Quote:

---

NO....And this is old news....Anyone know what if anything the petition has done to STOP this idiotically conceived idea from happening?????

---

My jaw is still on the floor, I can't believe that type of practice is legal there. I'm seriously blown away by that. :o :o :evil:

As I would be banned if I posted my thoughts about how, " it's all about jobs and the taxes they generate," I will not post anything on this *&^% subject!

Thanks to all who have replied in support of Keeping it Wild on the Battenkill.

As AgMD pointed out, the state is currently in the public opinion gathering phase -- which means now is the time we need you to fire off a quick email to [email:399c4]Wayne.Laroche@state.vt.us[/email:399c4], Commissioner of VT F&W. It needn't be fancy, just tell him that you think the BK should continue to be managed as a Wild Trout Stream, with the focus kept on real river restoration sans stocking.

This public opinion gathering phase will probably go on for another few weeks and we'll be advised of a series of public meetings to be held in Aug/Sept, open to all, and meant as an opportunity to come and discuss the issue, and prove our point. Needless to say, we're not happy about the fact that the state is making this more a matter of public opinion or who makes the most noise. If it were up to us, we'd have the state manage the river and the resource based on science with the goal being real, positive and sustainable long-term river restoration.

Thanks to all for your continued support, and please drop by our site for more information on this issue, email addresses of who you can contact to voice your opinion, and of course, to add your name to our petition opposing stocking the BK.

[url=http://www.TUSWVT.org:399c4]Southwestern Vermont Chapter of Trout Unlimited[/url:399c4]
[url=http://www.TUSWVT.org:399c4]www.TUSWVT.org[/url:399c4]

I say absolutely do not stock the stream.

It's pretty clear that everyone is against stocking the river.
I've actually never given much thought to the issues surrounding stocking. I always assumed that most heavily fished rivers were stocked.
Why is stocking bad? (assuming that you don't introduce disease.) Are hatchery fish inferior to wild fish? I'm not experienced enough to tell the difference between a farm fish and a wild fish. No doubt they taste different, but if you're releasing them, you wouldn't care about that.

Would folks have a different opinion if they were stocking the Batten Kill with brown trout instead of rainbows?

From reading the whole thread, it appears that stocking is just a band-aid solution and the real problem on the Batten Kill is that the river is getting used by lots of folks for various recreational purposes that may be detrimental to the fish habitat. Is the ultimate goal to close the river to boating? Are folks against stocking because artificially inflating the number of fish through stocking will mask the greater habitat issues and then the managers will never have to address the damage caused by river recreation? What if it's politically impossible to implement an effective river restoration plan, and the habitat continues to decline, (along with the wild fish population?) Would stocking be preferable to a fishless river?

I guess I don't understand the overwhelmingly negative response to stocking the river. In the places I fish (Colorado and Wyoming) I have no idea if the creeks and lakes are stocked or not, and it really doesn't seem to make a difference to how much I enjoy fishing.

I'm a complete newbie to fly fishing culture, so I could use some education here. Can somebody please explain why stocking is bad?

pkb,
Thanks for posting the Email link....It was far from poetry...but I'm hoping that my voice will be at least heard!

Kai,
The best all inclusive information is on the SWVTTU web page which you will see linked above. For a short, incomplete explanation -- here goes--
Vt has not stocked the Battenkill for 30+ years. We now have a population of brook and brown trout specifically designed through 30+ years of natural selection to thrive in this specific river.
This "wild" fishery has been stressed in recent years due to a number of environmental factors, chief among them the limited amount of protective cover. There are numerous fish in the less than 10" range, and where ever there is cover there are larger fish. The biologists tell us that as these fish grow beyond the 10" neighborhood they become dependent on cover for their survival. Programs have begun to introduce cover, ( woody debris) largely thoroughly the efforts and funding of non-governmental organizations. It is hoped that these efforts will result in increased numbers of larger fish.
The river has achieved a balance point, where the current population is in balance with, and limited by the resources available, particularly cover.
The proposed stocking of sterile hybrid trout is certain to increase pressure on the "wild "trout population due to the limited resources, particularly cover, and will do nothing to promote the health of the existing fishery.
There exists a good body of research which shows that stocked fish, reared in proximity w/ hundreds of other fish in a confined hatchery environment will be more aggressive than wild fish. They will out-compete with wild fish for resources ( cover in this case). This research also shows that where hatchery fish are introduced into a wild fishery there is ultimately a net loss in fish population. The introduced fish will not have the genetic makeup and instincts needed in the specific new environment. In as much as the stocked fish here will be sterile they are not expected to add anything to the long term health of the fishery.
This plan runs contrary to, and will put at risk the last 30+ years of wild management. It runs contrary to the best science available and contrary the the states own research on this river.
There are MANY places in close proximity to the Battenkill where hatchery fish can be caught.
One of the drawing points of the Battenkill as a "destination" fishing spot is the opportunity to fish over wild trout.
Stocking carries the risk of introducing disease ( whirling disease is one example of a stocked disease) and parasites.
Our objective is to further develop the river resources and trout population, perhaps to a point where the keeping of fish will once again be allowed. Stocking puts this objective at risk.
Each of these points is deserving of an exploration far beyond the scope of this board and far beyond my abilities, but I hope I have addressed any questions you may have and i hope you will take advantage of the TU page which will do this subject the justice it deserves.
AgMD

What do you mean 'sterile' trout? Hybrids? Tiger trout? First I have heard of stocking of sterile straight Browns.
By the way:
The New York limit on trout is going to be lowered to 3 trout, down from 5, beginning in October. Not that a lot of people read the rules. Many think the limit is still 10 ! No game wardens to check anymore. I've seen one conservation officer in New York in the past 20 years and have never been asked to see my license. Budget cuts 8=10 years ago just about elliminated them.

I think the only time I would be in favor of stocking, in any area, is when the fish aren't naturally reproducing on their own.

The proposal is to stock sterile rainbows. These are a sterile hybrid. How do they do it? I don't know. But they say they are. The notion is that the rainbows could be caught and kept but browns and brookies would be C&R. Any chance folks will know the difference?
There are virtually no wardens on the river.
I believe lots of browns and brookies will end up on the grill.
AgMD

lol,,,, saw a similar thing out here with a certain salmon,,, boy, the 'one you could keep',,, seemed the only kind that anyone ever caught... sad.

Sterile trout [or other species]=Triploids...regular sterile=diploids....is is done by irradiating the eggs...

when these fish get to the reproductive time of their life they have no desire to reproduce so their energies go to growing instead of reproducing and therefore are capable of growing to larger sizes....very nice for planting stillwaters...that don't have the conditions for reproducing anyway.

Stocking the river won't solve anything, it's just a band-aid to cover over the problem...it generates more jobs (at the hatchery) while continuing to allow the river to get more and more trashed without harming the actual fishing. the officials don't care whether there are wild trout in the river or not, they see it as a way to keep the fisherman happy and create more jobs and revenue from continued development and more stocking. At that point you can keep throwing trash in the river and cutting all the trees down because they'll just keep dumping more fish in. If they really cared about this stuff, they'd do something smart like say...let the overgrowth come back for more cover and limit fishing to say C&R. It's not about the fish. It's about packing as many people onto a river as they can to keep the money flowing.

I had the absolute pleasure of catching wild, native brookies up in NH over the weekend. The reason it's still like that? Because it was a 3 mile hike into the middle of the White Mountains. Was there anybody there? Nope. The fish are there because there is zero traffic and zero influence from people on the river except the occassional swimmer, but the water is too cold for even 99% of them. I've never seen one person out there fishing in the dozens of times I've hiked in the area. And I'll just add that I had a much more enjoyable time catching small 8"-10" wild trout than the 15" stocked jobbies.

-Pemi

Kai:

You made two very good observations:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kai

... it appears that stocking is just a band-aid solution ... Are folks against stocking because artificially inflating the number of fish through stocking will mask the greater habitat issues...

---

Bingo. On both counts.

However, although the river is subject to considerable recreational boating/floating traffic in the summer, that's not necessarily the problem as anglers aren't often on-stream in the heat of the summer, when the kevlar (etc) hatch is on.... Well, sometimes, but that's a different issue.

As pointed out, the primary issue is the depletion of the riparian zone and the removal (due to acts of nature and man) of stream-side woody debris - often by land-owners mowing and clearing down to the river bank for a view. Long story short: less wood in the river = less available cover for the trout. (Not to mention bank stabilzation and erosion problems.) Hence, we're trying to focus on genuine, sustainable long-term river and riparian habitat restoration by helping to educate land-owners where possible, and working with interested and willing land-owners to 'plant' or install large woody debris. (See our website for more details on the upcoming Twin Rivers Farm Habitat Restoration Project.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kai

I guess I don't understand the overwhelmingly negative response to stocking the river ... and it really doesn't seem to make a difference to how much I enjoy fishing.

---

The opposition to stocking is based largely on the fact that the river is healthy and currently produces & sustains wild fish, but there isn't sufficient cover (yet) to support an increased population (again, yet.) We believe, as you pointed out correctly, that rather than apply a short-term 'band-aid' to artificially inflate the catchable trout population for the those who want to catch some (NOW) for the table, that the focus should be on the long-term improvement of the fishery by improving the habitat in such a way that the wild fish population will rebound and populate the new habitat-restored stream. (Wishful thinking? Yes. But we're anglers, don't forget....)

On top of that, the state's 5 years worth of scientific studies didn't take hatchery trout into consideration, and including them now, as a new factor in the results of the study going forward, would be equivalent to adding a new unknown variable in the middle of the study. In other words: How accurate would the results of the study be, if the studies were compromised now by including additional factors? The data would be corrupted.

As a new(ish) fly-fisher, I'm sure you'll soon discover for yourself the joys of fishing over wild fish. I'll try to get some photos posted to our web site showing some wild and stocked browns side-by-side so you can see just some of the visual differences.

Thanks for your input.

[url=http://www.TUSWVT.org:c45bf]Southwestern Vermont Chapter of Trout Unlimited[/url:c45bf]

I'd also be willing to bet that the people using the water craft as well as those renting water craft, Have and will continue to remove "Obstacles" for easier navigation of the waterway...Such as dead falls and log jam's.....I am also a kayak enthusiast....as such I know that portaging my craft around such "Obstacles" is a part of the sport....and very much necessary for the river's health.......Sadly some people do not see things in such light and instead of seeing fish holding structure.
They see an "Obstacles" to be concurred and removed to benefit them...in doing so....certainly not benefiting the fish that depend on it for cover from the herons these same dimwit's will later blame for the fish numbers declining....

By all means save the Battenkill. Now I can see that there are clear habitat and law enforcement issues underlying the problem.

The discussion of "wild trout" vs "stocked" trout seems to get trout fishermen sidetracked from the core issue. That is, that neither race of trout will long survive without suitable habitat. Frankly, the aesthetics of the "wild" trout escapes me while the the habitat issue is easy to grasp. In the end trout are trout.

Pull together?

bear - you are correct with regards to the habitat issue. That is the core problem that is limiting the number of trout in the river. Addressing this issue will bring back the number of trout in the river naturally with no need for stocking.

I disagree with the comment that "a trout is a trout". There are significant differences between stream bred and hatchery reared trout. Among the important differences include that stream bred trout are far better adapted to the particular river in which they exist. Stream bred have far better survival instincts. A good example was a telemetry study of brown trout on the Beaverkill a few years back. A large stocked trout and several stream bred fish had telemetry devices surgically placed in thier body cavities and were tracked over a period of time. Once summer rolled around and the water began to warm the wild fish left the area they were holding nad sought out cold water refuge. The stocked trout sat in the ever warming water and eventually died, having made no attempt to seek out cold water. Coincidence? Maybe but seems pretty powerful to me.

Visually stream bred trout are far more attractive - take a look at the trout caught on the Battenkill on our website www.tuswvt.org and look for yourself. The pectoral fins are huge, the spotting and coloration of the trout pictured vary from trout to trout. They all have a "clean look about them.

Stocked trout ...... blunt noses, worn tails and fins, dull coloration. They look ugly and they are.

Behaviorally stream bred trout are far less predictable. Hatchery trout are fed on a schedule and yes they do become used to that sort of "pavlovian" conditioning. I firmly believe hatchery trout feed much more regularly and predictably on the surface as a result of their being used to a meal coming on a predictable basis. I guess that makes it fun for a litle while, but how many 8 inch rubber trout does it take to make someone just a tad bored?

Additionally, it has been welll documented that wild trout suffer when placed in competition with stocked trout and at the end of the day the stocked trout hold over in very low numbers to begin with. The result: a net loss of trout in the stream. This was proven by Dick Vincent in Montana in the 1970's. As a result Montana does not stock rivers with trout; they stock lakes but not rivers.

Finally, stocking covers up real problems at a tremendous expense. If Vermont ever were to mimic what is done in NY they would stock about 20,000 trout ANNUALLY in the river. Most would not hold over, wild trout stocks would suffer and habitat issues would be ignored because people would claim that the problem had been "fixed". Too many small fish - throw some two year olds in. Want a trophy - toss in a few spent breeders.

I cannot fathom spending thousands of dollars annually to stock a river that currently offers good sport but can, with habitat work, offer great sport.

My state rep tells me that a public meeting has been scheduled.
Thursday Aug. 17 5 --> 7 PM St Margaret Mary Parish Hall Historic Rt 7A Arlington Vt.
This is the modern looking church just North of the rt 313 intersection and on the East side of Rt 7A
If you are local enough to attend I encourage you to do so. This is an opportunity for sportsmen to be heard. If you can't attend , or even if you can, there is still time to sign the on line petition, and fire off an e-mail.
Maybe it's just me , but is seems like more and more, the government and the bureaucrats take actions with little regard for public opinion. Whenever they give me a chance to say my piece, I like to make darn sure they hear me.
AgMD

I'll admit right here and now, That I have never fished this river...But... It is in the top 5 on my list of "To Be Fished"....If this stocking takes place...It and the entire state...as this stream is the ...THE reason I would plan a trip there are off that list....Is this what is truely wanted by the powers that be????

I tend to think that they want more moneies coming into the area...

Now from a brief glance at the above linked website...I seen a heading that Rainbows are or have already been stocked into the battenkill????
Would that be correct????

Way ,way back , once upon a time, when the river was managed as a put and take stream. I think maybe the late 50's. There are now no rainbows , just browns and brookies, descendents of the last stockings 35+ years ago, and whatever brookies were native to the watershed.
AgMD