This "thread" should bring out even more bowls of popcorn....

It's a matter of experience. Those who know, know. Those who have never experienced fishing wild trout waters but only hatchery supported water can only theorize at best. Where I spend most of my trout fishing I'm blessed to be able to do both. Let me add that it's amazingly strange how the fly fishing crowd gather in droves at the hatchery supported holes, very few in the wild trout waters, and why is that ...? Wild trout are much harder to catch. And it begins with the approach to the bank of the stream. You spook a wild trout and it's adios, won't see them again today for sure - spook a hatchery trout not to worry, it'll be back directly, might even bump into your waders! If hatchery trout are getting a little harder to catch it's probably because they've already been caught a couple of times.

Before we can agree on whether hatchery trout are the same as wild trout, we need to agree on what is a hatchery trout and what is a wild trout. My definition is based on DNA and not where the trout eggs were hatched and the young raised.

For example, Wisconsin's Wild Trout program takes the egg and sperm from wild fish, hatches them in a state hatchery, raises them in a hatchery, and then releases them back into their native river. These released fish have a higher survival rate than hatchery DNA trout released into the wild. There is a difference in the DNA that translates to a difference in behavior and performance.

We can do the opposite experiment and hatch eggs from hatchery trout in a river by using Whitlock-Vibert boxes.

http://www.fedflyfishers.org/Conserv.../EggPlant.aspx

Put fertilized eggs in the boxes and put the boxes in a river. The eggs are hatched and the fry live in the river and not in a hatchery, BUT genetically, they are hatchery fish.

So do we consider these wild fish or not. By my definition, they are not and by the definition of fisheries biologists, they are not wild. They will have a lower survival that the fry that are genetically wild.

Not only that, but if they interbreed with wild fish, the hybrid hatchery/wild offspring will have lower survival than a pure wild strain fish.

This is what the following study proved.

https://www.dartmouth.edu/~ark/image...ies/miller.pdf

So rather than use Whitlock-Vibert boxes to raise hatchery trout in rivers, they are used to hatch eggs from wild pure bred strains of threatened trout.

http://www.fs.fed.us/outdoors/nature.../Incubator.pdf

Regarding the inability to tell wild from hatchery from wild fish in a river that has had prolonged releases of hatchery trout, this is the reason that Idaho no longer releases fertile hatchery trout into rivers with a self sustaining population of wild fish.

With interbreeding of the hatchery and wild fish, the wild strain DNA is diluted and what you get are the hybridized fish. Release enough hatchery fish over successive years that interbreed and you lose the wild fish totally. You are left with a fish that is homogenized genetically and you will not be able to tell hatchery from wild because there are no more genetically pure wild fish.

The reason one cannot tell a stocker from a holdover wild fish may be because there are no pure wild fish left. That would be a sad state of affairs.

Avoidance of that situation is why Montana stopped stocking its blue ribbon trout streams 40 years ago in 1974. The article below shows how a study by a Montana fisheries biologist, Dick Vincent, proved that stocking the Madison River actually led to worse fishing.

"In 1974, Montana did something that stunned anglers across the state and the nation: It stopped stocking trout in streams and rivers that supported wild trout populations.

The move initially outraged many anglers, fishing businesses, and even some Montana Fish and Game Department staff. For decades, hatcheries had been credited with producing more and better fishing. Without stocking, many Montanans asked, what would happen to the state's famous trout waters and the businesses that relied on legions of anglers arriving from across the country each summer"

The answer, now well known, is that trout fishing improved dramatically. Once stocking was discontinued, wild trout numbers doubled, tripled, and more on many rivers."

Dick Vincent began a study by no longer stocking a section that had been stocked and by stocking a section that had not been stocked.

"After just one year, we could see that the four-mile-long Varney section was improving by no longer being stocked and that most of the improvement was in the larger fish. By the fall of 1971, wild trout numbers had increased 153 percent from the 1967-69 average, from 1,500 trout to 3,800 trout. The improvement continued every year. By 1974 the total number of wild trout larger than 10 inches was 4,700, a 213 percent increase from the stocking years.

What happened to O?Dell, the creek you began stocking?

The wild trout population began declining. The 1967-69 average had been 515 brown trout in that 1.4-mile stretch, and it dropped to 380 in 1971 and then 280 in 1972. And the big fish numbers declined as well, dropping from 63 in 1967-69 to 14 in 1972.

Were you surprised by the results?

We'd suspected that stocking was having a negative effect, but when we saw large trout numbers in the Varney section triple and trout numbers in O?Dell cut in half, well, that just blew us away."

http://fwp.mt.gov/mtoutdoors/HTML/ar...ickVincent.htm

great post Warren

Thanks to Silver, your replies are always well thought out and informative.

I have always used fin damage to ID wild vs stocked fish, I did not know this would heal in time and would be an unreliable indicator.

The current issue of Virginia Wildlife, has an article of how stocked "holdover" trout behave. I had hoped to post a link, but their digital version is about 6 months behind. I will give a quick summary. The majority of stocked trout are caught soon, but some survive. They disperse and spread out and quickly learn to "disappear". Electrofishing shows these fish leave the heavy pressure area and are found in other fish holding areas. These fish have PhD's and are easily spooked and hard to catch. Va Tech (GO HOKIES) is doing a study on survival and habits of these holdovers and more info to come.

I was very lucky to fish for native, wild bows in Montana on the Koot this fall. Great fish, big jumps, aggressive fish. I really want to go back. Actually, I go back at least weekly mentally.

Last week I went to my fav spot in WVA, caught a few bows that could have only been stocked in the last 2 weeks or more. Very aggressive, high jumpers, lots of fun.

I did not harvest either, so I can not comment on flavor. I am not opposed to this, I just didn't this time.

I'm afraid I have observations, but no conclusions.

But, fodder for additional popcorn time......
Now, I know hogs aren't fish. :confused:
But you guys down south, in God's country, have to be a little amazed at how domestic pigs, turned to the wild, revert to their humpbacked, wild and or native ancestors so quickly, right? Is that in a generation, or does it happen to the "stocked" pigs? Just askin......

Many times these type of discussions end up being a 'purist vs rube' thing. I do not fish strictly dry flies, I tie many of my nymphs/streamers on jig hooks, and I, too, enjoy catching "chubs" (with you htn) (although I call them fallfish, depending on the audience, and I may be a little embarrassed about that). I just enjoy catching fish in a childlike joyful way, without judgement as to the fish or the guy catching them......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Betty Hiner

Well ... ya-ahh!

*light salt, light butter, thank you!*

---

Oooooo Betty. For a second there I thought you were talking about the trout, not the popcorn. ;)

I almost wish I had never started this thread (I said almost) because I knew this is where it would end up. You have those who live where there have always been wild trout and they wish all stocker trout were killed off and you have those, like myself, who live where there have never been trout, but, once an electic generating dam is put in and releasing very cold water, they have to put some kind of fish in the tailwater so the local people who lost their warm water fishery to the power generating dam, have some kind of fish to catch. To us, who have never had wild trout to catch, we enjoy catching the stocker trout and are tired of being brow beaten by people who claim our stocker trout are not trout. At least our public rivers are all open to the public to enjoy no matter if they like or dislike our trash stocker fish.

This is my last post to this thread and I have no problem if the administrators wish to lock it down because it is no longer a thread where people can have a 2-sided discussion based on where each person lives. It is now going to be over run with those who have wild trout and look down their noses at those who do not have wild trout. We are proud of what we do have and we enjoy what we have and we have not said anything negative about wild trout throughout this entire thread which is more than I can say for those who have wild trout only. So, enjoy your wild trout and private "public" waters and I will enjoy fishing with a fly rod and enjoy whatever species of fish that wishes to hit my flies.

Now I am out of here and sick of eating all this popcorn! :)

[QUOTE=pillcaster;498835] But you guys down south, in God's country, have to be a little amazed at how domestic pigs, turned to the wild, revert to their humpbacked, wild and or native ancestors so quickly, right? Is that in a generation, or does it happen to the "stocked" pigs? Just askin...... QUOTE]

Pillcaster, you don't understand, that is part of the anti-terrorism program in the south. Those are guard hawgs. But having spent the earliest 10 years of my life on small hill farm in MS, I can tell you a domestic hog or sow is nothing to mess with. They are probably more dangerous than most bulls I was ever around.

Both trout from hatchery parents and from wild parents are trout. But they remain true to their DNA.

I never said hatchery trout were not trout. I said they were not wild trout regardless of how and where they were raised. Professional fisheries biologists have long proven that fact. It is a statement of truth and not of opinion. Each has its proper place in fishery management.

As I said before, the purpose of hatcheries is to provide fish to rivers/streams and reservoirs/lakes that have the food and temperature that can support the fish but not the reproduction to support a fishery. My view, which is consistent with fisheries scientists, is that placing hatchery fish in rivers/streams and reservoirs/lakes with adequate natural reproduction for a self sustaining fishery is counter productive.

The Wisconsin DNR places our rivers and streams into 3 categories according to their ability to support a wild trout fishery.

Category I streams and rivers have strong natural reproduction of wild fish and are not stocked so as to maintain the genetic purity of the wild fish.

Category II streams and rivers have some natural reproduction, but not the quality or quantity of fish to support a fishery. These waters receive supplemental stocking.

Category III streams, rivers and lakes have no natural reproduction and the total fishery is a stocked fishery.

Added to the mix are fishing regulations that can limit harvest in borderline category I streams so that no supplemental stocking is necessary when the harvest is limited by regulation.

The point of all this is that there is a place for stocking, and I don't believe I ever said that there was no place for stocked fisheries. I thought the point of the discussion was for actual discussion.

Every trout and salmon advocate should be an advocate for the preservation of wild trout and salmon fisheries and the preservation of these cold water resources. A hatchery can never replace a lost sub species of salmon on the Columbia River System.

Warren, you sly dog, how much Orville Redenbacher's stock did you buy last week?
;)

Regards,
Ed

Oh, no, Warren!! Don't even suggest taking this down or locking it! I actually feel I have learned something from this thread. When you live in Kansas/Missouri, where all the trouts are hatchery trouts, .... well, you can complete the sentence! I had no idea! I really am enjoying this thread. Thank you for starting it.

Darn ... forgot to add to that last post.

How does the trouts DNA get changed? Is there a mutation caused by hatchery practices that is inherited?